Eddowes Mortuary Photo - Graphic

[Natalie Severn]

I remember several of the speakers at the Docklands- Museum of London,-expressing the same reservations Ap,about any public display of the murder and violence endured by the victims.In this particular case,one author made it very clear that while she very much appreciated the Museum of London"s attempts to explore and exhibit the rich history of the East End and its inhabitants,she was profoundly uncomfortable about Jack the Ripper publicity.
Rachel Lichenstein [ Rodinsky"s room] , made a point of saying how unhappy she was about the Ripper scene"s-Whitechapel Walks ,also the photographs showing the victims injuries etc which several people thought strayed into territory that could cause deep offence.
And this is the problem: the line between providing legitimate visual information about the murder of a horribly violated,stark naked woman in death, which may provide a voyeuristic display of images to any number of mad perverts on a web site who may be surfing the net solely for such imagery, is a fine one.Thats why its so easy to step over the line with these images.

But I trust Chris Scott despite my reservations about his " enhanced" photograph of Catherine Eddowes taken in the mortuary .

To take the last line from his lovely book on Mary Kelly, "Will the Real Mary Kelly.....?":

" All we can say is that the woman known as Mary Jane Kelly now sleeps at Leytonstone Cemetary,more thought on in death than ever she was in life.Rest in peace,young lady,whoever you are......"

Those last lines mean far more to me at any rate,and tell me far more about the author-particularly his sympathetic understanding ,while he takes in the horrific reality to which Mary and her body were exposed, than all the images of her and the other mutilated women posted on the casebook.

[Monty]

Give us a little credit here oh Great one. After all, some of us bought you book, graphic passages and all.

[needler]

Censorship???

Do I smell the rank miasma of censorship here?? Most likely....... so if you like the idea of censorship and wish any image you find offensive to be banned from view.......CHANGE THE EFFIN' CHANNEL OR GO TO ANOTHER SITE.

You were warned by the very title of this thread: "Eddowes Mortuary Photo - Graphic". Did you, for one second, imagine you would be viewing a schematic for constructing a bridge? If you don't want to be offended, don't look at the photo, or better yet........don't even click on the thread.

Get over yourself, please!

[Cap'n Jack]

Well, boys and girls, I see it very differently to all that.
Yes, we have an original and initial brutalisation of a person in great trauma and pain, which should then really be followed by the preservation of that individual's dignity, character and entire life right up to that moment of brutalisation, so that the individual is portrayed for their life, rather than their brutal death.
We do not see an individual in these ghastly images, we see a few minutes of vicious and brutal murder committed by an individual unknown to us.
The act of preserving and presenting the brutalised images seem, in fact, to preserve and present the individual who carried out the crime rather than the victim.
So instead of a single brutalising moment, captured in the fabric of time, we are seeing instead a continious streaming in the fabric of time, which I believe actually contorts our perception of that single brutal moment by making us familiar and comfortable with the repeated and enhanced image... when we shouldn't be, not at all.
I see no foundation in common decency, or even ordinary decorum for the public display of such images.
It is almost as if some here are driven to such misconducted and misguided acts by the macabre hand of Jack rather than faith, hope or charity.
I also believe that such images represent powerful fuel to fuel the flames of the acrid bonfire that is present in the minds of men who would kill women.
For these reasons I would like to see such graphic and brutal images banned from this site. Send them to each other in plain brown envelopes if you must. At least then you only harm your good selfs.

[George Hutchinson]

^ I'm guessing you might be new here. It's not just the low post count and recent joining date...

PHILIP

[AuroraSarintacos]

So what's the deal with your becoming so legalistic all of a sudden, Simon? Questioning sources (here and on the Stride thread) is all well and good, but you seem to be asking for confirmation of evidence that is, very likely, no longer available. Do you have some particular bee in your bonnet?

An author, who has made a profit either for themselves, others or both, who accuses a man as Jack based on no substatial evidence whatsoever, questions anothers ethics? How absurd.

Are you sure Simon? I mean really sure? You weren't there to know her in life or identify her in death, so you can but depend on historical record. Or, as you put it, "hearsay."

Now, now Ladies! Let us not get our knickers in a twist over someone questioning the authenticity--no matter how absurd and nonsensical it may well be--of the identity, nor of anything else to do with the Ripper or his poor victims, for inquiries are usually always something positive in this type of situation.

Excellent work, Chris! You simply barbarize one!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

Thank you very much for your straightforward answer.

Am I right in thinking that these were the photographs previously in the possession of Ex-Commander Ernest Millen?

Regards,

Simon

[RJM]

What is the provenance for these two photographs? Who first told us these were pictures of Eddowes?

That would be Don Rumbelow. He found the four photographs of Eddowes along with the exterior shot of Millers Court and the full length view of Mary Kelly on the bed. Check out his book, or alternately:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-kelly.html

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-photos.html

If you dispute the Eddowes photographs then you must also do likewise for Millers Court and MJK. The proof we have for the photos being correctly identified by Rumbelow comes from several sources. First, the picture of Eddowes (posted by Jonathan Menges earlier in this thread) and that of Mary Kelly in Lacassagne (1899). We have the Foster drawings found by Sam Hardy in the London Hospital that are consistent with the photographs. Lastly, when a set of all five of the canonicals was returned, it included the four Eddowes photographs along with the second angle of MJK.

The photographs were labeled. It may be difficult to read, but it says "Whitechapel Victims" above the photos in caps. And below, Catherine Eddowes
Mitre Square (City)
30.9.88



Cheers,

Robert

[George Hutchinson]

Excellent work yet again, Chris. Sorry yet another thread has been sullied by the naysayers for the sake of naysaying. At least the rest of us know it for what it is, and also know YOUR work for what it is.

PHILIP

[Brenda]

These are (almost) the only pictures we have of the victims, and the only visual evidence of Jack's crimes. Any serious student of the case should be grateful the photos exist and that we have access to them, and that people like Chris Scott exist with the skills to clean them up for us.

Hopefully everyone here has been able to grow up and mature enough to view these photos in a professionally distanced, yet respectful manner, much as a doctor or police office would have to. If anyone is unable to view them in a professional manner, they should refrain from doing so. But don't assume that others are unable to contain their emotions enough to gain valuable insight into the crimes from them.

[The Grave Maurice]

So where's your proof?

So what's the deal with your becoming so legalistic all of a sudden, Simon? Questioning sources (here and on the Stride thread) is all well and good, but you seem to be asking for confirmation of evidence that is, very likely, no longer available. Do you have some particular bee in your bonnet?

[Supe]

Simon,

Coloratura soprano Dame Adelina Patti lived until 1919

Are you sure Simon? I mean really sure? You weren't there to know her in life or identify her in death, so you can but depend on historical record. Or, as you put it, "hearsay."

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

So where's your proof? Where's your utter and complete proof that we are looking at pictures of Catherine Eddowes?

The only one who can satisfy your rather exacting criteria is the chap who took the photograph, and he's long dead, Simon. If that's not Catherine Eddowes, who do you think it is? Who, to your knowledge, suffered wounds of that precise nature, apart from her?

[Monty]

Hypocracy

An author, who has made a profit either for themselves, others or both, who accuses a man as Jack based on no substatial evidence whatsoever, questions anothers ethics? How absurd.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Yes, yes, yes . . . All very well and good.

So where's your proof? Where's your utter and complete proof that we are looking at pictures of Catherine Eddowes?

If you haven't got any proof, just say so. Otherwise, show it.

Regards,

Simon