The photographing of Eddowes in situ.

[KatBradshaw]

I like that, 'and what Supe said'.

The drawing of Eddowes in Situ is amazing and it does make me wonder if they realised the importance of a detailed record of the scene but were unable to get a photographer or get the proper equipment.

Belinda's point about preserving physical evidence is important and as has been said, Kelly's body already being inside would have accounted for that issue.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Forensic Value 1888?

Neil,

My feeling is that they had not yet realized the forensic value of crime scene photos. The mortuary photos were taken for identification purposes, Goulston Street was not a crime scene per se but there was a desire to record the writing, and I suspect the Miller's Court photos were not, again, to aid with the investigation but rather to record what would otherwise be an unimaginable scene.

As it is, a flash powder photo of Eddowes in situ would have been a piece of cake, but to photograph chalk on glazed brick would have had to wait for daylight.

Don.

In general I am in agreement with your assessment that in 1888 LE had no idea how valuable a photo, in situ especially, could be to investigations. After all, they had no blood spatter experts, no trajectory experts, no fingerprinting, godknows no DNA etc. But they DID take mortuary photos. I wonder why. With Eddowes they went so far as to prop her body or hang her body up against a wall for the full, nude body photo. That's pretty disrespectful looking but now we're glad they did it. It's really curious about just what they were thinking at the time.
As per your statement above about using flash powder to photo Eddowes in situ, what could they not have done the same thing to photograph the graffiti? I am under the impression they could have done that.

[perrymason]

Glenn Andersson and I talked about the controlled crime scene at Millers Court one time and he said to me that it may well have been the first investigation of its kind using a locked down crime scene and contemporary forensic tools.....like photos ....primitive "tools", but they were in the infancy of the evolution of Crime Scene analysis.

One tunnel accessed Millers Court, and the corpse was in a closed room inside a courtyard that could be cordoned off quite easily by the police....I think thats why they employed the measures that are not seen in Mitre Square....a public setting accessed by 3 lanes and with buildings overlooking the site surrounding the square.

Just logistics.

Cheers Monty, all.

[Monty]

Michael,

Mitre Square was secured until around noon on the Sunday.

Monty

[perrymason]

Michael,

Mitre Square was secured until around noon on the Sunday.

Monty

I wonder if that was to preserve an environment that allowed for a better investigation of the crime scene itself or to fully check the immediate surrounding area and the residents who were at the site as the murder occurred...like the houses that were in the square without occupants, they would need permission or keys to access some of them...the warehouse spaces,.....Dutfields Yard was locked until after 5:30am, yet no-one thought to take photos there,...Hanbury would have been an issue due to surrounding buildings and the light, Bucks Row would have been difficult to seal off as well.....but Millers Court gave them both the daylight and the privacy.

Mitre Square only really gave them daylight..whether they sealed the entrances to the square or not. Some of the overlooking Buildings within it could be accessed from outside the square as well.

All the best Monty

[Supe]

Ghoulston,

Mortuary photos were taken at the time by the Met to aid in the identification of victims in an age when people did not carry all the bureaucartic documents (licenses, social security cards, personalized checks, credit cards, etc.) we do. As you know, it took awhile to put names to the Canonic Five and they were relatively well-publicized cases. Just why the City Police took full-body photos of Eddowes is unclear, but as with Kelly, it may have been because the injuries were so severe and excessive.

As for photographing the graffito with flash powder. the difficulty was largely technical and would still apply today. That is, photographing anything like writing on a flat surface with a sudden burst of light (flash) will cause a certain amount of light to be reflected onto the film emulsion (and I understand the brick involved was glazed creating greater problems) as well as causing any writing to be overwhelmed by the light and "blanked out" to an extent. Moreover, the writing was quite small and to obtain any sort of legible image the camera would have had to be very close to the wall, further exacerbating any problems with flash.

Any good photo of the graffito would have had to wait until daylight, especially given the technology available in 1888.

Don.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I doubt they saw any relevance in photographing the body in situ and thought it would be a bit too disgusting, hence why they took at least three of her in the mortuary after she was cleaned up a bit (aside from the shot of her in the casket, I recall one taken from her left-hand-side, one a full-body shot, and another full-body shot taken from her right which is a lot harder to come by, but you see what she would've looked like a lot clearer in that one due to that side of her face not being as messed up).

[ghoulstonstreet]

Ghoulston,

Mortuary photos were taken at the time by the Met to aid in the identification of victims in an age when people did not carry all the bureaucartic documents (licenses, social security cards, personalized checks, credit cards, etc.) we do. As you know, it took awhile to put names to the Canonic Five and they were relatively well-publicized cases. Just why the City Police took full-body photos of Eddowes is unclear, but as with Kelly, it may have been because the injuries were so severe and excessive.

As for photographing the graffito with flash powder. the difficulty was largely technical and would still apply today. That is, photographing anything like writing on a flat surface with a sudden burst of light (flash) will cause a certain amount of light to be reflected onto the film emulsion (and I understand the brick involved was glazed creating greater problems) as well as causing any writing to be overwhelmed by the light and "blanked out" to an extent. Moreover, the writing was quite small and to obtain any sort of legible image the camera would have had to be very close to the wall, further exacerbating any problems with flash.

Any good photo of the graffito would have had to wait until daylight, especially given the technology available in 1888.

Don.

Thanks for the explanation. About photographing a flat, shiny wall, I think it could have been done successfully if they had positioned the camera at an angle to the wall so that the flash didn't create an explosive reflection onto the film...but, oh well, their failure is one of the big regrets

[ghoulstonstreet]

I doubt they saw any relevance in photographing the body in situ and thought it would be a bit too disgusting, hence why they took at least three of her in the mortuary after she was cleaned up a bit (aside from the shot of her in the casket, I recall one taken from her left-hand-side, one a full-body shot, and another full-body shot taken from her right which is a lot harder to come by, but you see what she would've looked like a lot clearer in that one due to that side of her face not being as messed up).

Is there a site where I can see these other photographs? Thanks

[Archaic]

Article Says 1873 Thames Torso Was Reassembled & Photographed!

Hi, everyone.

I just posted two new threads under "Victims: Torso Killings", and one of them is about the 1873 Thames Mystery, also known as the Battersea Mystery or Thames Torso.

A September 1873 article from The Annual Register contained the following passage:

"On September 9 two more portions of the same body were found, the right thigh being picked up in the river off Woolwich, and the right shoulder, with part of the arm, off Greenwich, the latter part being smeared with tar. The left foot, measuring ten inches and three-quarters in length, and ten inches across the instep, has also been picked up near the bank of the Regent's Canal, off Rotherhithe, and the right fore-arm near the Albert Embankment.
Surgical skill has been employed to unite the fragments found, in order that they may have a better chance of identification, and the remains were photographed before interment."

I was quite surprised by that last sentence; 1873 seems very early to have photographed a crime victim.

I know that at some point they began photographing the victims they pulled from the Thames in an effort to identify them, but this poor young woman had suffered absolutely ghastly mutilations and the corpse was in a terrible state. Obviously they were still hoping to identify her.

So this is a case which occurred fully 15 years prior to the Whitechapel murders, and they photographed the reassembled victim.

I realize that she wasn't photographed in situ, but I'm wondering if any of you have heard of similar cases dating back so far?

Here's a link to the thread if you are interested in reading the rest of the article; it's contained in Post #7: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3600

And now of course I'm wondering what ever became of that dreadful photograph.

Thanks and best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

Ive been considering your question more Monty and I now see that the point youre making overrides any other facets of the crime scene investigation.

Its my understanding that Marys body was the first crime scene photo taken in situ...therefore that was the effective birth of a new era in crime scene analysis. But Mitre Square did offer them a similar opportunity to seal off a crime scene for that kind of recording, and for heavens sake it would have been far superior to having Brown make a sketch that might resemble the scene he witnessed.

Perhaps this crime involved factors we no nothing about at this time that they didnt want photographed....factors that might cause them to keep certain details about this murder site and scene private. Even Browns sketch doesnt show the relationship of the body to the surrounding walls....or what was found around her.

Best regards Monty

[miss marple]

photographers

There was no shortage of photographers in the east end. Just a look glance at a directory of the 1880s shows. Hobbs 81 Whitechapel rd another ar 38. Issac at 231 Commercial st, Norton at 105 Bishopsgate, another at Shoreditch hight st etc, etc.
Since the introduction of the cheap collodian process in the 1860s , every chemist, hairdresser, coffee shop owner could take cheap snaps for the masses, as well as the artist portrait photographers with their own studios.
The police could have had everything photographed, if they had wanted to. I think they lacked the interest and the will,
Miss Marple

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Monty,

You would think this to be a very obvious question, yet you're the first person I'm aware of to pose it. IT certainly hadn't occurred to me before. Damn it, why DIDN'T they photograph her!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Suzi]

Interesting thread here-
Looking back over Kate's discovery and the sprightly PC Holland belting off to get Dr Sequira out of bed-I imagine the whole thing was a tad chaotic and muddled- Keeping George Morris with his lamp there and the PCs (increasing by the moment!) and then with the other problem of closing off the 3 entrances (before we get to possible back entrances from the surrounding houses - which may have been possible) for a gawk. Maybe- the idea of getting a photographer at that hour- even if one had been available! just didn't happen- Let's face it Polly, Annie and Liz were'ne given the photo shot immediatly post mortem- only as Mortuary shots.

Then the local crowds started to - CROWD-I suppose it wasn't the closest thing on the minds of the police!. The police in situ drawings are wonderful though and give us more than a clear view of what was in the 'dark corner'- Lets be honest we have more of Kate- No one else was drawn in situ or even in the mortuary- One photograph each and then of course we have Mary.
Suz xx

[Archaic]

I think that the police could have dealt with the problem of gawking crowds by cordoning off an area and then erecting some kind of tent-like canopy over the crime scene.

"Pavilions" were quite popular at that time and were often used to provide shade in one's yard. They were made in all sizes, both with and without side-walls.

It might even have been possible to take photos inside the pavilion if the problem of reflection could be dealt with; I imagine it could have been dealt with by using dark background cloths.

Too bad they weren't thinking of us back then.

Best regards, Archaic