Eddowes Mortuary Photo - Graphic

[Sam Flynn]

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?

...there must be countless examples in "True Crime" books since the genre was invented, AP - and it was nothing new. Before the era of photographs people marvelled at depictions of the dead and wounded in battle, Marat in his bath, and such gory scenes from antiquity as Judith beheading Holofernes and innumerable Crucifixions.

[John Bennett]

So then, again, how did Rumblelow get his hands on these photographs?

According to Rumbelow in the author's epilogues of 'Scotland Yard Investigates', he found the photographs of Kelly (and Eddowes) in 'the filthy attic room of Snow Hill police station', which was where the remnants of the City Police museum had been dumped at that time.

And yes, he was a serving police officer at that time.

[Supe]

Noirma,

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?

I implied nothing, though you certainly inferred plenty from my post. I was familiar with that interview because I edited it. I thought the reaction of the two women might be pertinent. I did not imply, suggest, hint or even outright say they spoke for Eddowes's kin, far less the kin of all the victims.

I only know one descendant of a victim and the topic has never come up, nor do I wish to intrude. I'm much more interested in how she and her grandchildren are faring.

And frankly I'm getting quite tired with the thread and the discussionb. Like it ot not, the pictures are out there and will stay out there in the public domain. We can look at them or not as we see fit. And we can respect the victims and their lives and deaths as we deem appropriate.

When I first stumbled across Casebook I was afraid it might be home to ghouls, but was pleasantly surprised at the academic approach almost all posters took. Over the years I coud count on the fingers of one hand the posters I suspect slavered over the photos and when they found no kindred spirits they quickly sought another "home."

My quondam fellow townsman Tony Comstock, only succeeded in making a rather mild and artistically mediocre nude painting world famous--I shudder to think what may come of this affair.

Don.

[Khanada]

I sense that Victorian curiosity played a larger part in the taking of the first four victim photographs than any real evidential value.

The sense I got from reading the aforementioned 'Scotland Yard Investigates' is that photos of the unidentified dead were taken in hopes of getting them identified, rather than any kind of Victorian curiosity.

[Sam Flynn]

The sense I got from reading the aforementioned 'Scotland Yard Investigates' is that photos of the unidentified dead were taken in hopes of getting them identified, rather than any kind of Victorian curiosity.

Fair point, Khanada, although in the case of Kelly that wasn't necessary, or frankly practicable - at least not from a photograph. As to the others - of course, the women probably weren't identified until after the photos were taken, so my earlier point was somewhat asinine!

However, the identifications seem to have been made by taking witnesses to a mortuary to view the corpse, and I'm sure that the photos weren't replicated and taken from house to house in a "do you know this woman" sense; had they been, it's a fair bet that more copies would have survived. Even if they were used for potential identifications, it's still somewhat puzzling that the police felt obliged to hold onto the photos after such identification was obtained.

[Roy Corduroy]

There were the links given earlier to the two essays. One by Stewart Evans and the other,

THE VICTIM PHOTOGRAPHS
by Stawell Heard

"The first publication of the main Kelly photograph had in fact occurred some seventy-three years earlier in 1899 when it was included by Jean Alexandre Eugene Lacassagne in his book Vacher i'Eventreur et les Crimes Sadiques (Vacher the Ripper and Sadistic Crime)."

"...photographs taken of Catharine Eddowes, one of which had also been published by Lacassagne.'

He also discusses that yes, police forces in France and Great Britain were beginning to use photography for investigative purposes.

But as to this discussion, consider then the French book, published back in that era. Was this book widely known or read on the continent or in Great Britain or America? Was it banned? I am trying to picture a book in that time with these photos and it doesn't seem to fit my conception of what would be published in that era. Was it for private use or public? Am I missing something?

Roy

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Roy,
I think the French had a different view of matters such as the publication of such images.They definitely were ahead of the UK in publishing pornography as I discovered when I was researching Pigott the journalist who forged the letters of Parnell and published them in The Times.He apparently also had a lucrative sideline in peddling pornography that he bought in Paris to a group of Tory MP"s who met in a West End "Gentleman"s Club."In those days the French were ahead in all matters to do with debauchery,pornography,lewd shows and other stuff considered corrupting to public morals.

[Rob Clack]

The surviving Mortuary Photographs of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, McKenzie and Coles were most likely taken for identification purposes. In Tabrams case there were at least two copies. There was also a photograph taken of Rose Mylett as well to be used for identification purposes. It was common practice for the time (not just for the Whitechapel murder victims) as this excert from 'Scoundrels and Scallywags' shows:



Rob

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Rob. Out of interest - when did the incident referred to in that excerpt occur? I've been led to believe that the Whitechapel photos were amongst the earliest murder victim photographs - would they, too, have been "circulated all over the place", or would doing such a thing have offended Victorian sensibilities?

[jmenges]

Roy,

Based on Norma's reply, although I'm sure she did not intend it, one might think that these French books had something to do with "debauchery,pornography,lewd shows and other stuff considered corrupting to public morals."

De l'Eventration au point de vue medico-legal (1894) which published the photograph of Mary Jane Kelly was the doctoral thesis of Andre Lemoureaux. The subject of the doctoral thesis was death by evisceration and disembowelment. His teacher, Professor Lacassagne, borrowed and enlarged on Lemoureaux's doctoral thesis in his work on French murderer Joseph Vacher Vacher l'Eventreur et les crimes sadiques (1899) which contained the Mary Kelly photo used in 1894 as well as the Catherine Eddowes mortuary photo I posted earlier on this thread.

Neither were best-sellers, they were medico-legal works.

JM

[Rob Clack]

Hi Gareth,

No date is given but the book was written by Tom Divall based on his experiences in the Police. He served in Whitechapel between 1900 and 1913 give or take a couple of years.
I think a bit of both would occur in the Whitechapel Murder cases. We have people visiting the mortuaries trying to identify the victims and I think I am right in saying Elizabeth Strides nephew(?) identified her from a photograph.

I have seen a mortuary photo similar to the Whitechapel Murders ones taken supposedly in the 1870s.
And Debs showed me some drawings taken from photographs that were published in The Illustrated Police News in the late 1880s.

Rob

[Khanada]

Fair point, Khanada, although in the case of Kelly that wasn't necessary, or frankly practicable - at least not from a photograph. As to the others - of course, the women probably weren't identified until after the photos were taken, so my earlier point was somewhat asinine!

However, the identifications seem to have been made by taking witnesses to a mortuary to view the corpse, and I'm sure that the photos weren't replicated and taken from house to house in a "do you know this woman" sense; had they been, it's a fair bet that more copies would have survived. Even if they were used for potential identifications, it's still somewhat puzzling that the police felt obliged to hold onto the photos after such identification was obtained.

Could be, and fair enough. As a clarification, I was primarily referring to everyone but Miss Mary Jane -- as an observation on why police held onto the photos after the people were ID'ed, well, some people are just plain pack rats!

[Roy Corduroy]

So would one surmise that the victim photographs which appeared in these two medico-legal works by French academics were were obtained from British police in a semi-official manner?

[jmenges]

That's a good assumption, that a police official handed them over in France, but maybe not in a semi-official manner. Its a mystery.

I direct you to go out and find Robert McLaughlin's book The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs, he has a chapter From London to Lyon on this very subject in which he explores many possibilities.

JM

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Khanada
The sense I got from reading the aforementioned 'Scotland Yard Investigates' is that photos of the unidentified dead were taken in hopes of getting them identified, rather than any kind of Victorian curiosity.

I know the Thames River Police use to take photos of bodies that they had recovered from the Thames and posted them on the Stations notice board in Wapping on a daily basis in hopes that someone could identify them.

Monty