Eddowes Mortuary Photo - Graphic

[kensei]

I've just been doing a quick run-through of all the posts in this thread, and as someone from America who's been to Mitre Square and had the emotional experience of standing on the spot where Catherine died I thought I'd chime in with just a couple of thoughts. I agree that we are mostly all amature detectives here, emulating the work of professionals, who are routinely exposed to horrible images as a necessary part of attempting to solve crimes. It's just simply a no-brainer, really, that if you decide to delve into Jack the Ripper then such things just come with the territory.

And to any who question whether Catherine Eddowes really is the person shown in the photos, I would direct them to the book "The Victims of Jack the Ripper" by Neal Stubbings Shelden, in which the chapter on Catherine is the most extensive. Look at the mortuary photos in question, and then look at the photos of Catherine Sarah Hall, great granddaughter of Catherine Eddowes, on pages 87 & 88. Try to imagine Eddowe's face without the mutilations, and if you don't see a powerful resemblance then I think you are in deep denial.

[Cap'n Jack]

Speaking from an entirely personal point of view I would be deeply disturbed to find images on a public website of my grandmother, murdered, covered in blood and gore, stark naked and then stitched back together again.
Especially when I might not be in possession of the fact that a relative of mine was so brutally murdered.
The shock and horror value of such an image to such a person would be immense.
You know I do wonder about the legality of posting such personal images of murdered individuals, especially when those images were originally in the possession of the police authorities; and that then these images somehow or the other came into the public domain. One assumes that this was never the intention of the police authorities concerned, and that it would have been their legal remit to either remain in possession of the images or dispose of them in a manner that would ensure that what has happened would never have happened?
Their very public publication.
I was reading a recent Swedish case where unknown to the parents photographs were made of their dead child and then used for public broadcast. In the subsequent court case substantial compensation was awarded to the parents to the cost of those who illegally used the images.
I think the situation here to be very similar; and that those who feel that they can post such images with impunity should exercise a good deal of restraint here.
For I shall be looking into the legal implications of posting such images in the public domain without the express authority of the family concerned, and the relevant police authorities concerned... who should really be the only people in possession of these images.

[John Bennett]

AP,

I presume you've contacted Stephen Ryder personally to make clear your concerns?

[Supe]

AP.

Late this past summer Neal Shelden interrviewed Kate's great-great-great-grandaughter and her great-great-great-great-grandaughter and the interview was subsequently published in Ripperologist 96 (October 2008).

Neal specifivally asked each woman: How do you feel about the mortuary photos of Catherine; should they continue to be used in books and other media?

Each of the women answered strongly in the affirmative, that they should continue to be used. Though one drew the linre at some outfit in California that was using the image on T-shirts, something I think we might all agree is wrong.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

Speaking from an entirely personal point of view I would be deeply disturbed to find images on a public website of my grandmother, murdered.

Indeed, and I'd agree with you there, AP. However, if you were Catherine Eddowes' grandson, you'd have to be aged somewhat older than 120 years by now, at least. More than one generation has passed that would have had any direct remembrance of her. It is a sensitive subject, but there must come a natural break-point beyond which sentiment gives way to history.

Edit: I just read Don's post - and I note with thanks that he has quantified the degrees of separation involved.

[Natalie Severn]

Ap,
I was remembering too reading that at the time,the murders were considered too horrific to even write about fully in the press,let alone death images being released to the public in any shape or form.
In each case,after the post mortem and inquest,the body was buried in a cemetary by traditional ceremony .Mary Ann Nichols ,Annie Chapman, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly were laid to rest in handsome coffins- of polished elm and oak ,-their names in gold or copper letters,paid for by their relatives or in Mary Kelly"s case the verger of St Leonards bore the full cost.Elizabeth Stride too was given a perfectly proper burial,although far from her native Sweden,it was a quiet ceremony and she was buried in a pauper"s grave So the last sight the public had of any of the victims of Jack the Ripper, was of a dignified funeral cortege ,which took their shrouded remains to their last resting place,their coffins enclosed from view.In other words they were given the full,traditional respect and dignity accorded to the dead of the UK .
So how these barbaric pictures of the victims ever got out of police custody and into the public domain is indeed a mystery.

[Sam Flynn]

So how these barbaric pictures of the victims ever got out of police custody and into the public domain is indeed a mystery.

How they got into police custody in the first place is rather baffling, too. I can't see that the police would have had much use for them at the time. I mean - all the victims had been positively identified; the crimes were extensively documented; and it's not as if they were going to use the photographs to jog any suspects' memories ("Do you remember doing this, sir...?").

Are we to conclude, therefore, that the real motivation for the police taking the photographs was entirely prurient from the get-go? Or am I missing some nuance about those pre-forensic days of which I should be made aware?

[Natalie Severn]

Don,
Back in the Summer,you may remember , Neal Shelden was outraged because of these images of the victims being shown in the Museum of London Docklands exhibition,-Jack the Ripper East End -particularly as they were the only images shown.The images, were very tiny however and where there was no image available a photo of a wreath or bouquet of flowers was there "in lieu" and all were presented in the dignified setting of a small white chapel like enclave,at the exhibition.Neal"s main point was that the mortuary photos gave such a terribly negative impression of the victims and their lives -especially when Annie Chapman"s appealing marriage photo was available and had not been used .
But Neal did in fact have great difficulty encouraging several of the descendents of the victims to even talk about the matter,let alone talk about these mortuary photos ,so I am unsure whether what you are implying is altogether true and what it amounts to if it is.Neal we know has always shown great sensitivity when approaching descendents for their co-operation in his book on the Lives of the Victims.

[John Bennett]

Nats,

Good point about the photo of Annie and John Chapman. A missed opportunity there for the exhibition.

[Natalie Severn]

Sam,
Well here I happen to disagree.The photographs of Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly were I feel sure taken as "crime scene" evidence for the police---and that is perfectly acceptable evidence as far as I am concerned.
Best
Norma

[Supe]

Norma,

so I am unsure whether what you are implying is true

You come close to calling me a liar, but since it is all there in Ripperologist 96, which I believe you received (and I know for all his railing about magazines AP is not too principled to accept free copies) so you can check for yourself that my implications (whatever that means) are quite true.

I cannot speak for Neal Shelden, who has, I believe stopped posting (and is on honeymoon at the moment anyway), but I do know that except for a few changes in punctuation the interviews--and that specific question--are exactly as submitted by Neal. And while he may not have been pleased with the answers he got (I don't know) he was an honest enough reporter to include them.

And that is to say that he did not try to impose gratuitously his own moral precepts upon the issue.

But please, go and look yourself at the interview--I don't appreciate public suggestions that I am a liar.

Don.

[Natalie Severn]

Don,
I was not calling you a liar .I was saying that having spoken to Neal Shelden on more than one occasion about his interviews with descendents,he made it clear that certain descendents could not be drawn on the subject of them being descendents of Ripper victims------therefore---- how can you "imply" from the words spoken by those few who have been approached and have been willing to discuss the matter,that that is the prevailing view of most of the victim"s descendents?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,
Well here I happen to disagree.

There's no need to disagree, Nats - I was open to explanations!

The photographs of Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly were I feel sure taken as "crime scene" evidence for the police---and that is perfectly acceptable evidence as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps so, but that doesn't apply in the case of the pre-Kelly victims: especially Eddowes, after she'd been sutured together again; and the victims that preceded her were already in their coffins and/or covered up by blankets. I sense that Victorian curiosity played a larger part in the taking of the first four victim photographs than any real evidential value.

[Cap'n Jack]

So then, again, how did Rumblelow get his hands on these photographs?
And was he a serving police officer at the time?
Do we know of any other cases where either the Met. or City police forces of London have publicly released mortuary photographs of murder victims, not to identify the victims, but to serve the purposes of independent authors?

[Natalie Severn]

I am sure there were prurient viewers then Sam but I happen to think all these photos were bona fide.The police were baffled by this series of crimes where the only evidence they had was the crime scene and the way the victims had been mutilated.There were disagreements about whether the ripper had anatomical knowledge etc so anything capable of preserving information was helpful to their case.
You may be right ofcourse.