It wasnt Kelly theory

[GBinOz]

Barnett as reported in The Times (London):

He had lived with the deceased Marie Jeanette Kelly for a year and eight months, and had seen the body in the mortuary, which he identified. He was quite positive the body was that of the woman he lived with.

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.

Hi Kattrup,

Thank you for that information. I stand corrected. I checked the Times for the newspaper reports but didn't check their inquest report.

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

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,
I think the fish and potatoes is described as partly digested isn't it? If I recall correctly, then that would suggest some time had past since her last meal. I don't know how long would be expected, though, but it might eat up much of the morning time available. It would point to after she was seen vomiting, but there's 2 hours to play with there and if she went to eat something at that time, and found a customer to buy her a meal and a drink as payment, one might be able to make a story out of it.

An obvious line of enquiry would be to track down where she ate her last meal. One of the local pubs or food stalls might recall her buying that meal, which would in turn start to narrow down the time window. If it was bought late at night we're talking a night time murder, and if bought that morning it would corroborate the morning sightings. Also, it might have led to descriptions of any men seen with her at that time, etc. Perhaps the police did look into that and the information is lost to us now, or perhaps they never could locate where she obtained that meal, or maybe they didn't even think to look. But sometimes it is the little details like those fish and chips which offer the important bit of information.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Fish is hard to digest but potato can be digested in an hour. Is it reasonable to assume that if she was vomiting the fish and potato would have come up as well? If so then it could be concluded that either the meal was taken after the vomiting, or the woman vomiting was not the woman at the autopsy.

Your comment regarding food outlets prompted my memory on the Alice McKenzie case. You might recall that PC Andrews left Isaac Jacob to watch the body while he summoned help. Jacob testified that he had been on his way to McCarthy's, plate in hand at 12:50 in the morning, to buy his supper. The same McCarthy that was MJK's landlord. According to John McCarthy's great grand daughter his chandler shop at No 27 Dorset St sold mostly Jewish food, but chandlers often sold fish and chips. Apparently there was another chandler in Thrawl St. Chandlers generally sold food through the early hours of the morning. Does digestion stop on death? If not it would not be only partially digested at the autopsy, which would point to consumption in the daylight hours.
I suspect that after 130 years the chance of finding any record of where MJK bought her last meal is less than that of William Buckley.

Cheers, George

[Kattrup]

Barnett as reported in The Times (London):

He had lived with the deceased Marie Jeanette Kelly for a year and eight months, and had seen the body in the mortuary, which he identified. He was quite positive the body was that of the woman he lived with.

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:

Next day I heard there had been a murder in Miller's court, and on my way there I met my sister's brother in law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the court, and there saw the police inspector, and told him who I was, and where I had been the previous night. They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally, finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free.

(Penny Illustrated)

He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window.

(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.

[JeffHamm]

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,

Yah, the Star records him as looking through the window, but I find that a bit hard to believe was the process for an official identification. Interestingly, though, McKenna says that Bowyer couldn't properly identify her because he only knew her first name, which of course implies he recognized her as the person "Mary Jane Kelly" but only knew the first of those names (Mary). Anyway, I don't believe a glance through the window would be the official identification, and would think it cruel to have him even look, but I can't say they didn't. I can't point to any record of a more official identification procedure, though, but in other cases it was done with more respect for those involved.

And yes, 15-20 minutes is on the short side, but I think that's a good starting point. As you say, even the shortest witness based time window is 45 minutes, so in my view there's more than enough time even then.

I think the fish and potatoes is described as partly digested isn't it? If I recall correctly, then that would suggest some time had past since her last meal. I don't know how long would be expected, though, but it might eat up much of the morning time available. It would point to after she was seen vomiting, but there's 2 hours to play with there and if she went to eat something at that time, and found a customer to buy her a meal and a drink as payment, one might be able to make a story out of it.

An obvious line of enquiry would be to track down where she ate her last meal. One of the local pubs or food stalls might recall her buying that meal, which would in turn start to narrow down the time window. If it was bought late at night we're talking a night time murder, and if bought that morning it would corroborate the morning sightings. Also, it might have led to descriptions of any men seen with her at that time, etc. Perhaps the police did look into that and the information is lost to us now, or perhaps they never could locate where she obtained that meal, or maybe they didn't even think to look. But sometimes it is the little details like those fish and chips which offer the important bit of information.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I agree, the cries of "oh murder" are simply unknown as to their relevance. They might be and yet, given they were considered common enough that they were ignored (if they even occurred), they could also be complete red herrings.
I think the Star reporter was right about many of the Whitechapel witnesses when he said:
The desire to be interesting has its effect on people.

Personally, I doubt Barnett's identification was based on simply looking through the window. In the other cases people were taken to the mortuary to view the body and I would think that is what happened here as well. I can't recall, is there any evidence that Barnett was at the scene before the body was removed?
That is exactly what I thought, but I have spent some hours researching and have found only Barnett's statement to the Star on 10 Nov: "He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window.", and this from Des McKenna's dissertation here: https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-desmary.html
"When Thomas Bowyer saw the body in that terrible room, he could not properly identify her as he only knew her first name, and it was Joe Barnett who said who she was; but that was only by an anguished glimpse through the window.
But how much reliance can be placed on this? He was expecting to see Mary Jane. He recognised her clothing neatly laid out.
Warned that it was a terrifying sight that would greet him, Joe Barnett would have glanced as fast as he dared at her eyes, her hair and her clothes, and on that basis alone would he have identified her."

Anyway, I can't prove that's where he did the identification, but it would be in line with normal protocol. I would think they might have tried to stitch her face back together, as they did with Eddowes, to the best of their ability as well. In the photo, I think there's a piece of flesh from her forehead covering part of her face, but it may just be the low quality of the image too. I can never make out any facial features, like eyes or her mouth, etc, and it all looks very distorted and blurred to me.
Inspector Dew said the one feature in particular that haunted him for the rest of his life was "…the poor woman’s eyes. They were wide open, and seemed to be staring straight at me with a look of terror."

My main point, though, was just that I don't think anywhere near as much time was required as is often suggested, and it is quite possible that as little as 15-20 minutes was all that he required.

- Jeff

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

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I place no credibility on the reports of cries of "oh murder", and if Barnett's ID was made "by peeping through the window." as he said, I should think that his ID was nominal.

All in all, I'm in agreement with your conclusions.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I agree, the cries of "oh murder" are simply unknown as to their relevance. They might be and yet, given they were considered common enough that they were ignored (if they even occurred), they could also be complete red herrings. Personally, I doubt Barnett's identification was based on simply looking through the window. In the other cases people were taken to the mortuary to view the body and I would think that is what happened here as well. I can't recall, is there any evidence that Barnett was at the scene before the body was removed? The fact they used a pick to force the door suggests to me he wasn't as he could have told them how they reached through the window, but then, people are often loath to get involved at the best of times, and more so if they are personally affected by the crime of course.

Anyway, I can't prove that's where he did the identification, but it would be in line with normal protocol. I would think they might have tried to stitch her face back together, as they did with Eddowes, to the best of their ability as well. In the photo, I think there's a piece of flesh from her forehead covering part of her face, but it may just be the low quality of the image too. I can never make out any facial features, like eyes or her mouth, etc, and it all looks very distorted and blurred to me.

My main point, though, was just that I don't think anywhere near as much time was required as is often suggested, and it is quite possible that as little as 15-20 minutes was all that he required.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Abby,

hi jeff
yes of course its physically possible but really... how probable is it? as in all things in this case, you have to balance everything and all things considered to see which scenario more likely. you have two witnesses who heard cries of murder around the same in the middle of the night, one who said it came from kellys room.

maxwell described her as a short plump woman. seems she had the wrong women. lewis sighting is also unreliable. the coroner seemed to have issues with her story. if mary was out and anout in the busy mid morning, surely there would have been more reliable sightings?

all things considered, it seems to me the night time murder is far more realistic.

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

[GBinOz]

The debate over the ToD is more complex. While the doctor's estimated early morning, their methods are simply flawed and really should not be viewed with any seriousness. That more or less leaves us with the reports of the cry of "murder", and the possibility of hearing someone leave the area a few hours later. Against that we have reports that Mary was seen later that morning by two people who indicate they knew her at least by sight. These sightings are argued that if those are genuine, then the body cannot be Kelly as there isn't enough time for the murder.

I've been thinking about that last idea recently, and I'm not so sure we can make that claim.

In short, I don't think "not enough time" is a valid argument with respect to the "it was not Kelly" idea nor as an argument against a murder in the morning.

I'm not sure I'm convinced she was actually murdered that morning, but in my view, I'm not sure it's as unreasonable an idea as it has often been portrayed.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I place no credibility on the reports of cries of "oh murder", and if Barnett's ID was made "by peeping through the window." as he said, I should think that his ID was nominal.

All in all, I'm in agreement with your conclusions.

Best regards, George

P.S. And with this from your simultaneous post "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."

[GBinOz]

Soon Beck and Dew were following Bowyer along Commercial Street in the direction of Dorset Street. When they arrived at Miller's Court Dew tried the door but it would not open.

Inspector Beck therefore moved to the window and gazed into the room. Almost instantly he staggered back. "For God’s sake Dew," he cried, "don’t look."

Dew ignored the order, and looking through the window, saw a sight which would stay with him to his dying day. The horror of what he saw was still vivid in his mind when he penned his memoirs fifty years later:- "As my thoughts go back to Miller’s Court, and what happened there, the old nausea, indignation and horror overwhelm me still… My mental picture of it remains as shockingly clear as though it were but yesterday…No savage could have been more barbaric. No wild animal could have done anything so horrifying."

Mary Kelly’s body lay on the bed, her head turned towards the window. Here face had been mutilated beyond recognition and one feature in particular struck Inspector Dew, "…the poor woman’s eyes. They were wide open, and seemed to be staring straight at me with a look of terror."

Indeed, so thorough were the mutilations to Mary Kelly’s face that her lover Joseph Barnet was later only able to identify her by her eyes and ears.

If Barnett only "saw the body by peeping through the window." I would venture to saw that the horror of what he saw would have made his "Identification" nominal at best.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

you have two witnesses who heard cries of murder around the same in the middle of the night, one who said it came from kellys room.

Hi Abby,

The Star 10 Nov 1888:
The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are
A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,
which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.

The Star was renowned for sensationalising stories rather than debunking them.

One of the women to whom you refer was Elizabeth Prater. She originally told the press she heard nothing. At the inquest she has a fanciful tale of being woken from a sound sleep by a kitten and at that exact moment "heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice." Both women said - It is nothing unusual in the street. I did not take particular notice. Apparently it was a common exclamation used in street brawls.
Two other woman in the vicinity testified they heard no cry of murder.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

don't feel bad, 'ear' was reported in the press by a few reporters, while others wrote 'hair', but as we know the 'ears' had been mutilated then they wouldn't have been in any condition to form a key point of identification, whereas her hair was the same length & same color - so there we have it.

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

In my reading I have seen her hair colour as everything from blonde through red to "dark".

Cheers, George

[c.d.]

Hi C.D.

Assuming it was a Police cover up of some sort,and they knew it wasnt Kelly, then it would surely be in their interest to get the body ID as her.
How accurate was establishing TOD back then ?
I ask this because I was reading about the essex boys murders recently that happened in the mid 90's....and the Coroner could not give an estimated TOD to this case.....which I found really surprising.

Regards

Except that an ID allows for the possibility (even if remote) that Barnett could have said "hey, wait a minute, Oh My God, this isn't Mary! I'm off to share this with the first newspaperman that I can find."

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

With regards to Kelly's identification, she was considered distinctive in two ways that would not be impeded despite the extent of the mutilations. First, by her hair (length and colour; and Barnett's reported "ears" was probably a mishearing of "hair"), and secondly she was of above average height. To find a "substitute", both of these characteristics would have to be met, and this seems pretty far fetched. (Note, by "was Kelly" I mean the woman Barnett had lived with, not that that was the name she was born under - it seems more and more probable that she was using an alias by the time she lived in the Whitechapel area).

The debate over the ToD is more complex. While the doctor's estimated early morning, their methods are simply flawed and really should not be viewed with any seriousness. That more or less leaves us with the reports of the cry of "murder", and the possibility of hearing someone leave the area a few hours later. Against that we have reports that Mary was seen later that morning by two people who indicate they knew her at least by sight. These sightings are argued that if those are genuine, then the body cannot be Kelly as there isn't enough time for the murder.

I've been thinking about that last idea recently, and I'm not so sure we can make that claim.

Consider the murder and mutilation of Eddowes. Given what we know about PC Watkins' patrol, it seems that Eddowes' killer probably spent no more than 5-6 minutes at the crime scene. While we don't have the same constraints for Chapman, it's clear from the Eddowes' crime that the doctor's estimation of 15 minutes is far too long and again, we're probably talking 4-5 minutes in that case (and possibly as little as 3 minutes according to some modern estimates - note Dr. Sequeira's estimate was 3 minutes for Eddowes).

While Kelly's mutilations were greater, can we really argue that it would take hours, given what was possible in minutes? At Miller's Court, the killer could be standing rather than crouched over a body on the ground. He can remove the internals and place them around the room. The increased mutilations to the face would not require a huge amount of additional time, nor would the removal of her breasts. After that, it's really just the removal of flesh from her legs and the removal of her heart from the chest cavity. I can't see those two additions requiring hours for someone who appears to be able to commit the Eddowes murder in the order of minutes. If we go with a conservative 5 minutes for Eddowes, then 15-20 minutes means we've tripled or quadrupled the amount of time at Miller's Court. Of course, one might argue that the killer would not be as pressed for time given he's indoors, but that's an assumption he works fast because he's concerned about time and not because he's in a sort of frenzy.

In short, I don't think "not enough time" is a valid argument with respect to the "it was not Kelly" idea nor as an argument against a murder in the morning.

I'm not sure I'm convinced she was actually murdered that morning, but in my view, I'm not sure it's as unreasonable an idea as it has often been portrayed.

- Jeff

hi jeff
yes of course its physically possible but really... how probable is it? as in all things in this case, you have to balance everything and all things considered to see which scenario more likely. you have two witnesses who heard cries of murder around the same in the middle of the night, one who said it came from kellys room.

maxwell described her as a short plump woman. seems she had the wrong women. lewis sighting is also unreliable. the coroner seemed to have issues with her story. if mary was out and anout in the busy mid morning, surely there would have been more reliable sightings?

all things considered, it seems to me the night time murder is far more realistic.

[JeffHamm]

Hi C.D.

Assuming it was a Police cover up of some sort,and they knew it wasnt Kelly, then it would surely be in their interest to get the body ID as her.
How accurate was establishing TOD back then ?
I ask this because I was reading about the essex boys murders recently that happened in the mid 90's....and the Coroner could not give an estimated TOD to this case.....which I found really surprising.

Regards

Hi spyglass,

Estimating the ToD even today is in terms of gross level approximations. In 1888, the doctor's were basing their estimates by touching the surface of the body with their hands to feel for warmth and then basing their approximation on that. Even today, when they take multiple actual internal body temperature with a thermometer, and apply some calculations based upon research into body cooling, etc, it still results in estimates that span a couple hours. What the Victorians did is, for all intents and purposes, useless. While TV shows often depict medical estimations of ToD as being accurate, the reality is that the measurements taken are so variable that we're dealing with very wide time windows. In the JtR cases there are a few cases, Nichols, Eddowes, and Stride, where the doctors appear pretty accurate. However, it seem pretty likely that they were aware of other bits of information, such as the PC patrol times, and really what they were doing should be viewed as deciding if, in their opinion, the medical information was consistent with the ToD derived at from other sources of information. If not, it might suggest the murder happened elsewhere and the body dumped where it was found. So they weren't really "estimating the ToD" in those cases, they appear to be confirming that the condition of the body was consistent with a ToD indicating the murder happened where it was found. In the two cases where such external information appears to be minimal, or lacking, Chapman and Kelly, are the two cases where conflict between the doctor's guess at the ToD and some witness testimony shows up. Given we now know that you cannot determine the ToD by feeling the body, I recommend that these times given by the doctors just be ignored. If we have other sources of information to narrow the time down then use that, and where we don't, keep all options open. Not everyone agrees with me on that, but then, where would the fun be if they did?

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

It was her 'hair' that was her defining feature, not an ear. The confusion is over mispronunciation - no-one is identified by an ear, that's ridiculous.

ear ear!