Mary Kelly's clothing and possessions

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

Does anyone know if that list he made of the contents is available to see? id be very interested to read it...

I find it so strange that even the homeless victims had personal items and Mary had her own place, yet there is NOTHING there.

If it wasnt Mary in the room but another girl, its possible she went back and saw the body (might be the reason for the 'oh, murder! heard) then have packed up her stuff and vanished. Would explain why her room was practically empty and would explain why she was saw the day after (by more than one witness). If this is a possibility then the question is why would she vanish if the girl wasnt her? She must have known something others didnt or she knew for certain she was supposed to be the intended victim. You would expect her to alert people if she had discovered the murder, unless she thought she would be safer just disappearing.

[GUT]

Does anyone know if that list he made of the contents is available to see? id be very interested to read it...

I find it so strange that even the homeless victims had personal items and Mary had her own place, yet there is NOTHING there.

If it wasnt Mary in the room but another girl, its possible she went back and saw the body (might be the reason for the 'oh, murder! heard) then have packed up her stuff and vanished. Would explain why her room was practically empty and would explain why she was saw the day after (by more than one witness). If this is a possibility then the question is why would she vanish if the girl wasnt her? She must have known something others didnt or she knew for certain she was supposed to be the intended victim. You would expect her to alert people if she had discovered the murder, unless she thought she would be safer just disappearing.

I've never heard if the last surviving, but then not much has.

[Kattrup]

Does anyone know if that list he made of the contents is available to see? id be very interested to read it...

I find it so strange that even the homeless victims had personal items and Mary had her own place, yet there is NOTHING there.

I don't understand why you believe there was nothing there?

Before assuming that, why not try to establish whether that was the case - personally, I am not aware of any existing sources detailing the contents of the room exhaustively.

It is a misunderstanding to think that this means we should assume there was nothing there. It simply means that for whatever mundane reason, no source listing the room's contents completely has been preserved.

The old "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies. So claiming that "theres not a bar of soap or any grooming items of any sort in her room" leads one to ask on what source you base this?

Such items would most likely have been considered immaterial to the case. No-one bothered to mention them. That cannot be taken to mean they were not there.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The police must have thought that something was not quite right about this event,the curious mention about the jacket and bonnet, and the thought that the murder happened in daylight,
Also even though it went against their own police doctors professional opinion, they called Mrs Maxwell to give evidence contradictory .
For reasons unknown, the police believed that the T.O.D, was much later then stated.
Why?
Regards Richard.

[Harry D]

I prefer "staged"

A body from the morgue. ...I like our thinking ,maybe this was the reason Dr Bond became involved
It seems likely to me that JTR was all done and dusted after the double event, ie the identification and certain witnesses written about further in time.
So why keep it quite at the time? Was it because someone wanted / needed it to be kept going for a little longer.
We know nothing about Kelly, she could have been anything and anyone, her past completly hidden from view.,
The cry of "Oh Murder" just doesn't ring true in a about to be murdered situation, but more likely it is how someone would react to opening a door and finding a cut up body laying on your bed.
If Kelly was in on it, then I suggest she came back at the wrong time before disappearing for good, more proberbly getting drunk didn't help....it's enough to make one vomit right up to 8.00 in the morning .
Now she's been seen, this causes all kinds of problems, and so Hutchinson is introduced with he's tailored made statement just to muddy the waters.
And then there is that newspaper report on the crime scene, the one the police kept in the file on MJK, the inaccurate one that mentions for some reason that dark / purple bodice.

Regards

[JadenCollins]

No need to be rude.

[spyglass]

None taken!!!

Although you might agree, not as far fetched as some ....and all with just facts.

Regards

[JadenCollins]

This is one of the stranger things I find about Mary Kelly and 13 millers court thats never thought or talked about.

There seem to be conflicting ideas on what she was wearing on the night of her death... Some say she was wearing a linsey dress with a red shawl pulled around her shoulders... One account has her wearing a white apron... Others say she was wearing a black jacket and bonnet... And then theres the version with a dark dress, velvet body and a maroon shawl. Did these people just mistake another girl for her or could she have changed clothing throughout the night? Even what shes wearing in the crime scene photograph is up for debate, some reports said naked, others said she was wearing a chemise or some sort of linen undergarment but it doesn't look like a chemise as it seems to have short puff sleeves. If it is a chemise its a very fancy one and would be expensive, not exactly common wear.

All the other ripper victims had most of their personal items and clothing with them when they were killed on the streets. Mary had her own lodgings, so there would be at least a few personal items scattered about inside, is there any items that could tell us more about who she was?

She was said to be a clean and had some sort of wash tub in her room indicating she took care of her clothing and appearance. She had worked in high class brothels and even visited Paris so while its true she was a common prostitute by the time she was in millers court it doesn't mean she was (or looked) destitute. So as an attractive prostitute she would have done her hair and makeup, this means a mirror, comb, hair pins, pots of powder and rouge but theres no mention of any of these items. She was said to be clean but theres not a bar of soap or any grooming items of any sort in her room.

The only items found were a few pieces of clothes neatly folded on a chair, a pair of boots and the remains of burned clothing were found in the fireplace. There isn't a description on what the clothes on the chair were, what kind of boots they are (mens?) or what the burned remains were.What happened to the clothing she was seen wearing? The red shawl, the white apron? What about her undergarments? A corset and stockings were staples to a woman's outfit back then but there doesn't seem to be any sign she had any?

It was known she had some fashionable dresses around the time she moved into millers court, possibly acquired from her time in the high class brothels or maybe her trip to Paris, but theres no mention of these being found either?

Could someone have taken them? It was well known she had lots of friends who visited and she let other prostitutes live with her, could one of them have robbed her? Or maybe the ripper took them?

Please share your thoughts and help clear some of the mystery up!

There are so many things that don't add up, not just her stuff.. Although it's rather strange that they didn't find anything besides the folded pieces of clothes. The killer could've burnt some stuff but not everything...

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi,
The police must have thought that something was not quite right about this event,the curious mention about the jacket and bonnet, and the thought that the murder happened in daylight,
Also even though it went against their own police doctors professional opinion, they called Mrs Maxwell to give evidence contradictory .
For reasons unknown, the police believed that the T.O.D, was much later then stated.
Why?
Regards Richard.

Wouldn't it have been the coroner who decided which witnesses to call, rather than the police? If there was conflicting evidence, it was his duty to test it at the inquest, surely. In the same way that at Stride's inquest Mrs Malcom was called to give her evidence, despite her body having been identified already.

When you say "the curious mention about the jacket and bonnet", do you mean Mrs Prater's sad comment in the newspaper;

Daily Telegraph 10 Nov:
"She had got her hat and jacket on, but I had not. I haven't got a hat or a jacket"

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

I don't understand why you believe there was nothing there?

Before assuming that, why not try to establish whether that was the case - personally, I am not aware of any existing sources detailing the contents of the room exhaustively.

It is a misunderstanding to think that this means we should assume there was nothing there. It simply means that for whatever mundane reason, no source listing the room's contents completely has been preserved.

The old "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies. So claiming that "theres not a bar of soap or any grooming items of any sort in her room" leads one to ask on what source you base this?

Such items would most likely have been considered immaterial to the case. No-one bothered to mention them. That cannot be taken to mean they were not there.

Well why would the police bother mentioning only a couple items in the room if there was more, they said there was clothing on the chair and boots near the fireplace. We can see from the crime photos ourselves that there is some sort of wash tub under the bed. This means these clothes in particular were a point of interest or the police wanted to make it seem like they were the only items there. If there was more clothing, personal items or anything else it would have at least been mentioned. It seems like the room was bare almost, leaving us with no real evidence of who Mary was.

If we can know what kind of stuff she had in her room, personal items, sentimental items, clothing, anything... We can get a better understanding of who she was, what she did and how she would spend her time and daily life. Learning more about her would help solve some of the mystery around her.

[spyglass]

Wouldn't it have been the coroner who decided which witnesses to call, rather than the police? If there was conflicting evidence, it was his duty to test it at the inquest, surely. In the same way that at Stride's inquest Mrs Malcom was called to give her evidence, despite her body having been identified already.

When you say "the curious mention about the jacket and bonnet", do you mean Mrs Prater's sad comment in the newspaper;

Daily Telegraph 10 Nov:
"She had got her hat and jacket on, but I had not. I haven't got a hat or a jacket"

Oh yes. ..the inquest, a very odd affair in its self.

[c.d.]

It's easy to get carried away when contemplating possible hoaxes and conspiracies regarding Mary. Maybe she underwent cosmetic surgery and became a stand in double for Queen Victoria or she was an alien and was beamed back to the Mother Ship. Not being smart ass but unless we have evidence to support some wild eyed theory that is all it is. Let's keep Mr. Occam close by and on call.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I prefer an alternative idea.
Maxwell and one other (name escapes me ) saw her on the morning of November 9th, she was adamant and didn't budge an inch even when practically told she was a liar at the inquest.
Her statement was made to police that very day.
I tend to believe her.

Regards.

She doesn't have to be a liar to be wrong. She could simply be mistaken even if she was adamant about what she saw.

c.d.

[GUT]

I prefer an alternative idea.
Maxwell and one other (name escapes me ) saw her on the morning of November 9th, she was adamant and didn't budge an inch even when practically told she was a liar at the inquest.
Her statement was made to police that very day.
I tend to believe her.

Regards.

Maurice Lewis.

[GUT]

She doesn't have to be a liar to be wrong. She could simply be mistaken even if she was adamant about what she saw.

c.d.

It happens frequently, witness ID is notoriously unreliable.