It wasnt Kelly theory

[GBinOz]

There's another factor, Dr Bond's assistant, Dr Hebbert reflected back on the Millers Court murder in a 1900 publication - A System of Legal Medicine, by Allan McLane, where he described the state of the mutilations as the body was found:
"The body was naked when found. The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed by numerous knife-cuts".

The ears had been cut off.

Hi Jon,

Bond's autopsy report read:
The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed.

It appears we always have to contend with conflicting information.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

This is true, but the press & the court recorder all sat in the same room, so they heard the same voice (Barnett), yet some wrote ear and others wrote hair. If you've ever heard the cockney accent you would know those two words sound the same.
It seems you are insistent on hearing "ear", yet you know the ears were mutilated.
Perhaps you would like to explain why you cling to that interpretation?


You're not suggesting he identified her by her mutilated ear & the eyes by looking across the dark room from the broken window, are you?
In the court record we read: "..I have seen the body, I identify her by her ear/hair and eyes, I am positive it is the same woman."
He is of course referring to the fact he has just seen the body in the mortuary as was required by law prior to the commencement of the inquest that Monday morning.
The statement given to the press was prior to the formal identification, not related to his inquest statement.

Hi Jon,

I am not able to "hear" either word and am certainly not insistent on it. I just had not read any report that used the word "hair". However, I did do a re-search and found that the Echo journalist reported "hair". As you say, all the journalists and the court reporter are hearing the same words, so it is frustrating how varied and even contradictory they can be in their reports. In the MJK case we have the luxury of the original court files which I would suppose would be considered more reliable than the journalist reports?
I can see MJK's eyes in the photo, and Walter Dew stated that it was the mental image of the eyes staring at him that haunted his memories. But blue eyes were not uncommon. I doubt I could identify my wife from her mutilated ears, so hair does make more sense. I am not involved in any "clinging", just pointing out, without interpretation, what was reported in most of the testimony.

I came across articles, such as the Des Kenna dissertation, that stated that the only ID made by Barnett was by peeking through the window. That didn't seem right to me either so I tried to find a reference that refuted that contention, with no success. Kattrup provided the Times account which mentions the mortuary, but that is at variance with the court's file. I wasn't aware that the legal requirement was for the ID to take place after the autopsy. That is the over-riding consideration.

Best regards, George

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Is there anything to support the contention that Barnett ID'd Kelly at the mortuary?

Regards,

Simon

[Kattrup]

There's another factor, Dr Bond's assistant, Dr Hebbert reflected back on the Millers Court murder in a 1900 publication - A System of Legal Medicine, by Allan McLane, where he described the state of the mutilations as the body was found:
"The body was naked when found. The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed by numerous knife-cuts".

The ears had been cut off.

That is incorrect, they had not.

[Kattrup]

As Barnet was outside the room looking through the side window, he was a little farther away than the camera that was positioned inside the room, yet we see the head is laid on its left side completely hiding the left ear, while the right ear is obscured by her hair and faced the ceiling.
Which demonstrates Barnet was not in a position to see the ears let alone identify her by either ear.

And, while we are here perhaps you can point out an eye, either one will do, and then explain why that can be a means of identification?

It may help if we can dispense with the theories and merely apply a little common sense.
No-one looking through the window could even see the ears or eyes, let alone identify the body by that means.

Barnet identified the body during the formal identification following the post mortem.

Not sure why you’re arguing this point with me, since I agree, Barnett IDed the body at the mortuary.

Personally, I think we should dispense with the common sense (the least common of all senses) and merely apply a little historical methodology.

[Wickerman]

There's another factor, Dr Bond's assistant, Dr Hebbert reflected back on the Millers Court murder in a 1900 publication - A System of Legal Medicine, by Allan McLane, where he described the state of the mutilations as the body was found:
"The body was naked when found. The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed by numerous knife-cuts".

The ears had been cut off.

[Wickerman]

Barnett as reported in The Times (London):



The mention of seeing the body through the window refers (in my opinion) to seeing the body through the window in Miller's Court, when he originally heard about the murder: (Penny Illustrated)

(Star)

Incidentally, since we have the original inquest files, and they clearly state "ear" and not "hair", the idea that he identified her by the hair is mistaken.

Lets take a look at the official photograph.



As Barnet was outside the room looking through the side window, he was a little farther away than the camera that was positioned inside the room, yet we see the head is laid on its left side completely hiding the left ear, while the right ear is obscured by her hair and faced the ceiling.
Which demonstrates Barnet was not in a position to see the ears let alone identify her by either ear.

And, while we are here perhaps you can point out an eye, either one will do, and then explain why that can be a means of identification?

It may help if we can dispense with the theories and merely apply a little common sense.
No-one looking through the window could even see the ears or eyes, let alone identify the body by that means.

Barnet identified the body during the formal identification following the post mortem.

[Curious Cat]

I posted these elsewhere on the forum so I'll just paste them here...



I saw an estimate of 2 hours for food to generally pass through the stomach into the intestine, but yes the average for potatoes and fish appears to be 50-60 minutes. However, that's based on each going through the digestive system on an already empty stomach. The body takes longer to break down foods when consumed together, adding to the digestion time.

So if we give it 50 to 70 minutes between consumption and murder then a 3am to 4am time of death puts that meal being had between Hutchinson meeting Mary Kelly on the corner of Flower and Dean Street and him taking up his vigil opposite the entrance to Miller's Court.


------------------------


Something that goes against Caroline Maxwell being mistaken on Mary Kelly's identity is that she also knew Joe Barnett. Mary and Joe had been together since the previous Easter and were apparently known as a pair by others. Maxwell mentions that she thought Mary received monies from her companion. I don't believe she interpreted the relationship as one of prostitute and client but rather that Joe paid Mary as an act of helping her out as a partner would. She seems surprised to learn that Mary might have been a prostitute to earn money given she was aware of Joe's payments to Mary which would have been intended to go towards food and rent.

My feeling is, going by how long they were together and how familiar people were of either of them, that knowing Joe wouldn't necessarily mean knowing Mary too but if someone knew or was aware of Mary they would automatically know who Joe is. As Maxwell says she knew both Mary and Joe, and Joe could easily dispute this if it wasn't possible, then it makes her mistaking someone else for Mary Kelly on that morning harder to account for. Mistaking an individual on their own is obviously quite possible. But to mistake an individual you are able to attach to another individual you're familiar with? That's much more difficult to reconcile. Just because Maxwell didn't speak with Mary much before that morning she would have known her enough by sight to be aware of who she was. As Mary also appears to have known Maxwell for each to refer to one another by name - at least according to Maxwell's account.

Which leads us to a secondary reason for Maxwell not to have been mistaken. For Maxwell it was unusual to see Mary at that time of the day. She must've been used to seeing Mary at a much later time during the course of the day or just simply not at all when she was about at that time in the morning. It would've been a fairly routine occurrence for Maxwell to be up and about in Dorset Street at that time in the morning and going to sort out some breakfast to bring back for her and her husband. Seeing Mary in the street at that time would have been an unusual event for Maxwell if it wasn't part of her typical morning routine. It's what draws Maxwell to approach Mary and express her surprise at seeing her. Maxwell then goes to west to get the breakfast and returns to Dorset Street from the Crispin Street end. She sees Mary talking to a man further along outside The Britannia pub from about the same spot she left Mary 20-30 minutes earlier. Maxwell doesn't mention the street being busy at that time so perhaps it was easy to pick out someone she had only spoken to barely 30 minutes before now being further up the street. Again, it being unusual to see Mary at that time of day in that location would stick out to Maxwell.

The woman seen by Caroline Maxwell is who she knew to be with Joe Barnett. To say at the inquest that she also knew Joe Barnett means knowing both him and the woman she saw together. If the woman wasn't Mary Kelly then Caroline Maxwell would've mistaken her twice over, once as an individual and again as the partner of Joe Barnett. How does that happen when the initial interaction between them is prompted by the unusual circumstances of them meeting? The woman must be distinct to Maxwell in one way or another. By the time Maxwell gives her story to the press it's well known that Joe Barnett was the dead woman's most recent long time partner. This would surely solidify the identity of the woman she spoke to that morning in her mind.

There's no wonder why Caroline Maxwell defiantly sticks to her version of events and insists she saw Mary Kelly. Maybe she really did see Mary Kelly.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It wasn't just the reports in the press. At the inquest Barnett testified "I have seen the body, and I identify it by the ear and eyes, which are all that I can recognise."..

This is true, but the press & the court recorder all sat in the same room, so they heard the same voice (Barnett), yet some wrote ear and others wrote hair. If you've ever heard the cockney accent you would know those two words sound the same.
It seems you are insistent on hearing "ear", yet you know the ears were mutilated.
Perhaps you would like to explain why you cling to that interpretation?

He also reported in the press "He saw the body by peeping through the window."

You're not suggesting he identified her by her mutilated ear & the eyes by looking across the dark room from the broken window, are you?
In the court record we read: "..I have seen the body, I identify her by her ear/hair and eyes, I am positive it is the same woman."
He is of course referring to the fact he has just seen the body in the mortuary as was required by law prior to the commencement of the inquest that Monday morning.
The statement given to the press was prior to the formal identification, not related to his inquest statement.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jeff,

Mary Jane Kelly aka “Mary Jeanette Kelly”, “Ginger”, “Fair Emma”, or “Black Mary”, is a mystery in her appearance, her actual name and the circumstances of her murder. I think that 15-20 minutes is pushing the envelope on the low side, but if Maxwell is right there are two hours available, and if M.Lewis is accepted, about 45 minutes - those times including pickup, return to dwelling etc.

The other interesting consideration is that if the woman Maxwell spoke to was Kelly, she said she had the horrors of drink on her and had been vomiting, and pointed to an example in the street. Bond stated that stomach of the body found in Miller's Court contained a meal of fish and potatoes. If she were that sick would she indulge in a substantial meal and then go out soliciting?

Best regards, George

hi george
interesting point about the food found in Marys stomach-i forgot about that. as someone whos yacked from both food and alcohol poisoning I can assure you that not only is your stomach cleared out (to the point your heaving and either nothing or small amounts of water/stomach bile is coming out) but you have no desire to eat anything again for quite some time. and of course as I pointed out earlier also-someone that sick would not be in any shape to be go solicitating and or have sex. no way. the more we discuss this aspect, im seeing it more and more LESS likely she was seen by maxwell and was killed in the daylight morning. but i keep an open mind lol.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,



As I say, I'm not convinced she was killed in the morning. There are issues, as you mention, with Maxwell's description which doesn't seem to describe Kelly who was, if I recall correctly, 5'7", which was by no means short. The cries of "murder", however, are not clearly from Kelly's room (sound coming in through a window is particularly hard to localize; everything seems to come from the direction of the window, not the direction of the sound source itself). We also know they were considered common enough in the area that they were just ignored. Might have been Kelly, of course, but just as easily might not have been too. We're left with sketchy eye-witness testimony for both proposed times. The argument against the morning murder has often involved the idea that a lot more time would be required, but as I argue above, I don't think that is necessarily the case, and in my opinion that brings the two hypothesized times more in line with each other evidence wise. While in the end people are likely to choose one over the other for reasons other than evidence - "it just seems nighttime makes more sense to me" type decisions, I think it might be a good idea to keep a very open mind at this point even if one favours one time period over the other.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff and George
except of course a murdered women was found in the room. what are the chances?
I do keep an open mind and still think its possible she was killed in the daylight morning, but just barely.

re the timing-when does maxwell see her outside the pub and when is she discovered by bowyer?

[GBinOz]

They're published in extenso in the Sourcebook, and the part I clipped from is on JTRForums: https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ave-o-flaherty

Thanks Kattrup,

I found it in my copy of the Sourcebook. Most inquest documents in there are from the Times, but MJK's are the originals. One thing I did notice is that the original transcription did not contain the words "in the mortuary". Those words were added to the Times account of the inquest. So, I guess we still don't have an unadulterated statement that he saw her at the mortuary, just a presumption by the Times journalist.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi I still consider it a major coincidence, that a letter penned from Maxwells address found its way to the police [ albeit Norfolk police] exactly one week prior to the murder in Millers court. and that very site was directly opposite the address of the murder .
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

Isn't it thought that said letter was a hoax penned by a bored young girl named Smith living in the lodging house but who was originally from Yarmouth? Caroline Maxwell's husband worked at No14 but in the Manchester Times on 17 Nov she said they lived at No26. That was the partitioned off room in front of MJK's room, thought to be a storage room.

Cheers, George

[Kattrup]

It is unusual to have the original inquest files. Is there a link available?

Cheers, George

They're published in extenso in the Sourcebook, and the part I clipped from is on JTRForums: https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ave-o-flaherty

[richardnunweek]

Hi I still consider it a major coincidence, that a letter penned from Maxwells address found its way to the police [ albeit Norfolk police] exactly one week prior to the murder in Millers court. and that very site was directly opposite the address of the murder .
Regards Richard.