Patterns formed by murder locations

[DVV]

In Berner Street they sold matches, according to a French reporter

[RivkahChaya]

He also said she wore a clean white apron...so, maybe her hygiene was better than her lifestyle...hard to say.

Clean was probably relative.

I wonder what the signs of being an available sex worker were then? I mean, I can go to a particular corner in Manhattan, and tell you which women are the pros, and which are the bartenders or waitresses on cigarette breaks. Is it possible that wearing hair down was a sign of being available? I'm asking because I have no idea, but there must have been something. Yes, I know that in 1888, a woman simply being by herself in the evening was suggestive, but there were probably still ways that pros had of alerting potential customers, so they wouldn't have to go through the embarrassment of asking women who were not sex workers if they were available, and sex workers wouldn't have to verbally solicit every customer, and risk soliciting a police officer out of uniform, or someone who might give them a lecture on the morality of their profession.

[Michael W Richards]

I know the length of her hair was frequently commented on, but I wonder how many people actually saw her hair down? Barnett surely did, but the fact that she went without a hat, may have simply allowed people to infer that her hair was long, or else very thick. When women put their hair up, in the styles of the 1880s & 90s, they puff most of it up front, and put a hat on the back of their heads, and it gives the idea that the hair is all over the way it is up front, but it isn't. Upper class women could afford hair pieces, but lower class women couldn't. Mary Kelly probably couldn't, and at any rate, they are hard to maintain. If she could go around without a hat, and have a full-around hairstyle, then people would know she had a lot of hair. In fact, showing off her hair, along with de-emphasizing her height, may have been why she didn't wear a hat at a time when it was a real fashion faux pas not to wear one, at least at night.

How this is relevant: if people just inferred that her hair was long based on the way it looked put up, they may not have recognized it down. It's down in the in situ photos, and I'm thinking Barnett is probably the only one who would have a really good idea of what her hair looked like down.

As far as the identification, it wasn't like a game of Name That Tune ("I can identify that body with just the ears"; "I can identify it with one ear"); I'm sure if Barnett said he wasn't sure about the identification, could he see the hair? the morgue attendants would roll the body over.

You know Dew mentioned that Mary was seen with her hair out often, but "out" could just refer to being out from under a bonnet, and in actuality, it may well have been braided. Im thinking that if she was in the habit of wearing her hair "out" then the fact that she likely didnt wash it daily might factor into her style at any given time.

He also said she wore a clean white apron...so, maybe her hygiene was better than her lifestyle...hard to say.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

I wonder though about the length of her hair...since it was noted by many witnesses one wonders if when the ID's took place the length was made known to the witnesses.

Cheers

I know the length of her hair was frequently commented on, but I wonder how many people actually saw her hair down? Barnett surely did, but the fact that she went without a hat, may have simply allowed people to infer that her hair was long, or else very thick. When women put their hair up, in the styles of the 1880s & 90s, they puff most of it up front, and put a hat on the back of their heads, and it gives the idea that the hair is all over the way it is up front, but it isn't. Upper class women could afford hair pieces, but lower class women couldn't. Mary Kelly probably couldn't, and at any rate, they are hard to maintain. If she could go around without a hat, and have a full-around hairstyle, then people would know she had a lot of hair. In fact, showing off her hair, along with de-emphasizing her height, may have been why she didn't wear a hat at a time when it was a real fashion faux pas not to wear one, at least at night.

How this is relevant: if people just inferred that her hair was long based on the way it looked put up, they may not have recognized it down. It's down in the in situ photos, and I'm thinking Barnett is probably the only one who would have a really good idea of what her hair looked like down.

As far as the identification, it wasn't like a game of Name That Tune ("I can identify that body with just the ears"; "I can identify it with one ear"); I'm sure if Barnett said he wasn't sure about the identification, could he see the hair? the morgue attendants would roll the body over.

[Michael W Richards]

I think that's "hair," not "ear." Do you think you could recognize the people you know best from the back? I'm pretty sure I could recognize my husband and son from the back. Since MJK's skull wasn't crushed, so her head was still its usual shape, and her hair wasn't cut, the back of her head probably looked more or less the same.

Hi Rivkah,

There has been some discussion over the years as to whether Barnett meant Hair or Ear in his remarks, thats why I posted it in that manner.

A few points....I would think Barnett should have been able to recognize her arms and hands, or her feet, ..but I dont think he had that opportunity based on his ID. I think he saw what the jury saw and Im unconvinced that even after the Volte Face she would be recognizable.

Her blood soaked hair may have been washed by the time the jury saw her but it would have been down her back and not visible.

I wonder though about the length of her hair...since it was noted by many witnesses one wonders if when the ID's took place the length was made known to the witnesses.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

When you consider that he could only recognize her "air" and eyes it makes sense that he saw her as the jury did.

I think that's "hair," not "ear." Do you think you could recognize the people you know best from the back? I'm pretty sure I could recognize my husband and son from the back (in fact, I know I can pick my son out of other kids in his preschool, and I know I can pick my husband out from the back, even when he is in a platoon of soldiers, all dressed the same, and all with the same haircut, all standing in the same position, so there). Since MJK's skull wasn't crushed, her head was still its usual shape, and her hair wasn't cut, so the back of her head probably looked more or less the same.

[RivkahChaya]

Really? As I recall she was also positively identified by witnesses to be alive long after that body was dead.

Not really. Some people said they saw her, at a time, top their recollection, that would have been after the coroner reckoned the body in Miller's Court had already expired.

A "positive identification" would be bringing an actual person into the police station, and saying "This is Mary Kelly," at a time when the body was in the morgue. Or at least, something like producing a photograph of her holding a newspaper dated Nov. 10, 1888. I might even go with Joe Barnett running into the police station on the night of the 9th, and saying he was rescinding his identification, because he just saw spoke to MJK at the train station, and she'd bought a ticket for Limerick, so he couldn't produce her, but clearly, he was mistaken that morning.

Because the body in Miller's Court wasn't known to be there (other than by the killer) until about 10:45am, and the witnesses could be a little off on the time, as they were basing their statements on recollections that were themselves predicated on (probably) remembering what the nearest clock had just rung, and the coroner's time-of-death is an estimate, it is possible for the witnesses to have seen MJK after sunup on the 9th, and for her to be dead in Miller's Court by 10:45. It is also possible, since they were relying on recollections, for them simply to have been mistaken, either about the day, or the woman.

"La confiance n'exclut pas le contrôle" was just a friendly "clin d'oeil" to my old friend Fisherman. Nothing to be obsessed with. You're becoming ridiculous.

Sincerely Rivkah, I have no idea what you ask me here.

I guess to explain an in-joke, because I didn't understand your use of a legal term popping in out of any context that made sense to me.

Your strong assertion that MJK was not a random victim implied that you had some information that again, I am not privy to. Since the board is dedicated to sharing such things, pony up.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

I dont think Ive ever posted this thought in these terms before, but lets face it...even with massive reconstruction of her face most people would be unable to positively identify her as someone they knew. The jury only saw her face while she was in a box, after reconstruction, the rest covered by the partial lid or cloth. When did Barnett identify her? Ive seen one report that states he was led to the window later that day to make the ID. When you consider that he could only recognize her "air" and eyes it makes sense that he saw her as the jury did. It makes perfect sense when you consider that her eyes are completely obstructed by hanging flaps of skin from the forehead slashes in MJK 1 and 3.

Cheers

[DVV]

Really? As I recall she was also positively identified by witnesses to be alive long after that body was dead. RD

No, Raven. Identification means identification. Barnett and Hutch were asked to identify the body.The people you're alluded to were not.

[RavenDarkendale]

I even know people who think Maybrick did it, or Van Gogh.
Fact is that MJK has been positively identified.

Really? As I recall she was also positively identified by witnesses to be alive long after that body was dead. Without knowing her fingerprints or DNA any identification of that mangled body could be mistaken. The biases would be that it's in her room, in her bed, and clothes that belong to her are folded neatly on a chair. This would make people forget that witnesses reported her alive as late as 10:00am, that she shared her room regularly, that witnesses said she had extra clothes, etc. I don't say the body wasn't MJK, but the possibility that it wasn't exists.

RD

[DVV]

I just quoted the most recent example of it, and the question was for the whole board.

You wanted to ask the "whole board" if Fisherman's expression "General consensus" was, or not, redundant ?

Since I still have not idea why you quoted it, then no, that's not true at all.

What the hell is "not true" ?
"La confiance n'exclut pas le contrôle" was just a friendly "clin d'oeil" to my old friend Fisherman. Nothing to be obsessed with. You're becoming ridiculous.

Cite?

Sincerely Rivkah, I have no idea what you ask me here.

[RivkahChaya]

Yes. But why do you ask me ? Why do you quote my post ? I have myself quoted "general consensus", that originally belongs to Fish's post # 181.

I just quoted the most recent example of it, and the question was for the whole board.

Nothing to do with my sentence that you don't understand at all - nor its context.

Since I still have not idea why you quoted it, then no, that's not true at all.

Your French is worse than my English, my dear.

Quite true. I haven't spoken it in 20 years. My use has been limited to cartoons and movies, sometimes movies with subtitles, and the occasional internet post or webpage. I used to read real books, like Daudet and Maupassant, but I have not done that since my twenties, and even then, I had notes and a dictionary. Speaking French was a challenge, because I could never find other people to talk with, who also spoke second year college French.

Random victims. Except Mary Kelly.

Cite?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Ive been catching up on the posts Ive missed and wanted to add that in the case of the Canonicals, no victim suggests a killer that may have been preoccupied with dismemberment like Mary Kelly does. The torso murders that happened prior to, during and after the Ripper killings were never solved either so one might wonder whether there was some "overlap".

There is obvious issues with a killer that sought to dismember then didnt, even though in a private room, I agree,...but it seems to me that whomever killed her was more distracted than the person who killed Annie for example, because many actions were partial acts. The skinning of her left upper thigh on the inside of the leg only...the denuding of the bone only to the knee on the right...the almost severance of her head and her right arm...joined to her only by tissue strands. A few minutes more with any one of those acts and we have a severed lower leg, a severed arm, and a severed head.

Best regards

[DVV]

In her room, yes, DVV but not necessarily her. Yes I know people were never certain it was MJK. Check the thread "Could MJK have survived Miller's Court".

I even know people who think Maybrick did it, or Van Gogh.
Fact is that MJK has been positively identified.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Raven,

Of course, the best way to let the victim unidentified was to kill her where she lived... is that what you mean ?

Plus, have you read somewhere that Barnett and Hutch were not certain it was her ? That the police entertained doubts for that matter ?
It is true, however, that Barnett and Hutch didn't have the providential opportunity to follow some MJK threads on boards... I'd grant you that.

Lastly, no, the Ripper never tried to "destroy her identity". He did try to destroy her humanity, certainly, but as a result rather damaged his own - or so it seems to me.

In her room, yes, DVV but not necessarily her. Yes I know people were never certain it was MJK. Check the thread "Could MJK have survived Miller's Court".