Was She Wrong?

[Abby Normal]

That, to me, has been a huge distraction.
When you take the single phrase (because it IS two words), you can see the name is not "Johnto".

When you read posts, or anything written by others, how many times do you see a person write "to" for "too", it's quite common.
One previous poster, Jeff L. would frequently do that, my wife does it too.

Here is the full sentence written by Abberline, notice how he joins words together.

". . deceased toldme on one
occasion thather father named
JohnKelly was a formanof
some iron works at livedat
Carmarthen or Caernarvon that
shehada brother named
Henry serving in 2nd Battn
Scotts Guards andknown
amongst his comrades as Johnto
and I believe theRegiment is
now in Ireland. Shealso told . ."

Actual page by Abberline.


In my view Abberline wrote "John to" as an idiosyncrasy for "John too", meaning Henry liked to be called John like his father.

dont think so wick.even when hes connecting words theres still a long space between them and you also have to assume he mispelled tje word too.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Not impossible, but I am inclined to agree with Abby

[rjpalmer]

I would question whether Joe could actually read and write. I suspect this is a police written statement that he was then asked to sign. Assuming his innocence, the woman he lived with has been found murdered and he’s had to identify her destroyed corpse. Would a fish porter really be able to produce such a calligraphed statement in such a scenario and if written for him, did he just sign without fully appreciating what was written? Yes, he could have said ear and meant ear, but I don’t think we can be sure and to be honest don’t think it really matters....

If Barnett's police statement stood alone this would be a reasonable possibility, but an identification by 'the ear and the eyes' was repeated at the inquest, too, as reported in two independent sources, The Star and the Daily Telegraph of 12 November.

Here's what Chisholm, DeGrazia, and Yost had to say:

"the possibility of at least three independent recorders of proceedings suffering identical mishearing seems highly unlikely. Robinson describes Barnett as noting "the peculiar shape of the ear"; it is a possibility that this aspect of the identification was mentioned at the inquest but not so recorded." (News From Whitechapel, footnote, p. 213)

By 'Robinson' they mean Tom Robison, The Whitechapel Horrors (no date, published in Manchester)

[rjpalmer]

Here's what Stephen Ryder wrote about Robinson's book back in 1998:

The Whitechapel Horrors

Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:55 am

Another priceless discovery unearthed by Ripper researcher Andy Aliffe, this piece has the distinction of being authored by an actual resident of Whitechapel who witnessed the murders first-hand. Author Tom Robinson, who resided in Raven Street, close to Buck's Row, writes in true Victorian form, although the piece was most likely written in the 1920s. 'Most likely' because there is no actual date of publication, and the proveniance of the piece must be gleamed from the first sentence: "Though more than thirty years have passed since the Jack the Ripper Murders..."

The work is completely non-fiction, as Robinson does a fair job of sticking to the facts. He includes information on Emma Smith, Martha Turner (Tabram), Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly; surmising that all were definite victims because 'it is nigh impossible to believe that London, or the whole world, contained two such perfect fiends.' His information is quite in-depth, including witness and inquest testimony.

[Wickerman]

RJ
The Morning Advertiser, Standard, Echo & Scotsman all reported "hair and eyes", the Times made no mention of the detail.
Chisolm, DeGrazzia & Yost also made no mention of the opinion of doctors who were present at the post-mortem (Bond, Hebbert & Gabe), who stated that the ears were cut off, and or mutilated.

[The Rookie Detective]

I still find it fascinating how John Mccarthy referred to seeing that Kelly's ears had been cut off.

That is despite him viewing the body from outside the window, and Kelly facing him with her left ear not in view.

How did he know her ears had been cut off?

[The Rookie Detective]

Caroline Maxwell was either...


telling the truth and was correct.
telling the truth, but was incorrect and misidentified Kelly
telling the truth, but was incorrect about the date.
lying.

What would be a reason for her to lie?

Was she aiming to give someone she knew an alibi?

If for example, her husband could have been considered a suspect if Mary wasn't seen alive after 4am, then could Caroline have been attempting to indirectly provide her husband with an alibi?
Making up a story about seeing Mary alive and well after she was meant to have been killed makes little sense unless Caroline was trying to cover for someone.

it seems to me more likely that Caroline was mistaken about Kelly's identity.

The reason I say this is because everyone else seems to have been too.

Kelly really was an anomaly in every sense of the word.


It's clear that she used a false name.


Hiding from her past it would seem.


Hiding from someone from her past too perhaps?

[c.d.]

I still find it fascinating how John Mccarthy referred to seeing that Kelly's ears had been cut off.

That is despite him viewing the body from outside the window, and Kelly facing him with her left ear not in view.

How did he know her ears had been cut off?

Two possibilities immediately spring to mind:

A. He was her killer

B. Someone told him.

I'll go with B.

c.d.