Identity of Mary Jane Kelly

[caz]

Id have to agree Harry. Although she was horribly mutilated there was still enough for Barnett to at least make some kind of ID. So for it not to have been Kelly then we would have to assume that a lookalike was killed on her bed (same build, same hair, same eyes) A random lookalike seems unlikely so we would almost certainly be in conspiracy territory with Barnett being in on it. I can’t see any reason for going down that path.

Hi Herlock,

I agree entirely. I could understand there might have been problem if Barnett had been unable to make the identification, or had expressed doubts, but neither was the case. Most couples who had lived and slept together for a year or more would be able to identify their other half, no matter how bad a state they were left in. If Barnett had said, for instance, that he would need to see all of her remains before he could give a definite yes or no, then I imagine that could have been arranged, but for God's sake why would they have put him through that ordeal, when he recognised his Marie Jeanette well enough by her eyes and hair - or ear?

Love,

Caz
X

[Losmandris]

Maybe a bit of an odd question but how much sewing up would the pathologist (if that is what they were back then?) have done? Would they have sown up her face to help with the ID?

[Wickerman]

Maybe a bit of an odd question but how much sewing up would the pathologist (if that is what they were back then?) have done? Would they have sown up her face to help with the ID?

Certainly, this is a close-up of Eddowes face after the post-mortem.
The cut across her right cheek is pulled together with stitches.
It's a little too close to see the detail.

Above that is the red curved line, that was me emphasizing the shape of the slice in her cheek, which some theorists claim was a triangle - it isn't.

[AlanG]

If that line is accurate, then that looks a slow cut.

[Wickerman]

If you are talking about the red line, there's one on the other cheek too, and the bridge of the nose was cut through also.
It is done by means of a knife slicing downwards.



It would be consistent with an attempt to slice part of her face off.
Just remember this was Eddowes, not Kelly.

[Losmandris]

Certainly, this is a close-up of Eddowes face after the post-mortem.
The cut across her right cheek is pulled together with stitches.
It's a little too close to see the detail.

Above that is the red curved line, that was me emphasizing the shape of the slice in her cheek, which some theorists claim was a triangle - it isn't.

I therefore think that Barrett should have been able to identify MJK from looking at her face. That is unless the killer did in fact take the skin completely of the face (as you pic above indicates he possibly trying to do with Eddowes) and it ended up being on the floor or in one of the piles of Viscera about the room. This could explain why she was identified by her hair? Looking at the crime scene photo there is noway to tell either way, if the skin was still attached or completely missing.

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe a bit of an odd question but how much sewing up would the pathologist (if that is what they were back then?) have done? Would they have sown up her face to help with the ID?

Interesting question, and I believe answerable. It is stated that the coroner performed whats known as a "Volte Face on the remains.... to re-assemble her as it were. One imagines no-one was used for an id until that point. Although some press reported Barnett id'd her while she was still in the room, from the window.

Again, in my Devils Advocate fashion, iot may well have been the woman Barnett knew as Mary Jane, but that in and of itself is no guarantee that she hadnt just used that name and story with Barnett and others.

[Michael W Richards]

The mutilations made identification very difficult. One witness said they saw her and another said they spoke to her mid morning. There is a suggestion of doubt.

Cheers, George

There is not one witness after 12:00 am that claimed to see Mary Kelly alive that we know for certain knew Mary Kelly. The last one we KNOW knew Mary is Mary Ann.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Herlock,

I agree entirely. I could understand there might have been problem if Barnett had been unable to make the identification, or had expressed doubts, but neither was the case. Most couples who had lived and slept together for a year or more would be able to identify their other half, no matter how bad a state they were left in. If Barnett had said, for instance, that he would need to see all of her remains before he could give a definite yes or no, then I imagine that could have been arranged, but for God's sake why would they have put him through that ordeal, when he recognised his Marie Jeanette well enough by her eyes and hair - or ear?

Love,

Caz
X

Agreed that its very likely the woman he id' was the one he believed he lived with the past months. And that he believed her name was Mary Jane Kelly, with the backstory she provided him with. That is not to say that it proves that was actually her real name and backstory. Again, I refer to the fact that not one person in 133 years has found any compelling proof that it was her real name and her real backstory.

Since we know at one time she was know as Marie Jeanette and presumably answered to that....

[Bridewell]

I'm actually much more interested in knowing the true identity of MJK than I am in knowing the identity of JtR. He was worthless but she wasn't.

[Bridewell]

First of all, they don't even know which bones are Mary Kelly's in that grave, do they?

Realistically, what DNA evidence could they hope to unearth?

The bones of MJK will almost certainly have knife marks on them so, if several bodies are unearthed in the same grave, hers should be easily identified I would have thought. It would be good to check any DNA recovered against the existing DNA database if that were to be allowed, although I suspect that it may not be. If nothing else a famiial match, or the lack thereof, would confirm (or not) Prosector's theory that she was a relative.

[rjpalmer]

If nothing else a famiial match, or the lack thereof, would confirm (or not) Prosector's theory that she was a relative.

Hi Bridewell.

His theory has been withdrawn. See the latest issue of Ripperologist.

[GBinOz]

There is not one witness after 12:00 am that claimed to see Mary Kelly alive that we know for certain knew Mary Kelly. The last one we KNOW knew Mary is Mary Ann.

Hi Michael,

Mrs. Caroline Maxwell, the wife of a lodging-house deputy, was very positive that she saw and spoke to Mary that very morning at around 8.30am. Maurice Lewis, who had known Mary Kelly for the past five years, had heard of her death. But he had seen her at 8.00am and 10.00am.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Mrs. Caroline Maxwell, the wife of a lodging-house deputy, was very positive that she saw and spoke to Mary that very morning at around 8.30am. Maurice Lewis, who had known Mary Kelly for the past five years, had heard of her death. But he had seen her at 8.00am and 10.00am.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Im aware that the statements exist that suggest Mary Kelly was seen walking about that next morning, my point was that we have no way of verifying that either of the parties mentioned actually knew Mary Kelly. We do know that with Mary Ann Cox. The point being that the best witnesses are usually the ones closest to the deceased.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi George,

Im aware that the statements exist that suggest Mary Kelly was seen walking about that next morning, my point was that we have no way of verifying that either of the parties mentioned actually knew Mary Kelly. We do know that with Mary Ann Cox. The point being that the best witnesses are usually the ones closest to the deceased.

Using that premise, what to make of a witness who claimed to speak with Mary Kelly, who was his friend, in the middle of the night...and for some reason..pubs closed and all, already 3 weeks in arrears and so with no reason to have to supply Bowyer with any doss the next morning,...she needs money from him. He says they were friends. That he knew her by name and he helped her on occasion. And yet he waits 4 full days before even giving the police his alleged sighting. Anyone must know that as time goes by evidence dries up, witnesses forget...and that the sooner an investigation gets after the evidence the more likely a positive outcome. He waits 4 days...until AFTER the Inquest, to give us Astrakan... detailed in all his splendor. If that was the truth, and he told the police on Friday, then how would that investigation progressed? Huge manhunt....streets covered....if it was true and coming in on Friday it might have helped find the killer. He came in Monday night.

When we have no way to verify the witness even knew the deceased at all, statements that include her activities on the night she dies are not the basis for a determination of anything. When Mary Ann Cox says she spoke with Mary at 11:45 as Mary went in with Blotchy, we can better believe that evidence.