Kelly, mortuary sketches

[cappuccina]

In fact, we don't know...

What we do know for certain, however, is that LE thought this case unusual enough to call in someone experienced to take forensic photos and to spend quite a bit of time and effort doing it. So, logic says....why wouldn't that extend to trying to closely look over the body at the morgue even if it were "a mess" ...who knows what evidence, for example, might have fallen onto, or into the body....

We also know that a lengthy examination of the fireplace and its contents was also deemed important in this case...

I cannot see them taking all this time and then saying...OK...as for the body itself...let's just throw it out...see what I'm saying?

[Supe]

Malcom,

yes 2 of 6 is what almost everyone sais,

And just who is "everyone?" Do you have any idea how much time it would take six separate photgraphs under those conditions? Do you really suppose the police and doctors, with no appreciation whatsoever for SOC photography, would be willing to waste that much time? As it is, a photograph was taken of the entire body, in situ, and one of the disembowelled lower abdomen. What other photographs could they be expected to have wanted that day?

But again, who is everybody and where have they said it?

Don.

[perrymason]

Don does make a valid point there....those 2 shots we do have do essentially show the "evidence", which is Marys remains, and the night table and whats on it. We also have Bonds notes to describe in detail the wounds and cuts.

There is nothing about Marys body or the remains on the table that is specifically related to the determination of her murderer...its the cumulative data thats relevant, not how the room looked with her scattered about it.

Best regards all.

[Malcolm X]

Malcom,

yes 2 of 6 is what almost everyone sais,

And just who is "everyone?" Do you have any idea how much time it would take six separate photgraphs under those conditions? Do you really suppose the police and doctors, with no appreciation whatsoever for SOC photography, would be willing to waste that much time? As it is, a photograph was taken of the entire body, in situ, and one of the disembowelled lower abdomen. What other photographs could they be expected to have wanted that day?

But again, who is everybody and where have they said it?

Don.

i've read it mentioned on this forum over the years, that there are missing photos.

it wont tell us who the ripper is, but it might help to see MARY'S face from a different angle, so we can capture her true likeness better.

this thread isn't about who killed Mary, it's about are there any more photos of her....dont forget my opening thread, because that's what i saw on the web and it's definitely worth posting in.

[perrymason]

In fact, we don't know...

What we do know for certain, however, is that LE thought this case unusual enough to call in someone experienced to take forensic photos and to spend quite a bit of time and effort doing it. So, logic says....why wouldn't that extend to trying to closely look over the body at the morgue even if it were "a mess" ...who knows what evidence, for example, might have fallen onto, or into the body....

We also know that a lengthy examination of the fireplace and its contents was also deemed important in this case...

I cannot see them taking all this time and then saying...OK...as for the body itself...let's just throw it out...see what I'm saying?

Hi Caps,

Im not sure the unusual nature of the crime dictated calling for photos, this is the only Ripper crime scene that they could completely shut down...and did. Glenn here suggested to me once that this may have been the first ever lock down of a murder scene for forensics.

The body is self explanatory...the ashes were sieved at first probably for two reasons,...to see if traces of other garments were in there or anything else he may have burned, then Saturday morning by Abberline to look for evidence that sieving might have missed....which to me rules out they were looking for the heart that was discovered missing. Traces of an organ would have been found on Friday if present.

The only things that might be important on or in Marys remains were likely things that could be seen by the initial visual observations, and if found, perhaps sketched or photographed independently. We have no indication that situation arose.

Plus.....were assuming here that all that should have been divulged about that crime scene by Police has been...we have no idea what notes or peripheral data that might have been pinched, bombed or lost. Or withheld from the outset.

And in the photos alone, I see evidence of things that are not mentioned in any records we have. Like how MJK3 was taken for example.

Best regards as always Capps.

[Mr.Hyde]

There is an assumption that this case predates "forensics".Not so.
Reckon "profiling" doesn't predate TV?
In addition, the use of fingerprints has a history of several thousand years,yes several thousand years.Not likely to have been used here,admittedly.
Reckon Abberline did a damn fine job.Obviously so did his subsequent employers.
I am biased,obviously,because I agree with his much later "reported" synopsis.

[perrymason]

There is an assumption that this case predates "forensics".Not so.
Reckon "profiling" doesn't predate TV?
In addition, the use of fingerprints has a history of several thousand years,yes several thousand years.Not likely to have been used here,admittedly.
Reckon Abberline did a damn fine job.Obviously so did his subsequent employers.
I am biased,obviously,because I agree with his much later "reported" synopsis.

Hi Mr Hyde,

Profiling of serial killers began when serial killers were caught and interviewed by Criminologists and Psychologists, to my knowledge this "science" began in mid-2Oth century. Fingerprints, although proposed for use in Criminal Investigations and trials for some 8-10 years before the Ripper Crimes, were not adopted for use as such in England until 1903....Scotland Yard didnt have a Crime Lab until the 1930's.

As for this being unique in history as a murder scene completely locked down for thorough investigation...even prohibiting police to enter the scene until the entire Investigative team was present...this may well be the first of its kind. Glenn has studied hundreds if not thousands of unsolved murders throughout history, and if he suggests it was possible this was a first..I have to buy that.

I think Abberline was a good man....and like many of his peers and superiors, was caught making errors...like supporting Hutch in Abberlines case.

He may not have caught the Ripper...but I wouldnt say that means his Fall was wasted...he was also a legend in Fenian matters locally, and somehow the police foiled a plot against Lord Balfour around that time....so maybe just one of his mandates was a failure.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

I wouldnt say that means his Fall was wasted...he was also a legend...

... a "Legend of the Fall", one might say

[perrymason]

... a "Legend of the Fall", one might say

If anyone might, it would probably be my Welsh friend.

You needed the drums at the end of the punch line, badumbump.

All the best Sam...

[Mr.Hyde]

Hi perrymason,
Absolutely no offence meant.(Spellcheckers don't seem to like me either!)
Suggest checking your facts.Suspect you have made a few errors there.
All the Best,
Dave.

[perrymason]

Hi perrymason,
Absolutely no offence meant.(Spellcheckers don't seem to like me either!)
Suggest checking your facts.Suspect you have made a few errors there.
All the Best,
Dave.

Hi Dave,

You may be right on some points, I guessed at the year the crime lab was formed at Scotland Yard, I dont recall specifically whether it was the 20's or early 30's...I do know that Fingerprints were not admissible evidence in murder trials until the early 20th century in England...I think 1903 is the right year, I have no idea when specifically Serial Killing profiling began, I would imagine it was when serial killers had been caught and "processed", and its my understanding that Criminal Investigative tool wasnt really established until the 20th century.

But Im open to corrections if warranted.

If your going to tell me that the Druids did it first though....I will need proof.

Cheers Dave, all the best.

[Mr.Hyde]

Some of the researchers on this site may have formed the opinion that this was the era that Britain was dragging itself out of the mire of the Dark Ages.
Amazing era.Nightingale,Farraday,et al.Possibly JTR?

[Mr.Hyde]

Honestly,fingerprinting goes back several thousand years.

[George Hutchinson]

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

[Mr.Hyde]

GRRRR!Only kidding.Check your history.
Might have been the first time you Poms.......................