If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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.
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.
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!!
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:
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?
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.
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 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!
Leave a comment: