Window Removal

[Jane Coram]

Hi Chris,

That makes a lot of sense.......it's amazing how many different ideas people can come up with, which all seem very viable. I quite like that one. It just shows how old newspaper reports can be interpreted in so many ways. It's an art form all in itself!

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

PS, those Scotsman transcripts have been brilliant, hope you've got more tucked up your sleeve, (although that would be very uncomfortable. Lol)

[Wickerman]

I can see why the police might have wanted to remove the window. Surely if you're going to photograph a crime scene, you'll do it preferably before anyone - doctors, police, or even photographers - have disturbed it, ...

Robert.
I read that Dr Phillips said he had photo's taken. This left me with the impression that the photographing of the yard, room and body was more of a medical initiative. The police were certainly in charge of the crime scene so they absolutely would have been present while the photographer took his pictures. All at the behest of Dr Phillips.

Regardless, if you do a Press Report Search on "photographer" you will bring up a series of reports which set a chronological sequence in order.

The door was broken open, several doctors entered to examine the body & condition of the room.
Dr Phillips sent for a photographer. Photographs were taken of the body and room in general before an insitu autopsy was undertaken by Phillips, Bond, Gabe, and "two or three other surgeons".
The autopsy began around 2:00 pm and lasted aprox. 2 hrs, after the autopsy the photographer removed his equipment from the room (approx. 4:30 pm)

Regards, Jon

P.S.
The photographer who had been called to photograph the room and the body removed his camera from the premises at half-past four, and shortly afterwards a detective office carried from the house a pail, with which he left in a four-wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and was stated to contain portions of the woman's body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital-square. The windows of the room where the crime was committed were then boarded up and a padlock put on the door.
The Echo, Nov. 10th, 1888.

[Robert]

I can see why the police might have wanted to remove the window. Surely if you're going to photograph a crime scene, you'll do it preferably before anyone - doctors, police, or even photographers - have disturbed it, and the way to do that would have been to do it through the window. This would have given police their only undisturbed crime scene photo. So even if the window wasn't removed, perhaps it should have been.

[Chris Scott]

The answer to this may be quite simple
The newspaper article I posted earlier, and to which the original post on this thread refers, merely says that Arnold ordered the window to be removed
I know of no press report that says that this was actually done
Arnold arrived at the scene at approximately 1.30 p.m. and Phillips said: "I remained until about 1.30 when the door was broken open I think by Mr. McCarthy - I think by direction of Superintendent Arnold who had arrived."
I would suggest that the sequence of events may have been that on Arnold's arrival he was apprised of the fact that the door was locked. He may have ordered the window removed as a means of entry but this was not actually done, and the forcing of the door was undertaken as a more effective means of access to the room
Chris

[Jane Coram]

interpretation of 'evidence'

Hi Wickerman,

I don't think that anyone on this thread is pursuing any kind of argument, people have just been making different suggestions and thoughts on the topic, and most seem to be agreeing that it's very open to debate and just an interesting aside to the case that might give us a bit of an insight into police procedure at the time.

Every discussion on this board is based on meagre evidence, and if we only discussed things that had solid evidence to back it up, then we would be talking about knitting or model cars most of the time.

The fact is though, that the newspaper reports don't really contradict the official documents, they just give extra information, even if it is a bit confused in sequence and garbled sometimes. The report in the Pall Mall Gazette 10th November simply says:

Dr Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, and Superintendent Arnold were also sent for. On the arrival of the latter he caused a telegram to be sent direct to Sit Charles Warren, informing him what had happened, and Inspector Abberline, who had already arrived, despatched a message to Sir Charles Warren to bring the bloodhounds. Mr Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be removed.

There is a great chunk of information missing here, and that could simply have been because the text had to be edited to fit in the available column inches. Even looking at what it does say with regards to the window, it could have been talking about a single window pane . . . Witnesses were called to indentify the body through the window, and it would have been a lot easier for them to view it without the broken glass there. The same could be said for the removal of the lower half of the window frame, which would have made it even easier.

The suggestion that they wouldn't have taken the window out because they wanted to preserve the scent, is a good suggestion, but unless her killer exited through the window, then the trail the bloodhounds followed would be via the door. Crowds were held back to avoid trampling over the scent through the court. There would not really be any reason not to remove a part of a window.

The East London Advertiser of 17 November 1888 goes a step further:

The police were sent for, and Superintendent Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed.

Again, this could be interpreted in quite a few ways. Was it a whole window frame, a window panel? a window pane? It could be taken to mean that because the glass was broken in the pane, he ordered the rest of the bits to be taken out so that people didn't cut themselves on broken glass and could see through more easily.......the wording doesn't preclude that.

The Times 10th November says the same thing, and of all the newspapers the Times was certainly one of the most consistently reliable. We have to at least take the suggestion that some part of a window was removed seriously, even if we later dismiss it. Apart from which, we need to find something to talk about!

Bestest

Jane

xxxx

[George Hutchinson]

Hi, Jon. Yeah, I like a challenge. Not too bothered about non-starters, though.

PHILIP

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon S

You ask why the illustration would show the photographer in the room if that hadn't happened.

I answer have a look at the illustration and tell me how many errors you can see. We should never trust the illustrations to give any more than a passing indication - and it could also be that the illustrator was working from an erroneous report. He certainly would not have been on site sketching away as it was done....

Philip.
I've posted on that same matter elsewhere, these woodcut graphics were only intended to be representational, not to be taken as photographic evidence.
The question we must ask is, "what is this print representing here?"

Quite obviously the same artists could easily have drawn a box camera positioned through a window, the incidental details do not need to be totally accurate just to get the point across.
The scene was drawn the way it was because thats what the story was. The camera and photographer were in the room together.

What intrigues me is this, why bother to pursue an argument when the meagre evidence that does exist does not support your argument. Not only that but what evidence we do have actually contradicts your argument.

- The only print that does exist argues against your suggestion.
- Testimony by the officials at the scene is consistent with their intent to preserve the scene intact, preserve the scent for the dogs, do not open up the room.
- The Times story that started this 'window removal' matter is badly confused from a chronological point of view.

I know, you like a challenge, right?

Hi all,

There were I believe at least 3 types of camera's and focal methods available at the time of the pictures, all with glass plates. There were even the first handheld models in London at that time, but I dont think thats applicable here.

You could either frame and focus using the rear viewfinder, from above, like was used in early portrait style photos, or there was also a remote shutter, a squeeze bulb activated one, so you could place your camera on a desk for example, and photograph yourself.

That bulb style, and a 10 x 10 room approximately, might have been a good marriage.

Best regards all.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

The article in question was in Ripperologist 80 - June 2007

and was called: 'Photographing Miller’s Court'

I remember it particularly as it was the first article I did the artwork for, and I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[Jon Guy]

Hello B.

Just in case you are interested "Ripperologist" featured an interesting article on the photography angle.flashes etc etc

Sorry, cannot remember which Rip it was in.

Maybe someone else can help on that score, or mail the gang Rip.

[Bailey]

I would expect that the reference to the photographer having difficulty would relate to several things - finding room to set up a tripod in the small, cramped room, getting a good position, allowing for having a fixed lens which means you can only be so close, but most importantly the lack of light.

Even with modern equipment, to take a full length photo of a body on a bed in such a small and dim room, you'd need a reasonably wide angle lens, a tripod and a longish exposure - it wouldn't be as quick and simple as just "click," although if they had some sort of flash technology - no idea on that. RJM? - then maybe it'd be simpler, but the photos as I've seen them don't look like they're lit by flash, with the possible exception of MJK3, which has some bright highlights.

B.

B.

[Jon Guy]

The doctors can't do anything through an open window, they all gained entry to begin their examination, as is demonstrated thus:

I posted that the removal would aid visibility, as it would have done

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Jon S

You ask why the illustration would show the photographer in the room if that hadn't happened.

I answer have a look at the illustration and tell me how many errors you can see. We should never trust the illustrations to give any more than a passing indication - and it could also be that the illustrator was working from an erroneous report. He certainly would not have been on site sketching away as it was done.

I've read nothing here that would change my opinion that the window was not removed. Although all the reasons could be valid, it seems a remarkably major thing to have done for almost no necessity.

PHILIP

[Jane Coram]

Hi Gang,

I was just trawling through the papers and stumbled on this which seems quite relevant in this discussion.

From the Scotsman 10th November:

Previous to the post mortem examination, a photographer who was brought on the scene, after considerable difficulty and delay, was set to work in the court and house with a view to obtaining permanent evidence as to the state of the room and the condition of the body. The state of the atmosphere was, unfortunately, not favourable to good results. A slight drizzling rain was falling, and the air was dusky. Even in the open thoroughfares, and in the little court it was at times almost dark, especially inside the houses. The photographer, however, did his best, and succeeded in securing several negatives, which he hopes will be useful.

This suggests a few things to me. Firstly that it was very dark in the room, and removing part of the window might have given them a bit of extra light,
secondly it seems to be that the poor photographer did have a devil of a job getting set up, and the difficulty and delay mentioned might have been something to do with getting the equipment into the room or positioning it, hence the need to remove the window.

There was one other sentence in the report that might have a bearing on the window: (Speaking about the police officers here)

They did not care to remain longer than was necessary to note accurately the position of the body, the general appearance of the apartment, and the character of the principal mutilations.

Removing the window would have given them more ventilation in the room as well and it certainly sounded as if they needed it!

Right back to work. Lol.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Mike Covell]

Is it possible that the broken pieces of glass from the smashed window were removed to check for any signs of material, blood, or flesh?

If a hand was put through the broken glass, it is possible that some clue might have been left behind.