| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 454
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:59 am: |       |
Diana,
Im saying that its possible for a chemise to be used as an undergarment.
That impossible ?
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 208
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:11 am: | |
Monty,
I don't think the chemise would have been worn as an undergarment? Maybe I'm wrong though.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 456
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:32 am: | |
Sarah,
But is it impossible to wear a chemise as an under garment?
Being male and a non transvestite I do not know.
Maybe Alan or Frank can help !!
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 212
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:45 am: | |
Monty,
Maybe it was possible. I don't know really. It's quite light though and probably not very warm so I just don't think it was likely but maybe she did wear it. Maybe she didn't have any proper undergarments so used that.
Whilst Joe was working though, he spoilt her a bit and brought her presents so I don't think he would have let her go without decent undergarments.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 215
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
Monty, are you insinuating something???
In the words of Homer Simpson, "I have never worn women's clothing except occasionally the underwear which, as we discussed, is strictly a comfort thing."  |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 458
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:49 am: | |
Ahhh Alan,
Didnt see you there !
Doh Monty
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
Hi Diana,
‘If he allowed her to change and fold up her clothes before attacking her then he made a major departure from his previous attacks. Unlikely.’
Well, since Mary’s indoor murder was a major departure from his previous attacks, I don’t know how anyone can judge what the killer was unlikely to have done differently when the sky was the limit. Working outdoors hardly gave him the option of allowing or asking his victims to change and fold up their clothes first, so there is no way of knowing where his fancy might have taken him this time.
I do, however, see the problem with Jack, hell-bent on destruction, waiting for Mary to get naked and then allowing her to get into her nightie. But the chemise appears so brief and skimpy that I, like Monty, wonder if Mary wore it like a vest as well, and had stripped down to it before Jack started work. Her state of undress would indeed have allowed his knife and hands much better access than with previous victims with their aprons, skirts and petticoats and what have you. So it’s logical to imagine that Jack would have taken advantage of this option, whether Mary was conveniently ‘prepared’ for him when he found her (perhaps this was the way ‘Marie Jeanette’ liked to present herself to her clients, after teasing them by making them wait while she methodically folded her clothes), or whether he allowed, asked or forced her to undress as far as her final item of underwear.
There are too many possible permutations to help us decide, including the obsessive, compulsive Jack who had to have a neat pile of clean clothes to balance the piles of bloody flesh.
Love,
Caz
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
After some research I have found that the chemise was indeed an undergarment. Go to http://trulyvictorian.netfirms.com/photo12.html to see a picture or http://trulyvictorian.netfirms.com/FAQ.html to read a description. (You have to scroll down a lot, I used my edit/search to find chemise.) A victorian lady wore underdrawers and over them a chemise. Then came the corset. One of the purposes of the chemise was to keep perspiration and body oils from getting on the corset. I presume petticoats were next followed by the outer garment. I have sent this website an email asking for info on sleepwear of the period and asking if the chemise was ever worn as sleepwear. If the temp was 39F(for you celsius people 33 is the temp at which water freezes) that nite and the only heat was from the fireplace I find it hard to believe that she was trying to sleep in nothing but that chemise. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 219
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
Monty may be right then. Odd. Maybe he did undress her then but I still think that she probably undressed herself to that point. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 462
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 12:03 pm: | |
Sarah,
No, I didnt undress her.
Monty
|
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 47
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 12:06 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
You can always barge in with a compliment like that, thanks! Assuming that you're very busy, I just say: hope to see you soon!
Hi Robert & Alan,
Thanks for the info on the blood.
And Monty,
What the hell are you thinking?? 
Take care,
Frank |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 464
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 12:12 pm: | |
Frank,
You know.....you know !!
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 220
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 12:20 pm: | |
There are websites where you can buy victorian undergarments. I didn't know that. They look quite good actually.
I also think Monty has passed over into cloud cuckoo land. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 216
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
I'm pretty sure those ones wouldn't suit me, although the corset might come in handy now that I am over the hill and past it (18 days until "life begins". Expect mood swings over the next few weeks!) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:34 pm: | |
Hi Sarah
Why should it be odd that Monty may be right?
Everyone, why would Mary sleep in wet clothes? My bet is she took off her clothes either because they were wet, or because she was entertaining a client (not necessarily Jack).
Robert |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 4:32 pm: | |
I agree. He attacked her when she had on the chemise. He was not one to wait around, ergo she was in the chemise when he came in. She would not be likely to use only the chemise for sleeping because it was November and very cold. She expected him? (an appointment?) She had on the chemise from her last client? The blood on the sheet indicates that he attacked her when she was in the bed. Could he have flung her down onto the bed and attacked? Could she have been preparing to service him when he attacked? Could she have just finished with a client when he broke in and attacked? |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 4:37 pm: | |
Could she have been in the act of changing into a nightgown when he broke in and attacked? Were any nightgowns found in her room? What would Mary sleep in? If she had a nightgown why didn't she put it on given that it was bitter cold? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1462
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 5:17 pm: | |
Hi Diana
My preferred scenario is that Mary had serviced a client, and that afterwards Jack came in. If she was groggy from booze, then she mightn't have felt like getting up and putting on the pilot coat, the men's shirts, or any nightgown she may have possessed. She may have lain there intending to do so, but then nodded off. She may even have lain there intending to go out again for another customer, but put it off until sleep overtook her.
I don't know about him flinging her on the bed. Why not strangle her first, in accordance with his usual method? Flinging her on the bed would give her a chance to scream and resist.
I can't help feeling that she was in bed when he came in.
I wish we had the complete inventory for Mary's room. I'd love to know if the hanky that Hutchinson's man is supposed to have given her was found in the room. Assuming Hutchinson's man wasn't Jack, he wouldn't be likely to want the hanky back after Mary had used it.And Jack wasn't into stealing hankies, as far as I know. Could it be that the police actually did find a man's red hanky in the room, and that this is what induced Abberline to take Hutchinson's unlikely-sounding story seriously?
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 228
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:36 am: | |
Robert,
Not that I'm sure it matters but I didn't mean that it was odd for Monty to be right. I can't remember what was odd now anyway, was just thinking out loud whilst writing.
That thing about the hankies is something I've wondered about. Didn't all the victims have some sort of hanky or neck-a-chief? I don't know if that was the fashion though.
Sarah |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 12:56 am: | |
Diana wrote:
"He attacked her when she had on the chemise. He was not one to wait around, ergo she was in the chemise when he came in."
As Caz notes above, this isn't necessarily a safe assumption. Saying that Jack couldn't wait for women to undress because they didn't in the other murders would mean you are expecting prostitutes to get naked in the street. Saying that Jack wasn't the kind of person to wait in general means that there'd have to be some logical thing for him to wait for that he didn't. He did, in fact, wait until he took (or was led to) semi-secluded areas in most of the killings, so it seems likely that he was the type of person who could wait if it suited him. And if you want to say that he couldn't wait then why is it that he wasn't attacking his victims in plain view of everyone?
I can easily imagine a scenario where MJK leads Jack in and starts to disrobe and gets down to the chemise before he goes to work. I also can imagine someone waiting around outside peeping in the window to see if she were asleep and then using the hand through the window trick to open the door (and Hutchinson claims he waited around outside for a long time, so unless he's lying about that bit we know it's possible to do so without attracting too much unwanted attention). |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 9:16 pm: | |
Frank wrote:
"In conclusion, judging by the earlier murders I don’t think Jack could have suddenly developed into a completely organized killer."
And I don't think there's anything in the previous killings that should make you think he "suddenly" became organized, as he was quite organized all the way through.
"Besides, the mutilations on Mary show clearly that he wasn’t."
Uhh... that fact that he did mutilations doesn't mean that everything else wasn't extremely organized.
As pointed out elsewhere, if you pick one feature from a killing and focus on that as disorganized and then try to go for a mixed descriptor, most of the famous organized killers (like Bundy) would have to be considered mixed as well. And at that point everyone is mixed and the label does you no good because it's meaningless.
|
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 7:08 pm: | |
Hi Monty and Sarah,
I recently had a similar thought about what Monty said. The last murder before Mary's was Eddowes. The murderer had to slash through layers and layers of clothing, a coat, many skirts, an apron etc.
He may have just thought is was easier for Mary to do a little striptease first, and save him all that trouble.
In Eddowes case,he may have even cut the apron by accident and ran away with it stuck to his shoe!
I think the bowel was removed and laid by the side as this allowed easier access to the kidney, the left kidney being under the descending bowel.
Anyway, by the time Mary was murdered,he had realised it was easier to deal with a partially undressed indoor victim instead of a fully clothed outdoor victim.
Notice that the cuts on Eddowes were very jagged and jerky, while the cuts on Mary were smooth and rounded, the difference between clothed or unclothed victim?
Joan
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 8:32 am: | |
I'm trying to sort this out.
I. He waited for her to undress.
A. She was undressing because he was a
client and in the room.
B. He was watching through the window
and broke in when she got down to
the chemise.
II. After he killed her, he took off everything but the chemise.
III. Mary was the only one involved in dressing or undressing. The timing of the attack was fortuitous.
A. sleep garment -- Mary stripped down
to her chemise and used it as a
nightgown. She was attacked in
her bed as she slept.
B. use with client -- Mary greeted a
client in her chemise.
C. transition -- Mary was in the
process of dressing or undressing.
1. dressing -- She had just finished
with a client. She was changing
into nightclothes preparatory
to going to bed or street
clothes so she could go out again.
2. undressing -- She was disrobing
for a client (IA) or getting ready
for bed. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 8:41 am: | |
Hi Dan
i don't know whether we can say for certain that he led, or was led by, most of his victims to the spots where they died. Taking the other 4 of the canonical 5 :
Eddowes, it looks like yes, he led or was led.
Nichols - he could have met her in Buck's Row.
Stride had been hanging around Dutfield's Yard.
Chapman (if we regard Long's story as significant) was making an agreement with her client right outside Number 29, suggesting she'd just met him there.
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 8:58 am: | |
I'm breaking this into two posts because one would be two long.
IA is possible although I don't see it as being in character for him. If IA is true then JTR was either Afghan man or Hutchinson, or she went out again after Hutchinson left and picked up someone else or a "regular" knocked on the door.
IB appeals to me more in terms of his character, but then you are left with how did he get in?
II is impossible. There would have been blood all over her street clothes.
IIIA presents a problem in that it would have been way too cold.
IIIB suggests an appointment. When did she make it? Mary didn't have a clock. How would she know when to hustle the previous customer out? Maybe the appointment just waited in the alley? (Hutchinson)
IIIC1. brings with it the problem of how he got in.
IIIC2. has already been discussed under IA.
|
