|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 328
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 7:48 pm: | 
|
Hi Frank. Yes, I thought I had read that somewhere. If you look at one of my postings above, I thought I had seen something like an S-shaped break in the bottom left frame in one copy of the image, but not the one posted here on Casebook. There is NO DOUBT the top right one is broken. If they were indeed diagonal, then it will be that one that looked broken in one copy of the image and not in another. The bottom right pane could easily be shading that has caused it to look smashed.
On looking at the shot again I think I can see where the other pane was broken - but also this time in the same pane as the 'face' can be seen on the other window I can now see a different face - and I could swear to it being Humpty from 'Play School' (one just for UK readers there)! No joking - these things are there if you see them as Jen says above!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 338
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
What is all this stuff about Miller's Court being demolished in 1928? I was at the window of #13 only last week (granted, it claims to be in Batty Street, but that's all bull).
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 339
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
I forgot to mention - I have now found out that the infamous exterior photo was found by Don Rumbelow with the others in the 1960s and he too believes it was taken at the same time as the MJK shots.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 175
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Hi Phillip, just for the record, how did you find that out? Did you ask Donald? Does that mean it was also a glass plate?
(Message edited by Scotty on February 17, 2005)
Scotty.
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 361
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Hi Scott.
I know Don to talk to, but as we are both followed by huge groups of tourists whenever I see him I haven't asked him directly.
I am friends with the OTHER leading Ripper author & Ripperologist, who is also friends with Don. I asked him and he told me that's what Don told him.
By default that would also make it a glass plate.
I quote (and I hope the writer has no objection to this) : "The photograph of the exterior of 13 Miller's Court is another found by Don in the 60s in the archives of the City of London Police. It obviously dates from 1888 and Don says that it is one of the photographs taken on the day of the murder."
Cheers
PHILIP (with only 1 'L', you HEATHEN!) 
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Hi all! I've been reading over these posts now that I am on vacation and there is something that has caught my eye. I looked at the picture of the windows, and when the photo is enlarged, the light areas that I first thought may have been due to a flash, could actually be the reflection of the building behind the photographer. As far as whether or not the door is open in the photo, I think the door is closed. In the illustration that was done portraying Mary outside of her room, she has a foot on a step and I believe that is what we see in the photo. I do agree that there is something odd about Thomas Bowyer's statement about pushing back a curtain, especially if I am right about this photo being taken before anyone went into the room. I do not know much about the technical aspect of photography or they type(s) of camera(s) that were used during this time, but I did read somewhere that these were cumbersome. What exactly were the dimensions of her room? There has been debate on whether or not a flash was used so I am trying to imagine the size of her room, the contents (furniture, etc.) that took up space, the fact that there was a building opposite her windows, a (large?)contraption of a camera in the room with at least the photographer...(I am going somewhere with this), and in every different example I have of the photo of Mary, there is something shiny on the floor, below the table, almost tucked into a corner. I say that it is shiny because I have darkened this photo and this one spot stays. I cannot make out what it is, and I am not sure if any of you may know, but if my theory is right then a flash was used inside and this object on the floor is reflecting that flash. Am I making sense?
Sandy |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 181
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Still not sure about the flash but what I can say is that there is actually no white spot under the table or on the base of the bed. Here is the section of under the table from the photo in Donald Rumbelow's book.
As you can see there is no white spot here. There are two copies of this photo in existence, the one most commonly reproduced has the white spots on it. The other one does not.
As to the size of the room, I believe it was about 10' x 12', or some reports have it at 10' x 10'. (I'm quoting from memory here so someone correct me if i'm wrong.)
With regards to Thomas Bowyer pushing back the curtain it appears as though what he actually pushed back was a coat which had been hung over the small window on the right as we look at the exterior picture of the room. There is a report that claims a coat had been hung over this window which was being held up by forks stuck into the wood. It does appear however that the left hand window actually had a curtain.
Scotty.
|
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Scotty,
Thank you for the information. Do you know why one photo has the white spot on it? Is it simply a bad reproduction? As far as the coat hung in the window, why is it not in the photo? Would this signify that this photo was taken after the room had been entered? I always believed that this photo was taken before anyone entered the room.
Sandy |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 182
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Yes, I think it's a reproduction issue with the prints that caused the white dots, but i'm no expert. We went through the same discussion some months back and comparison of the two prints clearly shows the white dots appear on one but not the other.
Interesting point about the coat, I guess I had always assumed that it was a dark coloured coat and that it is actually in the photo but that we cannot see it. Anyone know anything more about that?
Philip,
Thanks for that info, sorry about the mis-spelling. Surprised you didn't tell me to go to 'l'. 
Scotty.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3138
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:58 am: |
|
Hutch,
What are you doing outside Miller's court #13?
Shouldn't you be standing outside Crossingham's lodging house?
Nice faces in the window there, by the way.
I have tried to figure them out from the photo but to no avail. As you say, what will people find next next? Still, a fun exercise.
I had actually no idea that the photo was taken in 1888. I thought it was from the 1920s or some time before it was demolished. Interesting.
Sandy,
I agree with Scotty regarding the white dots, although I am certainly no photographic expert. But if they appear on one copy but not another, that is the only conclusion I can make as well.
Have no idea about the flash either. It was of course daylight, but I am still not sure, since the motive as such was situated indoors and photos needed a lot of light at the time.
There exists a sketch somewhere, where a photographer is taking a picture on the crime scene, but I am not sure about its accuracy, really. Could be a picture based on imagination. The sketch obviously shows the photographer standing inside the room with his equipment, and doesen't seem to be using a flash. Some source say the photographer took the picture through the open window, though.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 20, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 183
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
Glenn,
WE AGREE
I'm noting the date and time.
I've also heard other reports that the window was removed completely from it's frame but am not sure of their provenance. I'm not at all convinced about the flash. Although as I said i'm no expert on the photographic techniques of the time, nowadays if you take a photo with a flash you see a clear and sharp shadow outline of the subject on walls etc: in the background. We don't see that on any of the MJK photos.
Scotty.
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 370
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Wow! Hotbed of theorising now, isn't it?!
It is not going to be long now, because of the glitch on one of the photos, that someone will say AC's brass rings were on the floor beneath the table, and then a policeman went and removed them and they took the shot again... you wait...!
I can't say with any certainty the ORDER in which the shots were took, and I suspect we never will. What is more likely to come first - ensuring photography of the remains so they can quickly be taken away? Or taking a photograpg of the crime scene to attempt to note possible means of escape (bearing in mind the 'locked' door).
I would suggest the photo was taken after removal of the body. The coat is not there any more and how would the other residents of Miller's Court come and gone? The police wouldn't permit them to get a full view of MJK, surely. Actually, it makes you wonder what DID happen with the residents between 11am and the time of removal (didn't the body arrive at Shoreditch at about 4pm?). Were they locked in/out?
Sandy - there is a possibility you may be right about the reflection, but I don't think it is likely. Firstly, we don't know the condition of the plate - those horizontal bands may have worn away. Secondly, we don't know the source of this reproduction - it could be poor in a book. Thirdly, the light patch goes over the window frame - which pretty much makes it final!
Also, the door being closed in an illustration (which source? The Illustrated Police News?) means nothing. We've seen time after time how minor liberties have been taken in press drawings.
It would have been easy for the photographer to stand in the alley of Miller's Court to take this. Narrow as it was, I can see no reason for him having difficulty. The cameras were indeed cumbersome, however. In those times of long exposures they still needed some nasty great tripod.
Scott - yes, I too have heard nearly all reports say 12' x 10' though a stray one now and again will say 10' x 10'. It so happens I live in a very cluttered bedsit that measures 12' x 10' (is this taking research too far?) and though it SOUNDS too small, you could - if the lens was suitable - get the photographer and camera in without much trouble - but I also appreciate that the main shot could have been taken through the window pane. HOWEVER - we are forgetting here the OTHER shot - THAT would be FAR more restrictive in size and if they got that OK, which they would HAVE to have made in the room (tripod and all against the wall behind the bed) then there shouldn't really be any reason to doubt the initial location of the camera for the main photo.
I was intrigued to find out the info about forks holding the coat up. I had wondered. In regard to if it is in the shot or not, I personally have doubts. We don't know for sure, but the darkness inside is uniform. I can't imagine a coat being able to block out every chink unless it was VAST.
Another thing worth pointing out here, which is rather staring us in the face - you can clearly see the curtains in the other window. They are OPEN. MJK wouldn't have left them open overnight (and JTR certainly wouldn't!) so we have to assume the police opened them - which would mean they would have taken down the coat as well. The darkness you see behind the larger window is the same as the Bowyer window. So I say 'no coat'.
I reckon the story about the frame being removed is total bunk. I can't really see a single logical reason for it being true.
Scott - you make a very good point about the flash projecting shadows. That seems fairly conclusive to me. Shall we say 'no flash' as well then?
Glenn - What was I doing outside 13 Miller's Court? Erm.... I was just waiting there for 45 minutes... as you do...
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4141
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
Hi Philip
I've seen somewhere a statement by one of the residents that they were all kept in the Court till late afternoon, also a statement by at least one female resident that she looked at the body. I wish I could remember where I saw it. 
I know that the jury were taken to Kelly's room on the Monday, but do you know whether the photos would have been presented for the jury to look at during the inquest?
Robert |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 372
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
Hi Robert - I don't, but I know a man who does as the saying goes. I'll send your enquiry to him and see what I can find out. That's a really detailed one, though, so don't hold your breath!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4142
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Thanks Philip. I assume that even if they did show the two (or more?) photos to the jury, there would have been just the one copy of each, passed from juror to juror.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3139
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Scotty,
You should never be surprised.
I don't belong to those that hold grudges.
"I'm not at all convinced about the flash. Although as I said i'm no expert on the photographic techniques of the time, nowadays if you take a photo with a flash you see a clear and sharp shadow outline of the subject on walls etc: in the background. We don't see that on any of the MJK photos."
True. The same struck me while looking at them as well.
I would assume they would have used some kind of long exposure, keeping the lens open for a longer time, but here I am really in deep water since I am absolutely ignorant on photographic technical details. But as you say, we don't really see those features usually connected with magnesuim flashes. I would agree with Hutch as well and say that that makes it more or less conclusive.
Hutch also has a good point about that second picture. There they obviously had put the camera inside the room, without displaying any particular problems with exposure and distances, so that makes the idea with the window being taken out rather far-fetched -- unless that window photo was taken before the police managed to get inside the room, which of course is a possibility (I think I have actually seen a sketch of this as well), and they they didn't take the second photo until after they had gained access to the room, but I am hesitating.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 374
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
There is no possibility the exterior photo was taken before entry, as the curtains on the left window are clearly open.
I think this tale about the window being taken out is about as convincing as those stories that say 'Her intestines were hung from picture hooks around the room like Christmas decorations'.
In regards to the long exposure - perfectly possible. Without trying to sound light about this, it is hardly as if the subject matter would be making any sudden movements.
Cheers
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3140
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Hi Hutch,
I perfectly agree. I think you're right about the window being taken out, especially if the point about the curtains is a valid one. I have always thought that idea sounded a bit awkward.
"Without trying to sound light about this, it is hardly as if the subject matter would be making any sudden movements."
Oh, morbid humour! Haha.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 375
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Hi Robert -
Boy, have I got news for you! RIGHT from the horses mouths!
I had an e-mail back from Stewart this evening, and not only that but I ran into Don in Mitre Square tonight and asked him your question face to face!
Don confirmed the shots were indeed glass plates (which I think we had established anyway) but that to the best of his knowledge they were NOT used to be passed around at the inquest (mind you, I did refer to them as 'the MJK plates', so he probably thought I meant the interior shots and not the exterior one).
Stewart posted me this reply. I'm hoping it's OK to post this up as I did mention to him it was a Casebook enquiry : "There can be no exact answer to this question, but they probably were. We know from Dr Bagster Phillips evidence that he did produce the photograph of the exterior shot of 13 Miller's Court showing the broken windows at the inquest. It would obviously be at the discretion of the coroner but as none of the witnesses say that the photographs of the body were produced it is not possible to be sure. I hope that this helps."
Ditto!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 781
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:41 pm: |
|
Philip et al
Dr Phillips testimony:
I found a room the door of which led out of the passage near 26 Dorset Street and having two windows - I produce a photograph I had taken - there are two windows in the court....
Just thought that might be of interest as it indicates that it was Phillips himself who requested that the exterior photograph be taken.
Anyone who has bought my book (plug, plug, plug) will by now have read Dublin Evening Mail account of the jury visit to Mary's room. However what I didn't include in the book is something in the next paragraph which reads as follows:
It will probably be some time before the public will learn the details of the mutilation of the woman’s body, for these, it is understood, will be kept religiously secret by the police.
That would tend to me to suggest that the police wouldn't be likely to be flashing the photos of the inside of the room around too much.
"All I know of morality, I learned from football" - Albert Camus
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4146
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Thanks folks - though I'm not quite sure where that leaves us.
Robert |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 184
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 12:28 am: |
|
All,
The long exposure concept is a dead certainty as far as I am concerned. And if the police had entered the room and taken the photos inside first it makes sense that they would have removed the coat from one window and opened the curtains on the other. This would have given as much light as possible inside for the photos to be taken. Really if we are all conviced no flash was used then they must have used as much of the available daylight as possible.
Philip, great info there, thanks for asking.
The source I have for the forks is the Ingelby Oddie book, the Ripper chapter of which is reproduced elsewhere on Casebook. It reads: "The next morning her body was found amid a scene which for sheer horror beggars description. A rude curtain had been stuck up with a couple of forks over the single window, so that the monster inside might for once enjoy a complete and undisturbed orgy. "
The fact that he says "single window" and that he states himself his story is hearsay doesn't fill me with confidence about it's correctness. Anyone have any confirmation of this information from another source?
Scotty.
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 378
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
Hi Scott.
Hmm - so it is a flawed secondary source for the forks then. No, it doesn't fill me with hope either. Firstly - those forks must have had DAMN sharp prongs if you think about it, and secondly a coat is going to be HEAVY. I don't think it would have been able to remain up at the window for long. Which would then bring me back to my previous question some time since - how was that coat suspended (if we believe it was a coat).
Robert - I would imagine it leaves us with the exterior shot being useful to the inquest and the interior ones for police records? Not too sure why you wanted to know this info. Can you enlighten me a bit as to what it was supposed to tell us (not being at all sarcastic here - genuine cordial question)?
Scott - absolutely. This is exactly the reason I assumed the curtains were opened.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4148
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Hi Philip
Well, there's a reference (I think in the PMG) to the jury seeing kelly at the morgue, but only the face - the rest being covered by sacking.
So I was hoping that, in order to see the wounds, the jury would have been shown copies of the photos - which would increase by at least one the number of copies taken, including any photos that have since gone missing. The more copies of any missing pics, the better. A wild hope born of photographic ignorance - if they were only passing glass plates around, it doesn't do us any good.
Robert |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 11:16 am: |
|
Hi all
Re The photographer and flash or no flash
According to the Scotsman newspaper of 10th Nov 1888;
>>a photographer was brought on the scene, after considerable difficulty and delay, was set to work in the court and house with a view to obtaining permanent evidence as to the state of the room and the condition of the body. The state of the atmosphere was unfortunately not favourable to good results. A slight drizzling rain was falling, and the air was dusky. Even in the open thoroughfares, and in the little court it was at times almost dark, especially inside the houses. The photographer however, did his best, and succeeded in securing several negatives, which he hopes will be useful.<<
If he had been using a flash I would have thought that it wouldn't have made much difference to him how dark and gloomy it was.
There is also another article in The Scotsman which contains a statement from Bowyer, who discovered the body, that he pulled back the curtain which was covering both the windows of Mary's room.
I think the abscence of curtains or coverings in the photograph may have been deliberate. If the photographer was having problems with the light in the room it would make sense for them to take down whatever was at the window to let in extra light, and so when he took the outside shots ( as I am sure the inside shots were a priority and the photographer seems to have been late on the scene) the curtains were no longer at the window(s)
Debra |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 741
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Regarding the sighting of "faces:"
The human mind seeks to make sense out of random shapes by organizing them into more familiar ones. The human face is a very familiar shape that can be suggested by a mere three or four dots and therefore it is one of the most commonly conjured images. Look, for example, at all the mysterious "faces" spotted in the various photos of the JFK assassination!
Andy S. |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 391
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Hi Robert - the PMG item makes things confusing. The press are always a pain as we never know how much to trust them. I find it ironic it would have been deemed prudent to cover her mutilated body but view the face which was left little more than mangled flesh. I don't get what you mean by this meaning there would be more photos then - could you explain for me? Why would this mean they would have seen other photos besides the ones we know of?
Debra & Andy - definitely yes I agree. On totally different points!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4176
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Hi Philip
I mean, if the jury didn't see the bodily wounds at the morgue, they may have looked at copies of photos at the inquest. And these photos would presumably comprise the complete set. In other words, if for instance photos had been taken of the eyes, the jury may have seen copies of those. My hope was that there would be more than one copy of any photos that were taken - increasing our chances of any missing photos turning up.
Robert |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 392
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Oh I see - sorry Robert, I thought you meant that there would be completely different photos - not multiple copies of the same image.
This does give rise to an interesting question. We know now that photographic film was not in use until 1888. Was it possible to make multiples of the same image prior to that? Someone will probably come forward with plenty of evidence to say so now!
As for the eyes photo - I had always assumed that had existed, but some people here have said it was only a rumour such a shot was taken.
I think we should try to create a list of every photo known to have been taken in 1888. It seems to me there are people who don't know the source of many of the shots - just see how many posters thought the exterior photo was taken by Matters in 1928!
Do you know if there are any other exterior photos from 1888? Not just Miller's Court, but any of the SoCs?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4178
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Hi Philip
No, I'm not aware of any others, unless you think that the Hanbury St photo dates from then.
I'm hoping that the new book by Robert McLaughlin will add to our knowledge of the photographic side of the case.
Robert |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 189
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 8:01 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I've asked this question a couple of times before but never had any takers. Years ago I saw a documentary based on the book "Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution" by Stephen Knight. Whilst his theory was wrong the one thing that struck me was that at one point photos were displayed of various aspects of the case. One of them I could not figure out at the time and had to pause the tape and look at more carefully. It the became clear that it was an extreme closeup of an eye.
Now I can't speak for the shot, whether it was MJK or some random eye they had taken a picture of, but i'd like to know.
Anyone know anything about this?
Scotty.
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 760
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 9:01 pm: |
|
Hi everybody,
Walter Dew wrote that an attempt was made to photograph Mary Kelly's eyes. I'm not sure if anyone really knows if it happened or not.
The only description I've ever read of a similar procedure is in Caleb Carr's terrific novel The Alienist, which takes place in 1896 New York City. Although fiction, the book has a strong foundation in historical fact as well as psychological theory (Abrahmsen's work on serial killers is a main source). I don't know if Carr sourced Jules Verne, an actual case, or just made this up, so for what it's worth:
At this point in our discussion Marcus announced that he was ready to begin his experiment, at which Kreizler took a few steps back from the operating table to allow the several pieces of equipment Marcus had brought along to be moved next to the body. After requesting that the overhead electrical bulb be switched off, Marcus asked his brother to slowly lift Ernst Lohmann's remaining eye out of its socket. When Lucius had complied, Marcus took a very small incandescent lamp and placed it behind the eye, onto which he focused his camera. After exposing two plates to this image, he then activated two small wires, whose ends were bared. He ran these wires into the nerves of the eye, activating the latter, and exposed several more plates. As a final step, he shut off the incandescent lamp and took two images of the unlit but still electrically activated eye. The whole thing seemed quite bizarre (indeed, I later learned that the French novelist Jules Verne had written of the procedure in one of his outlandish stories); but Marcus was quite hopeful. . . (pp 275-6).
Again, the above experiment is fiction (I highly recommend the Alienist series), but I thought it might be of interest.
Cheers,
Dave
Btw, Marcus's experiment failed |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page