Open or Closed-Probabilities

Well an ear and an eye,by themselves,might even today be seen as a little inadequate in establishing an identity,(DNA excluded)unless there was something extraordinary about either one.Not that I am questioning that the body was that of Kelly,though that question has been raised by others.There was the fact of the body being found in her room,and of her entering same about midnight,that might well have led some witnesses to be hasty in their judgement,perhaps even Barnett.What else of her body might readily have resembled the live Kelly,appears difficult to understand,judging from the photographs.
The main problem I have is understanding why it was that Hutchinson was asked to identify the remains,or if it was a request by him,why was that request granted.
It cannot have been to,as Richard says,identify her as the female he had seen in Commercial Street the night of the murder.That identification had been based on his alledged association over a period of time,and had been communicated to Aberline in person on the Monday evening.I see no value whatsoever in Hutchinson viewing the body on the Tuesday,but someone for some reason wished it that way.

How difficult would it be... based on Hutchinson being eventually discredited... to imagine that he saw a woman and said it was Mary to corroborate his own tale that he knew her prior to that evening...or at all?

"Yep...thats her".

Best regards Harry

[harry]

Well an ear and an eye,by themselves,might even today be seen as a little inadequate in establishing an identity,(DNA excluded)unless there was something extraordinary about either one.Not that I am questioning that the body was that of Kelly,though that question has been raised by others.There was the fact of the body being found in her room,and of her entering same about midnight,that might well have led some witnesses to be hasty in their judgement,perhaps even Barnett.What else of her body might readily have resembled the live Kelly,appears difficult to understand,judging from the photographs.
The main problem I have is understanding why it was that Hutchinson was asked to identify the remains,or if it was a request by him,why was that request granted.
It cannot have been to,as Richard says,identify her as the female he had seen in Commercial Street the night of the murder.That identification had been based on his alledged association over a period of time,and had been communicated to Aberline in person on the Monday evening.I see no value whatsoever in Hutchinson viewing the body on the Tuesday,but someone for some reason wished it that way.

What we do not KNOW though Sam is where and when the ID of Mary by Barnett occurred. We can surmise and logically assume, but the fact that what we see in MJK1 includes far more of Mary than her 'air and eyes.....and in fact, her eyes are not visible....says to me anyway that he wasnt brought there.

So he ID'd her outside of the room likely. Covered excluding the face....or on a morgue table do you think?

Its apparently very little that is used by a live in lover to say he believed it was indeed Mary.

Best regards Gareth

Mcarthy,Barnett,and Maria Harvey,can be reasonably expected to have been persons that had been close to Kelly,so their presence to identify the body should be no surprise.Hutchinson states only a casual aquaintance to the deceased,so I wonder if his inclusion might mean that the police knew or suspected more of an association than was ever divulged.

Hi Harry,

I think what they had with Hutchinsons story was a reason to suspect that he was Lewis's Wideawake Hat Man, and my suspicion is that the Wideawake sighting may have been indicative to them of a lookout as well as a suspect....and in the case of Mary Janes death, the offer of a Pardon and the senior authority comments that refer to the Pardon for Accomplices suggests that the police believed that there was evidence that suggested more than one man was involved,...even if after the fact.

At the time Sarah saw him, Blotchy could have been killing Mary in her room and Hutch could have been the lookout...since we do have what amounts to be a single narrow tunnel to get into the yard, and no evidence that confirms Blotchy left when the lights went out.

All the best Harry

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Harry.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Hutchinson viewed Mary Jane’s remains at approximately ten o’clock on the morning of Tuesday, 13 November. Coincidentally, within hours, and despite Abberline’s official memo of the previous evening, murmurs of official mistrust concerning Hutchinson’s stated version of events first surfaced in a piece carried by the Echo. Two days later, similar inferences were expressed by the Star.

Hi Richard.

Like you, I am bewildered at the possibility of a police failure to facilitate Carrie Maxwell’s viewing of Mary Jane’s remains. But if it occurred, the official documentation has been lost and it appears to have passed under the press radar.

Unlike you, however, I’m inclined to the belief that Maxwell’s Kelly sighting(s) was a case of mistaken identity, anyway. Bear in mind that, uniquely, Maxwell referred to Kelly as having been afflicted with a speech impediment. And she, like Maurice Lewis, also described her as being somewhat short and plump – an observation that is borne out by neither the crime scene photographs nor any of those who really knew her.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

Even Barnett seems to have had some difficulty at identification.

I'm glad you said "seems", Harry - because there's nothing on record that states that Barnett had any trouble identifying her remains. In fact, I think it was McCarthy who said that he had no doubt that it was Mary Kelly whom he saw lying there. If the landlord didn't have any difficulty in identifying her, then her boyfriend certainly wouldn't have either. The "ear and eyes" bit is, I'm sure, a mere formality on Barnett's behalf. I can well imagine this sort of discussion at the mortuary...

Barnett: Yes, it is her - I've no doubt whatsoever. I'd know her anywhere.

Official: I understand, sir, but we will need something more definite for the records, you know.

Barnett: But there's so little left! It is her, though... poor Marie!

Official: Please don't upset yourself, Mr Barnett. But, sir, if you can name one or two identifiable features, just for the record.

Barnett: I can't bear to look, but if I must...

[richardnunweek]

Hello Garry,
I agree no report exists about Maxwell having viewed the body, but of course that does nor mean she wasnt.
I find it unexceptable even in policing methods of 1888, that a person claiming that she spoke to a person that had been dead for four hours or more, and was therefore ordered to appear at the inquest, would not have been given every chance to alter her mind,by at least viewing the stiched up remains of Kellys face, and also be shown the clothing from room 13 for further identification.
If neither of those procedures took place, it would be unbelievable.
If one or both had taken place then we have I feel a choice of three scenerios.
a] Maxwell made a very strange mistake.
b] The body was not of Mjk.
c] Kelly was killed around 9am.
In the case of [a] taking everything into account, I would find a mistake unlikely, either in identification, or date.
In the case of [b] I would find that almost a non starter.
That leaves us with [c] which like it or not everyone, would explain away a lot of so called'Facts' we have inherited over all these years.
Best regards
Richard.

[harry]

There was unquestionaly a difference in Mary Kelly alive,and the body on the mortuary slab.Even Barnett seems to have had some difficulty at identification.At the earliest,Hutchinson would not have attended untill the Tuesday,after identification had been established to the satisfaction of the authorities.Of course,the last person to have seen her prior to the discovery of the body,would be able to identify the remains.Maybe Aberline was not so convinced about Hutchinson,as his reports would suggest.Pity we do not have Hutchinson's comments on viewing the body.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi CD.

Many thanks for your kind remarks. I’m pleased to have been of help.

Hi Harry.

Let us not forget that Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for some three years. Indeed, the contention that he had ‘been in her company’ on many occasions and sometimes ‘gave her a few shillings’ would certainly imply that he numbered among her clientele, possibly even her drinking companions. But then, nothing in the way of tangible evidence has ever been unearthed to substantiate Hutchinson’s Kelly-related claims.

Hi Richard.

Your point about Carrie Maxwell is extremely pertinent. In all of the years I actively researched the case, I never came across a single reference to suggest that Maxwell was taken to view the body, either in an official capacity or otherwise. Given the contradictory nature of her testimony, one would assume that the police would have sought clarification as a matter of urgency. But apparently not. Unless, of course, it simply went unreported.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Harry.
I would imagine the reason why the police wanted Hutchinson to view the body, was to confirm that the deseased, was indeed the person he claimed to have seen , and spoken to during the early hours of the 9th , and for no other suspicion.
The same would apply to Mrs Maxwell, it would have been pointless having her attend the inquest, if there was a chance she had sighted the wrong person, she most certainly would have been escorted to view the body especially as her statement was contary to medical reports.
They would have given her every chance to admit she was mistaken, but that she did not...
Regards Richard.

[harry]

Mcarthy,Barnett,and Maria Harvey,can be reasonably expected to have been persons that had been close to Kelly,so their presence to identify the body should be no surprise.Hutchinson states only a casual aquaintance to the deceased,so I wonder if his inclusion might mean that the police knew or suspected more of an association than was ever divulged.

[c.d.]

Hi Garry,

Thanks for that. And while I am at it, let me compliment you on your excellent writing style. Your posts are always clear and concise and your reasoning top notch.

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi CD.

Hutchinson presented himself at Commercial Street Police Station at approximately six o’clock on 12 November – within hours, in fact, of the conclusion of the Kelly inquest hearing. Having made his now infamous police statement, he went accompanied by two detectives on a near all-night trawl of the Whitechapel district in search of the Jewish-looking toff he had implicated under interview. The following morning he again met with detectives and was taken to the mortuary where he identified the body.

In terms of the sources, many newspapers reported on Hutchinson’s mortuary visit, and Abberline noted that it had been scheduled in a memo dated 12 November.

McCarthy, Barnett and Maria Harvey were also taken by police to the mortuary, and it was implied that Elizabeth Phoenix and possibly one other woman brought the total to six positive identifications.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[c.d.]

Hi Garry,

I had never heard that Hutchinson identified the body. What is the source of that?

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

My contention wasn’t that the killer preferred indoor sites, Mike. It was that Mary Jane’s room accorded him the time and privacy that were denied to him by the outdoor venues. Indeed, given that the room had only one point of entry, it could be argued that, of all the murder sites, this was the one that presented the greatest risk of capture for the killer. Hence it may have been the case that, if only in context of risk and reward, he actually favoured the escape options provided by the outdoor stalking grounds.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.