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.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Im amazed that we can look at this photograph, and wounds which look to be anything but skillfully made, and still read excerpts from the medical testimony at the Inquest like this...

From Dr Brown's testimony : [Coroner] "Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?" - [Brown] "He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them".

....[Coroner] "Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?" - [Brown] "It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane."

Sequeira didnt agree with that portion of Browns comments....and when I look at the incision, I dont even see a good butchers hand at work there.

The wounds are all, excluding the throat, post mortem, so why in this case did he tear open the "upper part" of her dress, as quoted by Brown? Isnt this the only murder where he tears open the womans clothing at her chest and neck level? If hes already cut her throat...why? Why not shove up her skirts like 2 of the other 3 Canonicals? Maybe he wanted to see the face and head more clearly to do the facial mutilations.

Best regards all.

[Cap'n Jack]

Natalie, well said, but for me the sentiment of the poster of the image means nothing, for it is the image that causes pain and discomfort to many.
Whatever we may say or think the posting of such images is the rancid glorification of foul murder; and I see no useful purpose behind such motive.
One assumes that a mere child accessing this site as part of a school home-work project would be able to view these disturbing images?
Is it really a requirement of this site to have images of naked, murdered and brutalised women with blood all over their private parts; stitched together, and with parts of their face missing while George mumbles and grumbles about their fat jowls?
The credibility of this site fades with every enhancement.

[Ryan_Miller]

I don't remotely see how the credibility of the site fades with each enhancement! If you go to the "Photo Archive" section you can view all the victim photos, so what is so terrible about using modern tools to enhance the images so we can better see what the inspectors, coroners, and photographers were seeing at the time. With all of the tears, and wear on the photos throughout the years it can be nothing but helpful to enhance the image (as long as one stays true to the image and does not add nor subtract from it).

I applaud Chris for his enhancements, and remain confused about all of the resentment towards them.

[needler]

Well said, Ryan, and kudos to Chris for a job well done. Enhancing photos of this age and poor quality is very difficult, at best. And I DO NOT believe for one second that Chris got any jollies doing it!!!!!!!!

We should censor ourselves, and if we have young-ish folks around who would be better served by NOT coming here, we should censor THEIR travels on the web, as well. This is a site devoted to the study of a killer and horrific crimes; should it not be expected that a truly gruesome photo MIGHT be posted here? The NAME of the site is, after all, CASEBOOK: JACK THE RIPPER.......does that sound like a site sponsored by Toy R Us? I fail to see why an enhanced version of a photo that has been posted here for the last umpty years has suddenly brought the censors out of the woodwork. Was the storm this monstrous when the Kelly shots were enhanced? Possibly no one objected very much as the pic was incomprehensible to most anyway...after all what was left of Kelly didn't resemble a person....now did it? I know that sounds very cold, and while I have been called "insensitive"(probably quite fairly), I have NEVER felt that the killer was more important than the women he killed. I KNOW their names, when they died, and where they rest, but frankly, I could give an air-borne s*** about the name of their killer. He does not deserve that much glory.

All that said, I STILL hold that censorship of this particular site won't wash, and anyone uncomfortable or offended or pissed off or burning with righteous wrath should hie themselves to another site and allow posters like perrymanson to make the absolutely spot-on observation that the wounds would embarrass even a crappy butcher.

'Nuf said; I'm outta here. Cheers to all, and enjoy your week..........

[Cap'n Jack]

The point that Simon raises as to the 'skilled' or 'unskilled' nature of the wounds and injuries inflicted upon the victim were in fact raised and discussed by the police surgeons concerned in 1888 - the same confusion in this regard being evident then as it is now. So 110 years later nothing has changed and it seems that the reposting of these brutal images serves no reasonable purpose whatsoever, other than crass titillation or personal gratification.
It is not a question of whether I personally have the choice to view the images or not, that is not the issue here... the issue is that such brutalised images of naked and murdered women do contribute to a growing and unwholesome body of pornographic material that portrays the female form or sex in a position of extreme sexual and social vulnerability to dominating males.
Such images mirror the sexual and social views that male killers have of their female victims, and endorse those views of a disposable victim in a disposable society.
I believe any child viewing these images - as they can here - would carry away with them a disturbed and fractured conception of 'normality' and 'reality'; and these confused and jumbled messages we are sending them - as adults who really should know better - could indeed do them very real harm... or even, and eventually, cause them to do harm to others in the future.

[Hellrider]

Hey everybody,

viewing this kind of photographs is not a pleasant thing, but they are connected with the case because in some cases, they are then only pictures we have of the victims. If they had not been murdered in such a way, nobody would ever have taken pictures of them, simply because nobody would have cared. These women would have been forgotten a hundred years after their deaths, just like some of us might be as well. Your grand-grand-sons won't remember you, maybe they will, but there's a huge chance they won't.

So, of course, questioning whether a display of this kind is detrimental to the memory of a woman who died a death she did not deserve is rightful. But we must not forget that without these brutal murders, there would probably be no memory of these women at all.


Nevertheless, I don't mean to sound cynical in this case

[John Bennett]

I believe any child viewing these images - as they can here - would carry away with them a disturbed and fractured conception of 'normality' and 'reality'...

ANY child, AP?

Or perhaps it would produce a more instinctive reaction of abhorrence.

Let's face it, nobody here thinks the photographs are pleasant.

[Natalie Severn]

ANY child, AP?

Or perhaps it would produce a more instinctive reaction of abhorrence.

Let's face it, nobody here thinks the photographs are pleasant.

How do you know that John? There are plenty of perverts and rapists of the kind that make frequent news headlines who may be coming to this site just to get a sexual high from seeing such images of brutality and horror inflicted on women.

[perrymason]

I do see what youre both talking about AP and Nats, but I dont see that this is a discussion that needs to take place anywhere else other than in the privacy of your own home and at your own computer. The delivery of any kind of Censorship must be re-evaluated in this modern age. Because by neccessity, Censorship is now an administrative function of every Network Administrator who is connected to the Internet, which is essentially.. every NA. If you have a home computer connected to the Internet, as you obviously do, then you are the NA for your "network"...which may just be the single pc or laptop.

In your home, that means you can control content as you see fit, because youve come to realize that in effect there is no governing body overseeing the Morality and Crime aspects of Internet usage. Other than Law Enforcement. And with the growing population online, they cannot be expected to identify all the dangerous or provacative material available online.

I think in real terms Nats and AP, that you can only control what you and anyone using your computer does. There is no real control beyond that of the folks who set up the server rules.

That means family computers need to be set up properly, as well as student laptops and cell phones, then you have to consider the PC cafes and myriads of other ways people can access a pc. Then you have to shut down sites that display or host the materials. We are talking about billions of devices around that can be used to access the internet, and sites that can be mirrored across the global network of servers, making them virtually impossible to locate and even harder to find a name linked to them legally.

I do agree that the images should not be viewed by those seeking some obscene kick from it, but we now live in a world where the overall content of the various forms of media cannot be adequately censored by a "body", or "panel". Everyones Network is connecting to the Internet choo-choo, and no-one's really driving the train.

The melting point on the clash of Individual Rights and Public Welfare is coming folks, the Internet will have been the catalyst for the changes, and for the Public Safety and Public Welfare, "measures" will be applied across the main traffic hubs, and Law Enforcement will be given the tools to quickly identify sources. Like they already can, but openly. Like maybe one day an electronic fine and summons when you attempt to download child porn for example.

Best regards AP, Nats.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I view it as nothing but cheap pornography.

That's your interpretation. Enhancing the photos doesn't make them snuff.

I can't see anything wrong in enhancing photos of a crime if it helps spark new ideas about it; which is the only purpose I can see for the person posting them for doing so.

Chillax.

[Cap'n Jack]

Cheers Mike
but I think the onus here to be on the moderators of this site, rather than the people accessing it, to ensure that harmful images such as these are at least only accessible to accredited adult viewers.
I advocate membership, not censorship.
If anyone is able to point me to some new factual evidence that has ever been uncovered by the republication of these brutal images I'd be most grateful. For all I see is bun fights.
When I pop into the Co-Op for some lamb I'm not usually greeted by the sight of several butchers, covered in blood, slaughtering sheep in the shopping aisles.
This is what I see here. The display of bloodied carcase, rather than a fellow human.
Ted would be proud of you.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for your long and thoughtful post Mike.
However I dont see this as a matter of censorship .It is more about the value and respect to which a person is entitled in death, their right as human beings ,that is, to have their death including their dead bodies and images of their dead bodies accorded the same respect given to anyone else in a civilised society.

[perrymason]

Hi again AP and Natalie,

Ok, to illustrate my point, lets say Im a relative of a victim of the Titanic disaster, and to me, images of that boat at the bottom are like looking at an open grave. Can I enforce a policy upon the people hosting the images that prevents people from seeing those images? Nope. A lawsuit could perhaps, but my guess is that would fail, under the current laws.

I think the system administrator of this site could "quarantine" images like this, something that would require an active membership to view, but the obvious glitch is that any viewer could then just become a member and see it anyway. There is no network tool that I know of that can identify a users age or potential danger level before allowing them to view what are very graphic images. Anyone can fill out a registration form with whatever age, name and location they like....its only the IP thats authenticated, and what gives the admin some power over the network usage allowed.

I believe that there is a need within the students of the crimes to see and study whatever evidence they can, and the photos are not objectionable when viewed in that context.

Thats why I said.....its only YOUR access that you can dictate or control, only the content on your machine.

Both you and AP have to realize that in this Internet environment, the user decides what to see and what not to. Free speech and all that good stuff. But you, or anyone who uses your computer can be prohibited from accessing virtually any kind of content you choose. By applying rules. Stephens choices are essentially post information that is in the interest of the researchers and students who are members, or playing cyber cop to all site visitors....something that would severely limit his site traffic, and therefore his ability to convert the number of total users or page views into marketing tiles or banner income.

Its a catch 22 at the moment, for Stephen cannot offer this resource to only members, unless they all become paying subscribed ones,.. he must also allow and draw the broad audience to be commercially viable to advertisers.

Best regards folks.

[John Bennett]

How do you know that John? There are plenty of perverts and rapists of the kind that make frequent news headlines who may be coming to this site just to get a sexual high from seeing such images of brutality and horror inflicted on women.

I just felt that AP's comment there was rather sweeping, as if any child seeing these images would be affected in a disastrous way. I wouldn't disagree with your perverts and rapists statement though. That's quite a scary premise.

Side-stepping for the moment, the Ripper subject is obviously one which attracts close scrutiny. People pick out and reinterpret the tiniest comments in news reports or witness testimony or marginalia in an attempt to make sense of a case that is drifting further away with the passing years.

People scrutinise location photos and maps, right down to individual buildings to get a sense of what the area would have been like. Police beats are timed conjecturally to the second and the minutae of the lives of those involved are studied, even outside their involvement with the crimes.

The enhancement of these photographs is yet another manifestation of this phenomena, albeit one that obviously causes some concern owing to the subject matter.

But these pictures have been readily available in books for over 30 years (100 if you count the French ones) and have obviously been on Casebook and other sites for many years. It's all part of the case and has its place.

Some will say they should not be shown - others will say they should be.

That's Ripperology for you - differences of opinion all round!

JB

PS
And just for the record, I've been reading about the Ripper since I was a little boy (mid 1970s), I have no real interest in other murderers and seeing operations on TV (epecially those liposuction ones) makes me leave the room. I certainly don't feel like going out and brutalising women!