Kelly, mortuary sketches

[Dr. John Watson]

For what it's worth, the acknowledged expert in Ripper victim photographs, Robert J. McLaughlin, believes that more photos were taken at Millers Court than have been discovered, and that additional photographs were taken at the mortuary. In addition, he states that the two photos of Kelly in situ were taken with different cameras and possibly by different photographers.

[Mr.Hyde]

Not into starting posts.Especially being a newbie.
One on age would be interesting.Might be there anyway-this site is amazing!
Way off post.................

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

For what it's worth, the acknowledged expert in Ripper victim photographs, Robert J. McLaughlin, believes that more photos were taken at Millers Court than have been discovered, and that additional photographs were taken at the mortuary. In addition, he states that the two photos of Kelly in situ were taken with different cameras and possibly by different photographers.

If they are still in the public domain-one place to find them.
Refer previous post.

[perrymason]

I THINK the first time fingerprints were used in a criminal case in the UK was that of the Stratton brothers who killed a Deptford shopkeeper in 1905 (but that's just from memory).

PHILIP

Thanks for posting that Philip, and nice to see you by the way. I felt 1903 was right but 1905 is just fine... Did I guess right about the Crime Lab dates for Scotland Yard do you know? I hate having to look up stuff again when its not thread relevant...

Dave, in terms of forensics and criminal investigations in England, this was the dark ages despite your suggestion it shouldnt have been. Hell...they had only just begun to recognize germs and bacteria as a source for infection....which was still not widely accepted based on the filthy blood soaked smocks many surgeons still wore without washing. No fiber, hair or blood analysis aside from Microscopic study, and no fingerprints being used as evidence for more than a decade.

Now you know why fingerprints were not taken at all from anyone during these cases....they had no trial value yet.

Best regards chaps.

[Mr.Hyde]

Yet a seeming illiterate could write a letter-Dear Boss-describing how things were going.

[perrymason]

Yet a seeming illiterate could write a letter-Dear Boss-describing how things were going.

Ya lost me. Dear Boss is anything but illiterate...its semi-literate at worst, very good penmenship, and widely thought to be a fake created by a journalist.

But what has that to do with the advent and application of Crime Scene Forensics?

I know you like obscure references and short accusatory sound bites...but I dont get this one.

Best regards Mr H.

[Mr.Hyde]

Do you really think the Poms were the first people in history to recognise that fingerprints varied greatly?
They were not.
Recognised SEVERAL(sorry, I needed to do that)thousand years before.
Gonna sound like Sam before this is out.I'll quit before that,I assure you.
5,4,3,2,1........

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

Ya lost me. Dear Boss is anything but illiterate...its semi-literate at worst, very good penmenship, and widely thought to be a fake created by a journalist.

But what has that to do with the advent and application of Crime Scene Forensics?

I know you like obscure references and short accusatory sound bites...but I dont get this one.

Best regards Mr H.

Good morning Mate,
What do you specifically want to know?
Happy to be of assistance you after some sleep.Possibly earlier.11.30 am here.
Using Dave is confusing,popular-not common name.Several of us here.MH is fine.

[perrymason]

Do you really think the Poms were the first people in history to recognise that fingerprints varied greatly?
They were not.
Recognised SEVERAL(sorry, I needed to do that)thousand years before.
Gonna sound like Sam before this is out.I'll quit before that,I assure you.
5,4,3,2,1........

You either arent listening...or you believe what you believe anyway Dave. Whether anyone recognized fingerprints were unique thousands of year before these cases or not, who cares, although Im sure you do at this point...but they were NOT, to a certainty of 100%, usable in English court until the early 1900's.

Therefore, they had NO VALUE in a criminal investigation in England in 1888. Thats a clear as I can make it.

Sorry for the tone, but Im sure if you had to tell someone the same thing 4 or 5 times too, in order for them to have information that it appears they do not have...youd get riled a bit too.

Cheers.

[Mr.Hyde]

Way past my bedtime.No excuse but.
"Seeming" illiterate.
I always post short replies or full quotes.
I do not edit for my own ignorance or ends.No offence meant-really.
Good penmanship-maybe for the times.He is a southpaw!

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

You either arent listening...or you believe what you believe anyway Dave. Whether anyone recognized fingerprints were unique thousands of year before these cases or not, who cares, although Im sure you do at this point...but they were NOT, to a certainty of 100%, usable in English court until the early 1900's.

Therefore, they had NO VALUE in a criminal investigation in England in 1888. Thats a clear as I can make it.

Sorry for the tone, but Im sure if you had to tell someone the same thing 4 or 5 times too, in order for them to have information that it appears they do not have...youd get riled a bit too.

Cheers.

Know exactly how you feel!Do you ever read and digest the post,or just react.An Expert,an Eminence.You seem the right side of borderline.Hope most of us are.
All the Best Mate!

[Khanada]

I felt 1903 was right but 1905 is just fine... Did I guess right about the Crime Lab dates for Scotland Yard do you know?

Per my notes from Evans & Rumbelow, Scotland Yard did not have a Fingerprint Bureau until 1901, and got a Crime Lab in the 1930's.

Per MEPO's history webpages, "Metropolitan Police Forensic Laboratory opened." in 1935.

And for 1901 MEPO's history pages list, "The Fingerprint Bureau commences operation after the findings of the Belper Report. Anthropometric measurements under the Bertillon system are still used, but begin to decline in importance."

MEPO's Fingerprint Bureau page states...

The study of the application of fingerprints for useful purposes appears to have started in the latter part of the 17th century when, in 1684, the anatomist Doctor Nehemiah Grew published a paper on the subject which he illustrated with drawings of various fingerprint patterns. About the same period, in Italy, Professor Malpighi was investigating the function of the skin.

It was in 1860 that the use of fingerprints as a reliable means of individual identification really started. Sir William Herschel, an administrator in the province of Bengal, India, appreciated the unique nature of fingerprints and established the principle of their persistence. Fingerprints are formed in full detail before birth and remain unchanged throughout life unless they are affected by a deep seated injury. A method of classifying fingerprints and research in this field was initiated by Sir Francis Galton and Henry Faulds independently at the end of the 19th century.

http://www.met.police.uk/history/fingerprints.htm

[Mr.Hyde]

No probs with that.
Think you've missed the point.Overall.
Kindly do not ask me to repeat myself.Reread.
No offence meant,really,
Dave.

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

You either arent listening...or you believe what you believe anyway Dave. Whether anyone recognized fingerprints were unique thousands of year before these cases or not, who cares, although Im sure you do at this point...but they were NOT, to a certainty of 100%, usable in English court until the early 1900's.

Therefore, they had NO VALUE in a criminal investigation in England in 1888. Thats a clear as I can make it.

Sorry for the tone, but Im sure if you had to tell someone the same thing 4 or 5 times too, in order for them to have information that it appears they do not have...youd get riled a bit too.

Cheers.

Never disputed that.Apologize if I have not made things transparent enough.
Suggest rereading and telling me exactly where I have gone wrong.May prevent me from making another post!

[Khanada]

No probs with that.
Think you've missed the point.Overall.
Kindly do not ask me to repeat myself.Reread.
No offence meant,really,
Dave.

If this is in response to my post above, I don't see how I could possibly have missed any point you tried to make, beyond fingerprinting being around for thousands of years, which is only possible if you believe obscure Bible references, which I do not. Then again, I don't actually believe you have a point. Even if you do, it's not very interesting to me.

In any case, it wasn't for you. Dates were asked for by another party, and dates I located. End of list, chuck, but have a lovely evening.