Only during the past 60 years or so – since the end of World War II – has the subject of death become something to be avoided and denied. Our ancestors were less repulsed by the inevitable and to the Victorians death held great fascination – influenced perhaps by Queen Victoria’s own extended mourning following the death of her husband Prince Albert from typhoid in 1861. It could be argued that the Victorians were a little too fascinated by death and the invention of photography enabled them to record their dead relatives for posterity in a manner than today we would perhaps find uncomfortable at best, or obscene at worst.
     Photographing the dead for other than forensic purposes would be frowned upon today, especially in Western Cultures, but not only did the Victorians photograph the dead but they did so in posed and contrived circumstances that suggested the deceased to be still alive. This done for adults and for children.
     Was the philosophy of the Victorians better or worse than our present day reluctance to acknowledge death as a part of life? Our reticence when faced with the subject is largely attributable to the fact that we no longer come into contact with death, dying and the dead in the same way that our ancestors did or in the same way that people do in other countries or cultures. Without an understanding and appreciation of death it is doubtful that life can be treated with proper respect. Death has replaced sex as the taboo subject in Western society.

Since the middle of the nineteenth century photography has been used to assist the police in the detection of crimes. Paramount in this is the imaging of crime scenes – an valuable tool to preserve the ephemeral state of victim and surroundings. Such images may subsequently, if not at the time, assist detection by recording details that might otherwise have been missed. Although the camera can be made to deceive, the strict manner in which forensic images are taken minimises distortion of the facts. 
     The camera, so often associated with imaging beauty, is uncompromising in the manner in which it records the reality of death, especially violent death. The brutality, repulsion and finality of death cannot be disguised and knowledge that the scene is real takes the viewer beyond the image. It is impossible not to empathise with the victim’s final moments and to embrace the deep sadness conveyed by a buttoned cardigan or tied shoelace – rarely do we ever know that we are doing something for the last time. Actions, so unimportant at the moment, would have assumed special importance in a life with perhaps only hours left. 

While we are generally detached from the reality of death and even from images of real death we are daily bombarded with make-believe death, and fantasy images of death and the portrayal of violent death. There is a peculiar irony in this; we avoid confronting the reality of death but gladly embrace the substituted fantasy. Thus, when confronted by reality, we are ill-equipped. The preoccupation of Western societies with fantasy death especially through fictional literature and television drama tends also to create a state of indifference. In fact, there exist two quite distinct polarisations that induce indifference. At one end of the spectrum is the sanitised version of events that keeps the subject matter at arm’s length and at the other end is over-exposure to real violence which eventually numbs the senses. Sanitised images and the fantasy portrayal of death do humanity a great disservice. They do not bring us into close proximity with the true horror of violent crime.

This girl was the victim of a brutal murder. She was found dead in a barn with severe head injuries. We cannot for one moment appreciate the terror suffered by the victim and in reality we have no desire to do so because of the psychological consequences that might follow. It is even too uncomfortable to consider the consequential pain experienced by her friends and relatives; we can sympathise but rarely do we empathise. How could anyone inflict such injuries on a young and vulnerable victim? It seems that in pursuit of base gratification her achievements in life and her dreams for the future were worthless. At what point did her killer decide that her life had no value? What kind of person has such a complete disregard for human life?

The image of the murdered girl is disturbing for several obvious reasons. It is uncomfortable to look at the image of her without experiencing feelings of guilt  - this is a voyeuristic experience and it seems as though we are viewing what we should not see - and that we are able to do so because of her misfortune. Are we invading her privacy? This image was taken as a record of an event - perhaps as a source of information or as part of a scientific exercise. If such an image is used to inform - to depict what we otherwise would not see or understand - then there should be no guilt, but such an image can also be regarded as lurid or even salacious and there must inevitably be degrees of both. It is important to remember that it is not the image that violates the victim but the crime that brought them to the post mortem table. There is no glamour in murder, only wrecked lives.
     Essentially the plight of the young girl was no different from that of Jack the Ripper victim Catharine Eddowes, with the possible exception that Eddowes' ordeal was not prolonged. However, the feelings consequential to viewing the post mortem room images of her corpse, taken in 1888, seem to be different but for no good reason.
     Why does it seem less acceptable to look at images of the young female victim above than to look at those of Catharine Eddowes? Is it because Eddowes was much older, because she was killed in a different era, or because she was a alcoholic prostitute? Would our appreciation of the corpse of the young woman be different if we knew that her lifestyle was perhaps on the edge of what society judges to be acceptable? There should of course be absolutely no difference in our appreciation of any murder victim merely because if their age, appearance, lifestyle, or circumstances. In these examples both women met with a terrible death and their suffering during the attack was beyond comprehension.

These photographs of the unfortunate Catharine Eddowes were taken firstly as she lay in a coffin and before the autopsy was undertaken – the wounds to her neck mutilation to her facial features and extensive cuts to her abdomen are clearly visible. The second image was taken after the autopsy and after extensive reconstruction and stitch-work to her corpse. The extended stitch-work vertically across her chest and up to her neck followed the autopsy examination – her killer did not mutilate her thorax. The photographs after autopsy were taken with Eddowes’ corpse vertically arranged with her hair tied to a fixing on the wall behind her head so that she appeared to be standing. A rather ignominious end to a sad life.