Archive through December 29, 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 December 29, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs: Archive through December 29, 1999

Author: The Viper Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 09:35 am
With reference to photographs of the entrance to Miller�s Court taken from Dorset Street:- There are at least two of these pictures that appear to have been taken at the same shoot. Both of them display a chair positioned between the left-hand side of the entrance to the court and the shop door to no. 27. The one that CMD describes was taken in close-up from about a yard right (east) of the entrance. The sign saying Miller�s Court above it is clearly legible, especially in the O�Donnell / Parlour book where the reproduction is excellent. Another was taken obliquely from the west side, perhaps twenty feet down the street with the photographer standing in the road. You can see it in Robin Odell�s �Jack The Ripper In Fact And Fiction�, opposite p112 of the hardback edition, and also in the books by Begg and Evans & Gainey. These photographs were taken in the 1920s. In fact, I believe we can be more specific about their origin. Beneath the caption of the Odell photo is printed �Reproduced by permission of W.H. Allen & Co. Ltd.� W.H. Allen were the publishers of Leonard Matter�s groundbreaking �The Mystery Of Jack The Ripper� in 1929. On p91 of the Pedigree paperback edition of said book, Matters wrote:- �At the time of my first visit to the neighbourhood most of the houses on the left-hand side of the street were unoccupied, and some were being demolished. The house in which Kelly was murdered was closed, save for one front room still occupied by a dreadful-looking slattern who came out of Miller�s Court into the sunlight and blinked at me. �When she saw the focus of my camera to get a picture of the front of the house, the old hag swore at me, and shuffled away down the passage. �I took what is probably the last photograph of the house to be secured by anybody, for three days later Miller�s Court and the dilapidated buildings on either side of it were nothing but a heap of bricks and mortar�. Doubtless, the wooden chair belonged to the old woman mentioned above. The whole of the north side of Duval Street (as it had become) was demolished 1928-29 to facilitate rebuilding. With respect to the photograph of Miller's Court to which CMD also refers, taken from beyond the arch and reproduced on p54 of O'Donnell and Parlour's "The JTR Whitechapel Murders�, I have studied it a number of times and have concluded that the picture is not of Miller�s Court at all. Does anybody agree? For a contemporary photo of Miller�s Court, look at the one depicting the back of Mary Kelly�s room, showing both rear windows and the passageway back to Dorset Street. It appears in Rumbelow, between pages 116 and 117 of the 1987 hardback edition. Bob I believe the technique used to derive the necessary light for any close-up photography performed in Miller�s Court would have been by burning magnesium in a pan. Compliments of the Season to all, V.
Author: Bob_C Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 09:50 am
Hi Viper, Thanks for the very good information. I'll be taking a look at O'Ds and P.s picture as time permits. I'm not sure about the magnesium flare bit. I'm not certain that such items were available then, we did have a board discussion over this subject two years or so ago and I seem to remember some sage telling us with authority that flashlight photography came along in the first years of the 1900s. I may, of course, be wrong. Best regards, Bob
Author: Jon Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 12:36 pm
Bob What I mean was the eyeball photography was widely believed but not widely practiced, so no experts, hence no special equipment. A flash gun, magnesium or equivalent. Possibly a special lens. And they used glass plates in those days, with the camera on a tripod, a drawing of which is in the I.P.N. of Nov 17th, also depicted in 'JtR, A-Z. Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher-Michael Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 01:19 pm
Viper - Many thanks for the photo information, and for reminding me of the second exterior Miller's Court picture (which I have seen, but forgot about. The curse of getting older). I had not given a great deal of study to the Parlour's Miller's Court photograph, and so took another look at it to make an opinion on its veracity. I couldn't think what was wrong, until it suddenly hit me. The two men (or boys) in the photograph are wearing suits that seem almost certainly to be post-war. If this is so (and the attire of the woman lookng back up towards the photographer - skirt just below the knees, bare arms and what appears to be a wristwatch on her left arm - seems to confirm this), then the photo cannot possibly be of Miller's Court, torn down in the 1920s. CMD
Author: The Viper Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 02:37 pm
Just to return on a couple of points:- Bob Your observation that the use of magnesium pan flash may not have been possible for an 1888 photographer may have some merit. Apparently the technique first appeared during the late 1880s, so the timescale is tight. However, it seems that magnesium flashlamps were an alternative. To read more, try the following URL. Take the Search option on the main screen and search for references to flash lighting. (Thanks to Avala for this link) http://www.kbnet.co.uk/rleggat/photo/ Christopher-Michael Thanks for your thoughts on the Miller's Court photograph in the O'Donnell / Parlour book. I must confess to thinking that the picture originates from the Inter-War period before now, thereby making it possible that the picture is genuine. (I bow to your superior knowledge of things sartorial). The points that convince me that it is the wrong location are:- (a). That contemporary descriptions and drawings of Miller's Court refer to it as containing two story houses, whereas the building on the left is at least three stories high. (b). That the court has a somewhat open aspect at the back, when the maps suggest that the buildings in Brushfield Street hemmed it in much more. Any other thoughts on this photograph? Perhaps Andy or Sue Parlour is looking in? Regards, V.
Author: Bob_C Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:46 pm
Hi all, Viper, Thanks again for the info. I've just done a quick look at the link you've stated, and see that a magnesium flash could have been possible at about that time. I'll read more about it first. Jon, that was rather my point, that 'difficult to get' experts and special equipment were not all that likely to have been available in the couple of hours between discovery and removal of Kelly's remains. All in all I tend to not believe that Kelly was photographed so, and that Dew is either misunderstood or expressed himself badly as to what he meant. Best regards Bob
Author: Bob_C Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:48 pm
and greetings to Avala, long time no hear! Bob
Author: Jon Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:57 pm
Chris George & I were discussing the apparent 'blanched' look of light or white meterial in the photo below, look at extreme left of bed and her left knee & shin, very like a flash has been present at the time of the photo being taken. Photo, courtesy of Stewart Evans. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:58 pm
Some months ago Chris George & I were discussing the apparent 'blanched' look of light or white material in the photo below, look at extreme left of bed and her left knee & shin, very like a flash has been present at the time of the photo being taken. Photo, courtesy of Stewart Evans. Regards, Jon
Author: jon Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 06:01 pm
Some months ago Chris George & I were discussing the apparent 'blanched' look of light or white material in the photo below, look at extreme left of bed and her left knee & shin, very like a flash has been present at the time of the photo being taken. Photo, courtesy of Stewart Evans. Regards, Jon
Author: JackisBack Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 06:47 pm
Good Posting Jon, I never have been able to figure out how to post a photo at all. I see the "Blanching" you refer to, to me it looks more like a water stain or even sweat from the fingers of many years of handling of an old print. If you look at the other photo posted in the Mary Kelly Victims section of this site, from the foot of the bed towards the table, you might notice that in this second photo there is a distint ray of light accross the table that seems to be coming from a window or door that would have been positioned behind the point of view of the photographer of the larger photo you have posted here. My point is that there are no distinct shadows on the wall or bed from a magnesium flash gun light source, and the other photo seems to show a natural source of light. If it possible that the day cleared and that there was sufficient light for the phographer to take his two known photos of the crime scene with the light from outside being let in through the door or window. Just a thought. (damn these long postings are a pain, I may go back to one line quips if you don't mind.) JiB
Author: Jon Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 07:23 pm
Thanks for the posting, JB But you miss my point..... Look at her left shin, no detail, yet the folds in the bedding both above & below appear distinct, the shin is nearer the source of light therefore 'blanched' of detail. The beam of light you mention was seen in the second photo and is coming through the split between the door and the wall. The gap at the hinge side of the door, while the door is open. The only other light would be through the two windows, and as the back of her room faced a yard surrounded by two storey buildings, and the weather being overcast, not a lot of light available. No black wall shadows as there is nothing to cast a shadow. But under the table and especially under the bed, very black shadows from a strong light source. I mention all this as we have discussed before the dark room must have had artificial light in order to get such decent shots. Regards, Jon
Author: JackisBack Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 12:29 am
OK, JiB
Author: ChrisGeorge Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 06:01 am
Hi, CMD: Good eyes re the accoutrements worn by the folks in the interior shot of Miller's Court! Contrast those clothing styles with the end-of-the-nineteenth century shot of Dorset Street opposite in the Parlours' book with the women with full length skirts. The knee-length dress of the woman on the right in the picture and her evident wristwatch may betoke post-War or, to my mind, certainly Second World War vintage. So if that is the case, this cannot be Miller's Court where Mary Jane Kelly was murdered, since that was cleared away in 1929. Viper also brings up some excellent points to make us doubt that this photograph is what it purports to be. Chris George
Author: Bob_C Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 07:13 am
Hi Jon, Good work, but don't forget that most of the versions of the photos have been enhanced in one way or another. Flashlight photography can be almost certainly ruled out by other means, however. The plates used would not have been fast enough for flash-photography. The in my mind excellent work of the photographer and the details he achieved lay on the fact that he would have made a long-time exposure. As far as I know, the plates had to be developed very soon after exposure ('wet plates'), probably at the scene, so he could have had the chance to experiment. I doubt if he needed atificial light, there being no danger of Kelly moving. Indeed the stream of light mentioned indicates that natural light was used. The long-range shot is supposed to have been made through the window from outside, although I am sceptical there. Best regards Bob
Author: Jon Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 09:10 am
Bob Behind the photographer were two windows, giving off equal light, so why the very dark shadows under the bed indicating a strong light source to the left of the picture? There should be no strong shadows at all if the light source was behind the photographer, from two windows. Also Bob, ...from whence did you get the idea that the shot was taken from outside.....we've been down this road before too, RED DEMON ventured in that direction, to his detriment. From inside the room, Bob, soley & totally.....lets not get into the window being removed :-(...not again :-) Regards, Jon
Author: Bob_C Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 11:56 am
Hi Jon, Why the certainty that the photo was not shot from outside? (I admit that I was and am also sceptical, see my comment) There would have been no need to remove any window, they were sash windows which may, may, have been openable (to get at the door-latch, as example). The matter is no way proven, unfortunantly, so or so. Now, the picture you have posted above could seem to substantiate your suggestions concerning light, but this evident strong light from the left is not visable on any of the copies I have, and, to be honest, I wonder if that which we see above isn't maybe later damage of some kind to the photo. Some sort of surface damage is evident lower down on the bedstead and the white patch seems to have edges not consistant with the objects it partly portrays. If we look at the wall behind the head of the bed, we see no shadows. Indeed, there are very few shadows obvious except e.g. under the bed. Now this could of course be the result of expert artificial lighting, but I ask what portable lighting equipment was readily available then? They didn't have electric sockets (at least not at Kelly's), portable gas lighting units were, I believe, not available and Kelly also had no gas connection. Battery-lighting was some time away and that leaves us with oil-lamps or some exotic chemical means. As far as I know, the photographer had to carry not only his camera, tripod and plates but also a portable dark-room to develope the plates as quickly as possible after exposure. If he also carried lighting equipment with him? Best regards Bob
Author: JackisBack Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 12:54 pm
Good comments Bob_C, You expressed some of the points I was trying to call attention to above, but you did it in a much most understandable manner. Concerning the a. "Blanching" in the lower left corner and the b. strong shadows under the bed. Firstly, perhaps Jon and Chris could ask Strart Evans to closely examine the original print, which I am led to believe he owns and the same one posted here. It should be very evident whether or not there are any water and/or sweat stains on the print's surface. Also, there seems to be a tear, or scratch running from the lower left hand corner up accross the print, which may have been repaired in some manner. I am sure that close examination by Stuart of the original print could clear up some of these points. Secondly Jon, I still can't see any strong shadows under the bed or anywhere, as would be produced by a strong and concentrated source of light, on this print. I tend to agree with Bob_C that the lighting is a result of a long exposure time with some natural light source. Jon, one question, please. Is the print you posted a reduction of a larger print, as I heard someone mention somewhere on the boards, which shows more of the table and wall, etc. If so, would the larger print give us more information to work with. I think since Stuart is in possession of the original, someone might ask him to examine and comment on these points.
Author: ChrisGeorge Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 02:04 pm
Hi, all: To clarify, JiB, Stewart Evans photographed the original print which is kept in the Public Records Office in London. I have to agree with the sentiment that says that the lighting is pretty even across everything shown in this larger photograph, including the wall, the bed, the corpse on the bed, and the bedside table with the lumps of flesh. I also agree with Bob Court that there do not appear to be any highlights on the intestines which might be taken to indicate a strong light source. The only shadow, I also agree, is under the bed, which could be the result of the use of natural light or the use of an artificial light source. The only reason that I sense that Jon might be correct that artificial light was used is the blanching out of details on the leg nearest to us and on the foot of bed, i.e., the mattress and bedsheets, which appears to bear out Jon's contention that there was a strong light source to the left. Note however that in the smaller photograph printed in Harrison's book there is considerable glistening on the inside of the right leg, which would have been away from the light source provided by the window, which might indicate that there was a source of light other than the daylight. As for whether the big photograph was taken from inside the room or outside, the IPN sketch shows the photographer inside the room and of course the smaller photograph from the other side of the bed was taken inside the room. That being so, I would not think the photographer would have needed to shoot the big photograph from outside. Incidentally, I have sent an enquiry to Stewart to ask him if there is any way we might be able to trace what became of Eric Barton's estate including the supposed additional photographs of MJK and Miller's Court that were said to have been in Barton's possession before his death. Are those photographs now in the possession of a collector or were they destroyed? It might be important to ascertain if they are still extant. Chris George
Author: JackisBack Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 06:11 pm
Well since we are going deeper into this subject in two discussion groups simultaneously, I will add a little more kerosene to the flames. (It sure beats discussing the anatomy of fish or the consumption of human brains) Just two more quick observations. 1. The now famous "Blanching" that Jon refers to appears to end at the scratch/tear on the print's surface. The contrast on the bedding in the photo is much more distinct above the scratch/tear than below. This might indicate that some liquid substance may have been applied to reattach the part of the print below the scratch/tear. 2. I believe that there is mention in the inquest testimony of a pool of blood, or a great deal of blood at least, on the floor under the bed. Since the bed seems to be close up against the wall, some of the shadow under the bed just may be a pool of blood, although I don't see the edge of this pool against the floor. Considering the ghastly state of the corpse on the bed, it would be strange if the police photo lab purposefully softened the effect of a large pool of blood on the floor, but it should be evident in this picture and I can't see any evidence of it. Also, one other quick point, which may seem trivial, but pertains to the previous postings in this discussion group. Certainly there is a time difference between the two known photos of the crime scene and the differing light conditions, like the ray of sunlight that appears in one and isn't evident in the other, could be the result of a rapid change in the cloud cover. For anyone who has ever spent much time in London, this rapid change from cloudy to sunny and back, is a constant and very rapid phenomenon.