|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 28, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs:
Archive through December 28, 1999
Author: Karoline
Friday, 24 December 1999 - 12:17 pm |        | Not to take issue with any of the above - but aren't we in danger of descending into 20th century cliche views of Victorian society?
Was the 'typical' Victorian husband really either knocking his wife about or visiting prostitutes?
Wasn't he perhaps just a guy, with a job and a house, trying to do his best for the people he loved?
And surely the working-class customers these women sold themselves to were just downtrodden unfortunate men - just as exploited, hurt and abused as the women they turned to for a bit of brief companionship.
Isn't it a little harsh to call them loathsome?
I understand wanting to remove blame from the victims - but I don't think anything is achieved by resorting to popular but misleading stereotypes.
I think it's being widely established now that the Victorians were not this matched set of repressed wife-beating, child-exploiting Bible-thumping hypocrites that has been long-supposed.
Modern research is showing that their society was far more complex than this, embracing all shades of behaviour and opinion in matters sexual, moral and religious. There was, in essence, almost no such thing as a 'typical' Victorian, and it could be very misleading to assume that any individual of the time conformed to any of what we consider their cultural 'norms'.
That's a kind of 'heritage theme park history', where every middle class man is a domestic tyrant, and every whore has a heart of gold.
Hope I don't offend anyone. As Rabbi L. would say - imagine a smiley face in this space, if such is your thing.
Karoline |
Author: D. Radka
Friday, 24 December 1999 - 01:35 pm | | Karoline,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments above, which further help provide balance on this board. Although Caz is, I feel, a wonderful person, now and then her comments have indicated an overdetermination on the side of concreteness and emotion, in opposition to abstraction and analysis. Most of the people who post here don't seem to notice; I point it out in the sense of good fun once in awhile. There are men on these boards who, in an attempt to show empathy to women, overdo a bit and seem to miss some of the point, which sometimes results, paradoxically, in a further imbalance injurious to the interests of women.
David |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 26 December 1999 - 07:28 am | | Hi Karoline and David,
Hope you both had a great Christmas! I guess this is not getting us back to MJK but I hope everyone will indulge me a response to your posts before I disappear to create something wonderful out of leftover sprouts and stuffing!
Yeah, reading back over my post of 20th December, I realise I was resorting to cliches in my descriptions of Victorian domestic life, and my use of the word ‘typical’ was wrong and deserved to be picked up on.
Nevertheless, the sort of family I was describing DID exist, sadly still exists today, in significant numbers, as part of the human condition, and was certainly not exclusive to the Victorians. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise, though I can see how my post gave that impression. The difference between then and now is in society’s awareness, acknowledgement of and attempts to deal with such domestic problems.
Most victims of the ‘domestic tyrant’ must have suffered in silence then. No modern escape routes for them like stigma-free divorce, police intervention, and a wide network of social services, counselling, Alcoholics Anonymous, women’s refuges, phonelines for abused children, the list goes on. Even today many victims cannot bring themselves to report their own domestic hell for many reasons: humiliation, fear of disrupting the family structure or upsetting innocent relatives, fear of not being believed, fear of revenge by the ‘tyrant’, this list goes on too. My own grandfather, born in 1878, had to watch his mother being hit regularly by his father, and tried to intervene on her behalf, but all the statistics and modern research in the world can’t go back and discover how many families had similar and far worse experiences which never saw the light of day.Yes, I can be accused of showing emotion when I think of people having to suffer awful lives at the hands of others who were and are allowed to get away with it.
Maybe I was being too harsh, referring to JtR’s victims’ customers as ‘loathsome’. This was my purely subjective view, along the same lines as Diana’s ‘thought of servicing any of the denizens of the East End circa 1888 is repugnant’. The thought of ‘servicing’ ANYONE not of my choosing is repugnant and loathsome to me, but perhaps I need not have made such an obvious statement, not knowing what went on inside the head of an 1880s hooker or their lonely, companion-seeking customer. It was wrong of me to be flippant about either and I apologise for that.
Before letting everyone get back to Mary Kelly, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate any feedback from my posts. I always try to learn from people’s comments and no, I am never offended when I feel that someone has taken the time to respond in a careful and informative, as opposed to a patronising and dismissive, way.
Thanks both.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 26 December 1999 - 06:06 pm | | | I think most women are repulsed at the thought of servicing anyone not of their own choosing, or being brought so low that they must of necessity service anyone who can give them a little money. As a Christian the thought of doing so outside the bonds of matrimony is equally revolting to me. Alcohol must indeed be a cruel master. I suppose that is one of the more altruistic reasons I have for wanting to unmask this monster. |
Author: wascallywabbit
Sunday, 26 December 1999 - 06:47 pm | | My dear Diana,
It sounds as if you are saying that even outside
of prostitutional encounters, lovemaking amounts
to the female 'servicing' the male.
If so, it is a rather dour form of Christianity
that you are advocating. |
Author: Female
Sunday, 26 December 1999 - 10:52 pm | | | Diana, I am a Christian and I see 'sex' as a God given gift, that can be shared between male and female. I don't think that one person should 'SERVICE' the other. |
Author: Jill
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 03:24 am | | Hi All,
What was first, the drink or the need to escape lifes dire moments (like prostitution to survive). It's something like the egg and the hen. For some it isn't always a choice, but the only thing to keep living (enjoy life still= don't feel the pain) any longer. I pity all those, even the ones who do the cruellest things because of it, which doesn't mean it has to be condoned.
Peace, Love and Cheers
Jill |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 09:51 am | | I think Diana is being misunderstood. She writes that she finds "servicing anyone not of their own choosing" to be repulsive; certainly, she is speaking of involuntary intercourse such as that in an arranged marriage or general prostitution? I did not have the impression she considered the sexual act itself to be repulsive.
And yes, I realise the argument can be made that a prostitute does not really "choose" her client - although, to some extent, a high-priced call girl can much more so than a drug-addled street hooker - but they have, within restrictive bounds, of course, the right of refusal. At least until physical force, chemical dependency or pecuniary need wipe away the last criteria of selection.
As a long-time veteran of these boards, I find it interesting that the discussion of certain aspects of prostitution - enjoyment, need, willingness, lust - never (or almost never) arise in regard to the other canonical victims, but only Mary Jane Kelly. Why her? I've my own thoughts, but should like to hear yours.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 10:40 am | | Hi all,
Sorry about not having been about for the last few days. 40°C fever and a light pnuemonia are no bed-fellows for christmas.
Jon, do you mean that Dew says that this method of eye-ball photography was used on Kelly? It's the first time I've heard of it being actually done on her, which, of course, does not mean it is untrue. As far as I know, however, it was suggested, but not actually done. Didn't Dew mean rather that tests (carried out somewhere) proved negative, not tests on Kelly?
On sexuality: My personal intimate expiriences with the opposite gender tend to negate suggestions that the human female acts and feels generally as a sort of non-participating biological itching post. Naturally there are exceptions, but that is valid for both sexes.
Prostitutes, on the other hand, do just that IMHO. They must have to. A woman who is so disgusted and repelled at the thought of servicing unknown clients can surely not succeed at her proffession any more that I could in mine if I were repelled by the thought of standing in front of thirty students at the board. A prostitute knows full well what she is doing, and what the job demands. The victims of Jack knew it perfectly. To visualise that they were innocent little girlies, virgin blood pouring down their snow-white angel dresses, surrendering in panic- ridden shock to some snarling, slime-covered beast in order to remain alive long enough to get to church next Sunday is not being very realistic.
They were mostly drunken sluts, whatever the reason and whatever the desperation of their situations. I have sympathy with those of them who had little choice, but what they did was 'the easy way out', even if the word 'easy' in this case is damn relative. There were many men in the same position, who didn't have this recourse. They starved.
Belated but sincere Christmas Greetings to all on the board and a very good New Year.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 11:07 am | | Hi CM,
Our posts crossed.
You are right about Kelly, but I suppose that she, being young and pretty, is more interesting than the others.
From the can. five, only Nichols and Chapman could be said to be absolute desperate vagabond existances. Stride had Kidney, Eddowes had John Kelly, Mary Kelly had Barnett and possibly Flemming, and even Chapman may have had the pensioner. Nichols and Chapman were forced on the streets to get a bed for the night. Eddowes took refuge in public wards when necessary, when she or Kelly couldn't earn anything. The others had a roof over their heads if they wanted. All suffered from alcoholic problems and shortage of money, which accounted for the prostitution.
In the case of Eddowes, the prostitution element is IMHO not proven. The suggestion that friends and boarding-house owners not wanting to admit her going on the street be the grounds for her alleged 'innocence' is weak, for the other victims no such reserve was met. Of course I do not suggest that she was some holy maid.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 11:07 am | | Hi, Bob:
Jon had earlier alerted me to the reference in Dew to the photographing of Kelly's eyeballs. It seems, going by Dew's say-so, that this did indeed occur.
Dew states (page 148) that "Several photographs of the eyes were taken by expert photographers with the latest type cameras." Dew says this was done in the "forlorn hope" that the final image of the murderer was retained on the retina.
In an article by Stawell Heard in "Ripperologist" Issue 16 (April 1998), on "The Victim Photographs," Heard says that "There were supposed to be specific lighting conditions under which such a photograph should be taken. Whether these were followed in the dim light of 13 Millers Court, it is now impossible to say. All we know is that, as Dew tells us, ‘The result was negative’."
As Heard states, there is now no trace of these photographs anywhere in the files. As you may know, the existing photographs of Mary Jane Kelly's body in situ in 13 Miller's Court were only rescued by Donald Rumbelow in the 1970's from oblivion or destruction after a search in the police archives.
Chris George |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 11:33 am | | Hi CG,
Post on post!
Thanks for the answer. I am afraid I have to admit to still being a bit sceptical, I've heard repeated claims and counter-claims about this although Dew's report does seem to be final. Having heard and read so much contradictory stuff, however, I hope you will excuse me for asking if there is any other contemporary supporting material you know of?
Most of my sources seem to want to make it clear that Kelly was not so handled, and one may ask why, in view of such restrictive time and lighting conditions as prevailed at Millers Court, such photography would not have been better carried out at the mortuary? In the little time between the door being opened and Kelly's remains being transported away, what with medical and police examination etc., it does seem to me to be not all that likely that special equipment be fetched and set up by 'experts', and that in such dim lighting enviroments as in 13, Millers Court.
Weren't at least a part of the Kelly photos returned to the Police by an unknown sender in the 80's? Of course that doesn't reduce Don Rumbelow's contributions in the slightest.
Naturally the absence of any such eyeball photographs from the files means nothing, even if it is assumed that any sort of picture could be achieved at all. In such dim conditions as Millers Court, it could have been that no exposure could be adequate, and thus no picture.
I'll have to get a copy of Dew's memoirs.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Searo Haga
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 11:44 am | | | It may be that any such photographs would have been extreme closeups not readily identifiable by subject once misplaced or misfiled, no? |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 12:35 pm | | Hi Searo Haga:
You make an excellent point that the Kelly eyeball photographs if misplaced or misfiled might not any longer be identifiable as belonging to the case. Interestingly, the rare books and documents dealer Eric Barton who sold the Littlechild letter to Stewart Evans apparently had a number of photographs from Miller's Court, as Stewart mentioned in the recent interview I did with him for "Ripper Notes." Although he never saw them, Stewart understood that these were a full set of photographs of Miller's Court and Mary Jane Kelly, apparently once the possession of journalist George R. Sims who had probably obtained them from his friend Sir Melville Macnaghten. Unfortunately, although Eric had promised these photographs to Stewart, he died before Stewart could obtain them. The Ripper case, as you can well see, is a case filled with missing opportunities!
Chris George |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 01:25 pm | | Hi Searo Haga,
Yep, a good point, although photos of almost anyone or anything, when misfiled, would be hard to identify. You'd need the period and some sort of connection on the picture if you didn't happen to know by some chance. Anyone finding e.g. Eddowes's 'against the wall' mortuary photo and having no knowledge (zounds!) of JtR and his victims would almost certainly not be able to place it. One of the hopes for us that valuable JTR stuff could still be around, and just not (yet) identified!
The picture of the entrance to Millers Court, does anyone know if that was done at the time of the crime?
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 02:05 pm | | Hi All,
Chris: most interesting. Would you happen to know if any efforts have been made to obtain the photos from Mr. Barton's estate??
Regards,
Jim |
Author: Jon
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 02:49 pm | | Bob C.
The idea of eyeball photography was not an isolated incident......
'On 13th September the Star gave publicity to the bizarre suggestion that Annie Chapmans eyes be photographed in the hope that the retina's would retain images of the murderer.
This possibility too had already been considered by the police and put to Dr. Phillips, 'I was asked about it very early in the enquiry' the Doctor told the inquest, 'and I gave my opinion that the operation would be useless, especially in this case.
Probably springing from the developement of photography in the first half of the century, the belief that the last image formed on the retina's of a dying persons eyes remained impressed upon them was invested with a spurious credibility by American press reports in the 1850's.
In 1857 the New York Observer citing the Democratic Press, noticed a series of experiments made in August of that year by Dr. Pollock of Chicago. The Doctor, examining the retina's of dead peoples eyes, reputedly found 'in almost every instance...... a clear, distinct, and marked impression.' Furthermore, according to the Observer, a Dr. Sandford had examined one of the eyes of a recent murder victim and detected in the pupil 'the rude worn-away figure of a man with a light coat.' The myth achieved some currency through fiction, notably Villiers de I'Isle-Adam's 'Claire Lenoir' (1867) and, later Kipling's 'At the end of the passage' (1890), and at the time of the Whitechapel murders was widely believed.
In February 1888, on the eve of the crimes, the British Journal of Photography published a New York Tribune claim that a killer had been convicted in France on the strength of eyeball photography.
Even had the basis for this suggestion been sound, which it was not, the detailed photography of pupils would not then have been practicable and it is scarcely surprising that Phillips was incredulous.
His dismissal idea is not quite the last we hear of it. For Matthews, in a letter of 5 October to Warren, asked whether any of the Doctors had examined the eyes of Elizabeth Stride. We do not know what response, if any, Sir Charles made to this query. But Walter Dew's recollection, fifty years later, that attempts were made to photograph the eyes of Mary Kelly, the seventh victim, cannot be corroborated.
(P. Sugden, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, - p.137)
Bob, I am interested in your sources, I assume contemporary, that make you believe it was 'only suggested' re: Kelly, and not actually done?
Also, in a previous comment I think I understood you to imply that between the door being forced at 1.30pm & her remains being removed at 3.50pm, you suggest there may not have been time to photograph the eyes?.....but they had time to take photo's....as is evident....I dont understand your point, there were no special 'set-ups' for photographing the eyes.
I think we are fortunate to have Walter Dew's recollections, he may err on details like times, or sequence of events but to actually state that something happened, if it really didnt, is a little extreme. Reading his text carefully I think it is apparent that the event took place.
Regards, Jon |
Author: jon
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 03:25 pm | | Bob
Please excuse the abruptness of my previous poste....none intended, just pressed for time :-)
Happy Holidays !!!!
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 27 December 1999 - 05:08 pm | | With regard to the photograph of the entrance of Miller's Court -
I have seen only versions of one, a more or less straight-on view, with the "Miller's Court" sign above the arch and a chair to the (viewer's) left of the arch. Occasionally, this view is cropped so that neither the chair nor a large expanse of brick above the arch is seen.
In Terence Sharkey's "JTR: 100 years of Investigation," this photo is captioned:
"Miller's Court. The sole entrance from Dorset Street, a lane of common lodgings. The chair belongs to an old woman who for many years charged a fee to morbid sightseers."
Sharkey does not give a source for this information, and so one has to take his word for it that the chair is as he says. IF he is right (a big if), then the photo was not contemporaneous with the murder.
You'll find the same picture as well as a photograph of Miller's Court itself taken from beyond the arch in the O'Donnell / Parlour "The JTR Whitechapel Murders."
Happy New Year to all,
CMD |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 08:42 am | | Hi all,
Jon, I didn't read your post as abrupt, so no need to apologise at all.
It is not correct, however, to assume that no special set-up was required for eyeball photography. Special equipment and experts were stated as being needed (and would have been essential) for this work.
One source of my doubts concerning eyeball photography and Kelly is Sugden's work, which you quote. The point about time and this type of photography was that 'special equipment' and 'experts (hah)' would have to be fetched and 'special lighting' arranged for. The photographs actually made in Millers Court (I still take my hat off to the photographer for getting such shots under such conditions) were 'normal' and required normal photo equipment, which was readily available.
'Special equipment' would have included a type of macro-lens for the close-up shot needed, and presumably some artificial lighting and maybe special film. The camera would have to be focused on the retina, which was not possible with the normal infinity lens, or the middle range adjustables, used then. If this difficult work was to be done, why at Millers Court? Why not at the mortuary where conditions, including artificial light, would have been much better?
Not (yet) having read Dew's memoirs, I am reduced to reading what others write about what he wrote, which is a dangerous method of getting information. Still, I read only that 'attempts were made (where?) and results (which? )were negative, not 'Kelly's eyeballs were photographed at Millers Court by Mr Smith of the XY- institute using XZ- equipment, candle-light and.. etc. etc.' Such a special action would, I feel bound, attract much more attention and would have been reported or at least directly named remarked upon by the police, if not the press.
I am simply made sceptical by such bare description, sadly having read so much similar stuff that has turned out to be hogwash. Add to that the official negative views of such and the probable delay between opening Kelly's door with the excitement that inevitably followed and any thoughts on eyeball photos.
I don't have any contemporary evidence that Kelly wasn't so photographed, what I asked for was any contemporary evidence that she was. Dew's memoirs sadly do not constitute evidence, and contemporary newspaper reporting quality has been disqualified so often, we should be extremely careful with it.
CM, thanks for your info. The photo I mean is the one you describe. As you say, if the chair did belong to some old woman charging entrance, the photo would obviously have been made later.
A very good and prosperous new year to all,
best regards,
Bob |
|
|
|
|
