Should the Victims Photos be Changed?

[Slimsid2000]

Looking at the 'victims' section of Casebook is it not a bit unpleasant to have pictures of them post death and mutilated as the links to their individual stories. Surly some other photos or illustrations could be used as the links.

[Ravenstone]

No. No point trying to sugar coat what was done to them, and no other images available anyway.

[George Hutchinson]

I can see the ethics in this; you could suggest Jane Coram's images - but these are artistic representations and those unpleasant post-mortem images are genuine. I certainly wouldn't want to see those God-awful IPN abominations used as representations.

PHILIP

[anna]

I agree 100% with Philip.

Infact,I would love the pictures we already have,to be joined by those that are missing!!!!

I would love to see them replaced,but only by images of them in their everyday lives..and apart from Annie,sadly we have none.

ANY images are better than none.

I respect them,and have come to view them as friends,so the fact that they have been photograped in a mortuary situation,is immaterial to me.I don't notice that any more.

ANNA.

[Mike Covell]

History is written and should be there for all to see, not hidden.

I am not a morbid person, and don't like to see people im pain of suffering, but if we can learn something from the past, then why hide it?

What next?

Banning pictures of holocaust victims?

Airbrushing out the victims laid by the roadsides of Iraq?

Covering up pictures of children with their skin hanging off them in Vietnam when their village was hit by agent orange?

The pictures are there to teach us, in the hope that it never happens again, and to remind us, just how precious life actually is.

[The Good Michael]

I could submit all their baby pictures, but my publisher won't allow it before the book release.

Mike

[Ravenstone]

The pictures are there to teach us, in the hope that it never happens again, and to remind us, just how precious life actually is.

I couldn't agree more.

[Nothing to see]

The only other photo I've seen of any of the victims was that taken of Annie Chapman with her husband not long after they were married. It doesn't really tell me a lot about her. Like the other posters I'm not morbid but this was how the victims looked when they died/discovered. It's history and it shouldn't be changed.

[gary]

The only other photo I've seen of any of the victims was that taken of Annie Chapman with her husband not long after they were married. It doesn't really tell me a lot about her. Like the other posters I'm not morbid but this was how the victims looked when they died/discovered. It's history and it shouldn't be changed.

Personally, I think that the mortuary photo of Kate is the most horrific of them
all. The pics of three of them, 'almost' make them seem at peace. And poor Mary simply doesn't have any expression to go by. Kate's seem's nearly animated. The horror of it fairly jumps out at you.

Gary

[DarkPassenger]

The PC brigade strike again

[Slimsid2000]

The PC brigade strike again

PC Brigade - didn't he arrest Jack the Ripper in 1888?

[KatBradshaw]

Yes along with D.S.Gruntled of Tunbridge Wells.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Personally, I think that the mortuary photo of Kate is the most horrific of them

Same here. Her mutilations are more disturbing than Mary Kelly's for me; plus she's stitched up haphazardly, pegged against a wall to be photographed, and the one picture of her in a casket looks like she's just been bunged in any old box with a load of junk in it. Not nice stuff at all.

Regarding the actual topic; there's no point changing them now as they're easily available on the Internet and most people have seen them numerous times anyway. I doubt anyone's looking at the photos in a disrespectful manner either, clinical maybe, but not in a way other than to see the damage Jack did and to see the only known people connected to whoever he was. That being said, I can understand where some people are coming from, as I'd imagine if the victims knew that their cadavers were on 'display' for all and sundry to have a gawp at that they'd be quite angry and ashamed. It's not exactly their finest hour; I know if our roles were reversed that I'd be bloody sickened and furious at having my mortuary shots put out in the public domain.

[John Bennett]

Of course the victim photographs shouldn't be changed. What is there to change? They are what they are.

That said, why do some people insist on changing them? Enhancements, colourisations, superimpositions, etc.

They exist, granted, and they are obviously not particularly nice to look at, so why are folk making adjustments which result in the long-winded scrutiny of the image of a horifically ripped-up woman? The MJK photo is a case in point.

It's this sort of supposed 'scholarly' poring over corpse pictures that make some people think that Ripperology is full of sick oddbals.