Author: Michael Leonard Tate
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 12:00 pm |        |
Hi,
Some of the photo reconstructions on this board are very interesting. Helps to add a human element to the case rather than simply seeing the women as "victims". Here's my own effort: a reconstruction using Liz Stride's morgue image and a contempory photo of London streets.
The joins are a bit obvious but if you squint a little...
Cheers,
Mike |
Author: Goryboy
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 05:59 pm | |
| Mike -- very cool! I really like this one. Have you any more like the above? Or maybe her phone number? (And is that a packet of cachous she's clutching, or grapes?) |
Author: Michael Leonard Tate
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 01:52 am | |
Hi Gory,
Sorry, she doesn't give out her number to any old punter...
I think they are flowers she holding, the background photo is supposedly of a flower-seller in Cheapside (you can just make out the street name behind her). I'll tell you what, Liz Stride's morgue photo is definitely an improvement on the original face in the picture!
I haven't done any more like this. The other victim photos are at such strange angles it would be hard to find a suitable photo to super-impose them onto. You'd need one involving the subject craning their neck to look at a passing gull or something...
Mike |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 07:47 am | |
Mike
Passing gull? Are you trying to imply something...
 |
Author: Goryboy
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 10:51 am | |
You see?! YOU SEE?!! Again, the bird theme!
As Honorable Haddon (code name Sor) has pointed out, birds are a recurring theme in the case, along with silent, savage death, mutilations, and gulls. Oops! Sorry.
Could one of our resident artists attempt a composite "reconstruction" of Jack the Ripper, based on all eyewitness descriptions available?
He was NOT a puffin. Or a gull. And his name was NOT "Throat-warbler Mangrove."
Sinceriously,
Robin Red Breast |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:21 pm | |
| Really: What do you think the victims looked like.Were they attractive or not?Other than MK it seems they were not.Get them too attractive and you have to wonder how they got there on the East side plugging away for a place to sleep.We fail to realize that there were several more whores out there.All these seem to be similar-whatever you make of it(the sinilarity does not come down on the side of beauty even for those times.That picyure of Stride is too attractive for Stride.If she had been more attracyive she would,t have settles for Kidney. |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:26 pm | |
| Really: What do you think the victims looked like.Were they attractive or not?Other than MK it seems they were not.Get them too attractive and you have to wonder how they got there on the East side plugging away for a place to sleep.We fail to realize that there were several more whores out there.All these seem to be similar-whatever you make of it(the sinilarity does not come down on the side of beauty even for those times.That picyure of Stride is too attractive for Stride.If she had been more attractive she would,t have settled for Kidney. |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:48 pm | |
David
Avoiding the issue of Political Correctness (which ranking ladies in order of attractiveness must contravene), the following is my honest opinion (in reverse order). No offence intended to the fairer sex:
Bubbling Under - Frances Coles (not a victim of JTR - see the Coles board for my reasoning here) but a very attractive girl.
5. Annie Chapman. Not an attractive woman and pretty ill too. She wasn't exactly working class to start with so her manners were probably more refined which might have added to her limited allure but all in all a last resort. Only prostituted herself when other means could not supply the doss money.
4. Polly Nicholls. A certaim impish charm and looked some years younger than she was, but not a pretty woman by any means. Probably traded mostly on her happy character. Also an alcoholic which would not add to her rating.
3. Catherine Eddowes. Looked quite nice for her age and again seemed quite chirpy. Another occasional prostitute who used this as a way to obtain money when there was no other means. Judging by the mortuary photograph she was somewhat under nourished.
2. Liz Stride. A striking woman who even in her latter years would turn a few heads, not least because she was very tall for a woman. Seemed to be reasonably well dressed and may have had some additional appeal if any trace of her foreign birth was noticeable.
1. Mary Kelly. Known to be attractive and in the prime of life. If she had an Irish or Welsh accent this would have made her even more exotic as would tales of trips to France etc. Her earnings were clearly way above those of the others since she could run to a room (despite the unpaid rent). May have been a little chubby, but tastes would have approved of this in the 18th century. Kelly was the only full time prostitute (post Barnett) in my opinion.
Regards
Kev |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:55 pm | |
I meant the 19th century - doh! 
GULL for Gory -->  |
Author: Paul A. Smith
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 02:49 am | |
Hi All
This seems to be the place for photo-reconstruction, and I have
something that I've been plugging away at for some time. Better than
a year, actually, and I hope it shows.
Awhile back I had started a "Ripper" section on my web site,
then way led on to way and I had to drop it. But
I couldn't drop the images I had started to goof around with.
I alerted the good peoples on these boards and
I recieved such excellent feed back, that I had to
reconsider some of the art. I simply hadn't put enough
time and effort into some of them, and the recent
bunch of reconstructions posted here got me inspired
enough to go back and work them again. Here's the
first effort, entitled "29 Hanbury Street".
No, this is not technically a reconstruction of
just the victims, as has been tried very nobly on this board; rather, this is the whole scene, based
on the best available data I could get my hands on. This scene puts you right there in the back yard
of 29 Hanbury Street, at approximately 5:40 am
that morning. I have tried not to get too
grisly a depiction, but we aren't exactly talking about a pleasent scene in the first place, are we?
I feel that it also be noted that I've recieved some , oh, shall we say "scathing" feedback that
resurrecting the photo-retouched images of the poor
women this monster cut up does nothing towards furthering
the cause of discovering who JTR was.
I could not disagree stronger, and said so in my replies. But the point was made.
It is standard practice in most murder investigations to recreate
the crime scene. Here's my effort. (I know that
there have been cases where pathologists and anthropologists
combined their respective efforts to re-create a
sculpted image on a found skull in an attempt to identify the person . . .so I still think our
efforts are more than valid!)
So. Hope this works . . .if not, I'll attempt again. And as before, I certainly look forward to your comments.
Paul Smith
http://www.usinternet.com/users/psmith/index.htm |
Author: cue
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 05:51 am | |
Great job Paul,like too see some more murder sites!Very interesting.
Thanks Cue. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 06:26 am | |
Paul,
Too much grass, too clean and yep, I am being too critical...sorry.
Good work my man. I look forward to more.
Monty
 |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 06:55 am | |
Paul,
Too much space between the back door and the fence.
I do not think it is the right location for the tap, it should be more distant from the wall.
The window near the door is too big (not sure).
I think too many windows at the rear of 27 Hanbury Street.
The cornice (I do not know what other name to give it in english) above the cellar door is somewhat to high No, this was a stupidity from my own.
Do not forget the smears and spats of blood on the back wall and on the fence.
Why two waterpipes (27) ?
For the rest I agree with Monty.
Not when he says "too critical...sorry."
To be critical only means to be interested in your work.
And yours has been great.
I look forward for Tabram's.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Oh, by the way, you forgot Richardson sitting and keeping the door open. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 02:49 pm | |
Graz,
Whos a Mishter grumpy pants today ???
Monty
 |
