One thing that did strike me as interesting in those pictures is that, often, much is made of comments that Mary Kelly didn't wear a bonnet, as if it was something that made her stand out from the rest of the women around. The image of Mary with her long hair (all Victorian women had long hair) flowing free, sans titfer, is one I read many times on the od threads. None of the women in those pictures is wearing a bonnet, as far as I can see.
I think that sometimes, we forget that when we read witness statements, all we are reading is one half of a converstaion. The fat that 'She didn't wear a bonnet' features in a statement doesn't necessarily mean that it was a particular feature of Mary, that the person being questioned felt they had to mention. It just means that the person taking the statement asked them 'Did she wear a bonnet?' or 'Would she have been wearing a bonnet?' and they said no. As can be seen from the pictures, though - looks like there was a common mode of dress that didn't necessarily include a bonnet - which is probably why much was made of the fact when another victim got herself one!
I think that sometimes, we forget that when we read witness statements, all we are reading is one half of a converstaion. The fat that 'She didn't wear a bonnet' features in a statement doesn't necessarily mean that it was a particular feature of Mary, that the person being questioned felt they had to mention. It just means that the person taking the statement asked them 'Did she wear a bonnet?' or 'Would she have been wearing a bonnet?' and they said no. As can be seen from the pictures, though - looks like there was a common mode of dress that didn't necessarily include a bonnet - which is probably why much was made of the fact when another victim got herself one!
Comment