|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs
| | SUBTOPIC | MSGS | Last Updated |
 | Archive through December 05, 2000 | 40 | 12/05/2000 07:06pm |
| Archive through December 17, 1999 | 20 | 12/17/1999 04:04am |
| Archive through December 22, 1999 | 20 | 12/22/1999 09:20am |
| Archive through December 28, 1999 | 20 | 12/28/1999 08:42am |
| Archive through February 26, 1999 | 25 | 02/26/1999 08:30am |
| Archive through 21 February 2001 | 40 | 10/18/2001 10:15pm |
| Archive through December 29, 1999 | 20 | 12/29/1999 06:11pm |
| Archive through January 19, 2000 | 20 | 01/19/2000 11:54pm |
| Archive through June 10, 2000 | 20 | 06/10/2000 05:36pm |
| Archive through June 11, 2000 | 20 | 06/11/2000 01:56pm |
| Archive through June 14, 2000 | 20 | 06/14/2000 03:08am |
| Archive through June 9, 2000 | 20 | 06/09/2000 01:56am |
| Archive through March 14, 1999 | 20 | 03/14/1999 05:50pm |
| Archive through May 22, 1999 | 20 | 05/21/1999 08:48pm |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 01:38 pm |        | Just mere curiosity...
In the second police crime photograph of Mary Jane Kelly's body, in the background, between the pillow (?) on the table and the top of the chair, we can see what looks like a vertical light line.
One could think that it is the light coming from the opening left by the door not being totally closed.
But since the door apparently opened inside the room from right to left we should not be able to see any light from the angle from which the picture has been taken (the photographer being apparently positioned between the bed and the partition wall).
Am I wrong there ?
Then, shouldn't we be able to see the "little" window at the back of the chair (seen the extremely little room between the side of the "little" window and the door wall as we may see in the picture taken from the court - not much more than what is necessary for a waterpipe) ?
Don't know. Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 08:50 am | | Graziano,
The only answer I can point out regarding the light is that I feel the door is too small for the frame. Therefore even when the door is shut there would be a chink of light showing.
As for the light showing on the table then I think that the photo would be taken with the door closed and the light coming from the small window.
Of course I may be totally wrong but its the best I can do.
Monty
 |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 02:06 pm | | Thanks Monty,
that could be a very interesting explanation in fact.
It also came to my mind that the vertical line of light could in fact be what remains of the far left side (from inside the room) of the little window (this being so quite right in the back of the chair), this little window having been covered with something to prevent an effect of "contre-jour" (sorry, I do not know how to say it in english) on the picture.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 03:25 pm | | If you study the light and shadows in that smaller picture you notice one side of her left wrist, inner surface of her left thigh and rightside surface of left kneecap, not to mention the fleshy parts on the table. All indications appear to be that the light source is coming from the windows which will have been uncovered to provide as much light in the room as possible.
As for the vertical strip of light in the upper portion of the picture, it is representative of reflective light that you might get from one of the corner post's of the headboard from the bed. This though is completely the wrong angle so, without knowing of any other object in the room which could produce such a reflection we are left with the split down the hingeside of an open door or the open edge (lockside) of the door. This though is hardly likely to have been shiney enough.
The door could be open wide so we are actually seeing a narrow glimse of the courtyard between the open edge of the door and the doorframe.
There's a few possibilities, but I favour the light through the hingeside of an open door.
Regards, Jon
P.S.
It just occured to me that the headboard is leaning against the wall in the bigger picture so it is not attached to the bed frame. I wonder if they pulled it to one side (to the right) and what we are seeing then is the distorted bevelled reflection of light from one of the headboard post's ?
|
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 08:22 pm | | My own opinion is that the lightline is the hingeside of the door , and that the bed has been pulled right around to allow the photographer to take the picture of Kelly from near the fireplace in her room.
Simon |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 03:35 pm | | Hello all,
I agree with Jon and Simon.The light is comming through the hinge side of the door.
The door must have been open quite a way.
I say this for two reasons.Firstly because we can see the light entering the gap between the door and the frame.Secondly,just discernable,is a reflection of light from the windows,on the edge of the left vertical member of the door(next to the recessed panel).This,and much of the door itself would not be visible if the door was closed.
I don't think the bed was necessarilly moved though.It looks as though the photo was taken from the foot of the bed on the wall side and the camera was angled towards the table.
Graziano,I know the were chairs in the room,but I can't see them in either photo'
Regards,
Mick |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 03:55 pm | | Mick, it's just behind the flesh on the table.
You can see in fact the top of it but quite a bit.
Maybe the picture you have is not of good quality and the chair is lost with the dark background.
It is quite visible in the picture published in the Ultimate Sourcebook.
The chair is less dark than the background and quite easy to see the shape of it.
Graziano. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 07:42 pm | | Graziano,
I think we might be looking at the same object and seeing two different things.
To me it looks like the door is about three quarters the way open and the lightish grey "Stripe",parallel and to the right of the column of light shining through the door crack,is actually light reflecting off the door.Futher along to the right is a dark vertical stripe which I believe is the shadow down the edge of the middle strut of the door.
Between the two,is one of the recessed panels.
Bruce Paley's book shows a contemporary sketch of the exterior of Kelly's room and the door has six recessed panels,but how acurate this is ,is anyones guess.
Hope this all makes sense Graziano.
Now can you describe for me,the chair?
Regards,
Mick |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 08:27 pm | | A couple of years back Bob C., and I were discussing eyeball photography, I mentioned there was a case in the US as recently as 1932, but at the time I had misplaced the news article.
I just found it.....
The Globe
Toronto, Tuesday, April 26, 1932.
Murder Mystery Solved By Photo of Victim's Eyes Is Claim in Carolina
Image of Slayer Disclosed, It Is Said, and Two Arrests Made - Toronto Professor Says That Such Image in Photograph Would Be Impossible
(Associated Press Dispatch)
Wilmington, N.C., April 25, C. T. Hargrove, Deputy Sheriff of Columbus County, today announced he had solved a murder by photographing the eyes of the victim and finding the image of the slayer in enlarged reproductions of the photograph. He displayed photographs in support of his claim.
The officer said he obtained the idea from a detective story he read several years ago.
Richard Lacewell, a negro employee of Hargrove's, was the victim. He was found shot to death April 10, with few clues to indicate his slayer.
Hargrove, Deputy S. W. Phillips and William Smeeden, a retired New Jersey police officer, decided to try the photographic experiment. Hargrove said the enlarged pictures showed plainly the image of Tyman Graham, a negro.
Graham and Lewis Blanks, another negro, were arrested. Hargrove said both confessed to participation in the slaying of Lacewell as the result of a dispute over the affections of a negress.
-----------------------
G. R. Anderson, Professor of Engineering Physics and Photography at the University of Toronto, told The Globe last night that, in his opinion, such an image would be impossible. The eye could not retain the impression, he said. "It has been stated many times, but is purely a fiction," said Professor Anderson. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 10:15 pm | | Jon, in the twenties or thirties there was a case of a constable pulling one or two wrongdoers up for some mis-demeanor. They shot him and he died with his eyes open, so they put a bullet in each of his eyes to prevent their images remaining. the policemans name was Gutteridge.
Rick |
Author: graziano
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 02:02 am | | I'm sorry guys,
but a chair is a chair.
That's the description, as better as I can do it with my Collin's beside me, of the one in 13 Miller's court appearing on the second picture of the crime scene:
It's clearly a massive wood chair of a very normal type (a squared one).
As I already said one can only see the top of the back of it, the support (seat and legs) being hidden by the table and the bottom of the back by the flesh on the table.
So, the legs, the apron and any spingle are not visible.
But one clearly sees:
- the two stiles (2/3 cm large) ending 3/5 cm over the top rail thus forming two ears. Very normal ones (without any decorative motive).
The two stiles are squared ones,
- the top rail joining them (5/10 cm large). This rail is not completely horizontal but somewhat curbed,
- the cross rails on the back, set vertically one near the other without any kind of space between them (in fact it could be a full pane),
- there is a space (a line of maybe 2 cm large) between the horizontal top rail and the top of the vertical cross rails (or the back pane).
I do not really know what to add aside that nobody is sitting on the chair and there are no visible clothes on it.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Graziano,
Try as I might,I just can't see that chair.
However I will try and apply a little gamma correction to the relevant area,and post the results,
Regards,
Mick. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 04:28 pm | | Hi, Warwick:
An article on the murder of P.C. George Gutteridge by Browne and Kennedy on 27 September 1927 can be found at
http://www.microwaredata.co.uk/murder-uk/bookhtml_b/browne_fg00.html
As stated, "It was thought that the reason for the deliberate shooting out of the eyes of PC Gutteridge was because of a superstition that said that the last sight a man saw was photographically imprinted on the retinas of the eyes."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 06:39 pm | | Thank you Chris, very interesting.
Rick. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 07:53 pm | | Dear Chris,
I guess PC Gutteridges's eyes yielded nothing more than "Colt .45"...my favourite Webley .45
was a monstrous weapon in the wrong hands...but in Rosey's hands it had a delicate touch...a lightnessnessnessssss of beinnnggggg!!!!!!!!
Rosey (boom):-) |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 11:50 am | | Does anyone know the name of the Photographer who took Kellys crime scene photos?...we could ask him about the chair!!
No seriously folks,out of curiosity was his (or her) name known?
Monty
|
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 05:01 pm | | Dear Monty,
An outstanding question...but one that I fear cannot be answered this side of hell.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Kandy Kane
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 08:26 pm | | | ok i need help. in the case book it show two picutes of mary... i can make out the first........but what the heck is the second one......... |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 10:12 am | | Monty,
If you head over to the General Discussion / Miscellaneous / Development of Photography board, I seem to recall we had a discussion there about the identities of the photographers in the Ripper case. In fact, one of them turned out to lead a strange life, wherein he moonlighted from his mortuary photographer's job as the conductor of a band in a sort of Victorian strip club on the Ratcliffe Highway.
Check it out, all girls, no cover...
--John
PS: If I remember right, in one post over there, I imagined him meeting and falling in love with Caroline Maxwell.... |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 11:12 am | | Dear John,
Yes, I do remember the strange liason twixt the Moonlight-Lover and Caroline...history may well repeat itself on these boards...!!!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:00 am | | Eh? Did I miss something Rosey, old bean? You haven't found out about me and Ivor have you?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 08:26 am | | Jon,
Thanks for your help. Had a peep and was totally interested.
Caz,
Ivor is mine, you hear, mine. Unless I get better offers of course.
Monty
|
Author: Matthew Richard Michael
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 01:27 pm | | There are a couple of questions I have regarding the Kelly photographs, which hopefully someone will be able to answer.
1. I'm sure I read somewhere (Farson?) that Kelly's eyeballs were photographed, as suggested elsewhere in the thread. Is this a case of me misremembering, or are there photos of the crime scene that have since been lost?
2. I believe that the familiar photo was first published in 1890 (?). Does anyone know what the contemporary reaction was to, what remains to this day, one of the most disturbing and haunting crime-scene photographs?
Matt |
Author: Jacunius
Tuesday, 19 March 2002 - 07:34 am | | Dear Matt,
Yes indeed you would have read this in Farson’s book on ‘JTR’ (1972, page 50). However, the theory related in Farson’s book is ‘…conveyed, horribly, in Rudyard Kipling’s strange and brilliant short story, At the End of the Passage.’ The theory was originally thought up, from a person/s? in the public who suggested to the police at the time, that the last image of the murderer might be retained on the retina. So to take a picture of the next victim’s eyes may give the identity of the murderer away – unfortunately no pictures were taken of any victim’s eyes that I am aware of. Sorry couldn’t be more helpful on this particular query, but someone else will surely know more details on this one, as to when and who exactly started this theory.
As for your second question, the infamous photo of Mary Jane Kelly was first published in a French book, by author Jean Alexandre Eugene Lacassagne, in 1899. The book was titled; ‘Vacher L’Eventreur et les crimes sadiques.’ It also contained two pictures of the corpse of Catherine Eddowes, of which no one apparently from this entire web-site has seen. A simple guess, since I myself have queried here on the message boards before about the Eddowes pictures published in this book, yet no one appears to know exactly which ones were published in it. A mystery in its self don’t you think?
Anyhow Matt, I hope this was helpful.
Yours truly,
Jacunius.
(temporarily raised from the dead). |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 19 March 2002 - 12:55 pm | | Jacunius is alive !!!!!
These Eddowes photos, are they the ones of her in the shell type thing ?(Monty says floundering for the right word-sorry)
Or are there others ??
Monty
|
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 19 March 2002 - 12:55 pm | | Jacunius is alive !!!!!
These Eddowes photos, are they the ones of her in the shell type thing ?(Monty says floundering for the right word-sorry)
Or are there others ??
Monty
|
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 19 March 2002 - 04:00 pm | | Dear Monty,
Jacunius is suggesting he has seen things you and I have not seen. Bout time he turned up sommit! Let us wit and sigh.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jacunius
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 06:25 am | | Dear Monty,
Yes I have been resurrected, but I do not know for how long since Jacunis has forgot the dam password to post under that name...mmm I kinda like the thought of having a dead nemesis.
I see you have the hiccups of the electronic kind, or am I seeing double again!
Sorry, I must reiterate that I do not know which pictures of Eddowes are published in this book, but the shell you refer to - do you mean the one of her in the coffin, as I believe this to be one of them printed in this book?
Rosey, Rosey, Rosey
oh so nosey, nosey, nosey.
I have not said anything of the kind, I am merely stating a fact as it stands. That being that nowhere on this web-site, or in any Ripper literature for that note have I seen any reference about which photos of Eddowes were published in this book! I remember reading somewhere that it contained two pictures of Eddowes (When I find it, I will reference it). In the meantime I think you will find reading 'JTR: Summing Up & Verdict,' by Colin Wilson & Robin Odell, interesting - especially at the back of the book in 'Bibliography A Hundred Years of Ripperature by Alexander Kelly,'and in 'The facts and the theories' where Lacassagne's book is noted as having the pictures of Kelly and Eddowes corpses. Please read this!
Now I know this particular post is suppose to be about the Kelly crime scene photos, so I will not attempt to clog it up to much about Eddowes photos - but I will repeat this.
Years of research has brought me to the conclusion that not only have known Ripperologists (and some still unknown), faked evidence to the point of doing a McCormickian, but there appears to be a mystery surrounding the very photos of Eddowes. Oh dear I just can not help myself, I must remember to save all this for my book, oh well I guess Rumbelow might be able to finish the rest of this story...I...might...do...say...can...not...expose it all...somewhere...else...on...this...site.
Find me if you can!
Back again,
Jacunius. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 08:24 am | | Jancunius,
Hiccups cured. Yep, I do mean the one in the coffin. There was also a photo of her on a meat hook. 2 photos, could they be the ones?
An unfair question I know, sorry, and it would be a real find if this book turns up.
I have my password taped to the P.C.
Rosey,
Its the 1st time you have ever posted to me. Does that mean Im an int-er...inter-lec-tu-re-al.... dead cleva now ?
Monty
|
Author: Matthew Richard Michael
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 04:12 pm | | Thanks for the information.
On an aside - I always wondered how they managed to get Eddowes to "stand up" for the familiar full-torso shot. I guess the (gags) meat hook would explain it.
matt |
|
|
|
|
