Her eyes?

[Losmandris]

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

I totally agree. Something no one should ever have to do but I think that you would know. Especially if you have been intimate/spent a lot of time with that person. That said there are exceptions, I find it truly bizarre that someone mistook Liz Stride for her sister, was convinced in fact? In that case, I am presuming she had not seen her sister in many years?

[Losmandris]

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.

There must have been one I presume. As was the case with the other victims for ID purposes? In the case of Eddowes, considering the damage inflicted, the pathologist did a good job reconstruction wise. Could this have been possible in MJKs case I wonder or were the injuries just too severe?


There could always be a chance that it turns up at some point? It could well be in a long forgotten trunk in an attic somewhere?

Just on this. Would someone been shown a/the picture first before being invited to ID the body?

[Wickerman]

There must have been one I presume. As was the case with the other victims for ID purposes? In the case of Eddowes, considering the damage inflicted, the pathologist did a good job reconstruction wise. Could this have been possible in MJKs case I wonder or were the injuries just too severe?


There could always be a chance that it turns up at some point? It could well be in a long forgotten trunk in an attic somewhere?

Just on this. Would someone been shown a/the picture first before being invited to ID the body?

I suspect this idea the photo was taken for I.D. purposes has arisen in more later times.
A contemporary press report says the photographer was sent for by Dr Phillips, at the inquest it was Phillips who produced a photograph, the reporter wrote that Phillips had taken the photo (meaning he authorised it). No surviving document claims the police were responsible for taking the photographs.

That would suggest the photo's were medical evidence not part of the police investigation. The only reason we have them today is due to them being introduced as part of the evidence at the inquest. Taking those photographs do not appear to have been part of the police initiative, so not likely used as you suggest as part of the I.D. process.

[Joshua Rogan]

From newspaper reports, it seems that the police did take photos for id purposes, at least in the torso cases.
Here's one involving the Whitehall torso, but (from memory) other cases also mention photos of the respective remains.

"Shields Daily Gazette - Wednesday 31 October 1888

THE WHITEHALL MYSTERY.
Yesterday, the remains of the unknown female that were found recently at Whitehall were interred at Woking by the parish authorities, the order for burial having been handed over by Inspector Marshall, who has charge of the case. The remains, consisting of the trunk, arm, and leg, were removed from the mortuary in Millbank Street, Westminster, where they have lying to await identification, to Wallis’s Yard Workhouse, and placed in a coffin, before being conveyed to their final resting place. Among the persons who called at the mortuary was an old woman who thought she recognised in the photograph which had been taken of the remains some trace of a daughter who had been missing since August, but she could not be positive upon the point."

[Wickerman]

Yes, thankyou Joshua.

We also read in the Daily Telegraph, where the reason is given...
"To-day a photograph is to be taken, so as to preserve, as far as possible, the means of identification."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881004.html

Here it was also explained that the photograph was taken before the autopsy.
"It is intended by the police to photograph the remains in the course of to-day, after which they will be disinfected and a post-mortem examination will be made by Dr. Bond and a medical colleague".

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881003.html

I notice here we find reference to a photograph of Stride by her nephew, PC Walter Stride.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/people/18881028.html

[Losmandris]

I am sure I had read that the photos were used for ID purposes. So I wonder was there one floating about of MJK? I suppose it was less likely because it was known right away who was living at 13 Millers court. So not much point. For the other victims establishing an ID would have taken a lot longer and using a photo as ID would have been a useful tool.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

In the images we have of Mary Kelly she is in the bed she was killed in and in the condition, presumably, she was found in. That condition included a flap of skin hanging loose from her forehead over her eyes. You therefore couldnt make them out in the pictures or from the window,.... which means anyone, like Barnett, that used the eyes as part of their id did so by viewing her somewhere else. It also is revealing from the standpoint of slashing....something that likely caused the defensive wounds, also visible.

[Wickerman]

I am sure I had read that the photos were used for ID purposes. So I wonder was there one floating about of MJK? I suppose it was less likely because it was known right away who was living at 13 Millers court. So not much point. For the other victims establishing an ID would have taken a lot longer and using a photo as ID would have been a useful tool.

Yet, aside from those mentioned, in each case the victim was ID'd after someone who knew her saw the body.
No mention of being ID'd from a photograph.

[Michael W Richards]

Yet, aside from those mentioned, in each case the victim was ID'd after someone who knew her saw the body.
No mention of being ID'd from a photograph.

In the Ripper cases that have images taken I believe all the others were taken in the mortuary, which is also where Id's likely took place. I think the 6 pics of Mary taken in her room, (1 of the slides, MJK1 or 3 indicated they were from a total of 6 images) actually represented a new era of forensics.

[Mark J D]

... Barnett could only ID Kelly by her eyes & ears...

-- I know we see that written everywhere; but isn't it possible/likely that Barnett said something like '... her eyes and her hair...', only for it to get written down as '... 'er eyes an' 'er 'ear...' because of his strong accent and his 'h'-dropping...?

Bests,

M.

[Wickerman]

The Morning Advertiser and the Echo both reported "by her hair and eyes".

It's an issue of accent, when a Cockney say's "hair", it's pronounced like "air", it will sound a lot like "ear".

[Mortis]

In the images we have of Mary Kelly she is in the bed she was killed in and in the condition, presumably, she was found in. That condition included a flap of skin hanging loose from her forehead over her eyes. You therefore couldnt make them out in the pictures or from the window,.... which means anyone, like Barnett, that used the eyes as part of their id did so by viewing her somewhere else. It also is revealing from the standpoint of slashing....something that likely caused the defensive wounds, also visible.

Not true. I can easily make one of her eyes, I can even post a picture circling it. If I remember correctly, Barnett identified her in the mortuary where they probably "cleaned" her up a bit (like you said, for example not having a flap of skin hanging her other eye). Kelly had no defensive wounds either. He appears to have slashed her arms for the heck of it, similar stuff he did to Eddowes. They do not in any way shape of form represent "defensive wounds" given that defensive wounds would be more very extensive on the fingers and palm. It would also not be possible as the coroner already confirmed that Kelly's throat was slashed first (which would explain the amount of blood) and Kelly would really have no real means to defend herself as such, just like the other victims.

Kelly's throat was most likely slashed from behind given the blood pattern, the killer then placed his hand on her mouth as to muffle any possible sounds. Of course, the latter is speculation, but given the bruising patterns on Nichols and the fact that no single person ever heard him despite many witnesses being in a very close proximity to the killings suggest that this is the method the Ripper used to quickly incapacitate his victims without giving any alert.

[Wickerman]

.......Kelly's throat was most likely slashed from behind given the blood pattern, the killer then placed his hand on her mouth as to muffle any possible sounds. ....

I agree about the apparent lack of defensive wounds, a single cut to her thumb & some wounds on the forearm could have been made by the killer in haste. I've always believed the victims never saw a knife, they were strangled. The killer was a strangler who used the knife to mutilate.
The blood stains on the top left corner of the bed indicate to me she was on the bed when her throat was cut, but whether she was on her back or face down is likely debatable. In my view she was face down and he pulled her head up off the bed by the hair, and sliced her neck from behind. This would justify the heavy blood stains over the side of the mattress, and on the floor.
Thats my conjecture.

Also, from that position, face down on the right side of the bed (nearest the partition), he only needed to role her over onto her back, and she would then be at the left side of the bed (where she was found), the bed being quite narrow.
If that sequence of events holds true it tells me the killer was on the bed with her when the attack began. The killer was a client that she brought home.

[Losmandris]

Not true. I can easily make one of her eyes, I can even post a picture circling it. If I remember correctly, Barnett identified her in the mortuary where they probably "cleaned" her up a bit (like you said, for example not having a flap of skin hanging her other eye). Kelly had no defensive wounds either. He appears to have slashed her arms for the heck of it, similar stuff he did to Eddowes. They do not in any way shape of form represent "defensive wounds" given that defensive wounds would be more very extensive on the fingers and palm. It would also not be possible as the coroner already confirmed that Kelly's throat was slashed first (which would explain the amount of blood) and Kelly would really have no real means to defend herself as such, just like the other victims.

Kelly's throat was most likely slashed from behind given the blood pattern, the killer then placed his hand on her mouth as to muffle any possible sounds. Of course, the latter is speculation, but given the bruising patterns on Nichols and the fact that no single person ever heard him despite many witnesses being in a very close proximity to the killings suggest that this is the method the Ripper used to quickly incapacitate his victims without giving any alert.

I cannot make head nor tail of that picture I am afraid. I have never been able to recognise any part of her face, where the eyes, or the mouth or anything quite frankly is located.

[Losmandris]

I agree about the apparent lack of defensive wounds, a single cut to her thumb & some wounds on the forearm could have been made by the killer in haste. I've always believed the victims never saw a knife, they were strangled. The killer was a strangler who used the knife to mutilate.
The blood stains on the top left corner of the bed indicate to me she was on the bed when her throat was cut, but whether she was on her back or face down is likely debatable. In my view she was face down and he pulled her head up off the bed by the hair, and sliced her neck from behind. This would justify the heavy blood stains over the side of the mattress, and on the floor.
Thats my conjecture.

Also, from that position, face down on the right side of the bed (nearest the partition), he only needed to role her over onto her back, and she would then be at the left side of the bed (where she was found), the bed being quite narrow.
If that sequence of events holds true it tells me the killer was on the bed with her when the attack began. The killer was a client that she brought home.

Hi Jon,

You have mentioned this before and I totally agree. It is very possible none of the victims actually saw the knife. If there had been defensive wounds on MJK I am sure they would have been referred to in the post mortem. I also believe if there had been any excessive damage to her eyes, this would have been flagged as well. I think however brutal the injuries to her face were, after some cleaning up and stitching she would have been identifiable to those who knew her.