Mortuary Photographs

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • j.r-ahde
    replied
    Hello Uncle Jack!

    Your view of MJK's face is as good as any!

    Though; she could have had a face like that before her East End days!

    But we all trying to catch her outlook tend to do this...

    All the best
    Jukka

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle Jack
    replied
    Sorry it is so rubbish but I had a go using PAINT of a face fit of what MJK may have looked like, sort of like a reconstruction. It focuses more on the face injuries and wounds. I am hopeless on things photoshop so I can only created lame things on PAINT so this is my bad effort. Lol. I got the template of an image search.



    The Original
    Last edited by Uncle Jack; 09-08-2008, 11:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • George Hutchinson
    replied
    Hi, Mike. I need to clarify here for people who don't realise that you don't mean Lacassagne was the photographer. You mean that Lacassagne obtained a copy.

    One thing I'm going to ask - I can check but this will save doing it - MJK3. It appears we have an image looking down. Maybe not that easy with plate photography. We also have the issue of getting the tripod behind the bed, along with Martin.

    I've always assumed that MJK3 was also a glass plate, but is it possible this was taken with a second camera, maybe on the newly invented Kodak film? Not a theory - it's a question.

    PHILIP

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Covell
    replied
    I am quite suprised that Robert J McLaughlin has not been on this thread.

    In his excellent book "The First Jack the Ripper Victim photographs" he shows that one of the MJK photo's was taken by French photographer Alexandre Lacassagne. It's possible the pictures may well exsist in France!!

    Leave a comment:


  • j.r-ahde
    replied
    Hello you all!

    Couldn't help still continuing this;

    Do you find it possible, that in the stitched-up photos there could be something like the modern car-crash face?!

    All the best
    Jukka

    Leave a comment:


  • j.r-ahde
    replied
    Hello Robert!

    Yes, like I asked earlier, what could we see beside the scars?!

    But one never knows, if there are some personal features...

    One thing needing more specialized people than we are, is, for example;

    Could a face be swollen or something, while needing such a stitch-up?!

    All the best
    Jukka

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert View Post
    Hi Jukka and Rob

    I doubt if we'd get an idea of what she looked like, even after the doctors had done their work.

    It's very sad.
    Hi Robert,

    True, we wont get an accurate idea of how she looked but we might get a rough idea on the shape of the face, jaw and ears.

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Originally posted by Pirate Jack View Post
    Hello Rob...just flicking through your book P132..but cant find any further info/ref on Joseph Martin. Was he employed by City Met or subcontracted?

    Just wondering if he had his own studio or whether anyone had checked with the family for negatives?

    just a thought

    Jeff

    Hi Jeff,

    Joseph Martin was a professional photographer with a studio at 11 Cannon Street Road (which no longer stands). He was employed by the Met or City Police but hired out his services to the Met Police, specifically 'H' Division, but he may have been used by some of the other Eastern Divisions ('J', 'K' and 'G'). I doubt if the City Police used him but I can't say for certain.
    His family is a bit hard to trace because 'Martin' is quite common.
    You can find more information about Joseph Martin here:



    And also Robert McLaughlin's book 'The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs' should be on every serious collectors bookshelf.

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    Hi Jukka and Rob

    I doubt if we'd get an idea of what she looked like, even after the doctors had done their work.

    It's very sad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
    Well we don't know for certain the City Police took the photographs of Kelly. They were most likely taken by Joseph Martin who took the photos of the other Met Police victims. It would be interest if ghoulish to see a photo of Mary Kelly after her post mortem as we might get a reasonable idea of what she looked like. Also there were at least two photos of Tabram (same image on each) and two photos of the wide Mary kelly photo, so there may be multiple photographs of the other victims out there.

    Rob
    Hello Rob...just flicking through your book P132..but cant find any further info/ref on Joseph Martin. Was he employed by City Met or subcontracted?

    Just wondering if he had his own studio or whether anyone had checked with the family for negatives?

    just a thought

    Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • j.r-ahde
    replied
    Hello Rob!

    Yes, seeing a glimpse of her real face at last would be both thrilling and eerie!

    But do you think, that it could also help to catch the real person behind the name/pseudonyme?! Meaning, also finding out about her real origins...

    All the best
    Jukka

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Well we don't know for certain the City Police took the photographs of Kelly. They were most likely taken by Joseph Martin who took the photos of the other Met Police victims. It would be interest if ghoulish to see a photo of Mary Kelly after her post mortem as we might get a reasonable idea of what she looked like. Also there were at least two photos of Tabram (same image on each) and two photos of the wide Mary kelly photo, so there may be multiple photographs of the other victims out there.

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    As has often been pointed out, the fact that we have in situ crime pictures of Kelly, owes to the fact that the City police took photos for documentary rather than identification purposes.
    From the material we have, I think that it is a fair guess that the picture of Kelly, taken from behind her bed, shows us that there once was other pictures out there. The full pic of Kelly on her bed was taken through a window, allowing for the photographer to get the whole body on one photo-plate, whereas that obviously could not be done operating from behind her bed. So what we are left with is the mid-section of Kelly. Surely the photographer must have taken at least two more pictures, one of the top part of the body, the other of the lower part, to get a complete documentation of the body from behind the bed.

    The best,

    Fisherman

    Leave a comment:


  • j.r-ahde
    replied
    Hello Rob!

    Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
    The photos we have of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, McKenzie and Coles were taken for identification purposes, so there may be others showing there injuries. There was a photograph taken of Rose Mylett so there may be one of her still out there. Also probably of the Pinchin Street Torso. With Mary Kelly there may have been photographs taken after her post-mortem like there was for Catherine Eddowes.

    Rob
    In that sense it would be great indeed to see the after-post-mortem photos, that which one of us was closest, if any!

    All the best
    Jukka

    Leave a comment:


  • j.r-ahde
    replied
    Hellow Prate Jck!

    QUOTE=Pirate Jack;28813]Are you pooking fun at6 us akkuj?[/QUOTE]


    Hwat, pocking on dyslexics?! Beiing oen myshelf...

    All the best
    Jukka

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X