Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Because they were bloodstained

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Because they were bloodstained

    Hi.
    According to The Times 12th Nov 1888.
    The police believed that a jacket , and bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained,
    Explanations?
    Regards Richard,
    Last edited by richardnunweek; 10-03-2018, 12:20 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
    Hi.
    According to The Times 12th Nov 1888.
    The police believed that a jacket , and bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained,
    Explanations?
    Regards Richard,
    Doesn't make any sense does it when nearly everything in that room was bloodstained and not burned. If they said it was likely JtR burned some of his own clothes because they were bloodstained, would make more sense.

    Yet one way we might explain it is that JtR selected those clothes to burn from others because those had blood on them. Meaning he was going to use the fireplace and selected the bloody clothes over some clothes that were not covered in blood to burn.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi.
      We can explain away the belief that the murder happened in daylight, by Mrs Maxwell's statement.
      However something led the police to believe that the killer deliberately burnt the jacket and bonnet , because they were stained with blood.
      This would have been the same jacket /Bonnet, that Mrs Prater allegedly saw Mary wearing at 9.pm the 8th.
      She [ Kelly] apparently never wore a hat, she did have a velvet jacket, and we know that Mrs Harvey left her 'her ' bonnet Thursday,
      If these were the items she left Millers court in at 9.pm, Mrs Cox describes different clothing two hours later.?
      How come?
      Why would the killer wish to obliterate the clothing Mary was wearing that evening?
      I believe Prater, over Cox, as she mentioned the bonnet, which Mary never had to wear until the 8th.
      In order for the items to have become bloodstained, they either had to have been worn by the victim when attacked, or in the close vicinity of the attack .
      Why would the killer wish to remove those items.?
      Explanations?
      Regards Richard.

      Comment


      • #4
        The "because they were stained with blood", had to be an assumption, surely.
        Burned clothing would not show any blood if it was all burnt.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
          Hi.
          We can explain away the belief that the murder happened in daylight, by Mrs Maxwell's statement.
          However something led the police to believe that the killer deliberately burnt the jacket and bonnet , because they were stained with blood.
          This would have been the same jacket /Bonnet, that Mrs Prater allegedly saw Mary wearing at 9.pm the 8th.
          She [ Kelly] apparently never wore a hat, she did have a velvet jacket, and we know that Mrs Harvey left her 'her ' bonnet Thursday,
          If these were the items she left Millers court in at 9.pm, Mrs Cox describes different clothing two hours later.?
          How come?
          Why would the killer wish to obliterate the clothing Mary was wearing that evening?
          I believe Prater, over Cox, as she mentioned the bonnet, which Mary never had to wear until the 8th.
          In order for the items to have become bloodstained, they either had to have been worn by the victim when attacked, or in the close vicinity of the attack .
          Why would the killer wish to remove those items.?
          Explanations?
          Regards Richard.
          hi Richard
          I think the ripper burned the clothes out of spite, and or to gain more light.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi.
            Is it not possible that the killer burnt those items, not because they were bloodstained, but because maybe he was worried that the garments might trigger a witness that saw Kelly and him together the previous evening,when Kelly was wearing that jacket and bonnet.
            I am curious about Mrs Cox and her description of Kelly's clothing when she was with Blotchy.
            No Mention of the jacket and bonnet..
            Did she come home to change between say 10-11 pm.
            Was Blotchy a lie,?
            Did Kelly bring her killer back to her room on his insistence earlier then she was hoping too wearing the jacket and bonnet. it was said she missed her usual visit en -route home.
            If that happened .
            Then Cox was telling porkies, and Hutchinson invented his A man.
            It could well be that she was dead by the early hours of the 9th.
            Then its back to square one for yours truly.
            Regards Richard.

            Comment


            • #7
              Depends on the hat. You don't have to wear one all the time you have it. Could carry it. So if Cox was asked did she have a hat ON the answer could be NO but still doesn't mean she doesn't have one on her.

              What clothes had Mary Jane on ? - She had no hat; a red pelerine and a shabby skirt.

              Hard to tell from that because she asked what she had ON. Yet Cox answer no hat, not no hat ON. So seems Cox thought no hat at all.
              Bona fide canonical and then some.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
                Hi.
                We can explain away the belief that the murder happened in daylight, by Mrs Maxwell's statement.
                However something led the police to believe that the killer deliberately burnt the jacket and bonnet , because they were stained with blood.
                This would have been the same jacket /Bonnet, that Mrs Prater allegedly saw Mary wearing at 9.pm the 8th.
                She [ Kelly] apparently never wore a hat, she did have a velvet jacket, and we know that Mrs Harvey left her 'her ' bonnet Thursday,
                If these were the items she left Millers court in at 9.pm, Mrs Cox describes different clothing two hours later.?
                How come?
                Why would the killer wish to obliterate the clothing Mary was wearing that evening?
                I believe Prater, over Cox, as she mentioned the bonnet, which Mary never had to wear until the 8th.
                In order for the items to have become bloodstained, they either had to have been worn by the victim when attacked, or in the close vicinity of the attack .
                Why would the killer wish to remove those items.?
                Explanations?
                Regards Richard.
                Hi,
                The Police needed to discredit Maxwell's statement?
                A news paper report listed all the items found in Kelly room, one item described was a "velvet bodice"....Maxwell described Kelly as wearing a "Velvet bodice ".
                I believe that said item was purposely put on that list, again to discredit Maxwell.

                Regards.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Batman.
                  A red Pelerine, and a shabby skirt, is not the Mary Kelly that left the court at 9.pm.
                  If I leave home wearing a suit at 9.pm. there is a good chance I shall be wearing those clothes a couple of hours later, if Mjk was on the pull , dressing down by changing into a Red Pelerine. and a shabby skirt , would be strange.
                  Regards Richard.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
                    Hi Batman.
                    A red Pelerine, and a shabby skirt, is not the Mary Kelly that left the court at 9.pm.
                    If I leave home wearing a suit at 9.pm. there is a good chance I shall be wearing those clothes a couple of hours later, if Mjk was on the pull , dressing down by changing into a Red Pelerine. and a shabby skirt , would be strange.
                    Regards Richard.
                    I think Prater just mentions she had a hat and jacket on at 9' o'clock in a Star interview, but she doesn't describe them or mention any of this at the inquest or even says what Kelly was wearing at the inquest.

                    Maxwell claims she saw Kelly at 9:00am are so at odds with everything else that the Coroner gave her warnings. If she was right it means everyone at the Britannia public-house was lying when investigated because they didn't see or serve Kelly. Maxwell and Maxwell alone seems to be making this claim of an early morning MJK out and about in public and going to pubs with no corroboration at all.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      I think Prater just mentions she had a hat and jacket on at 9' o'clock in a Star interview, but she doesn't describe them or mention any of this at the inquest or even says what Kelly was wearing at the inquest.

                      Maxwell claims she saw Kelly at 9:00am are so at odds with everything else that the Coroner gave her warnings. If she was right it means everyone at the Britannia public-house was lying when investigated because they didn't see or serve Kelly. Maxwell and Maxwell alone seems to be making this claim of an early morning MJK out and about in public and going to pubs with no corroboration at all.
                      There are so many witness throughout the whole ripper mystery who clearly lied, but it seem researchers will accept which ever account fits with their own theory.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        hi Richard
                        I think the ripper burned the clothes out of spite, and or to gain more light.
                        How do you know that Kelly did not burn the clothes herself if they perhaps belonged to Harvey and they had a falling out? There is no evidence to show when they were set alight.

                        Its a dangerous game playing the obvious, against the sinister scenarios

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                          Hi,
                          The Police needed to discredit Maxwell's statement?
                          A news paper report listed all the items found in Kelly room, one item described was a "velvet bodice"....Maxwell described Kelly as wearing a "Velvet bodice ".
                          I don't think this discredits Maxwell because, as the bodice was not burned, Kelly could have put it on again before Maxwell claims to have seen her the next morning.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            There is no evidence to show when they were set alight.
                            Ashes still warm. Meaning very recently.
                            Bona fide canonical and then some.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              There are so many witness throughout the whole ripper mystery who clearly lied, but it seem researchers will accept which ever account fits with their own theory.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Why don't you try accepting all of them, and only investigate the one's that are in contradiction.
                              There isn't many to investigate.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X