Was it mary kelly?

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:
"As for the implication that an ear is more distinctive than hair... "

I am not sure that it is so laughable, Claire. Hair can be cut and coloured, and the hair you see on a persons head one year will not be there the next, since new hair has replaced the old one. Doesn´t happen to ears, if you cut them off (ask van Gogh).
So an ear actually is a different thing altogether, when it comes to identification. This is recognized by the passport authorities of our days, demanding that an ear must be visible in your passport photo - for purposes of identification, no less.
In the case of Kelly, it must surely be recognized that Mary was known to have a "fine head of hair", probably distinguishing her from many other women, and I think it makes very good sense to push the point that the hair may have been what Barnett spoke of when he stated what he had identified Kelly by. And like Miss Marple says, if the ears were cut, that would make it hard to identify her by them.
All I am saying here, though, is that much as the hair can be a very special feature by a human being, it can never be used to make a positive identification by the looks of it only. An ear, however, can.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Fisherman!

If I remember correctly, Joe Barnett also told something about the eyes too!

Well, circumstantial enough to make the talks like on this thread possible anyway!

All the best
Jukka

[claire]

Claire writes:
"As for the implication that an ear is more distinctive than hair... "

I am not sure that it is so laughable, Claire. Hair can be cut and coloured, and the hair you see on a persons head one year will not be there the next, since new hair has replaced the old one. Doesn´t happen to ears, if you cut them off (ask van Gogh).
So an ear actually is a different thing altogether, when it comes to identification. This is recognized by the passport authorities of our days, demanding that an ear must be visible in your passport photo - for purposes of identification, no less.
In the case of Kelly, it must surely be recognized that Mary was known to have a "fine head of hair", probably distinguishing her from many other women, and I think it makes very good sense to push the point that the hair may have been what Barnett spoke of when he stated what he had identified Kelly by. And like Miss Marple says, if the ears were cut, that would make it hard to identify her by them.
All I am saying here, though, is that much as the hair can be a very special feature by a human being, it can never be used to make a positive identification by the looks of it only. An ear, however, can.

The best, all!
Fisherman

Well, Fisherman, you're saying two different things here, and leaving out the word 'though' between 'In the case of Kelly,' and 'it must surely be recognised' to make it seem like you're following on

My point, really, is that we use hair to recognise people far more than we use ears. Yes, we're talking about a 'positive identification,' although I suspect that this was sufficiently lax back then to equate with recognition rather than identification. Since those identifying MJK had seen her very recently, I think this seems the most likely focus for that identification. (I thought feet were mentioned, too: can someone confirm or otherwise?)

[anna]

Hi all,
On another thread....."Who Was Julia"

You will note that at no time,in his statement or his testimony at the inquest, does Barnett show any sign of using Cockney....infact he is quite eloquent.

In one section posted by Chris Scott..
Barnett says...I have lived with her for 18 months,8 in Millers Court,until last Tuesday week when,in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and resolving to prostitution.....

It sounds East End......suprisingly posh for what they look like...and considering that he worked markets....

I can't decide if he maybe cleans his speech up for this serious occassion,or someone else does it for him when they report his words,or he just doesn't speak Cockney.....

[Fisherman]

Hi Claire!

I am just trying to clarify the fact that an identification using an ear is nothing to laugh at. It is a more safe method than using the hair, since it involves physical elements that cannot be changed the way hair can.
Alongside that, I freely admit that Barnett can have spoken of "hair", and not "ear", realizing that such a means of identification may have been more viable in Kellys case than in most other cases.

Putting it in other words, I think that you were laughing a little bit too much about a very sound suggestion.

All the best, Claire!
Fisherman

[claire]

Hi Fisherman,

It was simply just the idea that Mary's hair wouldn't have been as distinctive as her ear to those asked to say whether it was her...sorry if I was too jocular

Hi Anna,

This statement read to me like a lot of police-written ones...I was proceeding in a north westerly direction when I espied a broadshouldered gentleman in a dark mantle. I had cause to notice this on account of the fact that I had recently purchased a similar garment from a repository approximately a hundred and three yards to the north of Thrawl Street...ooh, nearly got carried away then. In other words, I have little reason to believe those were Barnett's actual words.

[Elias]

If MJK was involved in some sort of cover-up and it wasn't her in Miller's Court, why on earth was she hanging around the area that morning, talking to friends and going for a drink. Surely she'd have been out of the area as quickly as possible.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Elias!

Why indeed?!

Maybe she was there to take the attention away from the Royal Conspiracy...

All the best
Jukka

[Dan Norder]

Dan's obviously never heard an English accent, let alone Cockney...

As already pointed out the people who took notes of the inquest were quite familiar with Cockney accents and didn't think Barnett said what you insist he must have said. You can invent up whatever rationalization you like about why I don't agree with you, but to suggest that the people there at the time didn't understand the accent is just nonsense.

I hate to say this, but sometimes you talk like a real ****, you know that?

You've obviously never heard a real ****.

[The Good Michael]

This statement read to me like a lot of police-written ones...I was proceeding in a north westerly direction when I espied a broadshouldered gentleman in a dark mantle. I had cause to notice this on account of the fact that I had recently purchased a similar garment from a repository approximately a hundred and three yards to the north of Thrawl Street...ooh, nearly got carried away then. In other words, I have little reason to believe those were Barnett's actual words.

Claire,

Those words sound very official, don't they. Yet, he was apparently literate, so he claimed. People did have more of a tendency to try and use proper English back then. They were proud of that ability. It's changed quite a bit since then.

Cheers,

Mike

[Observer]

Hi

Just looked at the body of Mary Kelly, and if I'd known her as intimately as Joe Barnett had, then the body is not so mutilated that I would not recognise her. And that's from a photograph, Barnett saw her in the flesh.

all the best

Observer

[The Good Michael]

Barnett saw her in the flesh.

I really want to make a pun. Somebody stop me. Gareth, tell me it's wrong.

Mike

[Observer]

Of course it could all be a conspiracy, with everyone who identified the body agreeing to say it was Mary Kelly, they falling to the lure of freemason bribes. Mary Kelly herself fleeing to Ireland, and buying a pig farm with the money she obtained from said freemasons.

Observer

[claire]

Mary Kelly herself fleeing to Ireland, and buying a pig farm with the money she obtained from said freemasons.

Did said pigs have wings?

[Observer]

He did Micheal, both when she was alive, and when her poor lifeless body lay on that bed.

all the best

Observer