Was it mary kelly?

[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?)

[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

[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

[The Good Michael]

If Kelly did have remarkable hair, as some accounts attest to, why wouldn't the transcriber of the inquest testimony have written 'hair' instead of 'ear'. If the logical conclusion by many is that 'ear' was a mishearing of the cockney 'hair', why wouldn't, at minimum, the editor of the article have caught such a mistake and have it corrected before it goes to press? After all, the concept of long, red tresses is so much more romantic than one ear, isn't it? The answer must be that they did question that Barnett said, "Ear.", and they had to agree that that is exactly what was said, regardless of editorial license. This was an important story; the most important in London of the day. A glaring mistake such as 'ear' for 'hair' would be absolutely inexecusible.

Cheers,

Mike

[CraigInTwinCities]

It's not like she had a purple mohawk cut or anything.

Of course you know this means that before I die, I simply must write a work of fiction that casts Mary Kelly as a woman wearing a purple mohawk, LOL...

[claire]

The people writing his testimony down would have been more familiar with Cockney as spoken in that period than we are now, and they said it was "ear" not "hair."

And Cockney 'as spoken in that period' differs how to pronunciation now? And 'the people writing his testimony down' would give a monkey's why? I wouldn't even assume that they'd hear the difference between the two words, particularly in the middle of a sentence (this isn't Elstree Cockney, for pity's sake). As for the implication that an ear is more distinctive than hair...

[Chava]

By the way, do we know for sure that Barnett came from London? We don't know that he spoke Cockney, and there are several local dialects where 'hair' and 'ear' sound similar. I wasn't going to take sides, but now I will. I can't believe he said 'ear'. Just doesn't make sense. Especially as people commented on Kelly's hair, didn't they? She always wore it down etc etc.

[Supe]

Danl

Frankly I'd think hair would be one of the least distinctive parts.

To each his own, I suppose, but there is many a man for whom his woman's hair is his pride and joy and Barnett was, after all, her lover for some time. Indeed, there has been more than a few sonnets written about a beloved's tresses and among Mary Jane's many charms her mane might just have been the most fetching. For all we know, Joe Barnett may have gloried nightly running his hands through her lovely locks.

Granted, he may just as well have enjoyed whispering sweet Billingsgate into her shell-like ears and ir was by that bit of love play that he recognized her. Do, though,allow that that for Joe and other men Mary Jane's hair may well have been her crowning glory.

Don.

Hello all,

I think that Mary's hair was, and was considered to be, a predominant feature of her overall appearance, as it was red, and waist length, and was worn out quite often. However as seen in the room photos, her hair is presumably down her back, probably soaked in blood, and only the top was visible.

The choice between a translation that is "hair and eyes, or "ear and eyes" is fairly clear though. Why would he cite her ear and not, for example,....her hands, or arms, or lower legs or feet? Unless only her head and face were shown to him.. I suppose thats a possible reason. But her hair was a "feature" that was known about her.

The ONLY reason to suggest that Mary isnt on the bed is Carrie Maxwell....and she didnt mention Marys hair. Nor was she considered to be presenting evidence that "fit" with any of the known data already collected.

Barnett, McCarthy, Bowyer...3 of the people closest to her on a day to day, week to week basis, said it was Mary Kelly that was found.

Best regards all.

[Graham]

The people writing his testimony down would have been more familiar with Cockney as spoken in that period than we are now, and they said it was "ear" not "hair." And what makes you think that her hair was the most recognizable feature? Frankly I'd think hair would be one of the least distinctive parts. It's just color and length, and there wouldn't be a lot of variation in those during the Victorian era. It's not like she had a purple mohawk cut or anything.

Dan,

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

Graham

[Graham]

Disagree Dan, anyone who knows cockney, knows Joe would have said air for hair, which was her most distinctive and recognisable feature. Also her ears were cut and nicked and bloody, so I doubt Joe could have recognised anythings about her ears, in the time he had to look. Miss Marple

Quite agree, Miss Marple.

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

Cheers,

Graham

[Chava]

I'm not taking sides one way or the other on the debate. But I doubt I'd recognize my husband just by his ear. And we've been married for years and years and years. Unless she had some kind of obvious malformation or birthmark, which hasn't been mentioned, I doubt even the closest partner would recognize Kelly by that particular body part...

[Dan Norder]

Disagree Dan, anyone who knows cockney, knows Joe would have said air for hair, which was her most distinctive and recognisable feature.

The people writing his testimony down would have been more familiar with Cockney as spoken in that period than we are now, and they said it was "ear" not "hair." And what makes you think that her hair was the most recognizable feature? Frankly I'd think hair would be one of the least distinctive parts. It's just color and length, and there wouldn't be a lot of variation in those during the Victorian era. It's not like she had a purple mohawk cut or anything.

[BillyE]

I think one of the biggest pieces of evidence the victim was Mary Kelly is the fact that she was never seen again. She was a fairly well known person in her community, whether by this name, or one of her other aliases, such as Fair Emma. Had someone else been killed in her place she would have been seen by a number of people, if only during her flight from London. The only true evidence we have of her being alive after JtR's attack is from Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis, both who claim to have talked to, or seen her well after the murder took place. It's more likely two people made a mistake in the time they saw her than another person being killed in her place.

[Sam Flynn]

Whether it was her ear or her hair, the salient fact is that Barnett was able to identify her, and did so. In terms of the question posed by this thread, the answer is simply, "Yes".