Maxwell's Gal

[QUOTE=Chava;64437

Now I'm no doctor, but I've been sick a few times in my life. You don't just bring up one thing and not another, if you see what I mean. When you barf, you bring up anything hanging around. Including the remains of fish and chips. But the fish and chips were still in the stomach when the body was found. Either she felt better immediately and ran off for a nice greasy smelly fish and chip breakfast and digested it at warp speed, or this whole incident didn't take place when Maxwell thought it did.[/QUOTE]

Hey Chava,

Its one of the "medical" factors I refer to when addressing Maxwell's remarks.....that and the state of rigor mentioned when they entered the room. Funny that people who back Maxwell dont see a vomiting victim at 8am as problematic.

I believe her and Blotchy shared dinner in her room. I just dont see her killer bringing in some take-out that night myself.

Cheers Chava

[Simon Wood]

I was not codding dear old Boss . . .

[Sam Flynn]

Jack the chipper?

[Chava]

That fish supper may well prove Maxwell's statement wrong. According to Maxwell, Kelly says 'Oh Carrie I do feel so bad!' Maxwell then goes on to testify:

She said, "I've had a glass of beer, and I've brought it up again"; and it was in the road.

Now I'm no doctor, but I've been sick a few times in my life. You don't just bring up one thing and not another, if you see what I mean. When you barf, you bring up anything hanging around. Including the remains of fish and chips. But the fish and chips were still in the stomach when the body was found. Either she felt better immediately and ran off for a nice greasy smelly fish and chip breakfast and digested it at warp speed, or this whole incident didn't take place when Maxwell thought it did.

[Jon Guy]

We know from the Tabram case (statement of Elizabeth Mahoney) that there was a shop in Thrawl Street that sold fish and chips until about 2AM. Oddly enough, [you-know-who] says he saw Mary Kelly head towards Thrawl street, where she met a mysterious man proceeding from the direction of Thrawl Street at (oo-er!) about 2AM on the morning of her death.

To add to Sam`s example, Isaac Lewis Jacobs was stopped by P.C. Andrews at 12.50 am, following the discovery of Alice McKenzie`s body, walking to McCarthy`s in Dorset St with a plate in his hand to buy his supper.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

I have a question for the experts on the board: what time did the fish and chip shops open in the morning? Did they open as early as this?

We know from the Tabram case (statement of Elizabeth Mahoney) that there was a shop in Thrawl Street that sold fish and chips until about 2AM. Oddly enough, [you-know-who] says he saw Mary Kelly head towards Thrawl street, where she met a mysterious man proceeding from the direction of Thrawl Street at (oo-er!) about 2AM on the morning of her death.

Before anyone asks, it was NOT customary to wrap fish'n'chips in American cloth

Hi Michael,

Barnett peeping through the window is the best we have.

There is an account in the Pall Mall Gazette, 12th November, of the jury visiting the mortuary to view the body—

" . . . There, in a coarse wooden shell lay the body the Ripper's latest victim. Only her face was visible: the hideous and disembowelled trunk was concealed by the dirty grey cloth, which had probably served to cover many a corpse. The face resembled one of those horrible was anatomical specimens which may be seen in surgical shops. The eyes were the only vestiges of humanity, the rest was so scored and slashed that it was impossible to say where the flesh began and the cuts ended . . ."

But despite this advice from The Coroners Rules 1887 . . .

[ATTACH]4407[/ATTACH]

. . . there was no mention of Barnett at the mortuary.

I think the Globe [Canada] 13th November came closest to the truth—

"The man with whom the victim has been recently living could not really recognize her, but of course the surroundings, clothes, etc., identify her."

Identification by association.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

That is really surprising considering he is the witness who would best be able to identify her. There is no way he could tell if the corpse was even roughly the same height as Mary Jane, let alone that it was certainly her 'ear/hair and eyes.

Not surprised the Globe may have been a more realistic source...very solid reporting reputation since its inception.

Ive vacillated back and forth on Millers Court issues...whether this situation smells sort of bad or really bad... issues like this one are put through the filter and come out in the "really" category quite often. Based on that premise, one wonders why Carrie Maxwell seemingly didnt get any support...because an ID by Barnett peeking through the window is hardly a definitive.

They had the courtyard locked up within 45 minutes of Bowyer finding Mary....and sometime between then and 1:30am, when the official entrance is made, Barnett is brought to the courtyard. They then make him view her through the window? The guy that is one of very few men that knows the spring latch can be accessed by the lower broken pane?

There should be vaudeville type piano playing in the background when reading some of these details of Nov 9th...and speed reading should be employed to gain the full effect.

Cheers Mate, all the best.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

Barnett peeping through the window is the best we have.

There is an account in the Pall Mall Gazette, 12th November, of the jury visiting the mortuary to view the body—

" . . . There, in a coarse wooden shell lay the body the Ripper's latest victim. Only her face was visible: the hideous and disembowelled trunk was concealed by the dirty grey cloth, which had probably served to cover many a corpse. The face resembled one of those horrible was anatomical specimens which may be seen in surgical shops. The eyes were the only vestiges of humanity, the rest was so scored and slashed that it was impossible to say where the flesh began and the cuts ended . . ."

But despite this advice from The Coroners Rules 1887 . . .



. . . there was no mention of Barnett at the mortuary.

I think the Globe [Canada] 13th November came closest to the truth—

"The man with whom the victim has been recently living could not really recognize her, but of course the surroundings, clothes, etc., identify her."

Identification by association.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

what time did the fish and chip shops open in the morning? Did they open as early as this? Because Kelly had the remains of a fish supper in her stomach and it wasn't a particularly recent fish supper...

Hi Chava,

Don't know, but that's a good question as relates to Maxwell.

Bill Beadle proposes the morning murder scenario in his book and in an article here on the site. He reasons that rigor was starting when the docs examined the body. And he thinks the food in her stomach was breakfast.

Roy

Hi All,

Barnett Interview in The Star, 10th November 1888—

"He [Barnett] 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

Please tell me that it wasnt from that vantage point that his accepted ID takes place Simon...please. In real terms, no better a view of her than we have...only in "dead" color.

To use her head only for the ID seems an awfully thin measurement to me.

Best regards Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Barnett Interview in The Star, 10th November 1888—

"He [Barnett] 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

[Chava]

That's an excellent point! The others were all around the 5' mark except (possibly) Long Liz, and I believe that the average height of a woman then was around 5'2".

I have a question for the experts on the board: what time did the fish and chip shops open in the morning? Did they open as early as this? Because Kelly had the remains of a fish supper in her stomach and it wasn't a particularly recent fish supper...

[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

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

[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