Her eyes?

[Wickerman]

My research indicates that the phrase 'ear and eyes' was said at the official inquest and reported in two newspapers before the inquest notes were published, so we have three independant sources for the words Barnett said (inquest notes and two newspapers, both of which had reporters present). So ear and eyes it was, and perhaps she had a distinguishing feature on her ear or ears which survived the mutilation.

It might be of interest to some if we (or myself) took the time to list all the instances where the official record mispronounced a name or word.
The official recorder was no more nor less human than the reporter in the same room.
They both made mistakes.

[markmorey5]

It IS possible that three people (two newspapers reporters and the court reporter) mis-heard the word 'hair', but with three separate and independant reports it's unlikely unless Barnett spoke badly, which it was reported that he didn't. However, in Barnett's account of Kelly's life some of the names were mangled, such as Carthy for McCarthy or Morgan Stone for possibly Morganstern. Here we have a possible mis-understanding of Kelly's speech (which is possible if she had a Welsh accent), a possible mis-understanding of Barnett's speech, or memory fading of a conversation held long before.

The words ear or hair are not of any consequence, and Victorian women normally didn't cut their hair so waist-length hair was really common at the time.

[Wickerman]

It IS possible that three people (two newspapers reporters and the court reporter) mis-heard the word 'hair', but with three separate and independant reports it's unlikely unless Barnett spoke badly, which it was reported that he didn't.

On the evening of the Inquest, the 12th, the Evening papers were also divided.
The Echo reported "hair and eyes", while the Evening News had "ear and eyes", and the Star reported "ears and the eyes".

On the following day, the morning papers like, the Daily Telegraph, and Morning Post both wrote "ear" or "ears".
Yet the Morning Advertiser and Standard, both reported "hair and eyes".
The Times and Daily News reported neither.
What we cannot allow for are the Agencies, and what version they printed, and consequently sold over the wire.

Kelly's most distinguishing feature, as everyone knows, was the colour of her hair. Not the length.
There is simply nothing to distinguish about a severed, or partly severed, ear as compared to the colour of her hair.

[Natasha]

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

I have suggested this in the past, and I did also suggest that perhaps the the body found at Millers Court was not Kelly, and that's why the face was attacked.

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

I have always said that. I have questioned Barnett's way of IDing Kelly.

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.

It does indeed appear to differ from the other victims.

[Harry D]

Then what was the killer's motive for slashing up Eddowes' face and trying to take off her nose and/or ear?

[Sam Flynn]

Other versions of Barnett's testimony replace 'ear' with 'hair' (hair and eyes).

It just struck me that the polari slang, latterly associated with the gay sub-culture of post-war London, but previously popular among fish-porters and market traders, made heavy use of "back-slang". The polari back-slang for hair was, of course, riah. If fish-porter Barnett actually said "her riah and eyes" it would have sounded exactly like "her ear and eyes".

Very speculative, admittedly, but I thought I'd share it. The usual theory, viz. a simple mis-hearing of "hair", is quite good enough for me.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

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

in Dew's memoirs, he said that the police did indeed tried optography on MJK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optography

[miss marple]

If Joe had a cockney accent the H would have been silent so it could easily have been Hair also the ears were clipped so not much to see.
Her hair was a distinctive feature.

Miss Marple

[Cogidubnus]

Quite...

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Barnett could only identify MJK by what was there. Hard to identify anyone by eyes alone, I would have thought and I certainly couldn't identify any member of my family from their ears. Hair is another matter. I can understand the reasoning for suspecting Barnett but not for questioning the identification. I see no point in speculating that the body was not that of MJK. If Kelly had wanted to disappear she could just have left the area; there was no need to murder a substitute in order to facilitate that process.

[Losmandris]

Realise that I am a bit late to this conversation but saw it in the archive column, read it the posts and wanted to comment!

Unless the murderer completely skinned the face I think it would not be that difficult for Barnett to ID MJK. I sometimes imagine the photo that we have can be deceptive in the fact, that as mentioned earlier there was a lot of blood covering the face. Once this had been cleaned off/up in the mortuary identification would have been made easier!

[Harry D]

Realise that I am a bit late to this conversation but saw it in the archive column, read it the posts and wanted to comment!

Unless the murderer completely skinned the face I think it would not be that difficult for Barnett to ID MJK. I sometimes imagine the photo that we have can be deceptive in the fact, that as mentioned earlier there was a lot of blood covering the face. Once this had been cleaned off/up in the mortuary identification would have been made easier!

I wonder what happened to the photo they took after they stitched what was left of MJK back together? I know one photo purporting to be her was actually Eddowes at the mortuary.

[Varqm]

Realise that I am a bit late to this conversation but saw it in the archive column, read it the posts and wanted to comment!

Unless the murderer completely skinned the face I think it would not be that difficult for Barnett to ID MJK. I sometimes imagine the photo that we have can be deceptive in the fact, that as mentioned earlier there was a lot of blood covering the face. Once this had been cleaned off/up in the mortuary identification would have been made easier!

Not only that but it's a "feel\sense" thing in identifying her.

[Scott Nelson]

Did that surgeon you worked with have the background to assess the mindset of the Kelly's killer? Was that mindset different from of the other victims' killer(s)? Or could it have been the same killer with different mindsets?

motives, reasons, psychosis...

[Aethelwulf]

I repeat that I gave the autopsy reports of all of the murders to a surgeon I worked with at the time, and he was convinced that Mary Kelly was not killed by the person who mutilated the other mutilated victims.

Trying to create mystery where there is none.