Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blood and Guts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blood and Guts

    Like the Hawaiian father said to his oldest child, 'One man's meat is another man's poi, son'.

    We've all seen the images of Jack's victims, both in situ and in the morgues.There has even been an attempt to colorize the famous image of Mary Kelly. Most in here would freely admit that, yes, they wish that better and colour photographs of the victims, especially Mary Kelly, had been taken and were available.

    Right now, one of the most popular threads here is http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=14913 and it accesses images like

    http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4022/4...642097552a.jpg

    Gruesome? Undoubtedly.
    Fascinating? To the Ripperologist, yes.
    In bad taste? Aye, there's the rub.

    At what point does an image like this become objectionable? If the artist undertakes a similarly realistic reconstruction of Eddowes' abdomen, in colour, would that be beyond the pale?
    24
    YES - reading about it is ok, but we don't want to see it.
    4.17%
    1
    YES - if the images are in colour. B&W is acceptable.
    0.00%
    0
    YES - if I want to be grossed out, I'll visit rotten.com.
    8.33%
    2
    NO - so long as it is germane to the case, anything goes.
    87.50%
    21

  • #2
    I voted for the final choice. You don't have to like something to learn from it. That said, I might make some exceptions if a case still had living persons who knew the victim.

    Comment


    • #3
      Voted for the last. I have the odd idea that I don't have to read what I don't want to read.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the last option is a bit too vague. I would have preferred "no as long as it is germane to the thread."

        Comment


        • #5
          I just voted anything goes but would have prefered the word CONTEXT to have been included. Its an images context that is important.

          Yours Jeff

          Comment


          • #6
            Like so many things in the case - and in life - context is all and there is no simple answer. Personally I would think that in many cases a description of the injuries would suffice to make the point but if one is making an argument based on the nature of the injuries, or the degree of medical knowledge of a suspect or a similar issue, then I would think that referring readers to a depiction of the victim photographs would be justified.
            I think also that one must keep in mind the original function of the photographs in that they were taken by and for the police and obviously were never intended for public consumption or display. I am not arguing that this should mean they cannot be depicted but that any depiction of them should be in the context of points that require reference to them.
            Anyone who has had even slight involvement with the case will have probably seen all these images but I still believe that there are circumstances in which their display is unnecessary and, even on occasion, sensationalist and exploitative.
            I would not go as far as A P Wolf and categorise them as pornography but would just ask that people bear in mind that they depict real people in appalling and explicit degradation.

            Comment


            • #7
              Well stated, Chris.
              My opinion on the matter is that when we do upload graphic representations of the victims ( wound patterns) they should be placed on a thread in the Members Only section, so that when those who are members of the Forums care to engage in a discussion regarding Eddowes' terrible disfigurement or whatever, it should be conducted there. For those who might traipse onto the site who are not members, the wrong impression might be obtained that we're a collective of indifferent folks that are not affected by the individual tragedies. I'm pretty sure that no one on the boards "enjoys" looking at the victims in that way and those who do look at them do it for purposes of research. A decade or so into being a Ripperologist has shown me that.

              Obviously, the establishment of a Forum on the boards specifically for that purpose of research outside general viewing, hasn't been set up where photographs, depictions, or discussion can be shared and commented upon by members. Maybe we ought to do that.

              I'll be perfectly honest and admit that not only do the depicitions or photos bother me ( they sadden me ), but I am remedial when it comes to discussing specifics about the wounds. Of course, I know that the Chapman and Eddowes' murders are very close in terms of what was done to their bodies and how they were displayed in their respective crime scenes....but I don't know, offhand, how many gashes or gouges either woman received.

              Yet, it is a major part of studying the case and a necessary step in one being as well rounded a Ripperologist as necessary or desired.

              The depictions or photos that we do have now were within the context of the discussion(s)-at-hand and no one has complained before...which I expected.

              However, threads which contained images of cancerous organs or internal parts which are not germane to the Case are rather disturbing, in my view, and people should ask first management before uploading them in the future.
              To Join JTR Forums, Contact :
              Howard@jtrforums.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Tim I voted Yes because what you did is bad taste. Yes, the dummy is in bad taste.You took the photograph of the dummy and put it up on the screen. Whereas Chris G had merely put a link.

                Drawings accompanying explanations, such as Sam's article on Eddowes, and there are others, are helpful to understanding the case. Looking at the available old victim photos, which we're lucky to have, the Foster sketch, etc is helpful.

                Making lifelike dummies like this is not helpful. It doesn't add anything. I don't learn anything from looking at the photo of the dummy. Nada.

                Someone here tell me one thing they learned from looking at the photo of the dummy.

                Roy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
                  Tim I voted Yes because what you did is bad taste. Yes, the dummy is in bad taste.You took the photograph of the dummy and put it up on the screen. Whereas Chris G had merely put a link.

                  Drawings accompanying explanations, such as Sam's article on Eddowes, and there are others, are helpful to understanding the case. Looking at the available old victim photos, which we're lucky to have, the Foster sketch, etc is helpful.

                  Making lifelike dummies like this is not helpful. It doesn't add anything. I don't learn anything from looking at the photo of the dummy. Nada.

                  Someone here tell me one thing they learned from looking at the photo of the dummy.

                  Roy
                  There were no crosses on the cheeks as has been claimed?

                  Yours Jeff

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
                    Tim I voted Yes because what you did is bad taste. Yes, the dummy is in bad taste.You took the photograph of the dummy and put it up on the screen. Whereas Chris G had merely put a link.

                    Drawings accompanying explanations, such as Sam's article on Eddowes, and there are others, are helpful to understanding the case. Looking at the available old victim photos, which we're lucky to have, the Foster sketch, etc is helpful.

                    Making lifelike dummies like this is not helpful. It doesn't add anything. I don't learn anything from looking at the photo of the dummy. Nada.

                    Someone here tell me one thing they learned from looking at the photo of the dummy.

                    Roy
                    Right, the link is appropriate. A note of warning is appropriate. I will also make mention here that I personally disagreed with Tim in the past day posting graphic photographs of surgery without any warning. I sent a private message to Tim and Howard about it. So I am put out to see that Tim has now started this thread and posted the in-your-face image which is bound to prove disturbing to some.

                    Best regards

                    Chris
                    Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                    https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                    Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                    Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A link is fine rather than the image

                      I object to something like "McCarthy's rents", an "art" installation that was basically a gruesome reconstruction of the Millers Court scene

                      I think anatomical models of the injuries are different, and informative. Not to everybody's taste obviously but they are not meant for entertainment

                      The view of the model from the right side is particularly instructive I think

                      That opinion is specific to the JtR case though. I can't think off hand of another murder case in which this would be so

                      There are significant clues to the man in the injuries he inflicted and this potential has been under consideration since 1888 so it's nothing new

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I am personally not squeamish and would find it most interesting to see models showing the actual wounds because after studying the JTR case for over thirty years it is still hard to imagine these even though there are detailed descriptions and poor photos.
                        For me this is genuinely not voyeuristic or gratuitous, although it may be for some people I grant you, it is simply to realise how absolutely horrific these murders were and maybe gain some insight into the murderer or even a clue could be found in there somewhere.
                        I would agree that only people that wished to see them should have to follow a link rather than just publishing them for everyone to see.
                        I am not easily shocked, having seen many scenes of crime photos with my true murder interest.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well, this topic has recently become active again over in the forum on the Kingsbury Run Murders.

                          We don't deliberately do 'murder porn' in here, although I seem to do a good job at offending people anyway by posting the occasional stark image. Nothing in the rotten.com tradition, of course, but a picture is worth 1000 words and a site dedicated to the Whitechapel Murders and Murderer should by default be expected to contain disturbing images.

                          We do wish to not offend anyone, but is that even possible? In this latest, images from a police museum were pronounced to be offensive and in need of removal and a warning for the prospective peruser. Howard has since vetoed this action and I have to agree with him here.

                          Just as Marie Severin was "the conscience of E.C." (the gory EC horror comics of the 1950's), we kind of look upon Chris George as "the conscience of JTRForums.com". Maybe I'm just by now inured to this kind of stuff, but I try to be discriminating, and if CTG objects to something (and he has done so on several occasions), I generally censor the offending image.

                          The poll results here seem to indicate that Slowpoke and CTG are in the minority, but, nonetheless, we will continue to strive to run a circumspect site, or as circumspect as can be expected when the site's emphasis is on a mutilating Victorian serial killer.

                          So, having said that, what IS the limit that the membership should be expected to tolerate or endure? How graphic is too graphic? The image that formerly graced the first post of this thread, that of a simulated dead Catherine Eddowes, was replaced by a link after CTG, Nemo, Roy, and others complained about it, so that one was evidently beyond the pale.

                          What is the limit of acceptability? Your opinions, please.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You ain't offended me yet Tim...mind you, I tend to offend rather than suffer offense, so perhaps I'm (as Ally describes me) an outlier...mind you, she hasn't offended me yet either, so perhaps I am...

                            All the best

                            Dave

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              A big red warning sign on the first post would be applicable.
                              Saying that....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X