Archive through January 19, 2000

** 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 January 19, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs: Archive through January 19, 2000

Author: Ashling Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 03:05 am
Hi all! VIPER: I finally located in my files a copy of your post back in May regarding Mr. Joseph Martin, who held the position of official photographer to the Met Police from approximately 1882 - 1932. Have you confirmed yet that he definitely took the pics of Mary at Millers Court? Thanks, Ashling
Author: The Viper Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 04:48 am
Ashling, Unfortunately I cannot confirm that Joseph Martin took the photographs of Mary Jane Kelly in Miller's Court. The press report in the Daily Herald stated only that:- "It was his duty to photograph the bodies of unknown persons in the Metropolitan Police area, and among his 'subjects' were the women killed by Jack The Ripper in the narrow alleys of Whitechapel and Commercial Road..." If we make the assumption from this that Mr. Martin took the mortuary photos, it doesn't necessarily follow that he did the 'on location' shots of MJK as well. In the original discussion, one of the Anons stated that at the time there were no official police photographers. Rather, approved photographers were drafted in to perform such work when it was required. So maybe Martin's official status came later. Regards, V.
Author: paul woollard Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 06:53 pm
Reading all of these entries to date, I am somewhat overwhelmed by a sense of sadness that most of the messages have forgotten the following important fact. The Whitechapel murderer was exactly that, a murderer, an as*hole. Who, or whatever was responsible for the sheer horrific, and utterly tragic extermination of several innocent women, does not warrant the obbsesive romantisised ideals that so many of us are all to willing to give the case.(Just because it's undetected and occurred a long time ago) Why also is there the so obvious obssesion with the Kelly murder? Why is her death so blatantly the most focal? These women are not film stars, but it seems to me that their surely unwanted notoriety has unfortunatley turned them into martyrs for the obsessive. By all means express an interest in the case, but remember one murder is the same as the next, pointless, and devestating for those most closley affected. There is no difference between Mary Jane Kelly, Liz Stride, James Bulger, Jason Swift, Caroline Hogg, Julie Ward, Zoe Evans, Susie Lamplu, Kate Bushell, Jill Dando, Keith Blakelock, Stephen Lawrence, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Let these people rest in peace, without worrying if you can see a crucifix on the wall at at 13 Millers Court. For christs sake, that wall was saturated with the blood of a young women. What is the relevance!!!. Maybe I'm wrong?, but I wonder what the Rippers victims would make of all this attention today, regarding their almost certainly agonisingly painfull, and immeadiatley sobering.................deaths?( I for one am not sold on the '..for the respect of the dead' partyline) Be it under gas lit streets in fog filled alley's, or modern day sodium lighting, tragedy is tragedy, murder is murder, lets not forget that. (I dont see a Liam Brady or Mira Hindley web site that offers such a 'Fan' base, or an opportuntity for 'Moors' tours')..... NUFF SAID.
Author: Jon Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 09:53 pm
Paul I would be very surprised if you have read 'all the entries to date'...that may take weeks. I do think you misunderstand the point of this site & are very unfamiliar with the regular posters here. With regard to the Whitechapel murders in general or the Ripper murders inparticular, there is no fan adoration here, but there is utmost respect for the victims. Their lives, there surroundings there deplorable lot in life is difficult for us to relate to in our couch potato, 20th century, fast-paced, drive-thru, 30 mins or free, to-go, world. The regular posters here are serious about discussing details that may lead towards a conclusion, we may pass the occational joke, and we welcome new interest, we also help students when asked. Maybe you will show a little tollerance until you fully appreciate the focus here, if you dont see an Ian Brady / Mira Hindly site it is hardly the fault of anyone on this message board. Happy New Year to you & Yours Jon
Author: Bob Hinton Friday, 31 December 1999 - 04:42 am
Dear Mr Woollard, I do find your comments a bit strange to say the least. How you manage to label people who post on this board as obsessive, without knowing anything more than what they choose to write here is beyond me. I find this pseudo handwringing a bit hard to take from someone who whilst professing deep concern for these matters can't even bother to spell the names of some of the victims you trot out correctly. I also believe that the people who post on these boards are the last ones to be reminded that murder is murder - we grasped that concept long ago. What exactly is the point you wish to make? all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Diana Friday, 31 December 1999 - 07:57 am
If I were one of those ladies and could communicate one more time with the living, I would probably say, "Get 'im!"
Author: NickDanger Friday, 31 December 1999 - 06:14 pm
Well put Bob Hinton. Beat me to it. It sounds as if this overwrought individual has contracted a case of phony handwringing induced by too much TV. It's a shame that this individual did not take the time to monitor the boards over a period of time before trashing the contributors, besides displaying an appalling lack of insight into the human condition. I would invite Mr. Woolard to monitor all of the boards over a period of six months and then honestly re-consider his opinions. I'm not normally defensive about pursuing an interest in this case, but this post was so puerile I felt some response was in order. Best regards, Nick
Author: Bob_C Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 10:42 am
Hi all, Agreeing with Bob H., Diana, and Nick, I also point out that there are so many different persons posting, or having posted, on the board, it can not be in the powers of Mr. Woollard, or a thousand Mr. Woollards, to make any sort of diagnose over the collective users on the board, their individual thoughts, aims, beliefs, feelings, etc. Mr. Woollard himself is just a little part of this whole, we know that we have such a spectrum of posters, from the genial to the a....hole, that all pass here somehow, even Mr. Woollard. I accept him putting his thoughts before us, and hope that he sees that the answers he gets are those this great group of individuals think to award him. I wish every one of us great joy and prosperity in the New Year, Best regards, Bob
Author: Diana Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 11:02 am
There is a level on which Mr. Woolard has a point. We must never lose sight, even in our lighter moments of the fact that five or more women died a horrible death. That what was done was extremely wicked. It is a very intriguing puzzle, but it is also a moral outrage. The ladies in question certainly had their own problems, but they deserve a certain level of respect, even in death. If we ever do succeed, then Jack needs to be studied exhaustively with the view in mind of preventing future atrocities.
Author: Boris Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 11:39 pm
Post removed due to inappropriate content, 6 Jan 2000. -SPR
Author: anon Sunday, 02 January 2000 - 12:12 pm
After reading an idiotic post like that, I think Paul Woollard has a point, don't you?
Author: anon2 Sunday, 02 January 2000 - 12:27 pm
Hi, anon and all: Stephen Ryder has been asked to remove the offending post by Boris. It is a shame that after Diana's eloquent post this sort of thing has to appear on the boards. anon2
Author: Paul W. Sunday, 02 January 2000 - 09:39 pm
Dear all, Firstly may I wish everybody a Happy new year!! Secondly I would like to say the following. Having read some of the responses to my memo on 30/12/99. I should clear a few things up. I had no intention of labelling all users of the message boards as obsessive, and apologise for doing so, there were just some entries that I had seen, that really did appear to me to be needlessly glorifiying an awfull crime. All that I had really intended to do was to point out that people should not lose sight of what they were talking about. (It just came out out a little stronger than I had really intended for reasons that I shall explain in a moment!!!) I shall admit to my message being perhaps a tad on the 'knee jerk reaction' side and shall make a point of monitoring the boards in more detail in time. I would however like to respond to a couple of comments from, I believe NICK DANGER. Firstly I felt that I was entitled to express my opinion in this way by pointing out things that I had observed. Secondly I can assure you that my 'puerile' entry was not t.v based. I had merely spoken from my own experiances. I can actually say that I deal with death on a proffesional level. I have dealt with families that have lost loved ones, not only through natural causes, accident and tragedy, but murder. The feelings I experianced from these situations were VERY, VERY, real. When you have also then dealt with the causes of these peoples anguish, I think my rantings may seem a litle clearer. I am not here to pontificate, just explain that occasionally victims are not always dead. (By the way I was very tired when I typed my first message, as I am now!! and wasn't aware that my spelling had to be exeptional to qualify for this message board, but thanks for pointing it out Bob Hinton!!!!) All the best everyone, Peace to the world!! Paul W.
Author: NickDanger Monday, 03 January 2000 - 04:54 am
Hello Paul, I think I understand the points that you wished to make, however, you must understand that no one can read people's minds. The words themselves are all we have to go by. In re-reading your original message, I think you would agree that it used some overheated language and conveyed scattershot accusations. Perhaps on reflection you've decided that that message did not express your views accurately. If so, all to the good. It may be worth bearing in mind that if someone wants their views to be considered seriously then it's generally a good policy to avoid excessively emotional wording and a J'accuse posture. I'm sorry if my response upset you, you indeed have every right to express yourself in whatever words you choose. But if that choice includes unnecessarily overheated and imprecise statements, then you have to be prepared for some people to take exception to it. You will notice in the last paragraph of my post, an invitation to spend some time on this website and get to know the subject matter and many of the interesting people who share views here. I hope you will accept that invitation, and perhaps you may decide to become a regular contributor. This was not a question of you not having the right to express yourself, but the manner requires some forethought and care. I seem to remember hearing something about the freedom to extend one's fist ends when it meets someone's nose. In any case,I now have a better understanding of your experience and I hope that you will take the time to learn more about the subject and those who pursue it on this website. Best regards, Nick
Author: Bob Hinton Monday, 03 January 2000 - 06:53 am
Dear Mr Woollard, Please forgive me if you think I am insisting on 'exceptional' (whatever that means, surely a word is either spelt correctly or it is not!) spelling, I was merely pointing out that with your apparent demands for us to care more about the victims, it was rather ironic you couldn't even spell Suzy Lamplugh's name correctly! I really don't think you have sole ownership of feelings about people who have died, perhaps you feel that death is something that impinges on a rose tinted view of the world that you believe should hold sway. I joined the forces in 1965, and there were 30 others with me. In 1976 there was seven of us still alive. I have lost members of my family, I have lost friends, I accept it as something that happens. Not everyone who dies is a 'loved one' I'm sure you'll agree that there are some pretty horrible people in the world, their death does not turn them into lovable people. I believe your position on this is fairly summed up by your signing off 'peace to the world'. If Mankind ever did manage to achieve a state of total peace, it would disintergrate and vanish within a hundred years. " In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare,terror,murder,bloodshed...they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did they produce...? The cuckoo clock." Orson Welles speaking as Harry Lime in The Third Man. Mans greatest achievments have been attained through adversity. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Bob_C Monday, 03 January 2000 - 08:14 am
Hi all, Paul, I think it good that you have given an explanation of your post, that indeed was found to be a bit offensive by many. The most of the posters on this board that I know, accepting that I am relatively new (ca. 2 years), do not think of Jack as being a romantic figure or the victims as revolting creatures who deserved to be ripped. I think most feel about Jack and his crimes like a good policeman would, detached, with sympathy for the victims and anger against the criminal. Best regards Bob
Author: Martin Wolverton Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 01:06 pm
Ok, hello all...It's been quite a while since I have posted to the "casebook", but it's good to be back. Here are some thoughts on the subject of the crime scene photos. First off let me address the person who questioned the morality of publishing/viewing these things. Yes they are truely horrible and sickening, but they are an important tool in getting an understanding of the case. They can tell you much that simple descriptions cannot, and together with the coroner's reports a greater understanding of many aspects of the case can be gained. However one must not loose sight of the humanity invlolved. Sometimes examination of photographs can lead to some suprising discoveries. For example, and totatally of the subject of JTR, a friend of mine has a great interest in the story of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow. Recently he had the opportunity to examine the actual car they were shot to death in. In doing so he made records of each bullet hole and the angle that they came from. The most unusual discovery he made was that 5-7 hits came from very close range on the passenger side of the car (the opposite side from were the police were thought to be firing from). With this in mind, he reviewed the morgue photos of Bonnie Parker and noted that at least one of her head wounds seems to have been recieved from that side. His conclusion was that one of the officers must have fired several rounds at her from close range after the car had come to a standstill...something not noted in any the accounts of the gunfight. Granted such a startling revalation is probably not going to happen in the Ripper case....but one never knows. I agree with the person who made the point that more photos are probably out there but as of yet unknown. We know for a fact that at least four morgue photos were made of Eddows, so it is possible that more than the ones we are familiar with were made of the others. As for actual crime scene photos, I would doubt that many more were made than those of the Kelly murder. I believe this for several reasons. First off, police photography was in it's infancy in the 1880's and the practice of making extensive photographs of crime scenes was not all that common yet. Today investigators would take literally hundreds of photos at a crime scene like Miller's Court (as well as a vidio walk-through) but I really doubt that in 1888 more that the two we have seen were taken. Secondly, the times at which the crimes were discovered would have a strong bearing on photos being taken. Given the difficulty of flash photography in this period, I feel that the only other crime scene that might have been photographed would have been that of the Chapman murder. This is simply due to the fact that the actual investigation seems to have taken place in daylight hours. (it would be nice if such a phot existed...it might help clear up the myth regarding the items scattered around the victim) Third, the Kelly murder, and possibly the Chapman killing, are probably the only ones were the police had the sort of control of the crime scene they would need to take extensive photgraphs. These are just my random thoughts on the subject, and are based on pure speculation (like most things in this case...). Anyone have any comments?
Author: D. Radka Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 10:51 pm
Martin, Begg, I believe it is, has written that the City police took a number of photographs of the Eddowes crime scene. Considering the degree of mutilations, these would be among the most ghastly of all the Ripper photographs. They have gone missing from police files for some years, however. It is unlikely that any living person has seen them. I'd be interested to know if anyone else has any information on this. David
Author: Martin Wolverton Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 11:05 pm
David, I don't remember reading that in any of my sources. Not saying he is wrong, but the time the body was discovered, early AM, and the poor lighting in Mitre Square would seem to preclude the taking of photographs. Moreover Eddowe's body was removed quite quickly, so I feel that any photo taken of the crime scene would not have the body in place. Once again just speculation on my part.
Author: Scriblerius Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 11:54 pm
In "Ripper Notes" Stewart Evans makes this intriguing comment. I wonder what is meant by "full set"? It reads: An intriguing footnote to all this was that on meeting Eric Barton at his home I found it to be a veritable "Aladdin's Cave." In telling the story of his purchase, Eric revealed that also with Sims' letters was a full set of the crime scene photos of Miller's Court and Mary Jane Kelly! He had never sold them and they were still in his home somewhere. I kept in contact with Eric hoping that he would find these photos which he said I could have. Unfortunately Eric died before the photographs were located. (It will be remembered that Sims was a friend of Macnaghten and it is from him that Sims undoubtedly obtained the photos).