Mortuary photographs and sketches

[Scott Nelson]

It was just a temporary shell used to transport bodies from where they were found to the morgue. I don't think Eddowes' body was actually buried in the box shown in the photo.

[Amanda]

Agree..

It isn't. Anyone who thinks there is an image of a man in the coffin seriously needs a reality check.

To much effort for some people to go and have a look at original prints. If they did, they would clearly see it is just the inside of a filthy coffin.

I'm with you Rob,

Phil, you should have gone to Specsavers..

Amanda

[Rob Clack]

Spoil sport I was almost convinced it was a portrait of Druitt wrapped in his shawl painted by Sickert and Van Gogh

Now you say it is nothing.

I am sure Phil will restore your faith

[GUT]

It isn't. Anyone who thinks there is an image of a man in the coffin seriously needs a reality check.

To much effort for some people to go and have a look at original prints. If they did, they would clearly see it is just the inside of a filthy coffin.

Spoil sport I was almost convinced it was a portrait of Druitt wrapped in his shawl painted by Sickert and Van Gogh

Now you say it is nothing.

[Rob Clack]

All,

Just incase it is of any interest... part of the present discussion can be found here..

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4101&page=5

post No. 50 may be helpful, or not as the case may be.



Phil

It isn't. Anyone who thinks there is an image of a man in the coffin seriously needs a reality check.

To much effort for some people to go and have a look at original prints. If they did, they would clearly see it is just the inside of a filthy coffin.

[Phil Carter]

All,

Just incase it is of any interest... part of the present discussion can be found here..

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4101&page=5

post No. 50 may be helpful, or not as the case may be.



Phil

[Caligo Umbrator]

http://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2010/0...ortuary-photo/

Hi Harry,
Thank you for sharing the link.

The article suggests that the photograph historically accepted to be of CE is, instead, of MJK.

It begins with an often used quote regarding the surgical reconstruction of MJK's body. That was done, we are told, so that the body may be photographed inside of a coffin. The author embellishes that information by adding that " six or seven doctors spent more than an hour endeavoring to reconstruct the woman’s body and face "
The author uses this imagery of skilled medical personnel, feverishly working to retrieve some dignity for the poor woman, in an attempt to draw the reader toward the idea that the photograph provided within the article may, as the author wishes, represent MJK.

Let us, for a moment, accept this claim.

It should, firstly, be clear from the image, that if the extensive reconstruction work described above was undertaken, then the persons charged with this task were unaccountably negligent, as they appear to have been inattentive to any attempt to remedy the obvious and large wound(s) seen upon the throat.

The author states -
" the corpse is wearing a chemise which the victim Mary Jane Kelly was found to have been wearing when she was discovered - No injuries can be found on the body of this corpse as it is clothed in a thin, light-colored chemise "
I would suggest that whatever remained intact of the chemise, if indeed that is what we see on the crime scene photographs of MJK in her room, was likely to be intact on the arms alone, as the rest had been destroyed or terribly torn during the mutilation. It would also have been extensively soaked in blood. For this to be the same chemise worn during the attack, it would have required substantial cleaning and restoration work.

Despite careful examination of several copies of this image I see no indication of the chemise that is described by the author.

The author, despite the claim that the chemise hid all injuries then goes on to tell us
" If you look carefully through the chemise you can make out the corpse’s rib cage in the bottom right of the photograph (looks like a darkened area) and you can also see the gaping chest wound where Mary Jane Kelly’s breast bone was split open in order for the murderer to remove her heart "
So, having already informed us that no injuries are visible because of the chemise, the author now reverses that position and invalidates that claim, by inviting us to discover a wound under the chemise.

I still do not see any evidence of a chemise being worn by the unfortunate person in this image.

The author further states,
" The lines on the face are sutures where the reconstructed skin was grafted back onto the cut off areas of the cheeks, chin, and nose. "

As the primary image we have of MJK suggests that very little remained of the face, it would be interesting to know from whereabouts on this poor girls body, this 'reconstructed skin' was supposed to have been taken. Unfortunately the good author fails to inform us.

It should be noted that the damage evident to the right ear in this photograph is very similar to that described in reports of the facial wounds CE suffered and is also consistent with other known images of CE.

The author highlights an area inside a purple box and describes it as "Purple rectangle – lower rib cage ".
It is, however, in the incorrect anatomical position for any part of the rib-cage. The highlighted area is clearly part of the lower central abdomen and examination of known mortuary photographs of Eddowes, in particular the full length 'standing' photograph, demonstrate very similar bulges in the same bodily area.

The author then boldly states that the body is " complete with a chemise and a photograph of Prince Albert Victor so that future generations would know who was responsible for Mary Jane’s death "

There is no photograph of PAV in the image. If a portrait of PAV was inside the coffin, then where are the edges of the portrait in the image?
The part of the image highlighted in the blue rectangle presents what might be called simulacra, were the various striations on the wood, the shadows and the dirt laid over the object all conspire to represent something we see as a human form. Because it has been suggested to the reader that such an image exists, we strive and will often succeed in seeing it.
In the same way one can observe an elephant in a cloud formation or the image of a God in weathered paint in a barn door. As humans we strive to see what is hidden and can believe there is writing when there is none and faces when none exist.
There is no portrait of PAV that is even similar to the image in the photograph.

Yours, Caligo.

[Scott Nelson]

Of course, the killer made a mistake. Mary Ann Kelly (alias) was not the Mary Kelly. But he got it right some weeks later. But it was too late, the portrait was already placed in Eddowes' coffin and buried with her.

Proof of this fact can be verified if Eddowes body is ever exhumed for the DNA/shawl business. The portrait of PAV will be right there leaning up against the inside wall.

[Scott Nelson]

http://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2010/0...ortuary-photo/

Yes, I do see the picture of Prince Albert Victor on the inside of the coffin. Umm, I wonder who put it there?

[Defective Detective]

http://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2010/0...ortuary-photo/

The face does not look sufficiently obliterated to be Kelly, imo. Other than apparent damage to the nose - and I confess I've never been able to tell exactly what I'm looking at in this picture - it looks mostly intact.

Kelly's face, however, seems to have been completely annihilated, reduced to a puddle of red meat and blood.

[Monty]

Steady now Scott,

This dose of fact just isn't en vogue.

Monty

[Scott Nelson]

The woman in the coffin is Eddowes.

[ceejay75]

http://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2010/0...ortuary-photo/

Hi Harry D , cheers for the link , exactly the photograph and points to which I refer too.

I've studied the two Catherine Eddowes photographs and this one accepted to be of her but I don't believe they are the same woman.

I cleaner pic shows different hair to that of the Eddowes photos. Also the angle taken of the photograph, deliberate? Is that why we don't see a clearer pic of her face because despite the best efforts of doctors to reconstruct her face it was so badly mutilated to be photographed?

[Harry D]

http://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/the-missing-kelly-mortuary-photo/

[ceejay75]

How confident are we that we have all the photographs which exist of the victims? The emergence of a third Kelly photograph would seem to suggest there may have been others which were taken and then lost to time.

Excellent query Defective. I would believe there are several photographs that were taken and are indeed lost to time or in the case of this third Kelly photograph, destined to remain in private hands and only the priviledged few will get to see.

As for the fabled Mary Kelly mortuary photograph , is it possible it has always been in the public domain and accepted to be that of Catherine Eddowes? I'm sure you know which photograph I refer to and I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be the case