Archive through March 14, 1999

** 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 March 14, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through March 14, 1999

Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 03:05 am
Hi Carole The questions you ask are largely unanswered and unanswerable. We could suggest that he did get blood on himself but hid it by donning a long overcoat and gloves after the deed had been done. Or maybe he worked naked, hence the fire to keep him warm. Equally, the fire could have been used to burn the garments, the remains of which were found in the grate. And, of course, the theory is not so much that the woman was murdered after being seen by Mrs Maxwell, but that the murdered woman wasn't Kelly (in other words, that Kelly had just discovered the body when seen by Mrs Maxwell and explained her understandable nausea as due to drink - which, talking of moxie, displays more of it than I think I'd have possessed in the circumstances!)
Author: Rotter Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 04:17 am
There is a question I have on a minor point. It was a popular idea in the past (I'm not sure when it started or stopped, but you still meet people who believe it) that the eyes retained the image of the last sight they had confronted when alive, such as...a murderer. So the cameras at the Kelly crime scene were trained closely on her eyes, which of course revealed nothing. Did this happen? If it did, is there any record of the photos? I read this story long ago, so I don't know the source. Also, it was a theory that the Ripper apparently knew nothing about,didn't believe, or cared nothing about. Does that point to a comparatively educated man? I suppose this means nothing concrete, but speculation is part of the game!
Author: Bob_c Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 10:44 am
Hi Rotter, This bit about the eye retaining the last image is, of course, medical nonsense but was believed at that time by even some educated people. I am no real profi at the Ripper Research, but none of the information from reliable sources (i.e. not newspapers/gossip literatur) that I have read indicates that the police believed in suchlike. Having access to a wide range of expirienced medical knowledge, it is also unlikely that they had any reason to. I have read a number of (copies of) writings of the time where this idea was propogated by various well-meaning individuals. Regards, Bob
Author: Caroline (webcache02p.cache.pol.co.uk - 195.92.194.72) Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 04:02 pm
I probably imagined it, but I could swear I read somewhere that the murderer may have covered Mary's eyes before actually making her take her last breath. I don't know what prompted this comment (if indeed I did read it) but it kind of makes sense with what was believed by some at the time. Love, Caroline
Author: Rotter Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 05:19 pm
The business about the eyes retainging an image is of course nonsense, but it is in print someplace with connection to the Ripper so it is best to dispose of it, if somebody knows for sure. As far as people in authority not believing it, it is just a few years since the US had a president running the White House by astrology. On the other hand, the police then had the good sense to send off the psychic (something police departments today don't always have the sense to do).
Author: Carole Melis Monday, 15 February 1999 - 12:05 am
Rotter - I remember reading the same thing about the police taking great pains to photograph Mary's eyes for the image of the murderer. Since I have read (I'm embarrassed to admit) only one book on the Ripper - and that about 20 years ago - I would be willing to bet we read the same book. I foolishly lent the book to my brother years ago, but if I can lay my hands on it again, I'll check in with you on the title to see if you've read that one as well. Paul, if Mary Kelly wasn't the victim, what are the speculations of who was? Wasn't Kelly's name as the final victim widely publicized in the papers? If so, why didn't the real Kelly come forward? Would her silence play into the idea the the killer was a policeman or other person of authority? Some more midnight maunderings... Cheers.
Author: Rotter Monday, 15 February 1999 - 04:30 am
Thanks, Carole, I was starting to think I imagined it. I'd be interested to see the title of the book. It is always possible that it happened at another crime unrelated to the Ripper or was just a suggestion that was never taken up or was just a legend that got printed.
Author: The Viper Monday, 15 February 1999 - 04:33 pm
Hello Carole, Rotter If you read a book twenty years ago describing the photographing of Mary Kelly's eyes it could have been either Odell's "JTR In Fact and Fiction", (page 107) or Rumbelow's "The Complete JTR" (pages 93-94, hardback edition). V
Author: Julian Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 10:05 pm
G'day Carole, Rotter, Viper, everone. Hey Carole, there was a theory going around that the body found in Mary's place was that of the woman she let stay there and that Mary used the opportunity to fake her death and nick off somewhere to start a new life. The people who follow this story use the wittnesses who supposedly saw her the next day to back up their theory. Jules
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 11:47 pm
Jules, I see a financial reason for her doing so, owing such an unpayable amount of rent. But Joe identified her body... David
Author: Julian Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 12:59 am
G'day Dave, There's a bit of speculation about that too. Joe identified her by her eyes or ears and hair. That's not much to make a positive ID. Don't worry about me mate, I'm playing devil's advocate. I reckon it was her but those people who saw her the next day? Hmmm? Jules
Author: Rotter Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 05:01 pm
Getting back to Mary Kelly's eyes for a minute, the A-Z quotes Home Office files "dated 5 Oct. from Matthews...asks "Have any of the doctors examined the eyes of the murdered women?" showing, I assume, that somebody thought that the killer could be imaged there. I'm amazed that people believed this (since it is so easy to refute), but there it is.
Author: Bob Hinton Saturday, 27 February 1999 - 02:45 am
Dear All, Interesting points about photographing Mary Kellys eyes. Although it is a nonsensical belief that a murdered persons eyes retained the last image, it was widely held and for longer than you may imagine. When PC Gutteridge was murdered in 1927 Browne shot out both his eyes to prevent identification by this method. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Carole Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 05:21 pm
Hi, Viper and Rotter. Believe it or not, I just got back from my brother my original 1975 edition of Rumbelow's Complete Jack the Ripper - after 15 or more years, I sincerely doubted I would ever see it again, but I should have known to ask my sister-in-law instead of my brother. (How silly of me, just because he borrowed it... :-) ) Anyway, probably because this was a book club edition, the page numbers you cited on Feb. 15, don't relate to photographing eyes, Viper, and I didn't get lucky and stumble on that subject elsewhere as yet. However, I have started to re-read it, which after this many years makes it like new again, and will report in as soon as I find the reference, Rotter. Isn't it nice when you almost get to the point of believing that you must have imagined something, and something comes out of the blue to confirm it after all? (I guess you can suspect that I'm feeling ecstatic, having gotten my book back - I truly thought I had a snowball's chance in hell.) Take care, all. Carole
Author: Rotter Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 05:46 pm
Thank you so much Carole.
Author: VT newbie Friday, 12 March 1999 - 07:02 pm
Rotter, I am delighted to report that I have found the passage dealing with photographing eyes. In my edition, it's at page 67, and says in full: "A photographer arrived and took pictures of this butcher's shambles. There was a popular theory that in cases of violent death the last images were permanently fixed on the retina of the eye and, that by photographing them, the killer could be thus identified. This was the basis of Jules Verne's story 'Les Freres Knap'. Surprisingly, the killer had not mangled the eyes at all. Possibly he had left them alone as some sort of unspoken challenge to the police to do their best - or worst. According to a German correspondent there were three ways of photographing the retina. The eye had to be drawn a little way out of its socket and a small incandescent lamp placed behind the eye. Three photographs had to be taken: (1) of the illuminated pupils; (2) of the illuminated pupils with the nerves of the eye excited by electricity; and (3) the eye not illuminated but again with the nerves electrically excited. Other than the official statement that the eyes were photographed, nothing more is known." Rumbelow Nice that we didn't imagine it, huh? The procedure outlined above seems rather invasive. Obviously I know nothing of medicine; maybe you can haul the eyeball out enough to put a lamp behind it, then stuff it back in again, but surely the eyeball would not return to its original appearance, would it? And since Joe Barnett's identification of the apparently rested 1/3 on the eyes, maybe his ID wasn't as certain as he made it out to be. What do you all think? Carole
Author: Vt newbie Friday, 12 March 1999 - 07:06 pm
Sorry, I left out a word. "Joe's identification of the body..." Take care, all. Carole
Author: Caroline Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 03:55 am
Hi Carole, Great stuff there. I was just thinking that if the only real means of identification were the eyes, Joe, or anyone who knew Mary well, would have to focus even more closely on the 'windows of the soul', and may be less likely to make an error of identification because of this very focus. Think of anyone close to you, and I think you would recognise their eyes before all else (well, nearly all else!). Unless you are right about the changes you referred to above, of course. I still think the killer could have covered her eyes to enable him to do the deed. That way, if he believed in the last image theory, he would have no problems, and he could serve a double purpose of leaving Mary identifiable by her nearest and dearest. This, if true, means of course that Mary was indeed Mary. What do you think? Love, Caroline
Author: Rotter Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 04:27 am
Thanks, VT. It's interesting that although this procedure could not possibly have had anything like the result intended, yet they actually used it enough to have an established technique! Incidentally, the eye pops in and out pretty easily. I have seen pictures of eyes literally out on stalks for medical procedures. One of the tools that street-fighting men of the 19th century carried was an eye-gouger, something like a ring with a spoon on it. Notorious saloon-keeper The. Allen ("the wickedest man in New York"), among others I'm sure, had his eyes gouged and hanging down on his cheeks. He popped them back in and suffered from bad vision for the rest of his days. The good old days!
Author: Vt newbie Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 02:14 am
Hi, Caroline and Rotter: My thought on stuffing a dead person's eyeballs back in is that they would lose their resilience. Excuse the imagery, but picture a dried out grape shoved back into a too-small hole. I've never tried this, either, so I suppose it could still go back to its natural shape, but I'm hung up on the idea that the eyeball wouldn't bounce back to its original shape if pulled from a dead body. As far as identifying Mary by her eyes, I can't quite bring myself to study the only photo I've ever seen of her well enough to make out what damage was done to her eye area. When it says that her forehead was peeled back, where did the cuts start? Were her eye sockets left alone? If the flesh above the eyes (upper eyelid) was peeled back so all they were left with were the eyeballs themselves, I would think it would be impossible to make an identification, since it's the shape of the lids that makes each pair of eyes so distinctive. So long as the color of the pupils was right, wouldn't eyeballs be pretty interchangeable? Caroline, as far as Jack covering the eyes before killing Mary, I guess if he believed that theory (which I suppose is likely since evidently the police thought it was valid) he would indeed have done so. But, assuming he didn't know or didn't believe in it, my feeling is that Jack would have wanted Mary to "watch". I mean, what other audience did he have for his pleasures? And thanks for the tale of The. Allen, Rotter. I have the feeling that will work its way into my nightmares one of these nights. :-) I look forward to hearing further thoughts from all of you. Take care, Carole