Hutch's Man

[Wickerman]

He said " I identify her by her hair and eyes" Sam, and if that's the case it might well be proof that her head was all he viewed, as I suggested.

Thats it Michael, because it was customary to wrap the body with only the head exposed. Nichols is shown the same way.
In preparation for the inquest.

[Wickerman]

.....'hair' is nothing more than ripperology not liking that it was an ear , which according to Bond , was partially severed and the realisation that it would be an impossible identification .
You can't identify a partial ear so let's change history .....

Early reports describe the ears as removed, or partly removed. So as they were mutilated, and unless Mary Kelly was a Vulcan, her ears would be unidentifiable.
Her hair was her most identifiable feature.

[packers stem]

My apologies
Seems the Echo and Morning advertiser did say hair .
The official transcript , Telegraph,Star and Evening News say ear so I stand corrected but still , I still go with the official transcript if the press are split as they seem to be

[packers stem]

He said " I identify her by her hair and eyes" Sam, and if that's the case it might well be proof that her head was all he viewed, as I suggested.

come again ?
we can't rewrite the testimony to suit here.
'ear and eyes'
this was never questioned by the coroner or in one single press report .
As it wasn't , and due to his accent , we must conclude that he emphasised his words by indicating with his hand ,as we do instinctively during description events .It's a human instinct.
Someone stops us for directions..... we say "you go down the A50" and at the same time we're pointing .... without even realising what we're doing .
Had he just used words we would have to ask why the coroner didn't ask him to confirm this and why nobody from the press got it wrong .
'hair' is nothing more than ripperology not liking that it was an ear , which according to Bond , was partially severed and the realisation that it would be an impossible identification .
You can't identify a partial ear so let's change history .....

[Sam Flynn]

He said " I identify her by her hair and eyes" Sam, and if that's the case it might well be proof that her head was all he viewed, as I suggested.

Yes, that would work - the customary quick lift of a blanket at the head end, after the face had been cleaned up and the wounds stitched closed.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think it was a case of Barnett only being able to identify two features; more likely, it was that only two features needed to be named in order to formally confirm the identificaton.

I don't think the police/coroner required a full inventory of every single feature that Barnett recognised, of which I'm sure there would have been many more.

He said " I identify her by her hair and eyes" Sam, and if that's the case it might well be proof that her head was all he viewed, as I suggested.

[Wickerman]

More likely the fact Barnett mentioned her facial features, "hair & eyes", though some reports have "ear and eyes", is because Barnett is talking about just moments ago.

Barnett said this at the inquest, the witnesses had just returned from the mortuary where they had all viewed the body. As was customary the entire body is covered with the exception of the head, or face, in preparation for the inquest.
Barnett is not talking about the day of the murder, but today, the day of the inquest.

In support of this is the report as given in the East London Advertiser, where we read:
"He had seen the body and identified it by the ears and eyes, which were all that could be seen."

As the E.L.A. was just one report, some might call it bull$hit, but then in the Daily Telegraph we read:
"I have seen the body, and I identify it by the ear and eyes, which are all that I can recognise;"

This is present tense, he had just returned from viewing the body.
How, or by whom the body was identified on the morning of the murder is never stated.

[Sam Flynn]

Ive wondered why Barnett could only identify 2 features.

I don't think it was a case of Barnett only being able to identify two features; more likely, it was that only two features needed to be named in order to formally confirm the identificaton.

I don't think the police/coroner required a full inventory of every single feature that Barnett recognised, of which I'm sure there would have been many more.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think it's stated but, given that it would have been a formal identification, I suspect it would have been at Shoreditch mortuary. I can't see the police being so callous as to show him Kelly's mangled body on the blood-soaked bed they once shared, to say nothing of the flesh and organs strewn around it.

I never found a specific reference to the place either Sam, but I suspect it could not have been from the window in the courtyard as some reports stated. He used her "eyes" as one of only 2 points of familiar reference, and as is clear in one room photo, her eyes are not visible . They are covered by a flap or flaps of forehead.

And I pointed out long ago, someone who had intimate knowledge of anothers body would I think recognize just a calf or a foot or a hand. Overall size. Shoulder width. Ive wondered why Barnett could only identify 2 features, since we can see the others I mention in the photos. I think its because he saw her when the rest of her body was covered. After it left the room. That's why both familiar features are above the shoulder.

[Roy Corduroy]

Wow. Now we're getting leakage. From what I suspect was a Suspect post (Druitt) grafted to the modified generic Kelly-Thong which this has become. Sort of. Which in fact garnered a reply in the form of (are you sitting down?) that's right, a question. All boats rise with the tide I always say. Kind of like keeping that old 56' Ford running. You know, the one your brother tried to convert it from a stick shift to a four in the floor before he went to Nam'. It didn't work but somehow Darryl across the street was able to get it running anyhoo.

Roy

[Wickerman]

Macnaghten.

He is a ripper suspect too.

I know I know, but the word suspect now means anyone who was suspected, no matter what!


And since you cannot prove beyond any doubt that he was definitely not Macnaghten, his candidacy will remain!

This is how some posters do their ripperology nowadays.



The Baron

Who suspected him?

[The Baron]

Macnaghten.

He is a ripper suspect too.

I know I know, but the word suspect now means anyone who was suspected, no matter what!


And since you cannot prove beyond any doubt that he was definitely not Macnaghten, his candidacy will remain!

This is how some posters do their ripperology nowadays.



The Baron

[Wickerman]

Is there any proof that she was involved in soliciting during the time she was with Barnett,...

Barnett said he didn't like her going on the streets, so he kept her at home by him going to work.
Why? - because she was a prostitute!
Once he was out of work she returned to prostitution (according to Barnett), then he left her.
At what point is it not clear that Kelly was prostituting herself?

Barnett certainly didn't say so at the inquest.

John, have you ever been to an inquest?
Witnesses do not speak until they are spoken to, and they only answer the questioned posed to them.
Was Barnett asked if Kelly had returned to prostitution? - No!
So why would he say anything about it?

It's the same reason nothing was said at the inquest about Kelly being out on the street after 2:00, the subject never came up.

You also missed out the most pertinent part of the Marie Harvey quote: "I don't believe that she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so to keep herself from starvation."

As opposed to getting a proper job?
Question:- Why turn to prostitution to stave off starvation?
Answer: - Because she is a prostitute, what else can she do?.

And we're certainly not entitled to assume that she would have seen several men that night; a reasonable inference from the Harvey quote is that she would not.

Kelly would not have returned to the streets if Barnett was still giving her money - this we all know.
Kelly was a prostitute before Barnett picker her up, what occupation would you expect her to return to when times get desperate again?

Evidence that she went out at all on the night of her murder is weak. We have Hutchinson's dubious account, and Cox's questionable account. And that's just about it.

John, dismiss all the witnesses, then claim there is insufficient evidence, or claim the evidence is weak.
It's a well established procedure here on Casebook.

[packers stem]

Where did Barnett view MJK to confirm her identity? Was it in Room 13 or at a morgue?

Peeping through the window according to his interview with the star .
we've nothing else to go on .
Shame he couldn't be bothered to tell everyone how to open the door .....

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think it's stated but, given that it would have been a formal identification, I suspect it would have been at Shoreditch mortuary. I can't see the police being so callous as to show him Kelly's mangled body on the blood-soaked bed they once shared, to say nothing of the flesh and organs strewn around it.