View Single Post
Old 07-22-2018, 05:37 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,077

Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
HI Jon
Pleased to see you've stepped away from the mortuary nonsense now but all the piece you've posted there really confirms is that Barnett identified her in the room ....
Hi Nick.
The sequence of events dictated by the story seem to suggest this. And, the fact Barnet showed up at Millers Court while the body was still inside the room would lend itself to that interpretation.

You had raised a point I don't think had been discussed before, that of "where" exactly did Barnet identify her body.
It is quite reasonable to assume it was at the mortuary, as we know this was the normal procedure.
However, given the sequence of events dictated by that report, and I can't think of any statement which contradicts it. I can concede that he likely identified her in the room. But you have to concede it was not through the broken window - deal?

There is another well known detail which seems to contest the "through the broken window" argument, the door still being closed.
That argument would suggest Barnet arrived before they broke the door down.
Yet, we are told Barnet knew the door could be opened by reaching through the window. So, if Barnet had been there before the door was forced, it wouldn't have had to be forced, would it?

So, both points considered, Barnet identifying her "through the broken window" is just plain wrong.

Having said all this, the hair was "matted with blood" according to Gabe ... giving any dark hair a red tint ..... and we have to remember how dark that room would be on a November afternoon with north facing windows showing that any supposed 'hair' ID (especially from the window) would be pretty much a nonsense
It seems to me you are trying to resist the obvious
If it wasn't by her 'hair', and it can't have been by her 'ear' (them being cut off), then the identification was false, he can't identify her.
Yet the clothes in the room must have been what she usually wore, and the physique must have been consistent with that of Kelly. There are other details which contribute to an identification, or contest it.

And, the police are not going to accept, "this was her room, so it must be her'. They already knew from several witnesses that other women slept in that room along with Kelly - they were not stupid.
And, we have no account of them locating this "Julia", who was mentioned both by M.Lewis & Barnet. So it wasn't like "only" Kelly couldn't be traced after the murder.
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote