Identity of Mary Jane Kelly

[Michael W Richards]

The issue on the id is is how she was displayed for the witness. As we see her in the pictures that have survived she would only be distinguishable to someone who knew her very well. Part of that is due to a flap of forehead skin flopped over her brow and eyes. One imagines that they would place it back where it came from, and that likelihood suggests that the witness saw her much differently than we can. That being said, one witness who fits that "known to the victim" well is Barnett of course, and he could only identify her "air and eyes" I think those 2 features would be the only ones worth betting on.

Does Barnetts id, if truthful, mean that the woman is actually Mary Jane Kelly though? It may just mean its the one who identified herself as such to him.

[Harry D]

There's no reason to think it wasn't Mary Kelly found slain in Miller's Court.

[mpriestnall]

The issue on the id is is how she was displayed for the witness. As we see her in the pictures that have survived she would only be distinguishable to someone who knew her very well. Part of that is due to a flap of forehead skin flopped over her brow and eyes. One imagines that they would place it back where it came from, and that likelihood suggests that the witness saw her much differently than we can. That being said, one witness who fits that "known to the victim" well is Barnett of course, and he could only identify her "air and eyes" I think those 2 features would be the only ones worth betting on.

Does Barnetts id, if truthful, mean that the woman is actually Mary Jane Kelly though? It may just mean its the one who identified herself as such to him.

"The issue on the id is is how she was displayed for the witness": We don't know for sure her how she was presented for identification.

Assuming this is accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jane_Kelly, Dr Thomas Bond states: "the face hacked beyond recognition of the features".

so how can matching the eyes be a reliable means of identification?

Can the hair, bloodied or otherwise, alone then be relied up for a serious legal identification?

The authorities chose how the corpse was presented to Barnett for identification. If they covered up her body to show only a heavily mutilated face for recognition by eyes and hair, they either were being completely incompetent, or they were being deceptive by trying to pass off A.N. Other as Kelly.

The reason JTR mutilated the corpse's face was to hide the fact it wasn't Kelly. And the authorities put up Barnett to complete the deception IMHO.

[Michael W Richards]

There's no reason to think it wasn't Mary Kelly found slain in Miller's Court.

A woman Barnett knew as Mary Kelly with a Welsh/Irish backstory,....true enough. Has anyone of the very skilled researchers on this topic ever found conclusive evidence that such a woman actually existed? Not saying she didnt, but even if she did, she still doesnt have to be the woman Barnett knew as Mary Jane Kelly. The name, and the story, could be assumed or created.

[Wickerman]

Then the authorities were free to pass off who they like for Kelly.

If they were serious about making a genuine identification they would use the best available evidence.

But why "authorities"?
Almost anyone with long red hair could've been murdered in that room, why should the authorities be involved?

[GBinOz]

There's no reason to think it wasn't Mary Kelly found slain in Miller's Court.

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

[mpriestnall]

But why "authorities"?
Almost anyone with long red hair could've been murdered in that room, why should the authorities be involved?

Because the "authorities" was controlling the identification process?

[Wickerman]

Because the "authorities" was controlling the identification process?

Lumping the Coroner in with the police and members of parliament is a bit extreme. It's easy to make vague accusations like "the authorities" when we don't know who to blame.
The Coroner is in charge of the identification of the body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's no reason to think it wasn't Mary Kelly found slain in Miller's Court.

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.

[Harry D]

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

That would cast more doubt on her TOD than her victim status.

[mpriestnall]

Lumping the Coroner in with the police and members of parliament is a bit extreme. It's easy to make vague accusations like "the authorities" when we don't know who to blame.
The Coroner is in charge of the identification of the body.

I'm sure the murders of JTR were covered up. Obviously I can't name names. I can only use "the authorities" in a general catch-all sense. Clearly, if there was a cover up, then a key subset in a position to cover up, like the Coroner, some of the top bosses in the Met, are the natural suspects complicit in a cover up.

[Wickerman]

I'm sure the murders of JTR were covered up. Obviously I can't name names.

They made a pretty piss-poor job of it then, they were all over the papers!

I can only use "the authorities" in a general catch-all sense. Clearly, if there was a cover up, then a key subset in a position to cover up, like the Coroner, some of the top bosses in the Met, are the natural suspects complicit in a cover up.

A cover-up, like small-scale - someone knew who the killer was but kept quiet, I can agree with.
Some major cover-up at the highest official level involving several people, is to my mind the stuff of fiction.

[mpriestnall]

They made a pretty piss-poor job of it then, they were all over the papers!





A cover-up, like small-scale - someone knew who the killer was but kept quiet, I can agree with.
Some major cover-up at the highest official level involving several people, is to my mind the stuff of fiction.

If JTR/Astrakan had not only masonic connections but connections to top people like POW, the PM then I'll think a cover up is not only possible, but likely.

My research say they did.

There's another possible example of a serial killer given a free pass. Some people say that Dr John Bodkin Adams, who murdered many, many more than JTR, was protected by the establishment. Or do you think that's fiction as well?

[Wickerman]

Can you clarify what is meant by - "some people say"?

[mpriestnall]

Can you clarify what is meant by - "some people say"?

I first come across the suggestion that Dr Adams might have been protected by the "establishment" in Mike Neville's book "Crime and the Craft: Masonic Involvement in Murder, Treason and Scandal".

For those not familiar with Mike Neville I quote from https://www.mike-neville-walks-and-talks.co.uk/books

Quote
Mike Neville is a Freemason who belongs to many Masonic orders and a retired Scotland Yard Detective Chief Inspector. He is an expert on the history of the Craft and crime. Neville is also world renowned for his ability to catch criminals with CCTV using ‘Super Recogniser’ officers.

Consequently, he travels the world assisting police forces and giving lectures in lodges. He is the author of Sacred Secrets: Freemasonry, the Bible and Christian Faith, holds the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army Cadet Force and is the national training officer for music.
Unquote