Was She Wrong?

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

As I have previously written, I am keeping an open mind on this issue. Maxwell would normally be considered the best witness in the entire JtR catalogue, she was on first name terms with Kelly, spoke to her, identified her clothing correctly, her observation was confirmed by another witness, she made her statement the same day, and her movements that morning are corroborated by others. She should be the best witness by a mile, and yet we don't believe her because two men, who both could have strong reasons to lie, positively identified her mutilated body - a body which could have been mutilated deliberately to make identification difficult. Actually, I think they identified the body formally, and not via a brief glimpse through the window as you suggest.

I can't reject the possibility that Kelly left to start a new life with a fairly wealthy client. I really don't know - the evidence is so contradictory. Who is right?

Hi Doc,

I agree with your assessment of Maxwell as the best witness and most under-rated by far. While Barnett, at least, eventually identified the body formally, I was referring to their initial statements when they first viewed the body through the window. First evidence ...and all that.

I think we can confidentially say that no one knows what actually happened, and we are all here to try to speculate what may have happened. Who is right...no one that I can discern, although many think they might be. I don't think I am right, I am merely considering possibilities.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

I find it a little suspicious that both Barnett and McCarthy were so sure of their identifications after a brief look through a broken window. If Mary had presented herself that morning, how would she explain the woman in her room? Using a premises for immoral purposes was an offence attracting a prison sentence. Could McCarthy have been implicated? Did he send Bowyer to the police and follow on to give himself time to check the room for incriminating evidence? Why would he allow the rent to back up to 29 shillings when women were being turned out into the night for the lack of four pence. I also find it suspicious that he claimed to not have a key for his own premises. Was it better for all concerned for Mary to just disappear leaving the presumption that she had been murdered, particularly if she had struck a new relationship as indicated by her visit to Pennington St?

Hi George,

As I have previously written, I am keeping an open mind on this issue. Maxwell would normally be considered the best witness in the entire JtR catalogue, she was on first name terms with Kelly, spoke to her, identified her clothing correctly, her observation was confirmed by another witness, she made her statement the same day, and her movements that morning are corroborated by others. She should be the best witness by a mile, and yet we don't believe her because two men, who both could have strong reasons to lie, positively identified her mutilated body - a body which could have been mutilated deliberately to make identification difficult. Actually, I think they identified the body formally, and not via a brief glimpse through the window as you suggest.

I can't reject the possibility that Kelly left to start a new life with a fairly wealthy client. I really don't know - the evidence is so contradictory. Who is right?

[GBinOz]

Well done, Kattrup, that is very interesting. He is "positive" from seeing the eyes and ear. That is astonishing, and for some, a little bit suspect!

Hi Doc,

I find it a little suspicious that both Barnett and McCarthy were so sure of their identifications after a brief look through a broken window. If Mary had presented herself that morning, how would she explain the woman in her room? Using a premises for immoral purposes was an offence attracting a prison sentence. Could McCarthy have been implicated? Did he send Bowyer to the police and follow on to give himself time to check the room for incriminating evidence? Why would he allow the rent to back up to 29 shillings when women were being turned out into the night for the lack of four pence. I also find it suspicious that he claimed to not have a key for his own premises. Was it better for all concerned for Mary to just disappear leaving the presumption that she had been murdered, particularly if she had struck a new relationship as indicated by her visit to Pennington St?

[rjpalmer]

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on the press, as we have his original statement. “Hair” is wrong

Thanks for that, Kattrup. I have always leaned towards the 'hair' explanation, but it does seem very unlikely that both his original statement and his later inquest testimony would have the same error, especially since his statement would have been read back to him. Ear it is.

A commonsensical interpretation would be that there was something distinctive about Kelly's ear. A mole, a skin tag, or a lobe damaged by an earring having been pulled out, which is not wildly uncommon and might have been an occupational hazard of sorts. In which case, there's nothing nefarious or strange about his ability to recognize it.

Cheers.

[Wickerman]

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on the press, as we have his original statement. “Hair” is wrong

Thats funny, you clearly didn't read ". . .along with the court recorder . .", which is simply what you posted above.
If official is what you prefer, use the medical record, the doctors actually stood over the body, not the court recorder.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Well done, Kattrup, that is very interesting. He is "positive" from seeing the eyes and ear. That is astonishing, and for some, a little bit suspect!

[Kattrup]

Hi George.
Actually, because the room was packed with press men, we have a split verdict.
Along with court recorder, the journalists of the Morning Post, Star, and Daily Telegraph, wrote "ears".
Whereas, the journalists of the Evening Post, Echo, Morning Advertiser, and Standard, all wrote "hair".

However, as Dr. Bond recorded her "eyebrows and ears partly removed", and Dr. Hibbert (Bonds assistant), wrote "her eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off", such details tend to work against her ears being readily recognisable.
I think the "hairs" have it.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on the press, as we have his original statement. “Hair” is wrong

[GBinOz]

Hi George.
Actually, because the room was packed with press men, we have a split verdict.
Along with court recorder, the journalists of the Morning Post, Star, and Daily Telegraph, wrote "ears".
Whereas, the journalists of the Evening Post, Echo, Morning Advertiser, and Standard, all wrote "hair".

However, as Dr. Bond recorded her "eyebrows and ears partly removed", and Dr. Hibbert (Bonds assistant), wrote "her eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off", such details tend to work against her ears being readily recognisable.
I think the "hairs" have it.

Hi Jon,

While the testimony designates "ears" I actually agree that he probably meant hair. However, I wonder how unique Mary's hair might have been. The various descriptions of her indicate that she may have had blonde, red or dark hair. The difference was a matter of hair colouring, available to Mary, and any of her associates.

I can accept that Barnett deemed to have identified her from her eyes and hair, but do not necessarily accept that identification as genuine.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

That is a possibility, despite being contrary to the actual testimony, but how distinctive was her hair? A little dye could be employed for the purpose of fashion. That aside, what is your vote in the poll?

Hi George.
Actually, because the room was packed with press men, we have a split verdict.
Along with court recorder, the journalists of the Morning Post, Star, and Daily Telegraph, wrote "ears".
Whereas, the journalists of the Evening Post, Echo, Morning Advertiser, and Standard, all wrote "hair".

However, as Dr. Bond recorded her "eyebrows and ears partly removed", and Dr. Hibbert (Bonds assistant), wrote "her eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off", such details tend to work against her ears being readily recognisable.
I think the "hairs" have it.

[FrankO]

Hi RJ,

While modern theory is that ear structure is as distinctive as fingerprints, who notices either in a spouse. I quite agree that Joe may have been talking about hair rather than ear, but again, apart from colour, which can be artificial, what is to be discerned without a microscope other than the colour?

Other than colour, there would by hair length, style and the extent to which it was curly/wavy/straight.

[FrankO]

I just can't get on board with the body in the room not being Kelly. Barnett had been living with her and sharing a bed together. He saw the body including her distinctive hair as R.J. mentioned. And not to be too touchy-feely but would his conclusion be restricted entirely to physical traits or would he have had a sense that yes, that is Mary? I know it.

If you are able to get over that hurdle then the question becomes well if not Mary then who was it? Did the victim's family and friends go the police to report her disappearance? Would Mary have confided in friends and the women in Millers Court? Would she have sworn them to secrecy regarding her plans? Did the police ever express any doubts in this matter?

Would Mary have made a spur of the moment decision to leave? Apparently she had no money. Did she take any clothes or personal items with her? Would Barnett have noticed had those things been missing from the apartment?

Yes, it is certainly an intriguing theory but one with very little evidence to back it. It pretty much flies in the face of Occam's Razor.

c.d.

Indeed, c.d.. If the murder was committed during the night, then where would Kelly have been during that time until the moment that she came back to her room and discovered the butchery? Would she really have been able to react so 'calmly' after seeing such a horrifying scene and realizing that it could just as well have been her? Would she really just have vomited whilst already making plans for her 'escape'?

[FrankO]

Just as a casual poll, how many of you guys out there could identify your wife based entirely on her ears and eyes, either attached to her head (ears) or detached as in the case of MJK. I have to register in the negative (kindly do not inform my wife of over thirty years).

I think I'd recognize my wife entirely on her ears & eyes, George, but I'm far from sure that I'd be able to in the situation we're discussing. I would, however, recognize my wife based entirely on her hands and feet.

[GBinOz]

This is from the Times 12 Nov:
Great difference of opinion exists as to the exact time, or about the time, the murder of Mary Jane Kelly took place. Mrs. Maxwell, the deputy of the Commercial lodging-house, which is situated exactly opposite Miller's-court, the place in which the room of the murdered woman is situated, gave positive information that she saw Mary Jane Kelly standing at the entrance to Miller's-court at half-past 8 on Friday morning. She stated that she expressed surprise at seeing Kelly at that early hour, and asked why she was not in bed. Kelly replied, "I can't sleep. I have the horrors from drink". Mrs. Maxwell further stated that after that she went into Bishopsgate-street to make some purchases, and on her return saw Kelly talking to a short, dark man at the top of the court. When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room. Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning.

IMO the confirmation by the milk shop that that Maxwell was there at the time stated rules out the "different day" possibility. The fact that Maxwell was, at the inquest, able to describe the clothes Mary was wearing, which were found in her room, indicates to me that she was talking to Mary. Since Mary told her that she was suffering from the horrors of drink (alcohol poisoning) I find it unlikely that she would have kept any food in her stomach, or thereafter felt the need for a nice meal of greasy fish and chips. Reports in the press were that there were others that also saw Mary that morning, and the inquest finished early with witnesses still waiting to testify, possibly regarding their sightings.

Speculated scenario: Mary has decided to become a part time Madam by letting other prostitutes use her room, which she does on the night in question. This plan may have had the approval of John McCarthy. So where is Mary at this time? Here is an interesting possibility from the Hull Daily Mail dated 12 Nov 1888:


Mary returns in the morning, finds the body, panics and goes into the street were she vomits and encounters Maxwell. She goes to Ringers and after talking with friends, and perhaps Barnett, it is decided that it would be best for her to disappear. She returns to the room, changes into the clothes left by the victim and disappears, possibly with her companion from Pennington St. Barnett and McCarthy identify the body as Mary as soon as they look in the window, and it then remains only to discredit any witnesses who saw Mary that morning. So who was the victim and why wasn't she missed? Mary's relatives didn't miss her, even after police, knowing her name, tried to contact them. Why would friends and, perhaps Barnett, become accomplices to her disappearance? Unknown, but if it became known that the room was being used as a brothel it would have been detrimental to both Mary and John McCarthy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As a general point I’d add that going back years in ripperology the opinions of Victorian doctors have been perhaps often given greater weight than the knowledge of the time deserved. Add to this how rarely in the past we saw points about poor clock synchronisation raised in connection with timings. In some case what used to be considered ‘solid’ might not be as solid in reality as we had always thought.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This isn’t straightforward in my opinion and I just remembered that David Barrat had a section on this topic in his book The Temperature Of Death. I’ll just give an overview with quoting.

Considering that the murder and mutilations are unlikely to have been performed in less than 45 minutes and the fact that she was last heard signing at 1.00 she must have died sometime between 1.00 and 10.00. At the inquest Dr Bond said:

“Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o’clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o’clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.”

DB points out the difficulty of this position. Bond was ‘pretty certain’ that Kelly must have been dead for around 12 hours based on the onset of Rigor and the coldness of her body but Bond himself stated that the onset period for Rigor Mortis varies from 6-12 hours so by his own words Kelly could have been killed 6 hours prior to his 2pm examination of her which would have been 8am of course. Adding the fact that no one doubts that a body can be comparatively cold after 6 hours it’s difficult to see why he opts for 12 hours instead of six?

Ultimately though it seems that Bond based his ToD on his examination of the contents of Mary’s stomach. The British Enyclopedia published in 1809, for example, stated that, ‘The time occupied by the digestive process must be expected to vary according to the constitution, age and health of the individual, and the nature of the ailment; but it may be stated, in general, at four hours.’

Others at the time have said 5 or 6 so there’s no exact time. Dr Bond seems to have thought that she had eaten 3 or 4 hours prior to her death giving a ToD of between 1 and 2am. It’s remarkable though that we have no evidence whatsoever of Mary eating. So Bond appears to be assuming that Mary had eaten at around 10pm. Maybe this was from enquiries by the police as to when Mary might normally have eaten her final meal of the day but there can be no certainty on this point.

We have the cry of murder which is by no means certain to have come from Mary but it might have seemed likely that she had been killed between midnight and 4.00 like the previous victims…but then we have Caroline Maxwell. DB points out that when Coroner Macdonald cautioned her because her evidence differed from others he was being unfair as this wasn’t true. No other witness provided evidence about Mary’s ToD. A call of murder from an unconfirmed location is hardly strong evidence of a ToD. Phillips hadn’t testified yet and he didn’t give a ToD at the inquest. Macdonald may have read the reports by Phillips and Bond where estimates were given but these were hardly clear cut. A body can become cold within 4 hour hours, and of course this was a body so horribly mutilated that there was barely a patch of undisturbed skin that could have been felt by hand. There is no evidence that a thermometer was used (just as there wasn’t in the Chapman case) so this makes an accurate check of temperature impossible even though there were 5 doctors in the room at the PM. Today thermometers and probes are used.

From a paper by Niderkorn it is known that Rigor can set in within 4 hours (it can even happen quicker than that) so it would have been impossible for any medical examiner to have ruled out a ToD between 8.00 and 10.00 that morning.

Isn’t it at least possible that after Maxwell claimed to have first seen Mary she then had something to eat? Bond thought that he was seeing the results of 3 or 4 hours of digestion but this is notoriously difficult to estimate accurately so might have been the result of an hours digestion before she was murdered. Alternatively, it might have been the result of food taken before Maxwell saw Mary. Yes she had vomited but vomiting doesn’t necessarily empty the entire contents of the stomach so there might still have been food left which was found by Dr Bond.

There are no certainties here but it does illustrate how, if someone had been arrested for Mary’s murder the time of death might have been crucial to proving guilt or innocence. To much confidence in one possibility over another might have led to catastrophic consequences.