|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 637
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 12:14 pm: |       |
Hi all,
In descriptions regarding clothing of prostitute women during the period of 1890--1910 here in Scandinavia (from police reports, mentioned as either victims or criminals), you always get baffled by the list of layers of garments and undies (which really were some kind of trousers). So they didn't just put on an overcoat to "hide their goodies", as they seem to do today. It must have been quite an achievement for any customer to get behind that layers of clothing.
AP is absolutely right when he say that "I thought the undergarments to be voluminous." Believe me, they were - unless the whores in East End had other "traditions".
P.S.
And please, don't tell me, that it's colder in Scandinavia than Britain or parts of USA, because it isn't!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 1:32 pm: | |
Caz & Glenn
yes the undergarments were terrific in scale, Kate even minus stays and drawers had seven layers down there. I haven't checked the others yet but I'm fairly sure they will have even more armour about them.
Fashions and attitudes change Caz, and for my money modesty ruled in those days, but I accept your machinations concerning the need not to wear a coat, I mean you didn't need to if you had seventeen vests and fourteen skirts on. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 2:03 pm: | |
Absolutely AP, that's all I meant really.
I will be wearing plenty of layers come December at the Xmas bash, but the top ones will, I hope, be slightly more flattering than some stuffy old coat. I still hate wearing 'em and I'm nearly 50.
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 2:17 pm: | |
Hi all
This business of the undergarments and under-undergarments, etc, is one reason why I have difficulty believing that Jack was a client whom Kelly had brought home, and who then sat around waiting for about 23 days while she undressed and hurled violets at him, before commencing his attack.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 3:41 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I agree ,I think we can safely assume that kelly was already in bed, when she was attacked, the thought of a raving lunatic, waiting till she was undressed first, does not fit my profile, that is patience in its extreme.
If this murder was the result of opportunety, then he would have killed her in her room fully clothed[ Did He strip the others?]
She was either attacked whilst asleep, although in which case, someone entering her room, would have disturbed her surely.
If this murder was planned, then the killer would have had enough self control, to wait for the right opportunety.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 5:43 am: | |
Richard,
She would have already had the hysterics in the room. To be able to put on the other woman's clothes and light a fire (if she did this), she must have calmed herself. Why put on the dead woman's clothes? She must have been trying to disappear which she would have to have calmed herself for. She may have still been upset when she had left the room. Also I'm not saying that she was crying when Mrs Maxwell saw her, trust me, your eyes can look like that for at least half an hour after crying. If she hadn't been the corpse in there then maybe she was upset enough to cry because she had known the victim or maybe she felt bad about just leaving her there and allowing people to think it was her. She had many good reasons to want to escape from there. Maybe she did. Probably not though, but this is all speculation, isn't it? |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
Glenn,
No you right. For an example look at this list of items of clothing that Kate Eddowes was wearing at the time of her murder:-
1. Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
2. Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
3. Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
4. Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
5. Gray stuffed petticoat with white waistband
Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
6. Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
7. White calico chemise
8. No drawers or stays
9. Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces.Right boot repaired with red thread
10. 1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
11. 1 large white pocket handkerchief
12. 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
13. 2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
14. 1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
15. Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned with white cotton
It makes you wonder where it all went. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 9:55 am: | |
Just one thing.
Mini skirt and tight tube tops = tacky and desperate. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 355
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 12:08 pm: | |
Sarah,
You saying Im tacky and desperate ??
The clothes you mention were all that Kate owned....I dont know why I mention this but I thought it was important....at the time.
Monty...who prefers sling backs and a halter top !
 |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Monty,
Above the list I mentioned of Kate's clothes it says Wearing at the time of her murder:.
If this is wrong then I suggest you take it up with Stephen as this is how it is under Kate's page under the victims section.
Now halter tops, they are class!!  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 9:12 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
I think what Monty meant was that Kate, being homeless, would have been wearing all the clothes she owned when she was killed, hence the many layers.
The original question was whether or not Mary, with her own room to go back to once a customer had been tempted by her 'charms', would have worn the pilot coat over them.
I have another question:
Would Jack have found himself sexually aroused by the sight of Mary, naked apart from a chemise, lying in or on her bed?
If not, why not? AP? Anyone?
Love,
Caz
PS Still frustratingly slow - the computer, that is, not Jack's biological rise to the occasion...
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 361
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Sarah,
Caz has explained fully my point (thank you Sweetheart). Im sorry if it seemed I was knit picking.
Monty...who is always full of class...and a Bacardi Breezer !
 |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 364
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 12:13 pm: | |
Caz,
If BFM was they guy then the old Brewer droop may have been in effect.
Monty
PS Last year I was impressed..you remembered...what happened this year ? |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Caz
you'll have to run that by me again, I'm not sure exactly what you mean?
At the moment I'm assuming you mean would Jack as a killer and mutilator of women be sexually aroused by MJK sporting herself in a flimsy number in a very private situation?
I just might write a poem about that. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 671
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 1:37 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I have no idea whatsoever if Jack (?) felt sexually aroused or not when he saw her in bed. I think such a question lead to too much speculation, since we can't be sure of the motive for the killings or what exactly went on in his head. If the killings, were sexually motivated -- probably. I can't say.
But I think it is quite plausible, that some here has implied, that she was attacked in her bed while asleep and not necessarily by a client she took home. It is an interesting though. But he had to know about the spring lock, didn't he? Or could he manage to figure that out for himself? Or could the door have been unlocked? Or did he knock on the door (or window) and she let him in (or pointed against the spring lock?)? I don't know, but nothing is impossible. It is quite a mystery either way.
I must admit I really don't grip the original question about the pilot coat, or maybe it's just me being slow. What was the point of it, really? Have we any reason to assume that she didn't wear it? One thing I've learnt when I've studied the life styles of the 19th century, is that even the lowest classes were indeed quite thorough regarding which clotches to wear at certain occastions, regardless of the state the clothes were in. If you were a man, you'd be wearing your vest and jacket over your shirt, and your hat (if it was extremely hot in the summer it could be accepted to not wear the jacket), and if you were a woman you -- in the winter time or autumn -- either wore an overcoat or a shawl over your shoulder, covering the chest area and the back, and regardless of the weather in general didn't go out without the hat. The code of clothing was indeed rather strict even among the working class.
What surprises me, is that Mary -- if we can believe that testimony -- was seen bare-headed, something I find extremely unusual in this historical context. It could be that one could get away with it in East End (although I believe it would be fairly uncommon), but during my own studies regarding the same period here at home, I have never encountered it. To be seen without a hat outside would be quite remarkable for a man and a woman during the 19th century.
Since this was in the break of autumn and winter, I believe it would have been natural for her to put on an overcoat or a shawl, even if she just was lurking about the closest neighbourhood -- if she was looking for customers, she couldn't know how long she would have to remain outside. If the pilot coat was the only one she owned, she most certainly would have worn it outside, regardless of its condition.
Just my tip.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 13, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 672
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 1:44 pm: | |
Monty,
What about stay-ups and push-ups, then?
By the way, what's "sling backs"?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 4:08 pm: | |
Dear Glenn; Sling backs are those sexy shoes that Monty likes to wear when he is slinking around on Goulston Street looking for chalk drawings. They usually match his halter top, but on his birthday he likes to go crazy and wears a matching push-up bra.
Hope this helps
Joan |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 9:57 am: | |
No idea Caz, maybe Jack the Ripper was homosexual. I don't think she would have put it on as she would have been trying to get a customer, although, by the sound of it, I don't think she had much competition. All the other vitims were in their 40's so if Mary was unusually young then men would prefer her. I don't know what she would have done, it wasn't like in today's culture, so she may have, but maybe she didn't want/think to move the pilot coat from the window. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 675
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 12:05 pm: | |
Perfectly, Joan. Thank you.
I'm learning new things every day here.
I prefer suspenders and Winnie the Poh cuddly slippers myself.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1247
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 6:18 am: | |
I get the impression that all the films are wrong when it comes to the dresses - the prostitutes don't seem to have worn low-cut dresses at all. Everything seems to have been covered up.
Re my point about doubting if Jack would have hung around waiting for Kelly to take off all that gear : I suppose as Kelly was working that night she might have just slipped the dress on each time she went out, leaving the undergarments on the chair - it would have saved a lot of time. I still can't see Jack waiting for her to get her dress and boots off, though.
Anyone know about ladies' boots of the time? Were they those things that went up past the ankle and took three days to undo?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 679
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 1:10 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
"I still can't see Jack waiting for her to get her dress and boots off, though."
I am starting to have my doubts about that as well, actually.
Yes, the ladies boots I've found referred to from late 19th century in my material had for the most time quite high heels and kinda slim, figure-shaped form, and a lot of shoe string rows. I assume they were called something, but I don't know what -- and certainly not in English.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 1:24 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
Yes, Foster's sketch of Eddowes in the Sourcebook shows boots that look quite high, but I thought they came up even higher than that. I bet they took a while to take off, anyway.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 681
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 10:13 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
They most certainly did, I believe. Furthermore, I think, much like today, there must have been several kinds of models with different hight, but the slim figure with high heels seem to be a common feature among those I've seen descriptions of.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1259
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 4:53 am: | |
Thanks Glenn.
By the way, the BBC have started repeating Jeremy Brett!
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 684
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Hi Robert,
What do you mean "repeating"? Are they sending the series again?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
