Undergarments

[tji]

Hi Phil



The problem of the Thames, the smell and the sewers, came to a head in the 1860's I believe.



Thanks for that - I was only a couple of decades out, my history teacher would have been so proud!!

Tj

[cappuccina]

Remember, their nutrition was so poor, that it is quite probable that they had no regular cycles, or any at all...

[Phil Carter]

Hello cappucina,

Yes indeed. one must take these things into account. However Eddowes was laden with materials, and as regards Kelly, for her to have a home, a dry home, there are things in that room that SHOULD be there. Everyday household and personal things.
A small lump of soap?
A brush/comb?
A piece of string
A piece of cotton
A needle
A slither of mirror?
A bedsheet? (apart from the one on it)
The only stockings she wore were her own, like many other of her garments, no replacements.

She owed 6 weeks rent. Around Oct 1st infact. Barnett was living with her until when? And she had a visitor staying in that room, and that bed, often. Another female. It makes me wonder.

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

Hi Phil,

The reason for my reference to the fire can be found in Abberline's testimony at the Kelly inquest-

"There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt. "

Dr. Phillips also stated that Mary was wearing linen undergarments.

If you look at the 2nd Kelly death scene photo you may see what appears to be a hand held mirror on the table underneath the flesh.

Abberline did make an inventory of what was in the room. I remember a candle, but I don't have his full report at hand at the moment.

[Gman992]

Well, that's just because they didn't have Victoria's Secret or Frederick's back then....

[smezenen]

Well, that's just because they didn't have Victoria's Secret or Frederick's back then....

I'm sure Queen Victoria knew many secrets, and as for Frederick's (Abberline)I dont believe it would have been proper for him to deal in lacy underthings.

[YankeeSergeant]

Underpinings

If we remember the times underpinings which include a lrge variety of undergaments including petticoats etc were not discussed but women's pantaloons(?) were crotchless to accomodate the necessary daily biological functions. I don't know if this held into the 1880s but it was true in the 1850-60s and I have to believe until a better fashion system came along other than teh multiple layers that that was the case.