The photographing of Eddowes in situ.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Archy

IMHO the Police were just following procedure. It would have been a big call for Inspector Collard to break that procedure and keep the body in situ until a photographer could be found. He knew a crowd would gather.

[Suzi]

Hi Archy
I don't think that the City Police were into carrying aroung SOC Tents/black back cloths or anything useful of any description at the time- And they certainly,sadly didn't have a resident photogpher. They were on their beat- a fixed tramp that they did night after night (And if they were found not to have been on that beat at a certain time, under the influence or shilly shallying by the Inspectors they were into BIG problems losing money/rank etc!)- and that basically was that- especially men on fixed point duty who - well didn't move- blowing their whistle until a roving beat Bobby did!.

As soon as the local populace- which were legion thought 'Uh Oh- summats up' and headed for the scene!!

- That's before we get to Lawende, Harris et.al. .......................

The place would have been heaving with onlookers of every description, coming in from every possible entrance or top window- if available (At the earliest time for a price!- as in Hanbury St!)- AND probably including our man himself (if you go with my theory!)- to crowd in and see how much they could see- that's well before the days of 'rubbernecking' on the motorways-

Come on we've all done it!

And then of course there's The Press......always on the scene......

[Archaic]

Hi, Jon & Suzi.

Yes, I realize that the police were just following current procedure.

But Foster must have made his preliminary sketches by decent light, even though he filled them in later.

And the mutilations which needed to be recorded were quite numerous, extreme, and complex, so it seems to me that a photographer
could have gotten the job done faster as well as more accurately.

Alas.

Best regards, Archaic

[Supe]

The reasons why Kate Eddowes was not photographed in situ are really quite simple.

To begin with, the police at the time had absolutely no appreciation for scene-of-crime photographs. Given that, there is no reason why they would have sought any. For that matter, such photography rarely yields any clues that lead to the apprehension of perpetrators, certainly not in comparison to what the SOC ops turn up. They are mainly taken simply to satisfy any subsequent legal challenges about the crime scene being compromised. Thus, while the photographs might have satisfied our latter-day curiousity, there was no reason for any to have been taken. The drawings at the scene were largely to identify the wounds.

Secondly, no matter what any one says, it would have been a major undertaking in the middle of the night to get a competent photographer to the scene. Especially when proceedure was that a body be removed to a morgue as soon as possible. After all, not only was Mary Kelly discovered in midday but there was plenty of time for a photographer to arrive as they were waiting for the dogs. And, since the inside of the room was literally a shambles, I would guess they wanted to record that without any sense of what the photos might otherwise reveal (or not reveal).

I find it risible, if irksome, how people continue to ignore the reality of the age and not only expect that 21st C techniques would have been applied to JtR crime scenes, but immediately presume that there must have been a "cover up" that they were not. Just as on another thread the lack of surviving inquest records is indicative of some dark plot. They didn't care even as they didn't care about scene of crime photographs.

Don.

[perrymason]

With all due respect Don, in just under 6 weeks from that murder they seem to very definitely understand the potential value of crime scene photography, so I dont imagine that the idea just occurs to them after the Eddowes murder. Why they didnt employ it then is still a very valid question.

They did have the opportunity to easily prevent anyone from entering the crime scene at Millers Court, but Mitre Square was virtually uninhabited....very few inside people to control, and only 3 laneways to block off. It could have been done without much fanfare I believe.

Cheers Don

[Rob Clack]

Would have been impossible to take a photograph of Catherine Eddowes at Mitre Square anyway.

Rob

[Archaic]

Hi, Don.

I didn't know that anybody even had a theory that Eddowes was not photographed due to "a cover-up"!

I certainly don't believe there was a cover-up.

I think the truth is simply as you said: the habit of sticking to routine procedure and the fact that the value of crime scene photography had not yet been realized, so its inherent LVP-era practical difficulties had not yet been resolved.

Best regards, Archaic

[Supe]

Michael,

This is why I avoid answering your posts--you don't pay attention. I'm probably only doing it now because my mind is addled by the flu. I may not be right, but at least pay attention to my arguments.

I nowhere mentioned any worries about crowd control, which along with some murky coverup seem to be your concerns. I stand by my statement that they had no appreciation for SOC photography. Both with the drawings of Eddowes and the photographs of Kelly they seem only interested in the mutilations, which in the latter case remain beyond belief even today. Had they suddenly developed, as you suggest, an appreciation for SOC photography they would have taken many more photos of the rest of the room. They didn't. Instead, the main focus in both pictures we possess is on the mutilations--and only those.

Moreover, because they were waiting in vain for the dogs it was only with Kelly there was time to wait as well for a photographer and all his paraphenalia to arrive. I will grant that with the murdeer occurring where it did crowd control was easier, but that was not the concern. At Mitre Square they simply followed procedure: once a police surgeon coinfirms death a body is moved to the morgue. Today that is different, but 1888 was not today.

Don.

[perrymason]

Michael,

This is why I avoid answering your posts--you don't pay attention. I'm probably only doing it now because my mind is addled by the flu. I may not be right, but at least pay attention to my arguments.

I nowhere mentioned any worries about crowd control, which along with some murky coverup seem to be your concerns. I stand by my statement that they had no appreciation for SOC photography. Both with the drawings of Eddowes and the photographs of Kelly they seem only interested in the mutilations, which in the latter case remain beyond belief even today. Had they suddenly developed, as you suggest, an appreciation for SOC photography they would have taken many more photos of the rest of the room. They didn't. Instead, the main focus in both pictures we possess is on the mutilations--and only those.

Moreover, because they were waiting in vain for the dogs it was only with Kelly there was time to wait as well for a photographer and all his paraphenalia to arrive. I will grant that with the murdeer occurring where it did crowd control was easier, but that was not the concern. At Mitre Square they simply followed procedure: once a police surgeon coinfirms death a body is moved to the morgue. Today that is different, but 1888 was not today.

Don.

I see Don, sorry If I misinterpreted some of your remarks. I believe that among the photos that were likely taken in room 13 there are probably what we would imagine might be the type of crime scene evidence that you are referring to....If I recall it has been stated that on a plate or slide that was in evidence at one time for the Kelly murder there was some evidence that there were 6 photos taken in all. If I recall correctly that would likely mean that shots of the room or its contents might be among the 6 shots. We have the shot from the right side and left side of the corpse, but are missing what are likely additions, the length of the body from both the foot and head of the bed,...as space allowed. Thats 4 shots.

Just wanted you to understand what I was using as a baseline.

Best regards

[Supe]

Michael,

there was some evidence that there were 6 photos taken in all.

If there were, indeed, six shots taken that does not at all mean they encompassed six different views. Again, it must be remembered that the photographers were using rather primitive equipment under difficult lighting conditions and exposures would have to be guessed at. It was one thing to take a photograph back in a studio where, after experience, a reasonable exposure time could be arrived at without much cogitation. But Kelly's room was a much more difficult situation, so the expedient would almost assuredly have been several exposures of varying lengths of time of each view in order to get a decent print. Even in the era of fast films and exposure meters most professionals would, if possible, take a picture "on the button" so to speak and also shots a stop above and below that for safety's sake.

With something as seemingly important as recording the hitherto unimaginable mutilations I would suggest the photographer took at least two exposures of the same views and quite possibly three of each. So at best there may have been one additional view which did not survive and I would be sure that it too focused on the mutilations.

Crime scene photography was not appreciated and they had no reason to suspect a Simon Wood would appear a century later to argue that the crime scene had been compromised. No more than they would have worried about finding fingerprints, far less DNA. They can't be held negligent for ignoring what was not known at the time.

Don.

[Monty]

Would have been impossible to take a photograph of Catherine Eddowes at Mitre Square anyway.

Rob

I wont ignore you mate....

....why?

Monty

[Rob Clack]

I wont ignore you mate....

....why?

Monty

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

Rob

[Monty]

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

Rob

Would I?

Seriously...why?

Monty

[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

[perrymason]

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