|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through December 23, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Was it really Mary Kelly?:
Archive through December 23, 1999
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 09:26 am |        | Hi all,
Again we see the dangers of taking newpaper reports at face value, although even hardend ripperologists make the 'identify by hair' mistake. I assume that it appears logical, because we can easily recognise people we know by their hair. This is not the only characteristic however;
Man: Hello Dear, been shopping?
Wife: Noo.. not exactly.
Man: Oh.
Wife: What do you think of it?
Man: What?
Wife: What I've got new now.
Man: Erm, ...dress?
Wife: That was your first wedding anniversary present
Man: Oh. Erm... Hat?
Wife: I haven't got a hat on.
Man: Oh. Erm.. Shoes? Oh yes, the shoes, lovely, my dear.
Wife: No.
Man: Ermm..Broach? Necklace? Stockings? Underware? Nigh--WHUMMMP!!!!!
Wife: I have shaved all my FN hair off.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 11:52 am | | Nice one Bob.
Reminds me of another one.
Wife: Notice anything different about me today dear?
Husband: Nope.
Wife: Are you sure darling?
Husband: Yep. I give up.
Wife: I'm wearing a gas mask.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Malcolm
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 11:27 pm | | | Joseph Barnett's words were recorded by a party other than Barnett himself and the person transcribing Barnett's words may very well have misheard "ear" for "eyes." Considering the injuries to Mary Kelly's face, (Dr. Bond's report says: "...the nose, cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed.")it seems highly unlikely that Barnett could have satisfactorily identified Mary Kelly by the ears and eyes as opposed to her hair and eyes. |
Author: John
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 02:44 am | | | She had a peculiarity of the ear...we've argued all this out before. |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 08:27 am | | G'day Chris and Everyone,
I agree that we have to be careful when trusting newspaper reports, but I'm not just trusting one. One newspaper I read, does indeed say that Barnett said "ear". Reporters obviously didn't think it would ever be important.
I'm glad that you can be 'certain' that Barnett said "ear". I don't think anyone's gonna change your mind, but everyone can have their own opinion. There are no prizes!
The press did note Barnetts stress, he spoke with a stutter and cockney accents tend to cut off 'H's. He may have said "'air" meaning "Hair". How can anyone make a possitive identification, with a person's ear, before their hair?
Can't a person taking official notes ever make an error, when it wasn't an important detail, at the time? As they discussed briefly, her hair, her nicknames "Ginger" and "Fair Emma" on the morning her body was discovered and never the shape of her ears, my vote is that Barnett said "Hair" or "'air".
More importantly, Barnett contradicted a statement he had made to Abberline, a few days earlier (concerning his reasons for leaving her.)
Leanne! |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 08:53 am | | Although the slim possibility of mishearing has to be conceded, the fact that so many separate sources record the same testimony makes such a possibility extremely unlikely. The Official Inquest Papers, together with the Star, 12 Nov., and the Telegraph 13 Nov., are among the individual sources recording ‘ear(s) and eyes.’ So, as previously discussed, I think we can be pretty confident that ear and eyes were the means used by Barnett to identify Kelly.
As for the difficulty of Barnett’s task and his apparent certainty, it may be worth remembering that, by his own account, Barnett was probably expecting the body to be Kelly’s before he even arrived at the scene.
On the 10th Nov., he informed the Central News: "I heard there had been a murder in Miller’s-court, and on my way there I met my sister’s brother-in-law, and he told me Marie had been murdered." (Telegraph 12 Nov. 1888)
I don’t mean to promote any idea that the body in Miller’s-court was not Kelly. I, personally, have little doubt that the body was that of Kelly. I just think some degree of possible preconception can’t be ruled out of Barnett’s identification.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 09:05 am | | Hello, all -
I did leave open the possibility of being wrong by saying "as close to certain as we might ever be." There are days when I think the only thing we can accept as a given in this case is that the 5 canonical victims were murdered - and even for that, you'll find an argument. :-)
I will admit to not being au fait with the particular workings of a Victorian inquest, so let me ask: would the official stenographer be the only one taking notes? Would not the police in attendance be noting down details? Would not the coroner (MacDonald in this case) be making his own notes? And even if not, would any coroner sign his name to an official document such as an inquest transcript without at least giving it a cursory look-through? Not to do so seems rather slipshod, but I am not familiar enough to say.
My mind is always open to change on almost any aspect of this case (and, Leanne, please don't think I was accusing you of slipshod research!); however, in this particular instance, I think I must second my colleague the esteemed Mr Chisholm and vote for "ear and eyes."
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 09:50 am | | 'Ear! 'Ear, CM & Alex:
Actually, you might well be right but then so may Leanne(!). It would seem to me that this is another of those controversies that will not be solved in the new Millennium either. I don't think it is merely as Alex says a "slim possibility of mishearing. . . ." I would contend rather that it is a good possibility and one which may well have happened given the chance that Barnett's cockney accent was misunderstood and the word was mistranscribed. The only way we would know for certain was if Barnett wrote the word down so we would know what he meant, which he evidently did not do.
Happy holidays one and all.
Chris George |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 11:22 am | | Hair-raising stuff indeed, Mr. George
I obviously agree, Chris, that Barnett’s accent makes his being misheard a possibility. That at least three separate, individual sources should have experienced the same hearing problems, and all similarly misreported his given testimony, makes such a possibility, for me, extremely slim.
All the Very Best for Christmas and the New Year, to each and every one of our happy band.
alex |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 01:57 pm | | Hi, Alex:
Of course Royal conspiracy theorists might argue that the word used was "heir"! :-)
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 04:13 pm | | G'day all,
I've forgotten the point of all this? Why is it so important? The chances are 50/50, in my opinion. One cannot say that he DEFINATELY said this or that, because none of us were there.
Care to discuss, Barnetts other contradiction?
(ie: "Telling Abberline that he left Kelly, because of HER return to prostitution, and him being out of work, had nothing to do with it / Then stating at her inquest that it had nothing to do with his "being out of work", and because she had TAKEN-IN a woman of Bad Character").
I realise you may not wish to dwell on Barnett, but these are things that caused me to look into the possibility that he had something to hide!
LEANNE? |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 04:29 pm | | Use of the term "au fait" by Christopher-Michael DiGrazia in his 12/22/99 post at 9:05 AM above indicates that he may be the individual who has posted these boards under the pseudonyms "anon," "Robert," "Alan," and perhaps others. Last week I detected and reported here "anon" having used "au fait" after "Robert" had done some time ago, and "Robert" had taken certain positions very similar to "Alan" concerning case evidence.
If this is correct, then I suggest he post his confession to these boards forthwith.
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 05:03 pm | | David -
I assume - in fact, I hope - that you are joking.
I have never posted to these boards under any name but my own, and to suggest that I have simply because of a linguistic choice is hardly an example of stellar deductive reasoning.
Leanne - an interesting thought about Barnett. Let me ponder for a day and come back with something; I've an idea, but want to mull it over.
Christopher-Michael (and no one else) |
Author: 'airy 'arry
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 02:55 am | | | I have lots of cockney friends (mates?) and cannot imagine mistaking hair for ear. Perhaps only the Americans on the board think this likely? |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 04:53 am | | 'ear 'ear 'airy 'arry me ole mucker. 'ow's it 'angin' mate?
Oh dear, David, you really are not very au fait with the personalities who frequent these boards, are you old chap?
I love to hear your ripper stuff, which at least has a chance of being right. But as for Christopher-Michael being either Robert or Alan? P-lease!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 05:10 am | | Hi All,
Isn't Cockney not the dialect particular to London? Why would another Londoner have a problem understanding him?
I speak the dialect of Antwerp myself, I know dutchman have problems understanding me if I speak to quick, but then he's not from around Antwerp neither. Neighbouring village dwellers have no problem understanding our dialect, police officers do not have a problem with it (they speak it even more fluently), journalists translate it, children and even illegals understand it, and I think a judge would also. Noone, besides people who do not come into contact with it - people in regions with a different dialect-, have problems understanding it, not even the the more coloured version of my granny. Would that be any different in the case of Cockney? Wouldn't journalists would be in contact with it on daily basis, as do the PC's, wouldn't they speak it themselves? Maybe they didn't, then yes there is a big chance for a mistake, otherwise very slim. Can we find out who wrote those paper-articles, and then check if Cockney could be something belonging to his language knowledge?
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 05:19 am | | Hey Caz,
Seems we are perusing the boards on the same time, every time I click on the 'post message' I find your post there. Just to mention it's nice there's someone actually at the other end at this instance, not to wait for a whole day to find something new.
Merry Christmass |
Author: Leanne
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 07:20 am | | G'day all,
Jill: some Londoners obviously did miss-understand him, because some reckon he said "ear" and others think he said "hair".
'The Whitechapel Horrors', a book first published in the thirties and containing eye witness descriptions, says that Barnett said:
"I have seen the body and by the perculiar shape of the ears, and the colour of the eyes, I am sure it is the same woman".
Chris, does your OFFICIAL REPORT say anything about 'perculiar shape of..' or 'colour of..' ?
He also said, in this book: "I parted from her on October 30th, because she took a prostitute to our room".
Bruce Paley's book tells how Barnett said at the inquest, it was "Because she took in an immoral woman" and after being prompted added: "My being out of work, had nothing to do with it".
On the evening of the 9th, he told Abberline: "In consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution", (statement to Inspector Abberline, Coroner's files).
Barnett also told a 'Star' reporter that he "should not have left her, except for her violent habits". This reporter had tracked him down to a pub and interviewed him, so I don't think he just picked it up in the crowd.
He may have been just upset and traumatised or perhaps he kept changing his story, to avoid suspicion.
Furthermore, he kept insisting that he and her "lived comfortably together", "lived on good terms and seldom quarrelled". Yet Paley points out that witness Julia Venturney, described how: "Kelly's FREQUENT drunkeness, led to rows with Barnett". She smashed a window in one of these arguments, didn't she?
I wont be posting for the next two days, because they are Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, here in Australia and Santa comes, tomorrow night! See you all and have a good one!
LEANNE!XXX |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 08:47 am | | Hi Leanne,
As I read the row-statement, it is more like Kelly rowing against Barnett. I can just imagine it: he the more silent passive one trying to reason with her to leave off the drinks and she fiercely responding that he's such a bore, pushing with all her might to get him out of his passiveness. I had such a short-lived relationship once in wich I was the nasty bich, just to find out how far I could go. I broke it off before finding out. Maybe Kelly did find out, but did not live to tell.
Mostly I see such peacekeeping from one partner as a sign that one is ashamed of feeling anger. Maybe the same reason why Barnett vehemently insists, they were a peaceful couple after she died. He didn't see it as rows, because it was only Kelly who was angered, he did not partake the row, he was just a witness to it. I know some people who react this way and giwe such statements as Barnett did about their 'peaceful bliss', although the contrary was true. They just do not perceive it this way.
But I read to much in it, because as always there are only 100 different ways to interprete something in this case.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 11:34 am | | If David thinks 'anon' or 'Robert' is CMD.....then I dont rate his deductive skills too high.....I'll pass on his 'suspect'.
:-)
Happy Holidays, David
Jon |
|
|
|
|
