Her eyes?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Harry

I have said in the past that perhaps the eyes were left deliberately, as Barnett could only ID Kelly by her eyes & ears. I can't think why someone would obliterate every feature and leave out one of the most important features unless it was done as a grotesque 'posing' of the body or deliberate.

You can't see the eyes in the pic, but I think the eyelids were slit, to make to the eyes visible.

What about trying to hide the true identity of the murdered person?

A positive identification by eyes and ears alone given the state of the face and head unsafe and unreliable I would suggest.

Its another question mark hanging over ID issue in this mystery, we already had one questionable ID issue previous with regards to the piece of apron produced in court where police officers were shown a piece of white apron, and said yes it was the one she was wearing the night she was killed.

The facial mutilations in this murder make it so different from the other murders and put this with all the other differences in the murder suggest she was not killed by the same hand as the rest.

[Errata]

Am I the only one who was surprised to learn that MJK's eyes actually survived the ordeal? It's probably due to the graininess of the picture but whenever I look at it I can never make out MJK's eyes, I always just assume they've been mutilated like the rest of her face.

I think the identification was done after the photos, when the blood was wiped out of the eyes. Even if the lids were intact and shut, they would have opened them for such an identification. She did not have many distinguishing characteristics left.

But her eyelids were mutilated. I just don't think the eyeballs were. I think her eyes were simply caked in blood in the photos

[Rosella]

Photography was still regarded as fairly new technology in the 1880's, and people weren't quite sure about all its possibilities. Ever since mid-century there had been assertions that the last image a dead person saw before death would be captured and remain on the surface of the pupil/iris for a certain amount of time.

Of course we now know that it's absolute rubbish but in the 19th century they weren't so sure. IF, and it's a big if, a photograph was taken of Mary Kelly's eyes to see if any reflection remained, that was the reason why.

[ajcol]

I believe that I read that the police had the eyes of at least one of the victims photographed, supposedly in the belief that after death, the human eye retained the last image it saw!
Sounds crazy that it would actually happen, but weren't seances etc very much in vogue amongst polite society in Victorian times?

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4924/5366.html

Anyway, if that was the general thinking, might it not also have something to do with the reason for leaving the eyes?
Alan

[Natasha]

Am I the only one who was surprised to learn that MJK's eyes actually survived the ordeal? It's probably due to the graininess of the picture but whenever I look at it I can never make out MJK's eyes, I always just assume they've been mutilated like the rest of her face.

Hi Harry

I have said in the past that perhaps the eyes were left deliberately, as Barnett could only ID Kelly by her eyes & ears. I can't think why someone would obliterate every feature and leave out one of the most important features unless it was done as a grotesque 'posing' of the body or deliberate.

You can't see the eyes in the pic, but I think the eyelids were slit, to make to the eyes visible.

[Harry D]

Am I the only one who was surprised to learn that MJK's eyes actually survived the ordeal? It's probably due to the graininess of the picture but whenever I look at it I can never make out MJK's eyes, I always just assume they've been mutilated like the rest of her face.