Maxwell's Gal

[perrymason]

The one you missed was Joan Baez, by the way.

Good thing I didnt put my guess it was Senator John Kerry then. ....youre sure its not, right?

I do get your point Sam. Listen...Im agog that he mentions her eyes let alone anything else, I cant for the life of me make out eyes or sockets in any tangible way.

Cheers Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Mike - but let's not get too deep into "MJK Photograph" territory, eh...

[perrymason]

Ok, I wont...but here is Kerry.....Im still not so sure.

Cheers Gareth

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

Sorry, but I just couldn't help presenting the MJK forehead!

All the best
Jukka

[perrymason]

I do think that backs up what I suggested Jukka, that in her demeanor in death she likely bore little resemblance, hair and all, to the woman that Barnett slept beside.

In his own words only two characteristics of the entirety of Mary Kelly look familiar to him...that alone suggests she was almost completely unrecognizable...to her lover.

All the best J

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam!

Sorry, but I just couldn't help presenting the MJK forehead!

Thanks, Jukka, but it's the hairline that's potentially useful - as well as the length, colour etc. Here's a revised quiz:



... no prizes this time

[perrymason]

What, like there were prizes the first time round?

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

In his own words only two characteristics of the entirety of Mary Kelly look familiar to him...that alone suggests she was almost completely unrecognizable...to her lover.

He slept with her for 18 months, Mike - he'd have been familiar with more of her than the ear and eyes... or the hair, for that matter. Her feet, her hands, the small of her back, her teeth - all escaped the ministrations of the killer's knife. As if that weren't enough, and not to put too fine a point on it, Mary's venereal area had been separated from the body on a single floe of flesh.

Now, whether those were displayed to Barnett during the ID is another matter - they might well have just pulled back the sheet as far as her shoulders to spare him too much agony, although - God knows - that would've been harrowing enough.

[Sam Flynn]

What, like there were prizes the first time round?

Yes. Unfortunately, you failed the Baez Test, Mike

[perrymason]

He slept with her for 18 months, Mike - he'd have been familiar with more of her than the ear and eyes... or the hair, for that matter. Her feet, her hands, the small of her back, her teeth - all escaped the ministrations of the killer's knife. As if that weren't enough, and not to put too fine a point on it, Mary's venereal area had been separated from the body on a single floe of flesh.

Now, whether those were displayed to Barnett during the ID is another matter - they might well have just pulled back the sheet as far as her shoulders to spare him too much agony, although - God knows - that would've been harrowing enough.

I agree with you Sam...in that he would have known many inches of her well, and many werent hacked beyond recognition. Thats why I find his ID odd...as you say, was he only only shown her from the shoulders up? Even the Inquest jurors got to see her "re-engineered" as it were, with only her face exposed, did he get to see the body after they essentially re-built her?

If his main ID is from seeing her in the bed before she is transported, then he has ample opportunity to see uncut portions of her arms, legs, hands, feet, ...so why is his ID only of features above the neck?

Cheers Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

If his main ID is from seeing her in the bed before she is transported

I'm not sure whether a peep through the window as the Star reported (and only the Star, note) would have been classed as an "official" ID, Mike. One thing's for certain: neither her ears or eyes would have been visible from such a vantage-point, which suggests that a more formal identification happened later.

[Roy Corduroy]

Thats why I find his ID odd

Hi Michael,

I don't see anything odd about it in the least bit. It's one of the most un-odd things about the Kelly murder, that Joe Barnett ID'ed her. It makes perfect sense. For the most obvious reasons.

How it was said, what words were used, is simply a nicety. Much like the public was spared graphic medical testimony.

Roy

[Dave O]

Hi Gareth,

I would imagine that the police took Barnett to the mortuary to formally identify the body before the inquest. At the very least, he was likely with the jury when they had their view. This from Jervis:

The body need not actually be stripped for the view, although in some cases this is necessary to look for marks of violence. If possible, especially in criminal cases, some person who can identify the body should always accompany the jury to the place where the body lies. (p. 26)

Cheers,
Dave

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

I don't see anything odd about it in the least bit. It's one of the most un-odd things about the Kelly murder, that Joe Barnett ID'ed her. It makes perfect sense. For the most obvious reasons.

How it was said, what words were used, is simply a nicety. Much like the public was spared graphic medical testimony.

Roy

I dont find it odd either Roy, unless he ID'd her by viewing her body in its entirety.... because... if that was perhaps my wife or lover in that bed, I would look for features I could recognize from many parts of her visible in the MJK1 photo...her feet and toes, her calf, her hands, her skin itself..certainly her eyes if they were intact, or her hair "generally"..as in color and length...which we cant see in that photo.....her ears, if they had distinguishing features..

I dont see why he would only cite features from her head unless thats all he was given to see....and for some nagging reason, I would surmise he actually was made to look at all of her...he is after all the most important ID. For example, what if that head was on a body 6 inches shorter than Marys? In the absence of family I think they need to have that level of identification. And imagine if he does see her on a table, with her arms by her sides, legs straightened down..... as best as could be done....why would only her head catch his gaze?

Sorry about the graphics youre asked to visualize here, but theres no way around using the hard evidence...no matter how vile.

Best regards Roy

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Michael!

I am adding this time too the following point;

MJK was 5'7"(=170,28 cm), about the same height as an average man of the time!

So, this makes a mistaken identity very, very, very unlikely!

All the best
Jukka