Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Simon,

Hi Sam,

The Star, 10th November 1888—

"He saw the body by peeping through the window."

That's not the same as saying that "he IDENTIFIED the body by peeping through the window", though, still less "he FORMALLY identified the body by peeping through the window", or "he WAS BROUGHT BY THE POLICE TO IDENTIFY the body by peeping through the window". Barnett simply couldn't have noted the ear, and certainly not the eyes (one of which was angled downwards, 'tother obscured by flaps of loosened flesh) from such a vantage-point.

[Chris Scott]

Harry has mentioned the Gleaner article of 17 November and has very kindly supplied me with a copy.
Below is a transcription.
I have omitted one badly damaged section which related to pronouncements by Dr Forbes Winslow on the murder
My grateful thanks to Harry for sending this and other articles to me recently
Chris

Daily Gleaner (Jamaica)
17 November 1888

Panic in Whitechapel

The Herald's European edition publishes today the following from the Herald's London Bureau, No 391 Strand, dated November 9, 1888:-
The festivities in honor of the Prince of Wales' birthday and the installation of the new Lord Mayor were tragically interrupted today. While the <illegible> parading the streets of London, the police were gaping aghast around some wretched shambles, in which lay the mutilated body of another victim of the Whitechapel fiend.
I visited the scene of the crime of noon today.
It lies within a quarter of a mile of the places in which most of the preceding six murders were committed by the fiend, where Hanbury Street and Prince's Street run together at a point not unlike the corner of Seventh Avenue and Broadway at Forty Third Street.
The murder was committed in a stable yard, having much the same position relatively to Hanbury and Princes's Streets as the centre of Thirty Fifth Street would have to Broadway Seventh Avenue.
All the recent so called Whitechapel tragedies have occurred within gunshot distance of this spot.
Strong bodies of police patrolled the neighborhood, literally 'locking the stable door' after the horse was stolen.
"Why were they not about last night and the night before and every night since the last murder?" was the common cry of the excited crowds, whom a cordon of constables were keeping back from the wretched little cul de sac in which had lived poor Mary Jane Kelly, alias Fisher, alias Ginger.
Not even the reporters were allowed within the police line. It was determined this time to keep the clews from being effaced tampered with or distorted. Besides, bloodhounds were to be employed, scent must not be obliterated.
As on previous occasions, all kinds of conflicting and contradictory stories were afloat.
Dr Gabe, of Mecklenburg Square, a medical official, was fresh from the horrible sight in the squalid apartment immediately off the wretched court, in which the only furniture was an oil stove, two rickety chairs and a tumble down.
At the head of this bedstead was a piece of looking glass such as one buts in Petticoat Lane for a half penny.
The Doctor said that in his experience in dissecting rooms never had he seen such ghastliness.
The corpse lay, as he saw it, naked on a blood stained woollen mattress. The victim's hair was tossed upward on a pillow and matted with gore, as if the murderer had first wiped his hands.
The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a headmanslike severance.
Below the neck, the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house.
Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk.
As in the previous cases, certain portions of the body were missing. The flesh on each side of a cut on the median line was carefully back.
An inch or two away, from the hips to the ankles, the flesh was shredded more or less, with apparent savageness of purpose.
"It must have been the work of a full half hour," said the Doctor.
The body was just beginning to stiffen when it as discovered.
At one in the morning "Mary Jane," as they called her, had been heard be a fellow lodger crooning a drunken song - perhaps to the murderer. From that hour till half past ten this morning all is still a hideous blank.
Then a young man who is a neighbor knocked at the door. It was apparently locked. The murderer, sly to the last or with method in madness, had taken the key. But there was a side window with a pane broken in a quarrel she had a week ago with a man with whom she had cohabited. She parted from him some time past, but this morning the man appeared.
He had little to tell but the common tale of the miserable woman's life.
The murderer might easily have left the house at any time between one and six o'clock this morning without attracting attention. The doctors who have examined the remains refuse to make any statement until the inquest is held.
Three bloodhounds belonging to private citizens were taken to the place where the body lies and placed on the scent of the murderer, but they were unable to keep it for any great distance, and all hope of running the assassin down with their assistance will have to be abandoned.
Before the post mortem examination a photographer was set to work in the court and house. The state of the atmosphere was unfortunately not favourable to good result. The photographer, however, succeeded in procuring several negatives.
The post mortem examination lasted two hours, and was of the most thorough character. Every indication as to the manner in which the murderer conducted his awful work was carefully noted, as well as the position of every organ and the larger pieces of flesh.
The surgeon's report will be of an exhaustive character, but it will not be made public until they give evidence at the Coroner's inquest.
At ten minutes to four o'clock a one horse carrier's cart with a tarpaulin covering was driven into Dorset Street and halted opposite Miller's Court, the victim's home. From the court was taken a long coffin, scratched with constant use, which was borne into the death chamber. There it remains.
The news that the body was to be removed caused a rush of people and a determined effort to break the police cordon. The crowd was of the very humblest class. Ragged caps were doffed, and slatternly looking women shed tears as the shell, covered with a ragged looking cloth, was placed in a van.
The remains were taken to Shoreditch Mortuary to remain there until viewed by the Coroner's jury. The inquest will open on Monday morning.
John McCarthy, the landlord of the place in which Mary Jane lived, gives this interview:-
"When I looked through the window the sight I saw was more ghastly even than I had prepared myself for. On the bed lay the body, while the table was covered with lumps of flesh. Soon Superintendent Arnold arrived, and instructions to burst the door open was given.
I at once forced it with a pickaxe and we entered. The sight looked like the work of a devil. The poor woman had been completely disembowelled. Her entrails were cut out and placed on a table. It was these I had taken to be lumps of flesh.
The woman's nose had been cut off, and her face was gashed and mutilated so that she was quite beyond recognition. Both her breasts, too, had been cut clean away and placed by her side. Her liver and other organs were on the table.
I head heard a great deal about the Whitechapel murders, but I had never expected to see such a sight.
The body was covered with blood and so was the bed. The whole scene is more than I can describe. I hope I may never see such a sight again."
It is most extraordinary that nothing was heard by the neighbors, as there are people passing backward and forward at all hours of the night in the vicinity. But no one heard so much as a scream.
A woman tells me she heard the victim singing "Sweet Violets" ay one o'clock this morning. So up to that time, at all events, she was alive and well.
So far as I can ascertain, no one saw her take a man into the house with her last night.

I may add that no possible clew exists. Arrests of innocent persons are being made, as before, and the oddest and most improbable stories are being started by reporters in sensational papers. The police are said to be reticent.
The man with whom the victim had been recently living could not recognise her, but, of course, the surroundings, clothes, &c., identify her.
She leaves a natural son, aged ten, who was absent with a neighbor last night and knows nothing of the occurrence.
I visited the place again after dark tonight. The streets had become empty and silent.
I then visited the West End, filled with illuminations in honor of the Prince's birthday. Pall Mall, St. James's, Piccadilly, were bright with gas and filled with merriment. A strange contrast!
I met an American tourist homeward bound tonight.
"After this," said he, "I shall never grumble at any error of our New York police. It may not be perfect, but in acumen and for the security of our life the Mulberry Street heads deserve our respect."

Hi Sam,

The Star, 10th November 1888—

"He [Barnett] knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her, except that his brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her. He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half.

"He saw the body by peeping through the window."

Regards,

Simon

Other than the fact the day she is seen with Daniel Barnett isnt correct..it was the Tuesday or Wednesday Night wasnt it?...that sounds like a reasonable, not "fluffed up" piece to me Simon....I assume you agree. And I do believe they would have sought him out during the day....perhaps they started as early as 11:30 to look for him.

For the sake of argument....for the moment, lets say they found him, and the article is essentially correct about that detail. The only way he would see her eyes, if Sam has accurately estimated the issues with the photograph not revealing the eye details with Mary as is, is by having them either place the skin and flesh out the the way for him, or he just views her like we see her in MJK1. Depending on what time he is there doing that, he might even have been restricted from entering the room....if he arrived there before 1:30pm.....2 hours after the court is sealed.

If his ID was from the window with Mary as is in MJK1, that is one suspect ID. And I believe this point is a new one....bravo Simon.

All the best.

[Christine]

Thanks harry

I found your other post. My guess is that it was an error for "Tumble down bed." I did some internet searching and found lots of tumble down chairs, beds, and tables, but no tumble downs (outside of sports). Since there was, in fact, a tumble down bed in the room, the Gleaner's sentence makes more sense if someone just dropped the word bed.

[harry]

Christine,
The 'Tumble Down' was described as such,as I have entered on another thread,and was an article stated to have been in the room.Possibly a slang expression.
Regards.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

The Star, 10th November 1888—

"He [Barnett] knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her, except that his brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her. He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half.

"He saw the body by peeping through the window."

Regards,

Simon

A last thought.....just because I dont know what they would likely have done doesnt mean that we have no sources available to answer that ,

If Stewart is still following this, might you know whether procedurally they would be inclined to get an identification before moving the body? If not Stewart, perhaps anyone with an depth knowledge of procedures during that period?

Thanks very much for any help in advance, best regards.

Mike - all I can suggest is that the next time you read of an horrific road accident, just let me know if they haul in the next of kin to put a name to the deceased while its pulped and battered corpse still lies in the road.

Thats a a fair point. However this isnt a road accident, its a locked down courtyard, and in this case we dont need police to first be checking car registration numbers or drivers licenses to track a next of kin to identify the victim. And in that case, its not a crime scene yet......and it may not be considered one until an investigation concludes weeks or months later.

They were summoned to a specific room by a man who was sent to collect some rent if possible and her landlord, both obviously knew her well. Then they also knew Barnett, and I wouldn't be surprised if McCarthy knew where Barnett moved to. Since the police dont have to start with "And who lives here?...they are brought there by the landlord....the next logical question is "who can we speak with that knew the woman well?"....since it will take an identification to turn that horror into a real person... because the body in the bed looks surreal.

They know who the room is registered to, and that it was a young woman with red hair. Do they move her before they had a witness state they thought it was Mary? Wouldnt the best witness that could answer that be summoned? They didnt move her until around 4:30....thats 5 hours they had the courtyard closed. Since the news ended Mayors Day in the early afternoon, in fact maybe shortly after noon If I recall correctly.... would Barnett be able to avoid hearing about it anyway?

I just dont know......and respectfully neither do you comrade.

Bon soir Gareth...catch you soon.

[Sam Flynn]

I cant see him not being brought there...press account or not.

Mike - all I can suggest is that the next time you read of an horrific road accident, just let me know if they haul in the next of kin to put a name to the deceased while its pulped and battered corpse still lies in the road.

I'd really like to see it, Mike. I can't see how anyone could have noted the details of eyes or ears of a mangled corpse lying in a gloomy room from the distance of some 10 feet away, through a hole in a window - still less how any such identification would have passed muster in any formal sense.

Besides, I still think I'm right in saying that there was no report of Barnett making that ID at the window - or, if memory serves me right, any record of his even being on the scene to take a peep at the corpse.

Im no less surprised to imagine the account as suggested in Simons piece...but maybe what we imagine took place wasnt precisely what did take place. For example, you say you dont recall an account of him being brought to the scene...I dont offhand either, but why would they not have him ID the corpse as is before moving the body? Why would he not be summoned there? Who knew Mary Jane better than Joe Barnett? Who would the first person they would seek out be?

I cant see him not being brought there...press account or not.


edited to add......I believe its around 4:30 or 5 when they bring the cart and wooden case for Mary....can you imagine them knowing that the victim was living with Joe Barnett up until just over a week earlier, and not sending men to find him immediately?

Cheers Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

It doesn't address how an ID that included eyes was staged...

The rest of my explanation does, though, Mike - namely that a formal ID was likely carried out later, after the features had been made to look somewhat less minced and occluded than they were at the crime scene itself.

A haunting image of a beautiful young woman to be sure....the face that was Mary Janes?....who knows. My point has always been that to use features as a means of identification, one must be able to see the features.

In the photo Stewart posted, see if you see sockets or orbs. Sam's suggestion of skin flaps is reasonable and logical to explain the photo. It doesn't address how an ID that included eyes was staged...and by some supporting documentation from Simon, we have reason to suspect the ID was not as personal as we might have imagined.

In all the recreations Ive seen done, yours is the most striking I have to say, no...more like disturbing.....but Im still more curious about the means of gathering the verifications, than I am about how she looked in life.

All the best John.

[Sam Flynn]

I have to say the resultant picture, I found somewhat disturbing!

Not half as disturbing as the unmerged picture, JC.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I said something similar to Simon when he suggested it....I couldnt believe that they would accept that kind of ID...then he produced a source.

I'd really like to see it, Mike. I can't see how anyone could have noted the details of eyes or ears of a mangled corpse lying in a gloomy room from the distance of some 10 feet away, through a hole in a window - still less how any such identification would have passed muster in any formal sense.

Besides, I still think I'm right in saying that there was no report of Barnett making that ID at the window - or, if memory serves me right, any record of his even being on the scene to take a peep at the corpse.

[John Casey]

Mary's Face

Earlier on in this thread somebody posted a picture of MJ with a comparison face, side by side. I decided to merge the two just to see if there were any possible/likely points of corrolation. I leave you all to be the judge, but I have to say the resultant picture, I found somewhat disturbing!