| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 10:44 am: | 
|
I was just wondering why the only dead body to be photographed the way she was found was of Mary. Why weren't the others photographed where they were found? |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 943
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 4:33 pm: |
|
G'day Sarah,
I think it would have to do with the development of detective techniques, plus photography. They couldn't wait for the photographer to arrive and set up his camera outdoors, because of the curious crowd gathering. They would have just wanted to get the corpse to the mortuary as soon as possible. They wouldn't have known how important it was to have a crime scene photo.
When Mary was found, they stopped a lot of curious people entering Miller's Court, in fact the whole length of Dorset Street.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah, Leanne
I'm still a bit puzzled - they kept Eddowes's body on the pavement long enough to make a sketch of her in situ.
Robert |
Kris Law
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 9:33 am: |
|
Hello,
If I remember correctly, it seems to me that I recall reading that the sketch of Eddowes' body was done after the fact, from memory by one of the officers on the crime scene. I would imagine it would be much too dark to sketch anything in Mitre Square, and i doubt very much they left her there until morning. |
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Kris,
If we are talking about the same thing, there is a sketch on the "victims" page and by "Eddowes."
-Peter- |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 718
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:20 pm: |
|
I would also like to add, that we shouldn't automatically take for granted, that the police at the time knew the importance of such an approach. This was in the dawn of police investigation techniques, and the ignorance and inexperience regarding the matter was considerable. One such example is the sloppy handling of Polly Nichols on Buck's Row, where they just took away the body and threw a bucket of water over the blood stains.
I think they grasped the meaning of it as they went along and the number of victims increased. These murders were quite extraordinary and it is also possible that the conditions (indoors etc.) in connection with the Kelly murder could have showed the proper opportunity to take photos of the whole scene, since it was out of public view.
But then, I also think the problems with photographic technique could -- as indicated here above -- be a point as well, as long as we consider the fact that they had problems with the camera in the morgue as well -- since they couldn't take pictures from a bird view, they had to -- as we know -- pin some of the bodies to the wall in order to be able to photograph them.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 5:54 am: |
|
Hi All,
I thought light was a factor. With the graffiti, weren’t they initially planning to leave it on the wall until daylight, when they would have been able to photograph it, but then erased it for fear of a riot?
Although I must say, even if it wasn’t technically possible, or too expensive, to take a good photo outside at night, I’ve never quite understood why they couldn’t spare a bobby or two to stand in front of the message and guard it until a photo could be taken. Would there have been a serious threat of violence from residents peeking through to read the words and becoming enraged by them? Hardly seems comparable to the danger the bobbies already faced that night had they come face to face with a demented Jack trying to escape their clutches.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 133
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 6:06 am: |
|
Caz,
I always found it strange that that message was wiped away. I would have been interesting to see a photo of it.
You also said that light may have been a factor but when they found Annie Chapmans' body it was light, also when Martha Tabram's body was found it was getting light.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 192
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:18 am: |
|
That's not entirely clear. What was actually said was that Halse wanted to leave it there until the photographer arrived, but it was getting light so Warren ordered it removed. However you have to remember that exposure times on cameras back then were very long so you couldn't just use a flash like today, you would have had to floodlight the whole area to take a photo during the hours of darkness. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 193
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:36 am: |
|
Hmmm, too late to amend my previous post but... just looked up some history of photography and learned that the first flash photography was performed with use of exploding magnesium powder in "the late 1880's". It doesn't say exactly what year though. However this was still experimental at this stage so unlikely that a police photographer would have access to the correct equipment. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 422
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 10:56 am: |
|
Guys,
We also had to consider the problem of obtaining a photographer. I guess the Police wouldnt have had their own and would have had to have hired one.
Where would you get a photographer willing to get up at 2.00am to photograph a ripped open murder victim in Whitechapel ??
Re Eddowes drawing. I thought she was drawn in situ by Foster the surveyor. Though that part of the square was dark during the murder I feel the PCs would have illuminated the area with their Bulls-eyes.
Monty
PS After all, Brown had enough light to examine her.
(Message edited by monty on November 27, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 165
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 10:56 am: |
|
This is sort of going off on a tangent here but I was looking up photography in the nineteenth century and I came across some very strange photos taken back in the victorian period. They are very strange, the link is http://www.photographymuseum.com/seance.html.
They are supposed to be photos with spirits in them. I was trying to work out they could fake them back then but I don't know how. It's quite easy theses days but I don't know how they did these, because they must be fake.
Sarah |
thomas schachner
Sergeant
Username: Thomas
Post Number: 20
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 10:14 pm: |
|
hi sarah,
i hope this helps
they describe some techniques.
those "ghost-pictures" were very popular in victorian times and could be bought at every street corner.
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/
greetings from germany
thomas.
(Message edited by thomas on November 28, 2003) |
Steve Laughery
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 9:50 pm: |
|
Hi everyone!
Is there any way the Casebook could present ALL the photographs related to Jack the Ripper? Some of the photos are well-known and have been reproduced in so many books ... but every now and then I come across something new that I have never seen before (check out the picture from a book that Debra posted under "Elizabeth Stride"). I know that there have been some "family portraits" of at least one of the victims discovered recently.
How about it? Any chance of putting all these images in one place (and where better than here?)
Steve |
David Andersen
Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 24
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Sam Hardy, an assistant to Prof:Camps, of the London Hospital discovered the original photos in the basement of the London Hosp. The body of Eddowes was in fact photographed hanging from a hook in the wall. It would seem that the difficulty in photographing a body in situ was that the 'powder flash', which was used would spill out from the 'flashgun' and not ignite.
Regards
David
|
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 126
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
One of the problems would have been moisture in the air. Some of the nights of the murders were damp as I recall. Also we are talking about a time when flash powder was used even in good light. While photography was common enough that police may possibly had access to a skiled photographer climate,technology and police outlook may well have contributed to the decision to not photograph the bodies at the scene other than Mary Jane Kelly.Kindest regards, Neil |
