|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 9, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs:
Archive through June 9, 2000
Author: anon
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 01:32 am |        | The only photographs taken of Eddowes' body were those, all of which have been published, at the mortuary. There were only sketches made of the body in situ in Mitre Square.
More confused thoughts of Mr Radka? |
Author: Scriblerius
Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 10:22 am | | | Anon, do we know for a fact that there were only two photographs taken, or just that there are only two extant? I am by no means expert here and would appreciate having this cleared up. |
Author: Scriblerius
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 02:22 am | | | Anon, do we know for a fact that there were only two photographs taken, or just that there are only two extant? I am by no means expert here and would appreciate having this cleared up. |
Author: Scriblerius
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 02:25 am | | | Anon, sorry, I thought you were replying to my Kelly message rather than the Eddowes messages. But I would like your comments. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 12:43 pm | | To the best of my knowledge, there are four Eddowes photographs; two familiar ones of her poor, plundered body pegged up against a wall for a full-length shot (one may be seen in the A-Z, and the second shot in the hardback "Diary"), a close-up of the face (which may be seen in Sugden) and a fourth that is rarely seen, which is of her lying in a mortuary shell, somewhat along the lines of Nichols' picture, though taken from a point of view more down and to the left of the body (sorry if that does not sound clear).
All four may be seen together in Rumbelow, hard cover or paperback.
I have always assumed that Eric Barton's "set" of Kelly photographs are those referred to by (I believe) Dr Bond when he testified that he arranged for pictures to be taken at the scene.
CMD |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 05:20 pm | | I distinctly remember reading somewhere that an interpretation given to the City police investigation in Mitre Square by a noted Ripperologist, I believe it was Begg but it could have been another one, had it that the City police did or probably did photograph Eddowes' body as it lay in Mitre Square. I did not read an account of an analysis of these photographs, just a statement that the rather more extensive work done by the City police, as compared to the Metropolitan police, included or may have included more in the way of photography at the crime scene. This is how it was worded, as I recall. I will try to look it up if I can and report back here--perhaps I read it in a book I had borrowed from the library and don't have any more. Posters above are not responding to my post. They are commenting only on the known or seen photographs of Eddowes, which I agree are four. My post was about the possibility or liklihood of several additional photographs which haven't been seen since the investigation, and possibly were destroyed contemporaneously.
David |
Author: anon
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 05:51 pm | | Has anyone noticed that Mr Radka's usual sourcing for his most controversial statements is always, "I seem to remember reading somewhere..."?
The simple fact is that the only photographs taken of Eddowes' body were those at the mortuary. There is no record ar statement in any book anywhere that photographs were taken of her in situ in Mitre Square. Again he is not au fait (this phrase added for his benefit) with the facts.
It crosses my mind that we are all still waiting for Mr Radka's solution to this mystery which is now long overdue. Guess it's going to be a long wait. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 07:27 pm | | Photo's at Millers Court:
Sunday Times, Nov 11, 1888
......while this examination was being made, a photographer, who, in the meantime had been sent for, arrived and took photographs of the body, the organs, the room and its contents.....
Also:
Walter Dew, in his memoirs noted:
Several photographs of the eyes were taken by expert photographers with the latest type cameras.
....somewhere in some dusty basement.....
Jon |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 11:47 pm | | anon,
I may not have a document yet, but, I assure you, your document contains no data.
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 02:24 pm | | David -
I think it unlikely that any further photographs of Catherine Eddowes other than the four extant were taken. The four we have seen would have been sufficient to present to Coroner Langham at the inquest, as they display the injuries to the body and face.
I would be interested in the source of your statement that the City police took photographs of Eddowes' body in situ. Prima facie, it seems most unlikely; Dr Brown arrived at 2.18am to begin an on-site examination. When he was finished, the body was taken to Golden Lane Mortuary. Even granting Brown an hour or so to examine Eddowes and scribble his findings, it is still only about 3.30am.
As it was testified the Goulston Street writing (discovered at 2.55am) could not be photographed until there was more light - which I and most readers take to mean "until sunrise" - it would seem that the facilities for night photography in Mitre Square were also unavailable. However, I could be wrong on this point and would welcome correction from anyone more conversant than I on Victorian photography.
Official records make no statement of on-site photography. I wonder, David, if you are perhaps confusing this with the drawings of Frederick Foster, who most certainly did sketch Eddowes' body as it lay on the pavement?
In any event, this is the wrong board for an Eddowes discussion.
CMD |
Author: Jon
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 07:24 pm | | Just to enlarge on your reasoning CMD, Det. Halse was at Mitre Square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the Mortuary and saw Eddowes being stripped, he then went back to Mitre Sq. and on to Leman St. Police station. Then with Det. Hunt he went to Goulston St. to view the graffiti, so clearly the body was removed from Mitre Sq, hours before it was even light enough to photograph the graffiti, so definitly not light enough for 'in-situ' photo's in Mitre Square.
Regards, Jon |
Author: D. Radka
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 10:24 pm | | I can't find the source of my statement. It could have been in a library book. Will bring this up again if I do.
David |
Author: Martin Wolverton
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 05:47 pm | | Jon,
That was my whole point regarding the light situation in Mitre Square. IMHO it seems that, apart from Miller's Court, the Chapman murder would have been probably the only crime scene with enough light to effectivly take photos. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 06:31 pm | | Martin
Quite possibly so, but I unfortunatly find no contemporary mention of taking photo's at Hanbury Street, and photographing the crime scene was pretty well unheard of prior to the Millers Court example.
I'm sure I read there were several articles from the British Photographical Society aimed at getting the police to photograph the evidence at the crime scene's, just prior to Kelly's murder, this may have influenced the police to try it.
The fact that Don Rumbelow discovered the Millers Court pics in the possesion of the City police, has given birth to speculation that the City did the photographing. But this is misleading because the City also had archival pics of Met. police officers in a group shot along with the Millers Court pic. So, we might understand from this that a bunch of Met photo's somehow got into the City police archives, which is quite understandable.
As far as the Millers court pics go, I know of no previous case where photographing the scene 'in-situ' occured, maybe Stewart can confirm.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Keith Tyler
Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 12:15 am | | In Reply to Christopher-Michael's post of January 21, 2000,
I remembered a TV documentary over here in the States (New York - A Documentary Film), where they mentioned a book called "How the Other Half Lives" by Jacob Riis. This book, published in 1890, used flash photography.
There is a Hypertext version of the book to be found at
http://www.cis.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/title.html
and an example of his flash photography at
http://www.cis.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/riis7.gif
Whether flash photography was available two years earlier, in England, I do not know.
I would think we'd at least have a graffiti pic if they were able though.
Regards,
Keith |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 03:02 am | | KEITH: Thanks for the URL! I just looked at most of the pics & skim read a couple of chapters. Riis' perspective on daily life is quite helpful in giving "voice" to those folks in the Victorian Age who were too illiterate or too busy starving to death - to speak for themselves. A nice companion piece to Jack London's The Abyss.
Best regards,
Ashling |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 03:48 pm | | I've been playing with the crime secen photographs trying to map the usually published photo with the more recently discovered one. The green lines map the 2. Any comments?
 |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 06:13 pm | | | I just noticed the thing on the floor under the table in the right hand photo. Any ideas on what it is? Are the two arched objects in the right center of the left photo the exposed hip bones? Wouldn't the camera have to be positioned between the bed and the wall to get the left photo? |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 11:40 pm | | It's great that Roger has posted the two photos, so that we all can comment. Thanks very much, Roger!
This may seem heretical, but I am about to challenge a fundamental interpretation of the case. There may be people who will fight hard against this, however if they consider what I say in a logical way, I believe they will see what I mean.
In order to visualize my point, please have your Sugden open to his diagram of Miller's Court, page 312. I refer to the photos as follows: photo # 1 is the first one the photographer took, using the camera on his tripod placed on the floor of the room, and which Roger posted to the right. The photographer shot photo # 1 with his camera pointed toward Dorset Street. Photo # 2 is the second one he took, which Roger posted to the left.
The traditional interpretation of photo # 2 is that the photographer pulled the foot of the bed away from the Dorset Street wall, and then set up his tripod between the wall and the bed, shooting with the camera pointed toward the leftmost end of the window wall, almost into the corner. I challenge this notion--it can't be true if Sugen's diagram is accurate, because the light shining through the hinged side of the door is in the wrong place. IN ORDER TO HAVE THE HINGE WHERE IT IS IN THE PHOTO, THE POLICE HAD TO HAVE ROTATED BOTH THE BED AND THE TABLE SO THAT BOTH WERE POINTED TOWARD THE WINDOWS, THE HEADBOARD OF THE BED UP AGAINST THE DORSET STREET WALL. THE NARROW SIDE OF THE TABLE, WOULD HAVE BEEN PUSHED UP AGAINST THIS WALL ALSO. THE BOLSTER ON THE TABLE WOULD BE FLUSH AGAINST THE PLACE ON THE WALL WHERE THE "FM" ALLEDGEDLY APPEARS. The photographer then set up his tripod in the middle of the floor of the room, not close up against the Dorset Street wall as has been believed. He shot photo # 2 with his camera pointed toward the gas lamp outside Mary's room, not toward the windows. In the traditional interpretation, the distortion of objects when comparing one photo to the other arises because the bed is obliquely angled toward the table in photo #2. BUT IN REALITY, THE DISTORTION ARISES BECAUSE BOTH THE BED AND THE TABLE HAVE BEEN MOVED TO DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE ROOM. Reasons for moving them: (1) The tripod spread was too large to fit between the wall and the bed under the traditional scenario, and (2) possibly to get a better light angle on the objects photographed from the windows. In Sugden's diagram, the leading edge of the opening door would strike the corder of the table where the top of the "T" is. But look at the door in photo # 2--the leading edge would strike the table where the "e" is. This would only be possible if both the table and the bed had been rotated. The photographer may have supported the rolled-up bunch of clothes against the tripod to keep it from falling off the bed onto his feet in photo # 2.
I believe Roger draws all three green lines correctly.
But I can't concur on points made elsewhere above concerning MJ's chemise. In photo # 1 the murderer had rolled it up accross her stomach to gain access for his mutilations. During the course of mutilations it became saturated with blood, and held a crescent shape. Look for the crescent. In photo # 2, apparently for modesty's sake, the police have pulled the chemise down the legs of the victim. Look for the bloody chemise over the thighs, and also over the left knee. There is no crescent over the abdomen in photo # 2. The left knee is clearly bare in photo # 1.
It may be a fallacy to think that Victorian police had much in the way of scruples with respect to violating the integrity of a crime scene, as police do today. It may have been common practice to change the position of evidence, handle bodies and then photograph them, etc. After all, this was well before DNA and JonBenet.
Well, that's it. Feel free to tak aim and attack my positions. It's all in fun, anyway.
David |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 09 June 2000 - 01:56 am | | Hi David:
I have said it before here and I will say it again, I believe there was a space between the wall and the bed. In one of the newspaper sketches of the room the washstand is shown in the corner by the bed, where the famous "FM" is alleged to have been. It is my theory that the washstand would have prevented the killer daubing the letters on the wall as the Maybrickites allege was done by their suspect James Maybrick in retribution against his unfaithful wife, Florence Maybrick. At the least the larger photograph shows some evident piece of furniture with the bolsters on it, on the far side of the bed, at the left, and this might have been the washstand. I don't believe the photographer had to move the bed to take the smaller picture. He was shooting from near the foot of the bed by the wall, diagonally across the bed toward the crack in the door.
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
