| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 774
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | 
|
Hi Paul,
So What?.
Lets be realistic, if you had Three unpublished photographs in your hands, you could make yourself a lot of money, if money does not intrest you, mayby you could send the photos to Leanne , or myself, it would aid our book considerably.
Wishful thinking....
Richard. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 5:59 am: |
|
It's likely that more photos were taken than what we have now, so it's conceivable that someone has them. Granted, we have been hit by several hoaxes, but I'd hate to think we would scare off someone legit who wanders by. You know, just in case...
So if you do have photos you can scan and post here, email to the webmaster here (or to me if you'd rather, you can click my name in red to the left for the email address), or place on some free website and provide the links here. If you don't have a scanner, they can be usually found at photo places these days (including WalMart or the equivalent) or many copy shops (Kinkos, etc.).
Fooey on hoaxers, but I hold out hope that there will be legitimate people with good info now and then. If that's one of you recent posters to this thread, by all means follow through and let us see the photos. |
Peter Barton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Are you saying what I think you are Richard?
Realistically speaking Who would buy the photos?
For all I know I could get Ripped off!
Although it would be nice to see them published.
Knowing there real value would help I suppose.
I have an Idea they must be worth a few bob.
Do you think you could include them in your book?
Nearly all of them are in excellent condition.
Every one of them is in one piece.
You can send me an Email if you like Richard.
Peter Barton |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 8:33 am: |
|
I agree with Dan, James.
We've had some cranks here, but if you really have some photos to share with the Ripper community, it's better to show them and then those it's ours and everyone elses call to examine and study them. To just discard it because we've been subjected to cranks on regular basis is a bit of a shame. But it would be good if you could provide them with some kind of provenience or links to why they display the real Mary Jane Kelly.
I would be surprised if there wouldn't have existed pictures of her, especially if her own words about being a West End brothel prostitute is true. Small "visiting card" portrait photographs were quite cheap and could even easily be obtained by the working class.
The question is, whether they have survived or not.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 11:00 am: |
|
I think it possible that unknown photos of the victims may exist but think it is unlikely these will come to light casually for a variety of reasons:
1) The current owner may not recognize the photo for what it is even if this id identified and its value to crime history
2) The owner may be aware of the subject of the photo but not wish to attract the circus of publicity that would fllow any such revelation. The diary and the Cornwell bandwagon are still fresh in people's minds and Jack still makes a good headline and sells papers.
3) We must remember that a lot of the population (unlike us!) are either indifferent to the interest of the Whitechapel case or even see interest in it as morbid or questionable.
4) Lastly, and to me the most likely, any sych surviving photo may simply be unidentifiable as its orgin and provenance have been lost and it bears no identifying information. As an example of this, a photograph album of my grandmother's was found recently after many years (she died over 20 years ago). Although nearly all of the unlabelled photos are identifiable as family members, there is one trimmed down Victorian photo of a very well dressed man totally out of keeping with my humble family background - all of whom were at that time agricultural labourers, bricklayers etc. We have wondered who this man was and why his picture is in my grandmother's album but there is simply no way of finding out anything about him. This may well be the case with any surviving photos of Whitechapel victims in life - obviously any surviving post mortem pictures would raise more thana few questions!
Also we need to ask what kind of people would be most likely to have acquired or inherited any picures? Pictures taken in life would have passed presumably to the family but any post mortem photos could have passed to the family of those who may have pilfered them from official files and it would also be interesting to know the identity of the photographer who took the Miller's Court photographs and what happened to the plates.
On a vaguely related topic, can anyone enlighten me as to when photos (as opposed to line drawings and engravings) first appeared in newspapers to illustrate articles?
Many thanks
Chris
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Hi Chris Scott,
Although I think photos in british newspapers were uncommon until sometime in the 1920's, the Daily Graphic apparently published the first newspaper half tone picture as early as 1891. It was a picture of one George Lambert, Liberal Parliamentary Candidiate.
Hope This helps.
John Savage |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 198
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Chris,
The halftone process that allowed the direct reproduction of photographs in newspapers began in the United States around 1897. When it was adopted in Britain I can't say.
What does raise interesting possibilities, however, is that in the States as far back as the Civil War many of the illustrations in newspapers were woodcuts based directly upon photographs. I don't know if that was also the case in Britain, but if so there is the intriguing possibility that some of the illustrations of Ripper witnesses, sites and police officials could have had their genesis in photographs and . . . well, there might yet be a few exciting finds in boxes of old glass plates.
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 778
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hi Peter,
If you have photographs , never seen by any one, I urge you to , reproduce them to these boards, i am not intrested in my own financial rewards, even if such pictures, would be a revelation, to any future publication, I am a true enthusist of this case, and want everyone now, to see, your prize poccesssions, even tho I am co writing a book, my ambition is to be part of a dedicated group, that can progress further in our quest to find the elusive 'Jack'.
I must also say . I am suspicious, of such a claim, and the proof is therefore in the eating.
Best Regards
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2283
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Hi all
If you read Peter's post above, you'll see that if you take the first letter of each line, you get Arfa Kidney.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I don't know if there are (still in existance) other photographs of the victims, expecially of Mary Kelly (hopefully one of her as she actually looked before the murder). One can always hope they turn up. But let the following newspaper item make you sit up and take notice - that hope springs eternal and that miracles sometimes do happen. This was in the New York TIMES of Wednesday, February 25, 2004, on P. E 2. With the item was a small copy of the photograph that was the subject of the item.
"VAN GOGH OR NOT VAN GOGH? Is it or isn't it? That's the question swirling around the 19th Century photograph that is the focus of an eshibition running through March 4 in the Seaton Gallery at the University of New Haven in West Haven, Conn. Is the photograph, above, the image of the mature Vincent Van Gogh, who left behind 40 self-portraits but is believed to be the subject of only two photographs, taken when he was 13 and 19. Dating to the late 1880's, the pivotal photograph of the middle aged man on view in West Haven was bought for $1 by an artist, Tom Stanford,who found it whie combing through a stack of 19th-century photos at an antiques dealer's in 1990. It shows a bearded man with a long, sharp nose and a neat beard who is wearing a plain suit and a bow tie and certainly bears a strong resemblance to the van Gogh familiar from his paintings. Although the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam contests the conclusion that the man is van Gogh, DAVID SKORA, the director of the Seaton Gallery, said the photograph was subjected to analysis by Joseph Buberger, a photo historian, and Dr. Albert Harper, director of the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science. He said both concluded that the image is that of van Gogh and that the person depicted in the two photographs believed to be those of the artist as a teenager is actually his brother Theo. With reproductions of self-portrait paintings and drawings shown with permission of the Van Gogh Museum,"Discovering van Gogh: A Forensic Study in Identification" displays not only the photos and related art but explores forensic evaluation."
To me, the photo that still would be worth seeing
(aside from the one of Mary Kelly when she looked like a human being) would be that of Monty Druitt when his body was found. I have mentioned on these boards several times that in George Dilnot's THE STORY OF SCOTLAND YARD, that underrated historian of crime mentions that the bodies of victim's drowned or found dead in the Thames were photographed from the 1870s onward. Monty's picture must have been taken - but it has never been published. In fact, I wonder if it has even been sought.
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1437
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
About that Druitt photo... I am not sure I would like to see that, although dealing with crime these recent years have made my skin thicker and my stomach more adjusted.
Bodies who have laid several weeks in water are generally quite decomposed and get so swollen and their facial features so distorted that they are beyond recognition. I don't think we would be able to see any traces of Druitt as we know him. But it is interesting information that drowned victims were photographed as early as 1870s and 1880s. I had no idea.
However, besides Mary Kelly, a photo of Catharine Eddowes before the murder would be a blast, but that I believe is completely beyond reasonable possibilities. She most certainly didn't belong to those who might have bothered about paying for that stuff, unless one can find an earlier one, when she was married.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Good spot, Robert.  Thought the new line for each sentence was unusual but I didn't do much more than skim it.
So, "Peter" is out. How about James? |
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 10:26 am: |
|
Assistant Commissioner RCL, indeed a great spot. I guess we can expect a similar visit next year at the end of March or beginning of April. Way to go Robert!
Take care,
Kevin
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1440
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 11:22 am: |
|
Robert once again confirms his rank. I have no idea how you spotted that one. Great work. I must admit I didn't more than skim it through either.
I wouldn't surprise me if both Peter and James are hoaxers. I would rather be surprised if they weren't. Too bad they missed pulling it on April Fool's Day, though.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2287
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 11:47 am: |
|
Thanks folks. I was puzzled by the strange layout of Peter's post. My first thought was that it was some sort of weird poem. Then I suppose it just flashed on me to look at the first letters of the lines.
I'm just wondering if Peter and James are the same person.
Robert |
Eduardo Zinna
Sergeant
Username: Eduardo
Post Number: 49
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Jeffrey, Glenn,
The latest biography of Rasputin, by a Russian author whose name escapes me right now,includes photographs of his body as they pulled him out of the river.
Eduardo |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Blimey! And he wasn't a beauty to begin with...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
Re your comments about bodies found in the Thames, I have recently been given an 1891 bound first edition of the Strand magazine and one of the articles in there is entitled "A Night With The Thames Police." This has a lengthy section on how they dealt with suicides and attempted suicides. As soon as I can I will transcribe any relevant sections - also the article is illustrated and a couple of the pics may be of interest.
Chris
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Eduardo, Glenn,
See, http://www.celebritymorgue.com/rasputin/
Not a beauty, but according to 'A People's Tragedy' by Orlando Figes (definitive history of the Russian revolution?), Rasputin had a large strategically placed wart that drove his partners wild.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Thanks, Kevin.
Actually, I found him surprisingly recognizable (whatever that indicates...).
By the way, have you seen the supposed one of Marilyn Monroe? Quite hard to understand that it's her (if it really is).
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn, Eduardo, and Chris:
The exact statement (at the end of the last paragraph of his chapter on the River Police) is
"One of the grim parts of thework of the river police is the recovery of dead bodies from the Thames. The great bulk of these are assumed to be suicides. There are a few accidentally drowned persons, but it is rarely that a case occurs in which there are signs or suspicions of foul play. SINCE 1872 IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE TO PHOTOGRAPH ALL BODIES FOUND SO THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY AN UNKNOWN PERSON MONTHS, AND SOMETIMES YEARS,AFTERWORDS."[My capitalization of the last sentence for emphasis.]
The proper cite for the quote is George Dilnot,
THE STORY OF SCOTLAND YARD (Boston and New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1927), p. 169.
What caused the developement of forensic photography in 1872 is not mentioned - presumably some event involving a strange death in the Thames made it seem like a necessary innovation.
There had been many suicides and unsolved murders connected to the Thames prior to 1872. I wrote a few months back about one - the Waterloo Bridge Mystery of 1857, when a cut-up corpse of a murdered man was dropped off Waterloo Bridge into the river, but ended up on an abutment instead. It was never solved. And then, in fiction (recent fiction in 1872) Charles Dickens' last completed novel, OUR MUTUAL FRIEND (1865), begins when an unidentified male corpse is fished out of the Thames. Possibly there was more discussion of the problem in 1872 than I imagine.
Of course, forgetting poor Monty, there were plenty of other Thames drowning problems in the years after 1872. In 1878 there was the wholesale loss of life in the Princess Alice disaster, that preoccupied Catherine Eddowes. Several hundred photos involved in that one. The following year there was the discovery (near Richmond)of Mrs. Thompson, who had been murdered (and then dismembered and boiled down) by her servant, Kate Webster. Even after 1888 there were other Thames related mysteries - one that Dilnot briefly talks of was the corpse of a man found trussed up in ropes in 1897, believed (because it was identified by the proposed victim's spouse) to be one Ludwig Von Veltheim.
But that gentleman, a professional con-artist and swindler, was still alive, and would be on trial in one year in Johannesburg for shooting a blackmail victim Woolf Joel. Dilnot said that the mysterious corpse was probably a seaman named James Duncan, who vanished at the time.
While I am aware that a drowning victim would be bloated and somewhat disfigured after a month - and that was about the time that Monty was missing - the photograph would be of interest. It might enable us to consider more carefully if he looks like a suicide victim or a homicide victim - admittedly a difficult point, but one to consider. Also, presumably there might be some report attached to the photograph of Monty. But this becomes wishful thinking after awhile.
I have seen the photos of Rasputin's corpse when it was taken out of the Neva. It was recognizable. I still find it incredible that after being poisoned, shot, stabbed, and clubbed by Prince Youssapoff and his confederates, the Monk was actually killed by drowning (and he actually managed to get partially untied while in the night darkened, ice covered river).
I never have seen Marilyn Monroe's autopsy photos. I have seen President Kennedy's.
Best wishes,
Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Interesting info, Jeffrey. Thank you very much.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 9:21 pm: |
|
One mistake folks, but an easy one. I said Eddowes was preoccupied with the Princess Alice disaster - it was Long Liz. Sorry about that.
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2291
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 4:52 am: |
|
Hi all
I suppose there's the possibility that, as Monty was immediately identifiable, the authorities skipped the photos. We have to hope that they were sticklers for the formalities.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 9:44 am: |
|
Hi Robert
The point you raise about Druitt's body being immediately identifiable. His body was taken from the Thames shortly after mid day on Monday 31st December and the report in the Southern Guardian appeared the next Day, 1st January, naming him.
There is also contradiction as to what was on the body in the way of identifying documents. The Chiswick Gazette, in its report of the inquest, specifically says that among the items found on the body "there were no papers or letters of any kind." However the Thames Valley Times reports "the body of a gentleman.... has since been identified by a season ticket and certain papers."
A modern British season ticket if found alone would give no clue to the owner as it does not bear a name - a separate ID card is held for that. I have no idea of the format of season tickets at this time and if they would have had the holder's name on them. Of course there were also the cheques. Modern cheques have the account holder's name printed on them - again I do not what identifying marks were standard on Victorian cheques. Also, of course, we do not know if these cheques were made out TO Druitt from another payee or FROM him to another party, as the blackmail theories would have us believe.
William Druitt identified the body - he was, from his own account at the inquest, in London conducting inquiries into his brother's disappearance and had found out about his dismissal from valentine's school only the day before the body was found i.e. the 30th December.
For Druitt's identification to have been confirmed so quickly (fast enough for it to appear in print the day after the body was found) there must have been something on Druitt's person that identified him immediately OR his brother was not only conducting private investigations into his brother's disappearance but had reported this circumstance to the police who were alerted that a young man of his description was a possible suicide risk on account of his recent circumstances.
All the best
Chris
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2294
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
Re the "Southern Guardian" article of Jan 1st, naming Druitt : is this a second "Southern Guardian" article? I know of the one quoted in the Sourcebook, but that is dated "Saturday, Jan 1st". But Jan 1st was a Tuesday. Also, the article reports the inquest. Has Sourcebook got the "Saturday" bit wrong, or the "Jan 1st" bit wrong, or what? I'm confused!
By the way, I like the way Stephen's made it look as if Druitt's elbow is submerged in water!
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 645
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Robert et al......
NOT AGAIN!!! incidently I know its a long way back but well spotted sir!!!!Arfa etc!!
Come on.it very obvious that there were other photos taken....but where they are lurking now is anyones guess! and would we recognise them if we came across them in a church fete or something!!You bet we would chaps...keep those eyes peeled and keep all this fakery off of the boards...if theres something genuine here....do the decent thing,either post it or sell it, if not leave these boards to the folks who have something vaguely sensible to say!
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2295
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi again Chris
Sugden gives a date of Jan 5th for the article which Sourcebook dated as Jan 1st.
Suzi, a photo of a JTR victim at a church fete?  Weird what you can find amongst the home-made marmalade!
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 651
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Robert!!!!
Youd be amazed at what you find at church fetes mate!!!! |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 7:35 pm: |
|
I once found a 50 dollar bill in a church bathroom I went into waiting for the bus. I assumed it was a sing due to the fact I was out looking for a job at the time. I found a job that day but I don't work there now. But enough of this the point is anything can be found in a church. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 657
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 6:13 pm: |
|
M Mc
On holiday in Cephalonia last year we found a silver dollar in a hired jeep!!! still have it...offers!!!??? seemed to bring us some sort of luck tho....stopped us falling off of the mountains!
Suzi
|
Marie Jeanette Kelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 4:11 am: |
|
I may just be being silly thinking this but there is something wrong with those photos of Mary Jane Kelly I cant put my finger on. I did notice that there is a lack of blood for the wounds she sustained. It could just be due to my bad eye sight and the lack of clearity of the photos that I simply cant make it out. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 9:16 am: |
|
G'day Marie,
Mary Kelly was killed first by having her throat sliced. There was a pool of blood under the bed. Once a person's heart stops pumping blood, they bleed a lot less. This would have meant that blood wouldn't have spurted out on her killer too!
LEANNE |
Marie Jeanette Kelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 6:34 am: |
|
True! But there is still something strange about the photos. They seem very posed. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 773
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 10:57 am: |
|
Wow!!! Marie Jeanette!!!! a voice from beyond the grave....or Ireland ...or Canada!! or somewhere!!!
Sorry but yes I do agree the MJK pic looks posed too ......the hand in the abdomen etc
Suzi |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 42
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 4:57 pm: |
|
The thing about them that always strikes me is what a huge forehead she had, if the diagrams we're using to outline facial features are correct.
Mags
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 804
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 4:22 pm: |
|
HiMags
Yes.. I agree it does look odd....looks almost as if the skin on the forehead has been pulled up,.....as an artist I still think that the proportions of that face are wrong (God that sounded pompous!!..sorry!)The rest of the body,such as it is, looks ok but it's THAT HEAD theres something verrrrry wrong there
Suzi |
marie jeanette kelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 8:20 am: |
|
I too am an artist. I couldnt make out the face. It looked as though it was mainly skull showing from what I could make out. |
Bob Donovan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 9:18 am: |
|
Why are Kelly's death photos not as lucid as other victims' death photos? One was done by a reporter and other was done by a coroner? Was it due to lighting? Or due to severity of the crime, it was intentionally taken in a less lucid manner? |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 81
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 1:44 am: |
|
Hi Bob,
I'm not sure what you mean by lucid.
The only photos we have of the other victims were taken at the mortuary after the full autopsy examination. This meant that they were generally propped up against a wall sometimes in their coffin. It also means that they would have had wounds that were made by the doctor during the autopsy and that all wounds, including those made by the killer would have been stitched shut. (I think that's right.)
Mary Kelly's photos were taken in situ in her room, they display the scene as it would have appeared on the morning of her discovery. It is a topic of debate whether the room was rearranged to allow the photos to be taken, in particular the second close up photograph. I don't think the room was rearranged but that's just me.
As far as I know none of these photographs were taken by reporters.
Scotty.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2607
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 10:58 am: |
|
Hi all
This little item appeared in "The Times" Dec 23rd 1933 :
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 895
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Robert!
Wow!!!! what a discovery!!!!! hate to say it tho but he may have taken the famous morturary pics and (shame) not in situ!!! Gosh imagine that if these things were there tho!
Excited......but where the hell are they!!!!
? Suzi  I suspect! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2611
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi
Since I posted that item I've discovered that the Viper, Chris Scott and everybody except Barbara Streisand beat me to it. It's on one of the Kelly threads. The Viper found some very interesting local newspaper articles about Mr Martin. He had an amazing life. I'd really like to find out more about him - though I too am not optimistic that any more of the photos have survived.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Hi Robert.
Are you really sure about Barbara Streisand? 
Anyway, interesting article.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 153
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Considering the recent interest, I'm working with Stephen to try to get Viper's old article on the topic from Ripper Notes posted on this site.
If you are interested in learning even more about the photographer, you probably want to look into getting Robert J. McLaughlin's The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs coming out maybe this summer. It's a limited press run, and I know he's already gotten a lot of orders. There's a couple threads about that here too.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2614
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hi Dan, Glenn
Yes, it would be interesting to find out more - hope you can get the article put on the site. The book looks interesting too. I know very little about photography, but I gather that marks or writing that appear to be in a picture can sometimes be the result of someone writing on the picture itself - which makes me wonder whether the purported "FM" might really be "JM" for the photographer's initials.
As for Barbara Streisand : you've heard of cochlea implants? Well, she makes me want to be a donor.....
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 899
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 6:18 am: |
|
Robert!!!!
Sure about the spelling there!!!!???????
Looking forward to the posting too and the book!
Cheers Suzi |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 533
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:57 am: |
|
Robert,
I had wondered aloud whether the "FM" might be the photographer's initials long before I ever knew anything about his name because to me it looks like it is written on the photograph itself. Now, however, I think the most likely explanation is a bloodstain on the partition.
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2634
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Hi Andy
Apart from the bloodstain possibility, it's just possible it might be "JM" for McCarthy's intials, since I dare say things used to go missing. For instance, would he not have put an identifier on the table? Maybe also the partition?
In the end, though, it probably is just a bloodstain.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 926
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Robert!!!
Bloody Hell ............(From..........no less!!!} what a cracking idea!!!!....................of course it's just a blood stain!!! could be mistaken for a couple of letters else!!!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
