Her eyes?

[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.

[Harry D]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

On what basis? I'd genuinely like to know. If the killer was trying to hide MJK's identity, his task patently failed. Why not decapitate the victim, in that case? It's not like the killer didn't have the expediency to do so.

I repeat yet again 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. I'm not sure what relevance there is in the comment comment regarding mutilations to the face and hiding of identity. My surgeon made no specific comment on that to me about hiding of identity. I thought there may have been an attempt to hide her identity for reasons unknown, but this is pure speculation.

My interest in the matter is that Mary Kelly was probably killed by someone else, and the facial mutilations should be seen in the context of the work of another killer compared to the other victims.

[Wickerman]

If we recall the photo's of Andrew Borden stretched out on the couch, all the axe blows were to the face. There were no blows to the body, but no-one would entertain the idea that this was due to the killer trying to hide his identity.

[Harry D]

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.

On what basis? I'd genuinely like to know. If the killer was trying to hide MJK's identity, his task patently failed. Why not decapitate the victim, in that case? It's not like the killer didn't have the expediency to do so.

[Rosella]

There were the remains of burned clothing in the grate, weren't there, (including a bonnet), supposedly used to build a great fire? Kelly's clothing was found on a chair, so perhaps whatever clothing was put on the fire was Mary's friend Julia's, plus other bits and pieces.

[markmorey5]

But we'd already seen from the Eddowes murder that the Ripper was starting to dabble in facial mutilations. Wouldn't MJK's complete disfigurement follow the escalation of the murders?

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.

[markmorey5]

Her ears were mutilated so not suitable feature for recognition.

Other versions of Barnett's testimony replace 'ear' with 'hair' (hair and eyes), and that as everybody knew was her most distinguishing feature.
Naturally the clothes found in the room would aid in identification as she would have had very few like most Unfortunates.

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.

[Harry D]

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. It is possible that there was an attempt to hide her identity for reasons we can only guess at.

But we'd already seen from the Eddowes murder that the Ripper was starting to dabble in facial mutilations. Wouldn't MJK's complete disfigurement follow the escalation of the murders?

[Wickerman]

Barnett said 'ear and eyes' but her identification probably went further than that.

Her ears were mutilated so not suitable feature for recognition.

Other versions of Barnett's testimony replace 'ear' with 'hair' (hair and eyes), and that as everybody knew was her most distinguishing feature.
Naturally the clothes found in the room would aid in identification as she would have had very few like most Unfortunates.

[markmorey5]

Barnett said 'ear and eyes' but her identification probably went further than that. McCarthy identified her, and she was quite tall for the time with long, probably red or strawberry blonde hair, so I doubt if a mistake was made. I don't see Mary Kelly surviving Millers Court to raise the offspring of the Royal Family as per the film From Hell!

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. It is possible that there was an attempt to hide her identity for reasons we can only guess at.