The photographing of Eddowes in situ.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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).

[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.

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

[Monty]

Michael,

Mitre Square was secured until around noon on the Sunday.

Monty

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.

[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.

[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.

[belinda]

Indeed.
She was found quickly but in the cooler, although not cold, night rigor would have set in quite quickly.

I think getting her to the Mortuary was probably a prioity ,physical evidence was all they had to go on.

And what Supe said

[Monty]

Hey Rob,

Now the unavailabity of Photographer did cross my mind however if Halse was pushing for one in Goulston Street so its obvious to me that the DC felt one, if not their own, was obtainable.

Equipment could have been an issue. Id be interested to know how many pgotographers lived close by and how available the equipment was, especially in short notice at 2/3 am.

I think you're right, Foster was on scene and its highly possible they felt that his prescence was adaquate. This freed up the body for Brown which enabled him to conduct his investigations swiftly.

And Don, your point may have played a part. They just didnt realsie how useful it could be.

Rob,

Wasnt Kellys crime scene the first to be photographed with the body in situ?

Cheers all

Monty

[Monty]

Hey Rob,

Now the unavailabity of Photographer did cross my mind however if Halse was pushing for one in Goulston Street so its obvious to me that the DC felt one, if not their own, was obtainable.

Equipment could have been an issue. Id be interested to know how many pgotographers lived close by and how available the equipment was, especially in short notice at 2/3 am.

I think you're right, Foster was on scene and its highly possible they felt that his prescence was adaquate. This freed up the body for Brown which enabled him to conduct his investigations swiftly.

And Don, your point may have played a part. They just didnt realsie how useful it could be.

Rob,

Wasnt Kellys crime scene the first to be photographed with the body in situ?

Cheers all

Monty

[Monty]

Hey Rob,

Now the unavailabity of Photographer did cross my mind however if Halse was pushing for one in Goulston Street so its obvious to me that the DC felt one, if not their own, was obtainable.

Equipment could have been an issue. Id be interested to know how many pgotographers lived close by and how available the equipment was, especially in short notice at 2/3 am.

I think you're right, Foster was on scene and its highly possible they felt that his prescence was adaquate. This freed up the body for Brown which enabled him to conduct his investigations swiftly.

And Don, your point may have played a part. They just didnt realsie how useful it could be.

Rob,

Wasnt Kellys crime scene the first to be photographed with the body in situ?

Cheers all

Monty