MJK's Body Identification?

[ZadieWey]

Hello All. I'm relatively new to the case and I have a question that I can't seem to find the answer to. It sort of breaks into parts (depending on how much information is available) like so:

1. Did the police bother to try and have someone say that the body found in MJK's room was definitely Mary Jane Kelly?
2. Would someone have been able to identify her, despite all the mutilation of her face?
3. If someone did identify the body, who was it?
4. What evidence is there that the body is in fact Mary Kelly's? Other than the fact that it was in her room and matched her general description, of course.
5. If no one here has a definitive answer to these questions, where should I start looking for them? How does one even find police records from that time?

Thank you all in advance, and I'm sorry if this is something that has a really obvious answer that I'm just too much of a noob to find.

[Rosella]

Hi ZadieWey and welcome,

Don't worry about asking questions. Personally, I've found fellow posters incredibly helpful, even when I disagree with their conclusions!

Mary was identified by her ex defacto, Joseph Barnett. He and Mary had met in April 1887 and lived together from then at various addresses around the East End until the end of October 1888, when there was a quarrel over Mary allowing friends who worked as prostitutes to share her room. They then parted.

After Mary's body was discovered Barnett was traced and held by the police, who questioned him for several hours, and examined his clothing. He was then cleared by them and after Mary's body was removed from Millers Court to Shoreditch Mortuary he was taken there to see if he could identify her.

An inquest was held on the victim as Mary Jane Kelly, and the police and authorities seem to have accepted that the body was that of the woman who had occupied the room in spite of Mrs Caroline Maxwell testifying at the Inquest that she had seen Mary alive and well on the morning her body was discovered. There have been debates here about whether the body was Mary's as you've probably read!

Barnett was the first witness at Mary's subsequent inquest and testified that he had identified the body 'by the ear and the eyes'. Joe suffered from a congenital speech impediment and it has been surmised that he had in fact identified Mary by her hair and eyes but was misheard. Mary's landlord, John McCarthy, also stated that he had no doubts that the body (which he saw in situ while she was lying in her room) was of the woman he knew as Mary Kelly.

I really recommend you read all you can both here and on the Jack the Ripper Forum (I know it's a lot of threads to work through.) If you wanted to buy just a couple of books I do recommend Begg, Fido and Skinner's 'The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z' and also Philip Sugden's 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper'. I'd be lost without those two books!

[GUT]

Welcome to casebook zadieway.

I think Rosella has given you a Good summary.

There are lots of arguments over ear or hair ('air).

But I am not at all shocked at someone who has been in an intimate relationship with someone for 18 months, living in one tiny room (about 12x12) being able to identify that person by the most minor detail.

I have no doubts that I could identify Mrs Gut by her hair or ear or even by her little toe.

[miss marple]

There is no evidence that Joe suffered from a congenital speech impediment. That just comes from the imagination of Bruce Paley to create a theory that Joe murdered Mary.He read her newspapers. Its more likely that he was in a state of post traumatic shock at the inquest which is why he repeated questions and also had to think before he spoke. It was probably an intimidating situation, speaking at the inquest. We forget that Joe was probably deeply affected by the death after having viewed the horrific state of the body.

It was probably hair in cockney 'air'

Miss Marple

[Pierre]

Hello All. I'm relatively new to the case and I have a question that I can't seem to find the answer to. It sort of breaks into parts (depending on how much information is available) like so:

1. Did the police bother to try and have someone say that the body found in MJK's room was definitely Mary Jane Kelly?

No. Since "Mary Jane Kelly" was not an historical concept at that time.

2. Would someone have been able to identify her, despite all the mutilation of her face?

Barnett did.

3. If someone did identify the body, who was it?

See above.

4. What evidence is there that the body is in fact Mary Kelly's? Other than the fact that it was in her room and matched her general description, of course.

In 1888 that was not an issue. Later ideas in ripperology in that direction is the reason why you ask.

5. If no one here has a definitive answer to these questions, where should I start looking for them? How does one even find police records from that time?

Read The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner. You find a lot of transcribed primary sources in it.

Thank you all in advance, and I'm sorry if this is something that has a really obvious answer that I'm just too much of a noob to find.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

I agree with everything you say here.

Barnett, her former partner identified her, as did her landlord, and the idea that it was not her is a very modern idea.

However can I make a point with regards to your answer, for the benefit of the original poster, not a criticism of your reply:

"No. Since "Mary Jane Kelly" was not an historical concept at that time".

Zadieway was asking if the body was the body of the woman who lived in that room. And while you gave a concise, accurate answer, it could be confusing for a new comer.

It is very possible that "Mary Jane Kelly" was not the birth name or indeed the "real" name of the victim; this name as been accepted by many as being the name of the victim of Millers Court, yet tracing her has proved very difficult.
Almost all that is known about her comes from what Barnett reported she had told him about her background.

The Late Chris Scott was very clear on this issue.


"Mary Jane Kelly" is certainly an historic concept, however the name was almost certainly the creation of the woman who used the name.
It was a very common name, and thus a good one to use if you wanted to remain anonymous for some reason.

Good to agree with you on this Pierre

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Almost all that is known about her comes from what Barnett reported she had told him about her background.

Much of which does, in fairness, cross-check with what Mrs Felix ("Phoenix") and some others had to say. Of course, all that might mean is that she told the same iffy back-story to Mrs Felix, Mrs Carthy and Barnett alike.

[Elamarna]

Much of which does, in fairness, cross-check with what Mrs Felix ("Phoenix") and some others had to say. Of course, all that might mean is that she told the same iffy back-story to Mrs Felix, Mrs Carthy and Barnett alike.

Agreed, it is interesting that no one as been able to positively identify her, or her family. and while there are a few theories floating about none have so far been proved.

steve

[Shaggyrand]

That reminds me- has there been any progress on the granted exhumation request? Maybe not the thread to ask but it just struck me.

[GUT]

That reminds me- has there been any progress on the granted exhumation request? Maybe not the thread to ask but it just struck me.

Not aware that a request has been made.

My understanding was that Prosector had made enquiries butnot an actual request and wha awaiting the response to his book before considering going to the expense associated with such a request.

[GUT]

Pierre

I agree with everything you say here.

Barnett, her former partner identified her, as did her landlord, and the idea that it was not her is a very modern idea.

However can I make a point with regards to your answer, for the benefit of the original poster, not a criticism of your reply:

"No. Since "Mary Jane Kelly" was not an historical concept at that time".

Zadieway was asking if the body was the body of the woman who lived in that room. And while you gave a concise, accurate answer, it could be confusing for a new comer.

It is very possible that "Mary Jane Kelly" was not the birth name or indeed the "real" name of the victim; this name as been accepted by many as being the name of the victim of Millers Court, yet tracing her has proved very difficult.
Almost all that is known about her comes from what Barnett reported she had told him about her background.

The Late Chris Scott was very clear on this issue.


"Mary Jane Kelly" is certainly an historic concept, however the name was almost certainly the creation of the woman who used the name.
It was a very common name, and thus a good one to use if you wanted to remain anonymous for some reason.

Good to agree with you on this Pierre

Steve

Not sure I agree that "the name was almost certainly a creation" it well may have been, but in my opinion nowhere near "almost certainly".

The problem flows from the next part"It was a very common name...." so even if her real name very hard to find her.

[Shaggyrand]

Not aware that a request has been made.

My understanding was that Prosector had made enquiries butnot an actual request and wha awaiting the response to his book before considering going to the expense associated with such a request.

He applied and was granted the exhumation, I think back in August. As I recall there were a bunch of hoops that had to be jumped through before it could be done. Haven't heard anything since. Not sure I've seen any posts by him since either, now that I think about it.

[GUT]

He applied and was granted the exhumation, I think back in August. As I recall there were a bunch of hoops that had to be jumped through before it could be done. Haven't heard anything since. Not sure I've seen any posts by him since either, now that I think about it.

I may be wrong but I thought he was told that if he, to use your terms "jump through a bunch of hoops" he could then make an application (or it may have been a fresh application) and I've never heard of him doing so.

[DJA]

Not going to happen.

Not our Mary Kelly either.

Have a lot of respect for Prosector though.

Love his father's movies. Have them all on DVD.

[Elamarna]

Not sure I agree that "the name was almost certainly a creation" it well may have been, but in my opinion nowhere near "almost certainly".

The problem flows from the next part"It was a very common name...." so even if her real name very hard to find her.

Hi Gut, all fair points, Chris Scott seemed convinced that was not her real name and that is a big point for me, really respected him.
the point is that searches for a Mary Jane Kelly have provided nothing which fits with our girl, not even a link to the supposed marriage to "Davis" or "Davies" which of course itself is very common too.

The only positive point from her back story was Barnett knew that her supposed brother in the Scots Guards was at the time of her death based in Ireland. Now that was true that they had been transferred there in the previous few months, so either Barnett had the story ready to use, which I consider unlikely or there was some truth in that part of the story.

cheers

Steve