Eddowes Mortuary Photo - Graphic

[kensei]

Another use for photos as graphic as those of Catherine Eddowes comes to mind- Could they have been kept in the hopes that the killer would be caught and brought to trial so that a prosecutor could hold them up to the jury in a "Look what he did to her" kind of way?

[Sam Flynn]

Could they have been kept in the hopes that the killer would be caught and brought to trial so that a prosecutor could hold them up to the jury in a "Look what he did to her" kind of way?

I don't think that would have happened back in the late 1800s, somehow, Ken. For one thing, the murders were well-documented and well-known to the public: the visuals would have served no purpose other than to shock the jury. For another, the penalty for murder could not have been any harsher than it was, namely the death sentence (or confinement for life in an asylum); the visuals would not have made things any worse for the Ripper.

Once their stated purpose of identification was achieved, I can't see why the police shouldn't just have destroyed the images there and then. Of course, in the case of Mary Kelly there was very little chance that the photographs of her mangled body could have been used to ID her, and furthermore it's probable that her identity was already known before the photographer was even called for.

[Brenda]

Police still take photos of victims now, and I don't think they destroy them ever.

[Suzi]

Chris-

Hi all
Great work Chris !!
To be honest I don't think that the police/pathologists made a big deal of keeping or getting rid of those sort of pics,they were probably filed/stuck in a box- or more than likely forgotten/thrown away for the most part-- in fact I'm sure whatever they did with them at the end of the day, they were not generally available for public 'consumption' -most certainly not in the papers!!!- I suppose we're 'lucky' to see the few we have

Suz x

[Suzi]

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

Hi Mont-
How recently was that?

I see pics of 'The Missing' in my local Tesco in Portsmouth-most of them are missing in North Yorkshire etc though- I do keep my eye out but -well you know............

Suz x

[Khanada]

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.

Interesting, and I can't help but wonder -- good grief, did they fish that many people out of the Thames??

[Sam Flynn]

did they fish that many people out of the Thames??

...only when in season

[Scott Nelson]

...with certain weight restrictions. Anyone under six stone was thrown back in.

[Monty]

Guys,

I misinformed you.

They posted notices, not photos. See below.

I assume that bodies are ID via teeth records, fingerprints nowaday Suzi.

Monty

[claire]

Interesting debate, and one that, in my opinion, must remain with all of us at the heart of our interests here. As soon as we are unable to engage in a debate about this is the point we need to stop being here.

For my part, it's my understanding that Chris posted the MJK pictures first, given that there is so much environmental context to analyse. Because there was such a positive response to that, it's natural that his generosity would extend to enhancing other photos, a gesture which is certainly appreciated here. Did I like seeing this picture? No, absolutely not. Would I have anything to offer about the series of offences having seen it? No. But I think that being reminded of the sheer brutality of these offences is something that all of us have gone through, and it's a positive thing to go through, at some point early on in our interests in the WMs.

I agree, though, with AP's points about the way that our sense(s) of reality can become distorted with the repeated viewings of images like this. The point is, though, that most posters here want to engage in a wider discussion of the facts available to us, and unfortunately, these photos are among the few facts that we have. The photos, out of the context of a discussion forum, are obscene and damaging. But they are not out of context. We are, for the most part, amateur investigators, as Natalie pointed out. But this doesn't mean that we can't retain our humanity here.

Finally, unfortunately, there are far worse photographs than these out on the internet...doesn't excuse these WM pics, but I think they are contextualised here, and there are more obscene focuses for our concern, I think.

Monty: Thanks for that Wapping Police Stn photo: I love this sort of detail

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Claire for such a thoughful post; and I sort of agree with everything you say, sort of...
I'm not very clever at posting urls, but I'll try and post this one, which links to a very pertinent article on the subject.
The conclusion of the article is that media editors - or moderators if you like - should be responsible for the moral issues at stake when images of dead people are publicly broadcast; and that good communication in such matters does not always depend on seeing graphic and violent images of dead or dying people. Words will do.
Anyways I sort of agree with this study.

http://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org...deadbodies.pdf.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for a very thoughtful post Claire,and thanks Ap for the link which clarifies the matter of gruesome imagery in journalism - but it is a slightly different issue.
The article doesnt address,for example, the matter of whether visuals should be posted for the readership of National newspapers of the injuries,---"enhanced " or otherwise,---- sustained by murdered and completely unclothed individuals with their private parts exposed ,either of men, women or children .I have certainly never seen any such images in a daily newspaper.So is there a reason why not?

[KatBradshaw]

An interesting thread.

This is a really interesting debate which I have been thinking about before adding my thoughts to here. I think that the question of whether or not to show these photos fits in to a few catagories.
Firstly I would say that I first saw the pictures of the victims when I was quite young. Probably 8 as this was the centenary. I was young to be facinated by these crimes but I can assure you it has not turned me in to some morbidly obbsessed psycho! To be honest I never really understood what i was looking at and in the case of Kelly I still don't! This is quite a speicalist board so I am not sure that many children would just wonder accross it.
I would also say that I have this same debate with myself over the images which I use when I teach the Holocaust. We watch Bernstien's film on Belsen which shows the Nazi attrocities very clearly. I have often questioned the voiueristic nature of this film. What is hartening is that many of the pupils do show distress at what they see which shows that we have not totally desensitised our youth.
I would also like to say that I feel that it is in each persons own consienc as to how they view these pictures. Some may view themin a way we don't like but there are many such images in the net to satisfy their own needs. I doubt that any of us look at them without feeling for the victim and without hold out respect to their memory.
I for one do not look at these photos very often. As I get older the images seems to affect me more and more.

[perrymason]

Hi again,

As I stated earlier, I think that its naive to imagine that we live in a world where anyone of the age of consent can be, or should be, denied access to what is essentially historical data. I think its the same as battlefield pictures strewn with pieces of men, who were someones lover, or husband, son or father. And making available for viewing... historical images within study context, that are shocking, degrading to a gender, race or religion, or inflammatory,... is still a far better choice than using images of starving children with flies on their lips to raise funds.

So.. which images do you want supressed.? Violent ones? Ones with dead people in them, abuse of women, or men...starving children, animal abuse, ...or all the images of aggression we get everyday, multiple times on screen and in print?

I believe the real issue on Kates pictures shouldnt be that we can see them,... its should be that she was hung from a nail on a a wall to take some of them.

Proving that even back then, the historical records take precedence over individual taste and in some cases, common decency.

Without these images, Catherine Eddowes would be a one dimensional character in a Victorian play....with the images available to study, we see that Kate was a human being, a woman, and that she was the victim of a horrible crime.

In other words, good can also come from these visual records.

Best regards all

[Nicola]

Pardon me,as I am not as eloquent as some of the others in this thread.

The power of a photograph. For me,I truly never looked at any of the morgue photos before I came to this site. It took all my nerve to look at the MJK photo and now Ms.Eddowes. I think the photos serve a very clear purpose:

For us to never forget that these ladies were real human beings. That they were once alive. These photos are here to remind us of the very real horror and terror these poor women suffered. I think that when someone has been a student of the case for a very long time or has a romantic view of JTR,they tend to not regard these ladies as real people. Just names on a case from long ago.Or they might think what JTR inflicted on these women was really nothing or exaggerated. Not to say a person is cold or unfeeling,but without reminders,I think one can easily forget. People can become so caught up in"Catch The Ripper",they forget that he inflicted a terrible toll. These photos also serve to remind anyone foolish enough to romanticize JTR as to what a monster and throughly worthless human being he was.These photos put the emphasis on the victims and not the subhuman piece of feces who brutalized them. I also think it is insulting to say that those who view these photos all have some necrophiliac or plain crazy interest.I would think that most who view these photos are decent and normal people.

There is nothing to be done about the random nutter who gets off on such things. I would think that there are far worse photos for those types to get their kicks. Even if the site were to be censored,they could join and still see them. Should the site start charging members to prevent those kinds of freaks from coming here? Wouldn't that affect the other members who truly view the victims with respect and are serious students of the case?

Children seeing this site,well,that is up to their parents to control their children's internet viewing,not this site. The site is not a net nanny.

A warning on this thread should be enough to warn those off who are offended by such things.Censorship is a slippery slope as what offends one person doesn't bother another. How do you know what to allow to be seen and what not? Should all images be censored to avoid offending someone?

It's very simple to me: If you find such photos offensive,don't enter the thread.