MJK photo 4 enhanced

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

Did they ever even try to think about stitching together MJK's face?!

All the best
Jukka

[Malcolm X]

Hello Sam!

Did they ever even try to think about stitching together MJK's face?!

All the best
Jukka

dont know, i dont think they stitched her face back up.... JOE BARNETT recognised Kelly by her hair/ eye colour only .... her face would've been far too mangled to rebuild... maybe be able to do it nowadays

i've always wondered what she looked like, JANE CORAM would be the best to illustrate her face around here, great artist

[Suzi]

No point in getting the needle and thread out for Mary I'd say- anyway Janey has given us a GREAT Mary!

Reckon they'd have sort of flattened it down and covered her with a sheet- leaving the hair and ears exposed of course for identification purposes! LOL

[Sam Flynn]

Did they ever even try to think about stitching together MJK's face?

They might well have done, Jukka. I know her facial mutilations were severe, but they were - one hesitates to use the word - "only" cuts after all, perhaps only twice as numerous as those sustained by Catherine Eddowes. It wouldn't have been beyond the capabilities of a Victorian doctor to at least patch her up as best he could.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jukka,

On 12th November 1888 a Pall Mall Gazette reporter went with the jury to see the Millers Court victim in the Shoreditch mortuary. He wrote—

"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 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. And yet it was no means a horrible sight. I have seen bodies in the Paris Morgue which looked far more repulsive."

Regards,

Simon

[Nothing to see]

High five the docs who stitched up Cathy. And the photogs who took her before and after photos.

OK. Why wasn't this done for Kelly?

[Fisherman]

To begin with, NTS, we donīt know what was done for Kelly. She may well have been stitched up.
The main reason for the differences, though, probably lie in the fact that we are dealing with different police forces - Eddowes was the only victim on City Police territory, and they apparently were a bit ahead of their colleagues in the Met when it came to using photos for forensic purposes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

I agree with what you say. But Barnett could only id her because of her eyes.
So, that means he must have seen her pre any stitching or fixing her up. I have a prob thinking he was taken to Miller's CT and asked to ID her there.

It's an interesting qn. There must, I think, be photos taken of her after she was stitched up. If it was done for Eddowes, then why not for Kelly. No, I don't buy that the City police were smarter and had more resources. For a crime this important, they must have dropped their differences.

Anyway, IMO.

[Fisherman]

NTS writes:

"There must, I think, be photos taken of her after she was stitched up"

and

"I don't buy that the City police were smarter and had more resources. For a crime this important, they must have dropped their differences."

Well, NTS, I donīt have to sell it - history has taken care of that part for me. All of the other Ripper victims - up to Eddowes - were photographed for one reason only; to enable an identification. It was standard procedure, and the pictures were publically displayed, hoping for tips. The damage done to these victims, though, was NOT depicted, since the Met had not realized that there were forensic benefits to be made.

This, however, was something the City knew, and that is why Eddowes was photographed, as well as drawn in situ - all for forensic purposes.

Whether Kelly was photographed after having been sewn up (if that she was), Iīm not sure. She had already been identified, and whatever the doctors came up with would have had very small likeness to the real Mary. And the forensic evidence had been secured already - by now, the Met had started to catch up on the Citys ideas and that is why we DO have in situ pics of Mary.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

NTS writes:

"There must, I think, be photos taken of her after she was stitched up"

and

"I don't buy that the City police were smarter and had more resources. For a crime this important, they must have dropped their differences."

Well, NTS, I donīt have to sell it - history has taken care of that part for me. All of the other Ripper victims - up to Eddowes - were photographed for one reason only; to enable an identification. It was standard procedure, and the pictures were publically displayed, hoping for tips. The damage done to these victims, though, was NOT depicted, since the Met had not realized that there were forensic benefits to be made.
This, however, was something the City knew, and that is why Eddowes was photographed, as well as drawn in situ - all for forensic purposes.

Whether Kelly was photographed after having been sewn up (if that she was), Iīm not sure. She had already been identified, and whatever the doctors came up with would have had very small likeness to the real Mary. And the forensic evidence had been secured already - by now, the Met had started to catch up on the Citys ideas and that is why we DO have in situ pics of Mary.
The best,
Fisherman

O Kay. You think the Met were too stupid before Eddowes but the City weren't. Then the Met became as smart as the City after Kelly but didn't have after photos taken.

[Fisherman]

Youre not just there, Iīm afraid; thing is, the Met DID take the in situ pics of Kelly that were not afforded Tabram, Nichols and Chapman (or Stride, for that matter).
And there is a chance that they added pics of a sewn up Kelly to it afterwards - we donīt know.

The evidence speaks for itself, NTS. The Met were not stupid - they were just lagging behind somewhat,

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

O Kay. You think the Met were too stupid before Eddowes but the City weren't. Then the Met became as smart as the City after Kelly but didn't have after photos taken.

No. I don't usually quote myself but you're very slippery in that regard.

And I don't agree with you.

[Fisherman]

Itīs not me you are disagreeing, with - it is accepted and documented history.

Itīs quite OK to disagree with me - I do it all the time myself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mitch Rowe]

Seems to me I read something about Phillips sewing MJK back together.

Perhaps the reason a photo wasnt taken was because she was identified.

If I were Phillips I couldnt resist putting the puzzle back together.

It would be good to study what the ripper had done in case he carved his
initials into her face or something so there may have been incentive by the police to also put the puzzle back together.

[perrymason]

To address the questions that are being put forth regarding the state of Marys corpse for viewing by the jurors and anyone else they may have shown her to once they had her removed from the room in Millers Court...they performed what is referred to as a "Volte Face", which is the complete re-construction of her remains. Its likely that the missing heart was confirmed at that point.

Her face could not be reconstructed and sewn back together as it wasnt removed in pieces like the rest of her was..it was scored and slashed...other than closing some of the slash wounds with stitches they couldnt make her face "human" looking again.

When did Barnett make his formal ID is a really good question I think....because if he made it in the room....one of the 2 features he uses to ID Mary were not visible at all as she lay in that bed....her eyes.

Best regards all.