Open or Closed-Probabilities

[Sam Flynn]

The points you raise are valid Edward, we do not know exactly how the identification of Mary Kelly was made by Barnett, or where or precisely when for that matter, and we can assume safely that McCarthy and Bowyer gave their IDs on the spot that morning.

No. There would have been formal ID procedures to follow - later, at the mortuary - and Barnett playing "peek-a-boo" at a window would not have been one of them.

The reason I dont think Barnett mad his ID in that room is becauise my bet is that they didnt move that body much or at all when they entered

...three days before the inquest. What on earth do you think they did before they took the corpse to the mortuary - encase it in concrete?

[Garry Wroe]

With the greatest of respect, Mike, I hardly think it subjective to propose that Mary Jane sustained defence wounds when those very injuries are clearly visible in the crime scene photographs and were described in some detail by Dr Bond. They may not fall neatly into a preconceived notion of the Ripper and his motivations, but they exist and must therefore be explained.

Likewise, the differences that you discern between the Kelly murder and the deaths of the previous victims are easily rationalized when one considers the reality that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were each killed outdoors at locations which provided limited scope for the killer to give full vent to his more sadistic urges. Kelly, on the other hand, was killed at an indoor venue which presented no such restriction. Given this opportunity, our man subjected Mary Jane to a level of destruction that had been impossible during the earlier murders. His motivations hadn’t changed, but the means to express them had.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Edward.

The medical evidence to which I referred in an earlier post relates to the estimated time of death based upon body temperature and the onset of rigor mortis calculated by doctors at the crime scene and subsequently. In addition, Dr Bond examined a quantity of food contained in Kelly’s stomach and posited a time of death based upon known digestive rates. (The flaw in Bond’s calculations, however, relates to the uncertainty of the time at which Kelly consumed her final meal.) According to the medical consensus, Mary Kelly had already been dead for several hours when witnesses claimed she was parading about Commercial Street.

As for Joe Barnett, he was taken by police to view Mary Jane’s body at the mortuary. Four or possibly five other people (among them George Hutchinson) underwent the same procedure. Each confirmed the body to have been that of Mary Jane Kelly.

Even today, identificational procedures occasionally rely on something other than facial recognition. The shape of hands and feet are often distinctive. When taken in combination, fingernails, moles and freckles can be unique to an individual person. In short, the process of establishing the identity of the Miller’s Court victim was not nearly as complex as some would have us believe.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[perrymason]

With the greatest of respect, Mike, I hardly think it subjective to propose that Mary Jane sustained defence wounds when those very injuries are clearly visible in the crime scene photographs and were described in some detail by Dr Bond. They may not fall neatly into a preconceived notion of the Ripper and his motivations, but they exist and must therefore be explained.

Likewise, the differences that you discern between the Kelly murder and the deaths of the previous victims are easily rationalized when one considers the reality that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were each killed outdoors at locations which provided limited scope for the killer to give full vent to his more sadistic urges. Kelly, on the other hand, was killed at an indoor venue which presented no such restriction. Given this opportunity, our man subjected Mary Jane to a level of destruction that had been impossible during the earlier murders. His motivations hadn’t changed, but the means to express them had.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

The above part in bold is what I like to refer to as "canned" Canonical logic Gary .....the facts are, that no-one has yet proven that outdoor venues were not only his primary choice for venues but also his only choice.

Since 80% of his attributed crimes were committed in those venues, I think statistically, the odds favour him being accepting of the venues outdoors.

I dont see any reason why we should assign him "preferential venues" that would be a small minority of the overall crimes total, the opposite makes more sense.

Cheers Gary, all the best.

[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.

[c.d.]

Hi Garry,

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

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,

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.