Maxwell's Gal

[Chava]

Gee thanks, Chava. It might not be perfect, but Dick van Dyke I'm not. I lived in London for 11 years, so at least give me some credit. 'air and eyes .... ear and eyes ... are very similar in Sarf London speak, and you know it.

They may well be. But in East London Speak they aren't. I understand you lived in London for 11 years. I lived in London that long myself. Long enough to know that there are different variations of the dialect there. Norf London--where I lived--is different from Saarf Lunnen where you probably lived and is different again from Eas' Landen where my husband was born and brought up and that's probably because of the large communities of immigrants that lived there. So in Eas' Landen you've got slight glottal stops, and syllables where you might not expect them. As in 'ee'ah' for 'ear'. Are you aware, for example, that London Jews speak a distinct dialect of their own and you can tell the difference between London Jewish dialect and any of the indigenous London dialects?

Much like the Sarah Lewis "Great POWELL Street" transcription error, the "ear and eyes" conundrum stems from a single, fleeting sentence uttered during Barnett's inquest testimony, not his police interview

No it wasn't. Somewhere on the threads, but possibly before they crashed, this discussion came up and I, like you, thought it was a misreading of 'hair'. But it was Stewart Evans, I think, who posted the exact page of his statement that disproved that. Perhaps if he's around, he can clear this up. If it was just the inquest testimony, then I would agree with you, because I can't see him identifying her from her ear. But if it was the statement--and I believe it was--then I don't think we have grounds to believe this.

[Sam Flynn]

And one more thing: I would caution against taking the statement too literally as the only thing Barnett said in the interview. What we see is the final product of a lengthy discussion.

Much like the Sarah Lewis "Great POWELL Street" transcription error, the "ear and eyes" conundrum stems from a single, fleeting sentence uttered during Barnett's inquest testimony, not his police interview.

[Sam Flynn]

Well that's nice, Gareth. But are you a Londoner? Because you sound like a Scouser.

Gee thanks, Chava. It might not be perfect, but Dick van Dyke I'm not. I lived in London for 11 years, so at least give me some credit. 'air and eyes .... ear and eyes ... are very similar in Sarf London speak, and you know it.

[Chava]

And one more thing: I would caution against taking the statement too literally as the only thing Barnett said in the interview. What we see is the final product of a lengthy discussion. Stewart Evans and other cops and ex-cops on the board could give us insight into this.

[Dave O]

Perceptions

Hi Ben,

Yes indeed, Crawford made the suggestion, but that is all that it was. My point is that the actual decision was made by the jury and since they could have simply decided otherwise, the information was not withheld from them because they could have heard it had they wanted to.

Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.

The reason I bring this up at all is because we as a group tend to be mystery lovers who incline towards conspiracy. Open inquests with a jury and the press in attendance are poor venues for that sort of thing, and terms like suppressed and withheld have connotations that inaccurately shade our perceptions of events, whether or not they're intended to be used that way. I don't mean to pick on Michael or you, and I suppose some will think I'm nitpicking words, but it's worth a mention.

Cheers,
Dave

[Chava]

Well that's nice, Gareth. But are you a Londoner? Because you sound like a Scouser. That's how my dad spoke and that's why I said if this was Liverpool I'd agree with you entirely. But it's London. If you listen closely to a Londoner--and I just checked, my husband's an actual East Ender--the word 'ear' is pronounced much farther back in the mouth than the word 'hair' and the whole formation of the mouth is different with the different sounds.

[Sam Flynn]

True, and if this was a Liverpool murder I would put a lot of stock in that. But the difference between 'Pearl' and 'Powell' in London diction is negligible.

I rather think the true is the same of the difference between the Cockney "ear" and the Cockney "hair" if the aitch is dropped.

There's a recording I just knocked up at this link here, that compares the two.

[Chava]

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.

True, and if this was a Liverpool murder I would put a lot of stock in that. But the difference between 'Pearl' and 'Powell' in London diction is negligible. It's an almost undetectable modulated dipththong which in the former could be rendered "peawl" and in the latter could be rendered "poewl" where the 'w' is almost similar to a Welsh 'w'. However the difference between 'ear' and 'hair' is greater. The former is the duosyllable "ee'ah" and the latter is a monosyllable " 'aair". So I think the chance is good that Barrett did mean 'ear'.

[Sam Flynn]

I questioned 'ear' because I was certain it was actually 'hair'. However Stewart Evans or someone else with access to the statements posted the page in question, and the word 'ear' was clearly noted.

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.

[Chava]

Hi Michael. Cold innit

I questioned 'ear' because I was certain it was actually 'hair'. Her hair was apparently a very striking red-gold colour. However Stewart Evans or someone else with access to the statements posted the page in question, and the word 'ear' was clearly noted.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Crawford's request to withhold Lawende's description of the man he saw was odd, as it had appeared nine days earlier in The Times of 2nd October—

"The following is a description of a man seen in company with a woman who is supposed to be the victim of the murderer in the City. The man was observed in a court in Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square, about 1:40 a.m. on Sunday. He is described as of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak."

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hi Dave,

I think Mike probably meant "suppressed" in terms of it being withheld, not at the insistence of Crawford, as you note, but certainly on his suggestion:

"Unless the jury wish it, I have special reason for not giving details as to the appearance of this man"

Best regards,
Ben

[Dave O]

The jury

Just a word about Lawende--his description was not suppressed at the Eddowes inquest. Crawford put that to the jury's discretion, and they decided not to not have it in, I am sure out of deference to the City police. But a majority of the jury could just as easily have ignored Crawford and had Lawende testify in further detail, and there is not a thing that the police or coroner could have done about it without risking flushing the inquest down the toilet, along with the ratepayers' money that funded it. The jury's discretion was a check against the coroner's. For the coroner to refuse the jury access to evidence they wanted to hear without sufficient legal grounds would open the inquest to possible invalidation by the High Court, and if you look at the inquests that came up for High Court review in the 19th century, there is some point in each case where the Justices have to decide whether there was some sort of misconduct or error by the coroner that caused evidence to be incorrectly kept back from the jury. And if there was, then the Justices would quash the inquest and order the coroner to hold a new one. That is why in the Ripper inquests, you will sometimes see the coroner defer to the jury upon the evidence. The coroner and police just couldn't do whatever they wanted.

I think Barnett identified her by "ear" and eyes, whether he meant hair or ear isnt really clear.

But I know for myself, I cannot see an intact orb on Marys face, and since the eye is comprised mostly of fluid and covered by a very thin membrane, it can easily be ruptured, emptied and collapse.

Best regards Chava...yo to LI

[Chava]

But Barnett identified Mary by the shape of her ear. did he not? And even though the face was hurt beyond belief, there was still the hair, the height, the general appearance of the body.

There is disagreement as to what time she was killed, but I would suspect that the consistency of the pools of blood etc would lead the pathologists to discount the idea that she was killed within an hour of her body being found. Also the fire had died down considerably by then after having had a lot of extraneous things added to it much earlier. Feeding the fire suggests the need for heat and light. Letting it die down and then killing Kelly doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The need for light would still be there late into the morning at that time of year.

We're not privy to the decision to let Maxwell testify. However, given that she was firm in her identification and the time-line, I think on balance it's better to let her speak than not to call her and have conspiracy theories abound throughout the neighbourhood. She says her piece and can't sell an 'I was silenced' story to the newspapers.