Maxwell's Gal

I remembered a story from my own past Sam that illustrates what I mean. When I was a teenager a buddy and I from our Golf Club qualified to play in a provincial event, out of town.

We shared a hotel for the event and when my buddy who had nappy hair, even an Afro one might say...he's Italian...go figure,.. when he came out after a shower his hair was dead straight and halfway down his back. When dry, it didnt reach his collar. My guess is that almost no-one who knew him well and hadnt see that metamorphosis would recognize him.

What we see of Marys hair looks almost quaffed, and I believe that may be a result of it being pushed upwards as her head rested on the breast/uterus/pillow. I wonder if even in life if her hair had that bouffant quality.

Cheers Sam

Hi Mike - re. blood-soaked and wet looking... If Kelly's hair was that distinctive, as some witnesses suggest, then it might not have been that difficult to identify. Note, for one thing, that the photograph shows that her hairline was preserved largely intact. If her hair were indeed waist-long, or braided in a certain way, then that, too, would have helped the identification.

Hi Sam,

Not knowing specifically what was down her back, unseen by the photograph, is a hindrance to the answer ...but I dont see us getting that shot anytime soon.

I suppose my premise is that Marys hair was so recognizable because it was red, worn out and waist length...not the norm with bonnets in abundance, (a rim even in her fire's ashes),....and a supposition on my part that because she wore it out..not specified as braided but rather "loose" so often,... it may have been washed more often. I feel her hair trademark is tied in with those aspects, rather than a specific style, cut or color. And we only know few details from the photo, its hard to imagine it carrying the same impact if not seen as I mentioned above.

Cheers Gareth, all the best.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike - re. blood-soaked and wet looking... If Kelly's hair was that distinctive, as some witnesses suggest, then it might not have been that difficult to identify. Note, for one thing, that the photograph shows that her hairline was preserved largely intact. If her hair were indeed waist-long, or braided in a certain way, then that, too, would have helped the identification.

For myself the question of 'air and eyes, 'ear and eyes seems addressed, and in context her hair would be difficult to assess without moving the corpse, and it would be blood soaked and wet looking. Not as recognizable as when she was in her glory, hair washed and worn out.

Is it relevant then, that the killer cuts some of at least one ear off? I recall that there was specific mention of ear damage, and considering its likely that she had recognizable ears by the past posts, is this a meaningless or attempted identity theft maneuver? Like the facial slashes are possibly.

Best regards all.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Roy!

Here is one detail from the Victims introduction on this site:

"...Mary Jane Kelly was approximately 25 years old at the time of her death which would place her birth around 1863. She was 5' 7" tall and stout. She had blonde hair, blue eyes and a fair complexion. "Said to have been possessed of considerable personal attractions." (McNaughten)"

All the best
Jukka

[Roy Corduroy]

Tailor named Lewis

A tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock yesterday morning and go back.

Times Nov 10

Maurice Lewis, a tailor, living in Dorset-street, stated that he had known the deceased woman for the last five years. Her name was Mary Jane Kelly. She was short, stout, and dark; and stood about five feet three inches. He saw her on the previous (Thursday) night, betwen ten and eleven, at the Horn of Plenty in Dorset-street. She was drinking with some woman and also with "Dan," a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago. He knew her as a woman of the town. One of the woman whom he saw with her was known as Julia. To his knowledge she went home overnight with a man. He seemed to be respectably dressed. Whether or no the man remained all night he could not say. Soon after ten o'clock in the morning he was playing with others at pitch and toss in M'Carthy's-cour, when he heard a lad call out "Copper," and he and his companions rushed away and entered a beer-house at the corner of Dorset- street, known as Ringer's. He was positive than on going in he saw Mary Jane Kelly drinking with some other people, but is not certain whether there was a man amongst them. He went home to Dorset-street on leaving the house, and about half an hour afterwards heard that Kelly had been found in her room murdered. It would then be close upon eleven o'clock.

Illustrated Police News Nov 17

[Chava]

Thank you Stewart! I knew I could depend on you!

[Sam Flynn]

The press reports refer to 'ears' and Robinson adds the fact that there was a peculiarity of her ears which would explain why they were mentioned.

The latter (despite the "Bennett" gaffe) is arguably the most compelling support for the "ear and eyes" interpretation, as the additional detail has a ring of authenticity - assuming he wasn't rationalising in order to fill any gaps in his memory.

I'm really not too precious about this specific point, by the way - as far as I'm concerned, it's enough that Barnett was able to identify the body.

[Sam Flynn]

This statement of Lewis is included in the inquest papers.

Correct, but it was taken on the 9th, and not at the inquest. Presumably that statement was written by a policeman familiar with the local patois, not to mention the local streets. In contrast, perhaps, to the inquest scribe at Shoreditch.

[Stewart P Evans]

What?

Thanks, Stewart. I'm not surprised that Lewis's police statement of the 9th November came out correct. It's her inquest testimony (on the 12th November) in which the mis-hearing of "Powell" for "Pearl" occurs.

The press reports refer to 'ears' and Robinson adds the fact that there was a peculiarity of her ears which would explain why they were mentioned. This statement of Lewis's is included in the inquest papers.

[Sam Flynn]

Extracts from Barnett's inquest statement and Tom Robinson's (a contemporary journalist) account in his 1920s publication -

[ATTACH]4378[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]4379[/ATTACH]

Thanks again, Stewart. I note, however, that Tom Robinson calls Barnett "Bennett" - which doesn't inspire much confidence - and presumably the chap who took down Barnett's utterances was the same as he who made the "Great Powell Street" mistake.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Stewart. I'm not surprised that Lewis's police statement of the 9th November came out correct. It's her inquest testimony (on the 12th November) in which the mis-hearing of "Powell" for "Pearl" occurs.

[Stewart P Evans]

Joseph Barnett

Extracts from Barnett's inquest statement and Tom Robinson's (a contemporary journalist) account in his 1920s publication -

[Stewart P Evans]

Sarah Lewis

I wouldn't read too much into that, Chava. It was clearly noted that Sarah Lewis lived in "Great POWELL Street", when she in fact lived in Great PEARL Street. It appears that not all the contemporary officials had had much exposure to the nuances of working-class Cockney speech, which is hardly surprising considering the social strata in which they moved, and into which the majority of them were born.

Extract from Sarah Lewis's inquest statement, 9 November 1888 -

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

How Prince Charles greets lesser mortals—

1. What we breathe.

2. What grows on our heads.

3. Where wild animals live.

Put them together and you get—

"Air, Hair, Lair."

Regards,

Simon