How did he know?

[etenguy]

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.

Hi Wickerman

It was not the use of an axe that was a problem with the report, it was the suggestion that the door was forced when Beck arrived when we know Beck called for Abberline who waited for the dogs to arrive but then Arnold turned up and confirmed the dogs were not coming. The door was not opened by McCarthy soon after he found the body.

[etenguy]

RJ

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

Hi Jerry

This is a new argument to me but from your post seems to have been a discussion which I have missed. Would you be able to recap a brief summary of the proposition concerning using Eddowes body in MJK's room.

[rjpalmer]

RJ

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

Hi Jerry,

I appreciate that. I admit that the 'tear' is a strange feature of the photograph; I'm just not sure what we are looking at.

From what I've read, the 'coffin' or 'shell' photograph was discovered by Donald Rumbelow in the City of London Police archives. I suppose it is possible they might have a copy of a Mary Kelly photograph, but the common wisdom would suggest that that means it is related to the Mitre Square murder.

[Losmandris]

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.

Could also just be the type of person involved here. Totally anecdotal of course but McCathy has always come across as someone who would be confident in front of crowd or liking to be the centre of attention. Whereas Joe Barnett seems to be a little more shy and retiring and certainly less confident. Am I correct in believing he had some form of speech impediment. Again can't say for certain but this may have had a bearing on how he came across.

[Losmandris]

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.

Taking slightly off topic things even more off topic. I am of the belief that the face in MJK photograph may have been intentionally overdrawn or blanked out either because of it being too disturbing or somehow in effort to give the victim some kind of dignity? It is just that the description given by Bond just does not match up in any form with what we see? There was an interesting thread on this a while back.

Suppose my point is I am sure her face seemed very different when in situ compared with after the PM when it probably would have been cleaned up or possibly stitched up, making ID that little bit easier I would have thought?

[Michael W Richards]

Taking slightly off topic things even more off topic. I am of the belief that the face in MJK photograph may have been intentionally overdrawn or blanked out either because of it being too disturbing or somehow in effort to give the victim some kind of dignity? It is just that the description given by Bond just does not match up in any form with what we see? There was an interesting thread on this a while back.

Suppose my point is I am sure her face seemed very different when in situ compared with after the PM when it probably would have been cleaned up or possibly stitched up, making ID that little bit easier I would have thought?

When Marys remains are taken to the morgue they apparently did something they referred to as a "Volte Face", in essence a reversal of what had been done to her. A reconstruction. The flap of skin that covered her eyes would be stitched back in place, so id's were a bit easier. The way she was shown to people for those id's in the morgue, like Im sure Barnett's, only revealed her face and partial head. The rest of her was covered. That would explain why Barnett didnt recognize anything other than her "air and eyes", he wasnt shown more than that. As for MCarthy, Im sure his id was presumptive.

I believe the photos in situ were not retouched, Im sure thats the way she was found.

Im not sure why Kate is so blatantly displayed in that photo though, a fairly comprehensive crime scene sketch was made about her body position and injuries, like with Annie, and we dont see that kind of photo taken of Polly or Annie or Liz. Why they chose to hang her from a nail....yes, I believe thats how they suspended her upright, ...and photograph her naked is for me concerning. Why her and no others? And why is it only Mary that had the crime scene images taken? Clearly they had access to photographers at the first murder and subsequent ones...so why did they decide that Marys murder scene warranted in situ images? I think the answer to that is location. Indoors, small court, limited access to the crime scene through that tunnel.

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry

This is a new argument to me but from your post seems to have been a discussion which I have missed. Would you be able to recap a brief summary of the proposition concerning using Eddowes body in MJK's room.

Hi Etenguy.

I'm not saying Eddowes the body was used in MJK's room. The photo of the body in the "shell"/"coffin" has been argued to be that of Catherine Eddowes. However, as I have pointed out, Catherine Eddowes did not have the wound to her arm as seen in the shell photo. But Mary Kelly did have such a wound to her arm. So, who is the body in the shell? If it is Mary Kelly, we have a photo that depicts less wounds to the face than what we see in other photos of her. That could explain the ability to identify her by Barnett and others.

RJ.

This is from John Bennett years ago.

According to Rumbelow in the author's epilogues of 'Scotland Yard Investigates', he found the photographs of Kelly (and Eddowes) in 'the filthy attic room of Snow Hill police station', which was where the remnants of the City Police museum had been dumped at that time.

And yes, he was a serving police officer at that time.

The important part is, he found the photographs of Kelly AND Eddowes in the filthy attic of Snow Hill police station.

[etenguy]

Hi Etenguy.

I'm not saying Eddowes the body was used in MJK's room. The photo of the body in the "shell"/"coffin" has been argued to be that of Catherine Eddowes. However, as I have pointed out, Catherine Eddowes did not have the wound to her arm as seen in the shell photo. But Mary Kelly did have such a wound to her arm. So, who is the body in the shell? If it is Mary Kelly, we have a photo that depicts less wounds to the face than what we see in other photos of her. That could explain the ability to identify her by Barnett and others.

RJ.

Apologies - I misunderstood.

[Abby Normal]

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.

hi jerry
interesting stuff from you as usual. in the debated photo it appears you can not only see the detached end of nose/ nostrils of eddowes but also the exposed slice and nostrils above it. would this not rule out it being kelly?

also in the stitched eddowes photo, i see not only a horizontal stitching near the elbow but also a slight vertical discoloration above it. couldnt this be the gash stitched up possibly?

also didnt barnett say he could only id her by her hair or ear and eyes?

[jerryd]

hi jerry
interesting stuff from you as usual. in the debated photo it appears you can not only see the detached end of nose/ nostrils of eddowes but also the exposed slice and nostrils above it. would this not rule out it being kelly?

also in the stitched eddowes photo, i see not only a horizontal stitching near the elbow but also a slight vertical discoloration above it. couldnt this be the gash stitched up possibly?

also didnt barnett say he could only id her by her hair or ear and eyes?

Hi Abby.

No, it would not rule her out. It would, however, rule her in.

Dr. Bond noted during his examination of the body in Miller's Court, The face was gashed in all directions the nose, cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.

No, it would not rule her out. It would, however, rule her in.

Dr. Bond noted during his examination of the body in Miller's Court, The face was gashed in all directions the nose, cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed.

ok thanks! i was under tje impression kellys nose was completely obliterated.

[etenguy]

Hi Abby.

No, it would not rule her out. It would, however, rule her in.

Dr. Bond noted during his examination of the body in Miller's Court, The face was gashed in all directions the nose, cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed.

Hi Jerry

It seems to me that Eddowes throat has ben sewn together but the person in the coffin photo looks like the throat is still open. It might be I cannot see properly, as the photo quality makes it difficult

[rjpalmer]

Hi Jerry

It seems to me that Eddowes throat has ben sewn together but the person in the coffin photo looks like the throat is still open. It might be I cannot see properly, as the photo quality makes it difficult

It's sometimes called the 'coffin' photograph, but the argument is that it isn't a coffin, but a mortuary 'shell' used for transporting the body before the post-mortem.

This would suggest that what looks like stitching on her arm is not actually stitching (yes, I'm arguing against my own suggestion). Some believe what looks like stitching is actually a lid to the 'shell' as it seems to extend beyond her arm.

The poor quality of the photograph doesn't help.

[rjpalmer]

I tracked down Donald Rumbelow's original wording in the authors' epilogues and he refers to more than one photograph of Eddowes.

"I found the photograph of Mary Kelly's body, along with the Eddowes images, in the filthy attic room at Snow Hill police station where the remains of the old museum had been dumped. At some point the Kelly picture had been fixed to something with a drawing pin: the holes at the top are still visible on reproductions." (p. 266, emphasis added).

I guess it is a matter of speculation whether that suggest the Eddowes photographs were part of a set or not.

[etenguy]

It's sometimes called the 'coffin' photograph, but the argument is that it isn't a coffin, but a mortuary 'shell' used for transporting the body before the post-mortem.

This would suggest that what looks like stitching on her arm is not actually stitching (yes, I'm arguing against my own suggestion). Some believe what looks like stitching is actually a lid to the 'shell' as it seems to extend beyond her arm.

The poor quality of the photograph doesn't help.

Thank you, RJ.

It is as you say and if the picture is pre post mortem, then judging from the facial features, it would suggest the photo is more likely Catherine Eddowes but it is too difficult to be certain given the angle of the photo and the quality.