How did he know?

[etenguy]

If you have seen the photograph of the corpse of Mary Jane Kelly on her bed after being murdered and brutally mutilated, you may have noticed how severely her face has been slashed, to the point where her features were no longer discernible. It was, therefore, difficult to make an identification, as Joe Barnett, someone who had lived with and knew Mary Jane Kelly well, stated at the inquest:

I have seen the body, and I identify it by the ear and eyes, which are all that I can recognise; but I am positive it is the same woman I knew.

Whether Joe Barnett said ear or hair is sometimes debated, but nevertheless it is clearly stated that he could not recognise her facial features.

If you have not seen the photograph, in the post mortem report, Dr Bond described the injuries to Mary Jane Kelly's face.

The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features

It is a little odd then to read that at the inquest there was someone who recognised the corpse immediately from a brief viewing through a window. That was John McCarthy, MJK's landlord who stated.

I accompanied him, and looked through the window myself, saw the blood and the woman. For a moment I could not say anything, and I then said: "You had better fetch the police." I knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly, and had no doubt at all about her identity.

How could John McCarthy be sure of the identity of the victim? It is a very certain identification for a corpse that had been so mutilated and is at odds with Dr Bond's description and Joe Barnett's statement. There is a range of speculation one could enter into, but the starting point is, do you think there is something peculiar about this part of McCarthy's statement or am I reading too much into it?

[c.d.]

Hello Etenguy,

To answer your question, I would say you are reading too much into it. There is no way that he could have known with absolutely certainty simply by looking through the window. Much more likely that subconsciously his train of thought was there is a woman who appears to be Mary Kelly laying in Mary Kelly's bed in the room that I rent to Mary Kelly. Therefore, it must be Mary Kelly. Although he could have been wrong, under the circumstances I think it was a pretty reasonable conclusion. I see no reason to pursue it further.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

I agree with c.d. McCarthy would have presumed that the woman in the room is the woman who rented it. Particularly if she's about the right size, and given she was supposed to have distinctive hair, if he could see that it would also add to the "that's Mary" impression. Again, if Barnett's "ear and eyes" is supposed to be "hair and eyes" that would also make sense. Otherwise, one has to presume that Mary may have had something peculiar about an ear that made it very distinctive. Off the top of my head maybe something like an old injury where an ear ring had been pulled out and ripped her ear lobe? Or a minor but distinctive deformity or mole of some sort. However, there's no report of any such thing while her hair was noted as being note worthy. Again, it's an unknowable.

Anyway, his testimony could also reflect the fact that by the time he's testifying the body has been identified as Mary, and so while at the time he may have presumed it was Mary, once that was confirmed by Barnett, he would be prone to present his presumption with more confidence than he might have sworn to at the time.

- Jeff

[mpriestnall]

Deleted.

[etenguy]

- CD post number 2 - Much more likely that subconsciously his train of thought was there is a woman who appears to be Mary Kelly laying in Mary Kelly's bed in the room that I rent to Mary Kelly. Therefore, it must be Mary Kelly.

I agree with c.d. McCarthy would have presumed that the woman in the room is the woman who rented it. Particularly if she's about the right size, and given she was supposed to have distinctive hair, if he could see that it would also add to the "that's Mary" impression.
- Jeff

Hi CD and Jeff

Thank you. Of course, the explanation you suggest makes good sense and it might be that McCarthy was much more self assured than Barnett and content to jump to conclusions, which appear to be the correct conclusions as far as we know. I was, nevertheless, struck with the level of certainty he expressed when others struggled to the extent they did and surprised he was not asked more about that given the other information provided at the inquest. But then this does appear to be a rushed inquest abruptly brought to a close.

[JeffHamm]

Hi CD and Jeff

Thank you. Of course, the explanation you suggest makes good sense and it might be that McCarthy was much more self assured than Barnett and content to jump to conclusions, which appear to be the correct conclusions as far as we know. I was, nevertheless, struck with the level of certainty he expressed when others struggled to the extent they did and surprised he was not asked more about that given the other information provided at the inquest. But then this does appear to be a rushed inquest abruptly brought to a close.

Yah. I tend to try and remind myself that when we get the information from the inquest, we have to keep in mind that people are testifying in a very different state compared to the time of the events upon which they testify. What I'm getting at is the idea that McCarthy (in this example) might testify with more confidence as to his identification than he actually had at the time about which he is testifying. Lots of things have happened between the event, and the testimony we have. If, to make up something so there's a concrete example, the police probed him at the time just after he looked through the window, it could go something like "I saw Mary on the bed all cut up. [PC] Are you sure it is Mary? [McM]: Oh yes, she rents the room. [PC]: Yes, I understand that, but are you sure the person on the bed is actually Mary, or could it be someone else? [McM]: Oh, well, it looks like her, but she is cut up pretty bad ... and now that I think about it maybe it isn't her, but I think it is, but I could be wrong .... etc.

However, by the time of the inquest, when he is now (rightly or wrongly) pretty convinced it was Mary, he presents his testimony based upon his current "state of belief", so he appears more confident. It might simply be the case that they are more confident because they think that because they are at an inquest that it must therefore be Mary, so as a result, their own confidence goes up (they factor in information to bolster their belief; we tend to ignore information that goes the other way). However, it can, of course, also go the other way, and that with the passage of time someone may present their testimony reflecting more indecision than they might have had initially. I suspect, but can't say I know for sure, that the former is more common than the latter. But in the end, we must always keep in mind that the testimony given reflects what the person believes at that point in time, which may not correspond to their beliefs at the point of time of the actual events. They are not just recalling events, but they are also recalling their "state of mind", and that is very hard to do because our present state of mind tends to overwrite our previous state of mind, and by doing so, it can alter our memories; or at least influence how we present them.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

If you have seen the photograph of the corpse of Mary Jane Kelly on her bed after being murdered and brutally mutilated, you may have noticed how severely her face has been slashed, to the point where her features were no longer discernible. It was, therefore, difficult to make an identification, as Joe Barnett, someone who had lived with and knew Mary Jane Kelly well, stated at the inquest:

Whether Joe Barnett said ear or hair is sometimes debated, but nevertheless it is clearly stated that he could not recognise her facial features.

If you have not seen the photograph, in the post mortem report, Dr Bond described the injuries to Mary Jane Kelly's face.


It is a little odd then to read that at the inquest there was someone who recognised the corpse immediately from a brief viewing through a window. That was John McCarthy, MJK's landlord who stated.


How could John McCarthy be sure of the identity of the victim? It is a very certain identification for a corpse that had been so mutilated and is at odds with Dr Bond's description and Joe Barnett's statement. There is a range of speculation one could enter into, but the starting point is, do you think there is something peculiar about this part of McCarthy's statement or am I reading too much into it?

I think it was likely part presumption. He would expect anyone in that room on that bed to be Mary. The red hair perhaps? But you quote Barnett in that post too, and if he recognized her eyes as part of that id, it would have been done in the mortuary. Her eyes are not visible while she was in that room, a flap of skin from her forehead covered them.

Interestingly though a press report stated he made the id from that window.

[etenguy]

I think it was likely part presumption. He would expect anyone in that room on that bed to be Mary. The red hair perhaps? But you quote Barnett in that post too, and if he recognized her eyes as part of that id, it would have been done in the mortuary. Her eyes are not visible while she was in that room, a flap of skin from her forehead covered them.
Interestingly though a press report stated he made the id from that window.

Regarding Barnett's ID, my recollection was that he made the identification at the mortuary, but I'll need to go back and check now.

I think you are likely correct about assumptions made.

[etenguy]

Yah. I tend to try and remind myself that when we get the information from the inquest, we have to keep in mind that people are testifying in a very different state compared to the time of the events upon which they testify. What I'm getting at is the idea that McCarthy (in this example) might testify with more confidence as to his identification than he actually had at the time about which he is testifying. Lots of things have happened between the event, and the testimony we have. If, to make up something so there's a concrete example, the police probed him at the time just after he looked through the window, it could go something like "I saw Mary on the bed all cut up. [PC] Are you sure it is Mary? [McM]: Oh yes, she rents the room. [PC]: Yes, I understand that, but are you sure the person on the bed is actually Mary, or could it be someone else? [McM]: Oh, well, it looks like her, but she is cut up pretty bad ... and now that I think about it maybe it isn't her, but I think it is, but I could be wrong .... etc.

However, by the time of the inquest, when he is now (rightly or wrongly) pretty convinced it was Mary, he presents his testimony based upon his current "state of belief", so he appears more confident. It might simply be the case that they are more confident because they think that because they are at an inquest that it must therefore be Mary, so as a result, their own confidence goes up (they factor in information to bolster their belief; we tend to ignore information that goes the other way). However, it can, of course, also go the other way, and that with the passage of time someone may present their testimony reflecting more indecision than they might have had initially. I suspect, but can't say I know for sure, that the former is more common than the latter. But in the end, we must always keep in mind that the testimony given reflects what the person believes at that point in time, which may not correspond to their beliefs at the point of time of the actual events. They are not just recalling events, but they are also recalling their "state of mind", and that is very hard to do because our present state of mind tends to overwrite our previous state of mind, and by doing so, it can alter our memories; or at least influence how we present them.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

That all makes sense, even though his statement is couched in the past tense suggesting he recognised her immediately, that perhaps could be confidently stated with information he since acquired.

[Michael W Richards]

Regarding Barnett's ID, my recollection was that he made the identification at the mortuary, but I'll need to go back and check now.

I think you are likely correct about assumptions made.

I wish I could remember which press article claimed he made his id from that same window. I know that one exists though. And as I said, it cant be accurate anyway.

[etenguy]

I wish I could remember which press article claimed he made his id from that same window. I know that one exists though. And as I said, it cant be accurate anyway.

Some of the press reports are unreliable - I read one stating that John McCarthy took an axe to the door at Miller's Court not long after finding the body when Beck joined them.

[Wickerman]

Some of the press reports are unreliable - I read one stating that John McCarthy took an axe to the door at Miller's Court not long after finding the body when Beck joined them.

An axe blade is generally wide enough to enable someone to force the lock by pressing the blade into the joint where the lock is, and rotate the axe, a wooden door, especially an old door, may flex sufficiently to pop the bolt out of the lock on the inside.
Any landlord would sooner force the door and keep it structurally sound, rather than let the police break in and potentially demolish the door in the process. McCarthy was just saving his costs.

[jerryd]

WARNING: Graphic Pictures.

I debated with myself long and hard before I decided to post this. The subject has been controversial for many years, but this detail has been overlooked and I wanted to address it.

With that, and regarding the subject of this thread, I think the person seen on the bed in Miller's Court was not as hacked up in the face as we are led to believe by the photographs known to us. At least originally. The controversial photo of Catherine Eddowes in a coffin appears to be more of a possibility of being the same body we see in Miller's Court. It is not Catherine Eddowes as can be seen in the following photographs. I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but bear with me.

Here is a photograph of the "supposed" body of Catherine Eddowes in the coffin. I have circled on the victims left arm a wound that appears to be flesh torn away from the body.



Here is a photograph of Catherine Eddowes showing her arms. There is no torn flesh in this photograph on her left arm as we see there is in the coffin picture.



Finally, here is the photograph of Mary Kelly on the bed. Notice the wound with the torn flesh on the upper left arm above her elbow.

[rjpalmer]

It's an interesting discussion, but I side with the Eddowes' people. I think the 'shell' or 'coffin' photograph might be reversed. I think I can see the same stitching on the victim's left arm, just at the elbow, in both photographs, once this reversal is 'corrected.'

To be slightly indelicate, I also think Kate's left nipple is evident in both photographs.

[jerryd]

RJ

Reversing the photo would still leave a tear in the other arm which Eddowes doesn’t have on either side.