|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 11, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Archive through June 11, 1999
Author: Karoline
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 08:15 am |        | Ick!!
I just stumbled upon this so-interesting conversation.
Umm..my thoughts on stuffing a person's eyeballs anywhere at all would tend to be that anyone who spends too much time thinking about these kind of things is maybe going in a direction they should be a little careful about.
What does anyone else think?
I mean when does the grotesque and gruesome stop being a necessary adjunct of useful research and become instead a blatant pursuit in its own right?
As far as I can see no useful historical or investigative purpose is served by debating this particular issue, and frankly, anyone who does it for pleasure is in a pretty bad way indeed.
Sorry if this offends those who seek a faux scholastic justification for a prurient interest in dead body-bits. But there you go. Stop thinking about eyeballs guys.And if you can't then tell your therapist.
Mary Poppins |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 19 March 1999 - 08:19 am | | Hi, Karoline:
While not willing to prolong the eyeball discussion any longer than necessary, it seems from comments on another board that unfortunately Carole has taken your comments amiss. I do not think that her discussion of the topic was done with any morbid intent, and nor do I think that you were necessarily singling her out for taking such a tack, though it appears your comments were misconstrued as doing so. I hope we can resolve this little snafu with no bad feelings on either side because both you and Carole have made valuable contributions to these boards in the past.
Chris George |
Author: Karoline
Friday, 19 March 1999 - 10:43 am | | Carole - if it makes it any better, I had no idea of characterising any one individual. I wasn't suggesting that YOU need a therapist. I have no idea if you do or not. It wasn't supposed to be a serious diagnosis of anything or anyone - just an expression of my own feelings.
To me the conversation seemed to have crossed the delicate boundary into prurience. I couldn't see any historical value in talking about pulling eyeballs out of their sockets, just for the purpose of establishing how some man MAY have taken some hypothetical photos. And I do think we have to be careful about slipping into this kind of ghoulishness.
I'm sorry you feel that I have insulted you in some way. But look - I didn't (as some other posters quite routinely do) use abusive language, or veiled threats. I never have and never will do any such thing. I just stated my opinion. It's a pity that it upsets you, and I wish it didn't, but I can't change my mind just because someone doesn't like what I think. Any more than you can.
I do hope you can accept the difference between someone saying something you don't like, and someone actively insulting you. I did the first. I DIDN'T do the second.
So, maybe you can stop smarting, and I can promise never to talk about therapists again. Yes?
Karoline |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 19 March 1999 - 11:54 am | | Hi, Karoline:
Very nise, as we Ripperologists say :-) I am sure Carole will appreciate your clarification in the spirit that it was meant. Incidentally, I was thinking about you this morning, and know you will be in for a hectic time in the coming weeks with your book on Lewis Carroll coming out. I would like to encourage you to write an article on Richard Wallace's theory of Carroll (Dodgson) as Jack the Ripper for the journal Ripperologist for which I am now writing, along with Dave Yost, a fine States-side Ripperologist. I know you have strong feelings about Wallace's allegations that the author of "Alice in Wonderland" could have been the Whitechapel murderer. I would think such an article is needed and would go some way toward neutering the thought that Carroll slaughtered Mary Jane Kelly and the other unfortunate women in Whitechapel.
Chris George |
Author: Rotter
Friday, 19 March 1999 - 04:34 pm | | | VT, I can't find much else relevant about the eyeballs, but since the eyeballs, like many other parts of the body, swell after death from the buildup of various gasses of putrefaction, I would assume that removing them and putting them back would be difficult. And if readers could see further than their own misplaced indignation they would know that all this talk is in service of a serious question that you have raised--namely, that if the eyes were subjected to some violence in the service of these photos (not hypothetical apparently) then the eyes would be less useful as a means of identification. |
Author: VT newbie
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 03:57 am | | Karoline, this rightfully should be sent to you privately, but since I don't know how to reach you, this will have to do. Thank you for the clarification and apology, both of which are accepted.
Just to clarify on my side, the reason for my asking such admittedly disgusting questions was to try to make sense of the witnesses' apparently convincing testimony that they had seen Mary Kelly at around 8:30 a.m. on the day her body was found, when I have such difficulty in believing that JtR, bold as he undoubtedly was, would have done his gruesome work in the daylight hours with such a heightened risk of discovery. So, if he were not that bold and did indeed kill her at night, why were the witnesses so credible? That thought led me to wonder whether or not the identification of Joe Barnett's was as valid as has been presumed. Then, in response to Rotter's note regarding photographing eyes, I read that the police reportedly tried that on her. Since elsewhere it was said Joe's identification rested substantially on her eyes, that led me down the path to which you objected. I was hoping that someone with medical knowledge could clarify this for me, since I have none at all (I early on thought I wanted to be a nurse, but realized the sight of blood makes me faint, so wisely chose a different profession).
I guess I want you to know that I really did have a point, perhaps of no value and certainly not one I had long contemplated. Even as I wrote the offending post, I was aware that the entire imagery was grotesque. But, even if it smacks of prurience, I still harbor this doubt about the identification of the body and don't know how better to explain my question than in the manner I did.
In any case, let there be peace between us.
Carole |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 04:53 am | | Sorry to interrupt this discussion, but I thought that you may like to hear my opinion regarding the aspects of the identification of Mary Kelly's body that have been raised.
It is stated in Barnett's statement for the inquest that he identified her body by "the ear and the eyes." It is doubtful that "the ear" was mis-heard and should have been 'the hair' as the statement is in writing and signed by Barnett. The identification was positive, and the police never evinced any doubt that the body was that of Kelly. Barnett had lived with her for 20 months, sleeping, loving, talking, as two people who live together do. He would know every inch of her body, and probably had often kissed her ears. A monograph by Tom Robinson in the 1920's, he was a reporter at the time of the murders, suggests that Kelly had a peculiarity of the ear which aided identification.
However, Barnett was best placed to know, and no doubt did. Barnett's identification of the body would not have been done until after the doctors' onerous task of stitching everything back together in place, and no external parts of the body were missing. The eyeballs were not damaged.
John McCarthy, her landlord, in his statement said, "I knew deceased as Mary Jane Kelly, and had no doubt at all about her identity."
Much doubt has been cast by the fact that Mrs Maxwell claimed to have seen Kelly, and spoken with her, about 8.30 a.m. and again at about 9.00 a.m. talking to a man outside the Britannia. This is very doubtful. Despite her claims Mrs Maxwell also stated, "I knew the deceased for about four months. I believe she was an unfortunate. On two occasions I spoke to her." So although she claimed to be on first-name terms with Kelly, Mrs Maxwell had only ever spoken with her twice! No, I think this was Mrs. Maxwell's moment of fame and attention and she wasn't going to miss it. The coroner and police evidently did not accept her evidence. Mrs. Maxwell was probably mistaken as to the actual identity of the woman Kelly amongst all the residents of, and visitors to, the Court.
The other two witnesses who allegedly saw Kelly at a later time, Maurice Lewis and 'an unnamed woman,' significantly were never called to give evidence and were probably also seeking the attention of the hoards of press besieging the area. Theirs were early newspaper stories, uncorroborated, which were never repeated. The police would hardly have missed such important witnesses as these if they were valid.
Also it is hard to believe that that Kelly was wandering around, and drinking in, this busy area, near her home, until gone 9.00 a.am. yet no-one who really knew her saw her.
So whilst the idea that maybe it wasn't Kelly murdered at 13 Miller's Court is very popular with the conspiracy and fantasy fans, it has little factually to commend it.
The digression on eyeballs is an area into which I do not wish to stray (it has no relevance other than as a tangential curiosity) but I would point out that they would not be distorted by putrefaction until after about a week, so that wouldn't be a consideration. No official comment on the photographing of eyeballs exists in the files. The photographing of the retina in the hope it retained an image was an old fallacy (and was supposed to be done within 48 hours of death), but it is very doubtful that this took place in this case.
Having dealt with many sudden deaths I have seen a lot worse than Kelly, and they have still been identified after patching up. It is difficult for the layman to envisage certain aspects of the murders, and there is much distortion and misreporting of facts. Those who are familiar with my writings will know that I believe (and speak with experience here) that the most likely and common sense interpretation of any given set of facts and circumstances is usually the correct one.
So, whilst I will not disparage those who love to theorise and invent scenarios, you will not find me amongst those subscribing to their ideas. |
Author: Rotter
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 05:16 am | | Thank you Mr.Evans. I don't think the eyeball issue has much effect on the identification (although it is an interesting question,I think), but I was intrigued by the idea that the police were photographing eyes and that the question at least appears to be raised in the records.
Another very minor point that could probably be cleared up if I knew more about the Kelly scene is this-there was apparently a mess all over the floor. Why weren't there bloody footprints anywhere?
I'm just rereading your book incidentally, and I hope to see you on the Tumblety board. |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 05:40 am | | Hi all,
I feel very honoured because I think Stewart was actually endorsing the first part of my post of 03.55am on March 13th (even if this wasn't noticed by him). I was also under the impression that ears can be an extremely sound method of identification, even allowing for individual peculiarities, not far removed from a fingerprint. Perhaps, Stewart, you could comment on this aspect too, if you feel it could be relevant. For example, if Jack had a piece of ear from one of his victims, could this have been positively identified back in 1888 if it had been sent to the police. Conversely, could a bogus ear be easily discounted in the same way?
Sorry if this is going off at a slight tangent.
So pleased, Carole, that our psychological make-up was never in question after all. And nice to know that our personal reasons for posting here were not being probed either, I misunderstood too, so you are not alone.
Love and peace,
Caroline
. |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 05:47 am | | Hi all.
STEWART: Thanks for mentioning that Joe Barnett's identification of Mary Kelly was recorded in writing. It's interesting that Barnett said "ear" - singular & "eyes" - plural. That hadn't sunk in for me before, guess I assumed it was a typo.
It does open the possiblity that Mary had at least one unusual ear or perhaps a scar. Is it known if she wore pierced earrings? I'm thinking of the "healed wound" on Stride's earlobe. Several times, I've accidently caught my hairbrush in an earring, yanking it from my ear & tearing my lobe. Ouch!
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Karoline
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 08:55 am | | Carole -
I'm glad all is well again, and I do feel sorry that I upset you, since you seem to have had a more legitimate reason for considering the matter than anyone else in the discussion at the time. I suspect your point is a good one, though maybe Mr. Evans has answered it. (The man certainly knows his subject).
Chris - thanks for the offer. I'll E-mail you privately
Karoline |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 01:50 pm | | Hi, Stewart:
I thank you for clarifying the issue of the identification of Kelly's body. Your point about Barnett being able to identify her by her ear is interesting, and I wonder what it was that was unusual about it. I had a childhood friend who had two differently shaped ears, one of them without an earlobe, and I wonder if it was something along these lines whereby Joe Barnett was able to recognize her.
I was also curious about your comment about "the doctors' onerous task of stitching everything back together in place. . ." I had not imagined that this happened in the case of Kelly, who was so fearfully mutilated, although I know from Eddowes' mortuary photographs that she was stitched back together and then photographed. Presumably any photographs of the reconstructed body, and I assume there were such, have been long lost.
I also appreciate your refreshing views on the authenticity of the next day witness sightings. Of course, as we know, there are a lot of misleading reports in the press of the day, and it would seem that these "sightings" were in this category.
Chris George |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 02:35 pm | | Thank you for the kind comments. I have accessed the original police files and copied the original Kelly photo's, so my copies are as clear as it is possible to get.
Regarding the blood on the floor, much has been said about it, and much, I believe, has been added for effect. Yes there was a lot on the floor and comments by the police attending have been rather gilded or magnified, some enhanced by the passage of time. In his 1938 book, Walter Dew, in 1888 a young detective constable, recalled, "With the state of that room in my mind, I cannot see how the murderer could have avoided being covered from head to foot with blood," and "All these things I saw after I had slipped and fallen on the awfulness of that floor."
This was probably the most likely source for the impression that the floor was swimming with blood. However, the cold facts of Dr. Bagster Phillips' statement indicate that the blood was fairly localised under the bed, and that the killer need not have stood in it. One can only assume that if Dew's story is not 'licence' to dramatise his book, then he must have stood too near, under the edge of the bed and slipped. Dr. Bagster Phillips' stated, "The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliase, pillow and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted whilst the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right hand corner."
The fact that the medics stitched her back together is recorded in the contemporary press and was normal procedure after an autopsy. This, of course, also made the viewing of the body by the coroner's jury (a legal requirement in those days) a little less distressing.
There was not such a great emphasis put on photography in these early days of the development of police scenes of crime procedures, as there is today. Indeed, it is fortunate that any photo's of the scene have survived at all. What we have is all we know of.
Stewart |
Author: VT newbie
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 03:16 pm | | Stewart, thank you for satisfying my curiosity on this whole point - I am more than happy to leave eyeballs behind. And I can readily accept that the "witnesses" were seeking their 15 minutes of fame, particularly since their claims truly made no logical sense to me.
Now, as to ears. A few years ago, I saw a fascinating documentary about the identification of Anna Anderson as being Anastasia, and one of the methods someone, I believe from England, used to validate her was an examination of the ears. It was claimed that ears are as unique as fingerprints. Because the angle of photographs on one of her ears was not right on, they gave that ear a 4 out of 5 chance of being Anastasia's ear. The other side, better lined up in photos, they appointed a 5 out of 5 likelihood. Despite all that, in case anyone here doesn't know it, the DNA testing subsequently done proved that Anna was not Anastasia (much to my personal disppointment, I must admit.)
Shortly after this program, I stumbled across a written assertion that ears are unique as well. Does anyone know whether or not there has been a systematic study of this theory - has it been truly proven? In any case, I can certainly see that if MJK had a peculiarity in her ear - even if just a scar resulting from repeated tearings (I've given up on hoop earings, Ashling, for that same reason - man, that hurts!) - then the identification of her body shall be taken by me as accepted.
I think Rotter's question is well raised. If blood had splashed on the floor, as I assume it would have, there should have been footprints all over the place - at least one single tangible piece of evidence as to JtR's identity (Is there any way of estimating a person's height from footprints? Would the condition of the soles have given a clue perhaps to his social/financial status?)
Had the police rushed in immediately upon arriving on the scene and been horrified by the sight before them, and possibly also motivated by a desire to be sure Mary Jane was beyond help, I could understand a headlong rush into the room, thereby destroying any such evidence. But I understand the police stayed outside for a lengthy period of time waiting for the bloodhounds to arrive. Therefore, beyond the violence of breaking down the door, shouldn't their entry have been an orderly one, where such evidence was noted and catalogued? Was it? If not, why not, in anyone's opinion? Maybe what seems to be an elementary piece of detective work from a 1999 vantage point was not so self-evident to them. Or maybe, somehow, there were no footprints to catch their attention?
Oh, I am full of questions. Based on the previous debate, I trust everyone understands I have no agenda, no suspect, probably no point, but for the free-wheeling churning of my brain. So feel free to ignore any parts of this that aren't worthy of discussion; if any parts are, though, I look forward to hearing thoughts back.
And Stewart, NEVER apologise for interrupting with your opinion. Feel free to (nicely) inform me that I'm an idiot wherever necessary. :-) I sincerely appreciate your thoughts, as well as those of all the rest of you, any time.
Take care, all.
Carole |
Author: Julian
Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 12:13 am | | G'day Caz,
I've just read your last post, Yeah I know it takes me a while to get around. (Not like the old days).
I was thinking about your comment as to why they bashed the door in and I reckon it might have been becaust they were •••• scared (damn. I bet I'll get spotted for that) of what else they might have found in there. People tend to react strange ways when confronted with something out of the norm, and I guess it could be said that observing Mary's body as it was could induce a person to react in a different manner.
I'd probably chunder my way to the nearest theropists couch and recount unpleasant childhood memories. Others might possibly bash the crap out of a door with an axe handle.
Jules |
Author: Robyn Snyder
Thursday, 10 June 1999 - 10:31 am | | I was taken back to my former lives several years ago. Although there were no clear images there were strong feelings. One was of Jack the Ripper, I felt as if I was in some alley and could see fog. Jack the Ripper came into my conscience. Much to my suprise while watching an movie about Jack at the end they displayed the date of the last woman killed which was Mary Jane Kelly on Nov. 9. That is the day of my birth and when I seen that it sent a shiver went down my spine.
Robyn |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 10 June 1999 - 08:07 pm | | Robyn,
You were taken, all right. May I ask how much you were willing to pay for this service?
Incidentally, I am currently offering the Tower of London at discount. Interested parties please contact me by e-mail. Serious offers only.
David |
Author: Alexandria
Friday, 11 June 1999 - 10:02 am | | I've searched but no one else has raised this -
George Hutchinson, who saw Kelly with the "posh suspect", at 2am. His behaviour is decidedly suspicious. He provides an overly detailed description, including spats and a heavy watch chain with a red seal. He hangs about on a street corner for the best part of an hour in the middle of the night when it was raining hard, for no apparent purpose since he had already stated he had not enough money to employ Kelly's services. What was he waiting for? He never seems to have been questioned about this , but for my money it is very odd. It is like the behaviour of a stalker. I have been unable to discover whether Hutchinson was ever investigated. Where was he when the other murders were done? |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 11 June 1999 - 10:58 am | | Alexandria -
George Hutchinson and his culpability in either Mary Jane Kelly's murder or the murders of the other canonical victims is discussed under the "Suspects" thread. He doesn't appear too often here as the discussion is ostensibly to be about Kelly herself. The points you have raised have been gone over, and you'll find the time spent perusing worth your while.
Incidentally, Hutchinson is labeled as the Ripper in two recent books: "From Hell" by Bob Hinton and "Jack the Ripper: An American View" by Stephen Wright.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 11 June 1999 - 05:28 pm | | Ok, Hutchinson.
Well, he appears to have been a busy-body, we can always assign ulterior motives to someone lurkin, stalking or just being nosey.
But prior to Nov 9th, in fact for the best part of 6 weeks, the streets of the East End were alive with vigilates, private groups, detectives, posers, citizens willing to get involved, lending a hand.
The people of Whitechapel wanted this killer off the streets and many were out watching for strangers, and likely following them too, this could have been normal for those times.
We can't know whether Hutch' was a member of a vigilance committee or just a well meaning citizen, or on the alert for a friend being escourted by an 'out-of-place' stranger.
I havn't read anything that would make me feel that Hutch' was anything more than that.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
