The photographing of Eddowes in situ.

[Suzi]

Be careful how you google Friedrich Paul - he is one of the Holocaust Denial lunatics- and the sites are seriously disturbing and totally nauseating!!

I'm sure it's not the same one but beware!- where did you find your ref Bun? x

[Suzi]

Hi Bun

I'm very suspicious of those pics- COME IN ROB Mc L !!! The first one maybe- the second one I'm not so sure...
Bertillion was something else when it came to this sort of thing a wonderful man and a total forensic ICON of his time- fingerprints etc etc

- I do think that those pics were taken in a studio though- I guess a day's work lying as a deado may have paid well.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Archaic,

Eerie... seeing the pictures so clearly, as opposed to what we have from JTR.
Imagine if we had such quality in situ photo's with JTR!
Notice the boots in the first photo... re soled on one boot and re heeled.


best wishes

Phil

[Archaic]

Handbook of Criminal Photography, 1900

Hi, guys.
I don't recall having seen these photos posted before, so thought they might be of interest. They were published in 1900 in a landmark book that explained the techniques of Criminal & Forensic Photography.

It was written by a famous German forensic-photographer named Friedrich Paul. The title is 'Handbuch der Kriminalistischen Photographie'.
(Does anyone know if it was ever translated into English?)

Two of the photos are obviously crime scenes. They were shot from an elevated position in order to show as much of the crime scene as possible.
This technique was promoted by an earlier French photographer, I believe by the name of Bertillion (not sure of spelling) who took what he called
"a God's-eye view" of crime scenes.

I know very little about how flash worked c.1899/1900, but they do seem to have solved the problem of needing to be able to tilt the camera sharply downward.

The photo showing the camera mounted on a very high tripod is really cool.
It's also quite lucky for Friedrich Paul that the victim appears to have been murdered inside a photography studio.

Best regards, Archaic

[Supe]

Rob,

Valid points, both, though I would think if they actually wanted a scene of crime photo both difficulties could have been surmounted. But clearly they were not interested in recording the scene of the crime, but rather the mutilations and those were more easily and more accurately photographed in the morgue. Again, they had no appreciation for what value SOC photography might provide and firm procedure was have the police surgeon declare the victim dead and then move the body as quickly as possible to the morgue, so any discussion of "if only, but . . ." is a deadend.

Don.

Hi Don,

My understanding is the flash would have needed to be angled downwards to properly illuminate the ground and that the flash holders would not have been able to keep the powder in place. And it would just fall out of the holder.
Which is why I believe in the Mortuary photographs (Catherine Eddowes most notably), the victims have been propped upwards.

Looking at the drawings I don't think a 45 degree view would have served any purpose.

Regards

Rob

On the part I put in bold Rob, in fact Kate is hung on a nail I believe, and that wasnt odd for mortuary photos.

I see your point regarding the basic issue of keeping the flash powder at an angle, ...I believe that there was portrait equipment that provided a powder receptacle as part of the contraption itself, but receptacles containing such powder to illuminate the scene for a photo I believe could be placed about the subject matter as well.

Best regards

[Rob Clack]

Hi Don,

My understanding is the flash would have needed to be angled downwards to properly illuminate the ground and that the flash holders would not have been able to keep the powder in place. And it would just fall out of the holder.
Which is why I believe in the Mortuary photographs (Catherine Eddowes most notably), the victims have been propped upwards.

Looking at the drawings I don't think a 45 degree view would have served any purpose.

Regards

Rob

[Supe]

Rob,

A flash was out of the question. Also positioning the camera downwards to record the mutilations would have been impossible.

I wonder what is the basis of your assertion. Flash powder was certainly available and, with a shade or two, would not be lost in the vastness of the square. And, contemporary tripods were capable of "kneeling" to give something approximating a 45-degree view.

However, that is all predicated on anyone actually wanting a scene of crime photograph, which they clearly didn't. They were interested solely in the wounds and mutilations, which is why they did some drawings in situ and later took the full frontal photos of Kate in the morgue. And it is obvious that to record the mutilations was the reason for the Kelly photographs. That and the long wait for the bloodhounds that gave time for a photographer to arrive

It cannot be stressed enough that all the modern analogies that may be dredged up are useless when dealing with the 1888 mindset. Save for the occasional genius, one cannot be expected to do what one does not understand.

Don.

[Rob Clack]

A flash was out of the question. Also positioning the camera downwards to record the mutilations would have been impossible.

Rob

Perhaps those who think a photograph should have been taken would explain to us how it would be done?

Rob

I think that the ONLY obstacle would be the available light Rob, something that could have been augmented artificially.

My best regards

[Rob Clack]

Perhaps those who think a photograph should have been taken would explain to us how it would be done?

Rob

You'd think that seeing Brown standing there trying to sketch the deceased might have triggered someone to suggest actually capturing the sight with a photo.

Its like standing outside a variety store that sells disposable lighters and wearily watching someone start a fire by rubbing sticks together.

I would think that there must have been one or 2 local shutterbugs that were on call for police matters...even if it was to take pictures of them with people they had arrested, or as in some of the division photos weve seen.

Best regards all

[Suzi]

I should know this but....

How long did Kate actually lie there between discovery and lots of p.c's rushing around- Doctor Sequira arriving- a sketch or two being drawn before Kate being taken to the mortuary?

Probably not enough time to find-contact-wake up a photographer- always assuming he was at home

What do we reckon was the time from start to finish on this?

Do we know what time Kate 'arrived' at the mortuary?

Suz x

Thinking about it- the only in- situ pic is Mary [probably because of the unique circumstances and maybe photographer proximity)- and there are none- as yet !- mortuary pics there.

All the rest Polly, Annie , Liz (!) and of course Kate were taken at the mortuary on the slabs (or up the wall!)- including of course Martha ,Frances, Alice etc

[Monty]

Because your going to tell me I'm talking bollocks?

Rob

Would I?

Seriously...why?

Monty

[Rob Clack]

I wont ignore you mate....

....why?

Monty

Because your going to tell me I'm talking bollocks?

Rob