Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Sam Flynn]

I have to say I still find it curious that there were intact eyes to identify Mary by....I cant see any in the pictures myself.

... possibly because sheets of flesh sliced from the temples and the eyebrows had flopped forward and covered them, Mike.

[perrymason]

... possibly because sheets of flesh sliced from the temples and the eyebrows had flopped forward and covered them, Mike.

That would explain the photo Sam, but not how he ID'd the eyes. Did they lift that flesh back off her face? According to Simon's evidence, the identification he made was from the window. If so, its a puzzle how he id'd her eyes... unless the police were inside the room adjusting that flesh.

I know by the time she had been the recipient of a "Volte Face", the jurors could see her eyes then.

Cheers mate.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Nice thinking.

Barnett—

"I identified her by [lifting up flaps of skin which had fallen down over her] eyes, and her ear [which I couldn't see peeping through the broken window because that bloody bolster was in the way]."

Regards,

Simon

[Christine]

A little bit of information,taken from the Jamaican Gleaner newspaper of November 1888,describes an article in the room as being a 'Tumble Down'.Might that be some sort of a bolster.What is a 'Tumble Down'?

Greetings, harry

Are you sure you're reading this right? Tumble-down is an adjective, meaning ramshackle or falling apart. The whole house was tumble-down.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Simon (and Mike)

Nice thinking.

Barnett— "I identified her by [lifting up flaps of skin which had fallen down over her] eyes, and her ear [which I couldn't see peeping through the broken window because that bloody bolster was in the way]."

Proper thinking...

"I identified her by the ear and eyes during a formal identification at the mortuary [after they'd replaced much of the flesh, cleaned and/or sewn up her wounds]".

Remember that nowhere is it stated that Barnett ID'ed Kelly by peeping through the window. (Although I'd be delighted to see Simon's source on this point.) I doubt very much that the Law would have recognised an identification carried out under such circumstances.

[perrymason]

Hi Simon (and Mike)
Proper thinking...

"I identified her by the ear and eyes during a formal identification at the mortuary [after they'd replaced much of the flesh, cleaned and/or sewn up her wounds]".

Remember that nowhere is it stated that Barnett ID'ed Kelly by peeping through the window. (Although I'd be delighted to see Simon's source on this point.) I doubt very much that the Law would have recognised an identification carried out under such circumstances.

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.

If he did make his identification by having the police guide him round to the window, and they had her skin flaps set aside by a doctor or policeman for his view..then to me its almost like leading a witness. His eyes might be unable to see anything but blood and carnage, but his mind knew that he was looking through Marys window onto her bed, and at a dead woman with red hair like Marys.. Im not saying thats what this was...only that one would think he would have had access to view her privately, or at least in person.

Did he? I dont know the answer. I would have expected something like " Mr Barnett, were terribly sorry sir but we must ask you to come into the room and see if you can be certain of whom it is on the bed"...."I know its a difficult task sir, but we do need to ask it of you".

Cheers Sam

[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!

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

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

Not half as disturbing as the unmerged picture, JC.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[perrymason]

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.

[perrymason]

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.