Eddowes' Picture in Lacassagne

[jmenges]

RJM
20th February 2007, 10:04 AM
I offer this picture of Catherine Eddowes to the Casebook and its readers. It is scanned from Vacher l'Eventreur et les crimes sadiques by Alexandre Lacassagne, published in 1899. The picture is on page 261 in a chapter about the Whitechapel murderer, and originally measures 8cm x 14.9cm.



The picture has been published at least four times since Lacassagne; most recently by me in The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs. Most people have not seen it.

Feel free to comment on it and compare it to the known mortuary photographs of Kate.

All the very best,

Robert J. McLaughlin

6165
Rosey O'Ryan
20th February 2007, 10:31 AM
Dear Mr MacLaughlin,
What is there to say? The persons concerned in this mortuary photo are possibly worse portrayers of humanity that the infidel known as Jack the Ripper. I take it that this body is pinned up on the wall by its hair like a specimen.
Rosey .
garyw
20th February 2007, 11:06 AM
I believe the reason Kate is "pegged" to wall is due to the fact that the type of camera used in the picture could not be positioned downward to properly record a full body photograph.


All The Best
Gary
jason_connachan
20th February 2007, 11:11 AM
Dear Mr MacLaughlin,
What is there to say? The persons concerned in this mortuary photo are possibly worse portrayers of humanity that the infidel known as Jack the Ripper. I take it that this body is pinned up on the wall by its hair like a specimen.
Rosey .

I assume you think the same of any person who "defiles" a body during a post mortem?
Glenn L Andersson
20th February 2007, 11:11 AM
That is correct, Gary.

The attempt being made while she was lying in the coffin before the authopsy showed that there were quite a lot of technical difficulties with this, since the quality is bad to say the least.

What is interesting with this picture is the large amount of brushstrokes and retousch that has been made in order to make it fit for reproduction in a book.

All the best
garyw
20th February 2007, 11:31 AM
Hi Glenn

Thanks for confirming that.

I thought I had this picture in one of my books, but I come to find that if I do I can't readily find it.

All The Best
Gary
Glenn L Andersson
20th February 2007, 11:34 AM
Hi Gary,

Naturally it is reproduced in Robert McLaughlin's book, which I am proud to own a copy of.
However, I have no idea if it appears in any other modern book on the subject, though. Can't say that I've seen it.
Robert mentions three other books it appeared in after Lacassagne, though.
All I know is that the retousch on the photo probably was made for for the the reproduction in Lacassagnes book.

All the best
George Hutchinson
20th February 2007, 02:52 PM
Hi all. I've discussed this image with Rob and it was discussed in depth on the old forum. This will probably start another storm in a teacup, but it is HIGHLY LIKELY this is not a different image.

Everything different to the full-length shot from the 4 well-known Eddowes Golden Lane images looks highly touched-up. The cropping of the image from the knees down makes it look like a different angle to the 3/4 length shot, but I implore anyone with any doubt to check this image against the full-length one. It's the same photo with a lot of art doodling on top of it, somewhat like the fuss made about whatever it is at the bottom on MJK3 (left-hand side) which we concluded was probably some artist trying to make something clearer and screwing it up.

The value of the Lacassgane shot is really simply in our removed interest in what the artist assumed he was seeing. Another example of this is two views I have of my workplace, Guildford Castle. An engaving from 1840 shows a ladder entering into the 1st Floor (that's 2nd Floor for you Americans) ante-chapel. In a reproduction made at the end of the 1800s, that indistinct ladder has become - of all things - a pickaxe lying on the ante-chapel floor. Dare I mention the words 'swan' and 'baphomet' here as well? It's the same area...

From my knowledge of the upright images of Catherine, I understood these were taken when rigor mortis had set in (notice in the full-length shot the fact that one foot is slightly bent in on itself) and this made it easy to peg the body up (under the arms, I assume) in the courtyard.

It might have been Glenn or Rob C who clarified the reason for me and it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. To get a full-length facing shot of a body lying down, you would need to have the camera in those days directly above. The logistics of this would be difficult and could contaminate the body with falling powder from the flash. Also it's highly likely the photography used necessitated a tripod for a long exposure, so the camera could not be held in the hands and manipulated.

Of course, this doesn't explain to me why they simply didn't angle the body on a board like they used to do with mortuary shots of gunfighters shot in the Wild West. Likewise, I've never actually seen these supposed 'pegs' in the Eddowes images.

However, the possibility of nailing her hair into a wall to hold the body up like some shrunken head from the Pacific is clearly a non-starter.

PHILIP
jdpegg
20th February 2007, 03:14 PM
Hey Philip,

fisrt off - was it you I was talking about this at Brighton with briefly (i think it was).

Secondly - there are pics of the other victims (in coffins ?)- i take it (the coffins) were proped up or whatever to achieve this then? would make sense - possibly (I was trying to cover myself from looking like a dumb ass for those who are interested!)

you dont think that peg in the hair is really there? (god if only i could be bothered to get up and walk two feet i'd have a look in my copy of Robs book!!)

now you say it and i say it out loud - as it were - it does sound a stupid idea - i must admit.

your not suggesting therre are no pegs at all are you??

Jenni
chrisg
20th February 2007, 03:24 PM
Hello Jenni, Rob, Philip & Glenn et al.

In various emails, Rob McLaughlin and I have discussed at length the Lacassagne illustration and its comparison to the photograph of Eddowes shown in the same position, pegged to the wall. It is my belief that the Lacassagne illustration is a complete artistic representation of the photograph and not a touched up version of the photograph. The reason being that brickwork behind the corpse is painted in (why?), the stitching from the victim's public area to her thorax does not seem to match what is in the photograph, and the legs of the victim disappear into nothing--if this was the photograph retouched the legs would continue and not fade away as they do in this illustration. I therefore think there is a good case to be made that Lacassagne probably commissioned a medical artist do a representation of the photograph for reproduction in his book.

Best regards

Chris George
jdpegg
20th February 2007, 03:26 PM
Hi Chris,

yes, but , you don't know what the artist started with, do you?

Jenni

[jmenges]

Mr Poster
20th February 2007, 03:28 PM
Have to agree with ChrisG.

Its awfully like a painting. And why is the hair all sticking out like that? I though they washed the bodies?

p
spryder
20th February 2007, 03:34 PM
The "artistic reproduction" or touch-up was probably necessitated by the fact that the original of this photograph was in a fairly horrible state. The other image of Kate "standing up" (where her arm and head is at a slight angle) is quite a bit clearer.

There's an an "official" MEPO reproduction of that Kate photo in a box of papers I purchased some years ago, and I've put it side by side with Lacassagne's version below (untouched) at approximately the same size. Seems that if they were working off this version, it made sense to redraw it a bit just to clear up the image.



6166

Most books publish the other standing up photo of Kate because its just a whole lot clearer. I believe Farson published both, as did RJM in his fine book on the victim photographs.
jdpegg
20th February 2007, 03:37 PM
thanks Spry,

interesting - kinda what i was getting at -

Jenni
chrisg
20th February 2007, 03:48 PM
Hi Chris,

yes, but , you don't know what the artist started with, do you?

Jenni

Hello Jenni

I think it's clear that the artist either had a copy of the photograph or else was in the mortuary and did the illustration right there and then. My bet though is that it was the former case and that the reason you don't see the entire body in his artist's representation because the photograph didn't include the victim's feet. He thus didn't have the data to paint the feet.

Another reason to think that the illustrations are different is that in the artist's representation Eddowes' face is at a slightly different angle.

Chris
Glenn L Andersson
20th February 2007, 03:52 PM
Hi Chris,

Not in a million years has the illustrator been at the mortuary and done it from still life.
It is simply way too similar - I would say identical -- to the photo as far as the ground layout is concerned.

I am speaking here from my experience as a former photo-realistic painter, and it is definitely beyond doubt that the illustration is based on the photo, and copied from it.
There is no question about it.

All the best
aspallek
20th February 2007, 04:15 PM
Is Mr. McLaughlin's book still available?
Leather_Apron
20th February 2007, 04:29 PM
I agree with Glenn..It looks to me like an artist has completely redrawn the photo in pencil.
Thanks for the photo/drawing anyway..Too bad we dont know anything about the artist. Could he have had more photos to work from?
jcoram
20th February 2007, 04:47 PM
Hi,

There is no question that the image is a direct copy from the photograph. I even suspect he might have traced over it, because the angles between the limbs is so precise, that it would be quite hard to be that exact freehand, even for a good artist. If they had drawn it from life at the mortuary, it's very unlikely they would have been able to be that exact.....it's just not that easy.

Best guess he was working over the photograph, or had a copy that was soooooo dreadful (that is a very faint image, rather than a dark one) that he had to totally work over the top to bring out any detail at all. The reason I think that might be a possibility is that the hair in this image has been 'created'. If he was working from a good copy of the photo, even a dark one such as Stephen put up, then he would have left out the strange Topsy hair style he has given her. If he was working over a dreadful, pale print, then he would think that he was seeing hair there, when in fact there was none. It seems very unlikely that Kate's hair was actually like that in real life, especially as none of the photographs show it like that.

I think that is what Glenn said, only I waffle a lot!

Hugs

Janie

xxxx
jdpegg
20th February 2007, 04:55 PM
waffle with cheese?

i see what - whoever it was who said it - means about the head.

I cant believe how scary the world has become all these peple agreeing!
Glenn L Andersson
20th February 2007, 04:58 PM
Yes, janie,

That was what I meant.
And 'traced over'... that was the expression I was looking for. Couldn't for my life grasp what it was called in English. So thanks for that.

"If he was working from a good copy of the photo, even a dark one such as Stephen put up, then he would have left out the strange Topsy hair style he has given her. If he was working over a dreadful, pale print, then he would think that he was seeing hair there, when in fact there was none."

Yes, good point.

"It seems very unlikely that Kate's hair was actually like that in real life, especially as none of the photographs show it like that."

And especially since electricity was not yet a common reality. Because she looks kinda like she'd put her fingers into the electric socket.

All the best
dannorder
20th February 2007, 06:32 PM
It's clearly heavily painted over the top of the photo, as the details fill in areas that do not show up well in the original, as Stephen shows.

This was actually a fairly common practice. A number of the photos we have seen related to this topic involve some assistance by artists. The famous George Chapman/Severin Klosowski image with oddly posed limbs is one example, but occasionally figures in others pop out in ways that can only be artificial. Few, though, are as thoroughly retouched as this image of Eddowes.

For those upset about the peg in the hair holding the body up, I would say, first, that it's more respectful to take steps that might have contribute to catching the killer (taking photos is one, of course) so they had to do whatever worked and, second, that it was just an artistic fancy by the person retouching it to try to explain how she could be standing against a wall and not real anyway.
Glenn L Andersson
20th February 2007, 06:44 PM
That the brushstrokes was heavily painted over the photo itself was my initial position as well, and I am still not prepared to rule it out. As Dan says, this was a very common practice in those days and often absolutely necessary if a photo would be suitable for printing on paper.
What has made me doubt it, is that the dirt and grains on the original photo as we know it, is totally absent on the picture, which seems completely clean. And so is the black foundation on the wall.
But it is of course possible, that they had methods to erase all that out.

All the best
tom_wescott
20th February 2007, 07:27 PM
For those upset about the peg in the hair holding the body up, I would say, first, that it's more respectful to take steps that might have contribute to catching the killer (taking photos is one, of course) so they had to do whatever worked and, second, that it was just an artistic fancy by the person retouching it to try to explain how she could be standing against a wall and not real anyway.

No, I don't believe there was any artistic license here. Pegging up the hair was necessary to keep the head up and hair out of the face. But look on the bright side, Dan, at least no one is claiming a bolster is holding her head up!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
dannorder
20th February 2007, 08:14 PM
Hi Tom,

It wasn't necessary for the other, unretouched photos of Eddowes' body leaning against the wall, so why would it be necessary in this one? And if it were necessary to grow her hair out in dreadlocks and then pin it back for this photo, where did they find the giant cartoon nail to hold it back with?

And, no, she's obviously sitting on a bolster... because that stuff down there only looks like flesh to those who don't know what folds in fabric look like...
Rosey O'Ryan
21st February 2007, 09:18 AM
Hi all,
The cartoon nail supplied courtesy of Walter. Is there any truth to these images of the Ripper victims...are we as a community being manipulated by 'invisible' forces beyond our control? Is the truth REALLY out there?
Rosey.

[jmenges]

caz
27th February 2007, 01:32 PM
Hi All,

I've only just caught up with this thread and was rather expecting to see someone say what I was thinking but they haven't. So now I expect to be told I'm barking right up the wrong tree - or wall in this case. Or just barking.

Could the 'giant cartoon nail' not have been there on the photographic image the artist was working from, not because it was holding back Kate's poor head for the mortuary scene, but as a result of the photo itself being pinned to a wall by it?

Could our trusty artist not have been faithfully copying that image - either because it was pinned up by the nail as he worked, and it was there in front of him (which seems a tad unlikely), or perhaps because he was working from a poor photo of a pinned up photo, giving him the same impression that the nail was actually in Kate?

Is there any reason why this could not have been the case, and might it not explain the nail's apparently giant proportions and somewhat incongruous appearance? It even looks like he took the hair up to accommodate the position of the nail at top centre of the photo.

Have I hit the nail on the head - but not in the way he did?

Love,

Caz
X
Ralph Rackstraw
27th February 2007, 02:52 PM
Hello,

My opinion is that this is a retouched photograph.

It seems retouching was common practice in those days and is evident in many of the books I have from around this period.

I looks to me like Eddowes was "Standing" courtesy of rigor-mortis.

The nailing of Eddowes' hair to the wall,may have been a necessary measure to prevent her toppling over to the right.

Why do I say this?
Well, this appears to have already happned,looking at the arc of the blood smear on the wall.
The reason for such instability can be explained if one examines the full length version of this photograph.
It can be observed that rather than both feet being flat on the ground,the sole of Eddowes' left foot is inclined inwards towards her right foot.


Mick
Glenn L Andersson
27th February 2007, 03:14 PM
Eddowes was 'nail' to the wall since the cameras couldn't photograph with suitable quality from above. Therefore nailing the body to the wall with a pin through the hair would be necessary in orer to make it stand up on ots own.

The pin on the retousched photograph is of course exaggerated and painted much bigger, probably for it to been visible in the reproduction.
On the 'original' copies -- that is, not the Lacassagne copy -- of the Eddowes photo shots (the close-up as well as the full figures), it is evident that something is holding her up in her top hair.

So the 'nail' is not a invention by those who retousched the Lacassagne copy. They have just made it more visible and painted it in a bold, exaggerated one, in order for it come through when reproduced.

I suspect, however, that inserting a nail through the hair wouldn't be enough in order to keep a body standing up on its own; some further arrangements -- though invisible -- might have been necessary. I am not sure even a fully developed state of rigor mortis would help, but I could be wrong.

All the best

[jmenges]

George Hutchinson
28th February 2007, 11:25 AM
Hi all.

If anything, I would concur with Caz's idea. It sounds wacky but it does make sense.

Seriously, people, look at the 3/4 length photo of Kate and see how lank and flat her hair was. Are you seriously suggesting you can go and knock a hole into a mortuary wall with a nail and prop someone's body up by strands of hair?! It's madness! Not only would that have caused damage to the building and been difficult to do but think about it - a few hundred strands of hair on a corpse, where the strands will be losing their adherance, holding up a whole body? And just how do you expect the hair to connect with the nail? If you're suggesting the hair would be behind the tip of the nail and driven into the wall then we are referring to a few dozen strands of hair at most, with quite a big nail. It's just a non-starter.

I think the nail is an invention, as is the wild afro hair. The artist has seen a poor quality copy of the full-length image and touched it up.

I do not believe it is an entire independant piece of art - as Janey says, artwork of such a poor standard would not have given us the total accuracy of her arms and hands.

PHILIP
jdpegg
28th February 2007, 11:37 AM
Hi,

if you look at the other pictures of Eddowes, particularly the shorter version (i dont know how else to describe it - im sure theres a tech term i am forgetting) and the side on shot of the head - the does seem to be a - not sure what the right word here is - bump - peak in the hair - and on the shorter length version - that does kinda look a bit peggy - which obviously it isnt a peg its hair. (using the word peg way to much here for my liking). Also on the 'original' of the image there does seem to be a scratch in the place where the peg is on the drawing.

Jenni
RJM
28th February 2007, 12:40 PM
Hi Caz,

Thanks for the original post. It certainly is a plausible idea. I'm glad to see some thought and interpretation put into what can be seen. I'm still working on finding the French copies of Eddowes and Kelly and have a terrific lead at the moment.

Something is holding Kate up, but what? Was there a hook or peg (sometimes called a Jenni ) already embedded in the wall at Golden Lane and used expressly for mortuary snaps?
I can understand an artist touching up or drawing a picture for publication. This was a common practice and not a modern invention. I have always found it curious though, why the imperfections were left in. I don’t know how well it shows up on the picture I posted but there is a horizontal line and a
vertical one (as if the photograph had been folded at one time), and a small black line above her left breast. The only reason I can think why these were left in the “drawing” is that it may have been folded and damaged prior to the printer setting it. It seems odd that the artist/illustrator would leave those lines in. Any other explanations welcomed?

I would like to take a moment to thank you all for adding some opinions to this thread, and to the ones on Mary Kelly. Thanks to Stephen also for the side-by-side comparison.

Cheers,

Robert

p.s. Gary, the photo of Kate I posted appears in no other Ripper book.
p.p.s. Unfortunately, Andy, my book is out of print. Copies show up on Ebay occasionally. I still have #13/100 for sale to anyone with deep pockets.
tji
28th February 2007, 12:51 PM
hi

i have seen on a seperate website by an author who had if not the exact photo a similar one and who stated that there was pegs under her arms to keep her upright (which would be easier in rigior i suppose) and as tom wescott pointed out the pin could be to keep her hair out of her face as well as a clear shot of her face as it would keep her head back

sound plausible?

tj
tji
28th February 2007, 12:55 PM
my apologies to George Hutchinson

I have just re-read the posts and seen that you have indeed already put this info forward.

Sorry

TJ
George Hutchinson
28th February 2007, 01:22 PM
No problems, TJ. This happens to me every day. I might as well not be here.

I have an extra copy of Rob's book - one of the numbered ones, and signed (but dedicated to me, I'm afraid) but it is a one-off printers' error book and has one of the plates missing. I remember collaring Rob at Brighton and telling him he'd missed a photo out and we had an odd moment until we realised what had happened. I wasn't really considering selling it at this stage, but I could always be tempted. It's obviously in mint condition.

Something rather unpleasant we may have to contemplate which Rob has brought up - is there a possibility of some kind of hook being thrust throught the body after the autopsy to keep the body upright? This is far more likely than sticking a nail through her hair!

PHILIP
Glenn L Andersson
28th February 2007, 01:25 PM
Hi all.

If anything, I would concur with Caz's idea. It sounds wacky but it does make sense.

Seriously, people, look at the 3/4 length photo of Kate and see how lank and flat her hair was. Are you seriously suggesting you can go and knock a hole into a mortuary wall with a nail and prop someone's body up by strands of hair?! It's madness! Not only would that have caused damage to the building and been difficult to do but think about it - a few hundred strands of hair on a corpse, where the strands will be losing their adherance, holding up a whole body? And just how do you expect the hair to connect with the nail? If you're suggesting the hair would be behind the tip of the nail and driven into the wall then we are referring to a few dozen strands of hair at most, with quite a big nail. It's just a non-starter.

I think the nail is an invention, as is the wild afro hair. The artist has seen a poor quality copy of the full-length image and touched it up.

Philip,

I definitely agree on that it feels unlikely that it would work to just pin a body up on the wall by the ahir -- which is why I also said that other measeures might have needed to be done in order to make it stand up.
Here I think 'Tji's' mention of some arrengeent under the arms might be plausible.
Or a hook through the body, as you suggested -- it is apparent people hade more ice in their stomachs in those days than we have today, when such methods would seem crude and sinister.

No, I am afraid I don't go along with Caz's idea of it being an invetion of the artist. Why should it be?
If you look at the photo shots, both the full figure and the close up in 3/4, you'll see that her hair is standing up like it's attached to something.
What do you mean 'flat'? Are we looking at the same pictures?

Furthermore, why on earth would an artist invent a nail for such a purpose if it there was no such arrangement in the first place?
What would be the point and why get such an idea?

I agree on that just pinning someone by the hair seems like a wacky idea for the purpose of holding up a standing body, but it is possible -- as has been suggested -- that it could have been done in order to keep it away from the face -- that is actually not a bad idea.

All the best
George Hutchinson
28th February 2007, 01:54 PM
I think 'Tji's' mention of some arrengeent under the arms might be plausible.

As I say, I might as well not be here - whose mention, Glenn?

No, I am afraid I don't go along with Caz's idea of it being an invetion of the artist. Why should it be?

That's not what Caz is saying. She's suggesting the 'rare' photo could have been an image taken from another image pinned up to a wall when taken. If there was really some kind of pin that big it would be obvious in the clear, untouched shots.

If you look at the photo shots, both the full figure and the close up in 3/4, you'll see that her hair is standing up like it's attached to something.
What do you mean 'flat'? Are we looking at the same pictures?

You're absolutely right, Glenn. I was basing my comments on my mental image from photocopies I use on the tours. The raised area above her head on all four shots isn't clear on those. Having just consulted my McLaughlin it's clear I was talking crap.

Furthermore, why on earth would an artist invent a nail for such a purpose if it there was no such arrangement in the first place?
What would be the point and why get such an idea?

Because her hair is pulled back and up in the middle?

it could have been done in order to keep it away from the face

I agree, but it would have been so much more easy to have brushed her hair back!!!

I have always thought the pegs under her arms was the most likely explanation, but there's no trace of this in the images. Especially in the head and shoulders shot which finishes just above her breasts - the hair is clearly pulled up but you can't see anything under her arms.

The possibility of a hook through the upper body and her hair possibly wrapped round a higher hook as a makeshift attempt to keep the head upright is looking more plausible to me.

My God, the things we talk about on a Wednesday afternoon...

PHILIP

[jmenges]

Glenn L Andersson
28th February 2007, 02:05 PM
Well, Hutch... I did say previously that if there was an original pin, then it definitely wasn't that big.
That incredibly huge fat pin as we see it on the Lacassagne picture was most certainly a creation of the artist, but maybe not the pin as such, only the size of it!
As I said, what we see on the Lacassagne pic was probably done to make it clearer on any reproduction. Although God knows why they found that particular thing important to emphazise...

I can't honestly see why the artist should emphazise a pin of some sort, if there wasn't something there to begin with. It would be quite a strange thing to do if there wasn't some common knowledge about the use of a pin for some purpose in this context.
In my view, the fact that the hair is pulled back wouldn't be enough to make him come up with such an idea -- unless he had a very weird imagination. No, I'd say there definitely is something there to begin with -- the question is what and why.
And although I acknowledge that there indeed would be simpler ways of keeping away the hair from the face (good point), I still think that is the most sensible solution. IMO.

As for nails (or maybe hooks?) under the armpits, I can't rule out the possibility that they might be there even though we can't see them. Some small hooks would probably suffice. It' an interesting thought -- although not that pleasant, because of its slaughterhouse alludations...

All the best
dannorder
28th February 2007, 08:27 PM
I had always heard that the body was kept upright by some sort of hook actually into the back. Trying to hold it up by the hair is just a non-starter, as that'd be a lot of weight.

It is possible, however, as suggested above, that a small nail was used close to the head in order to try to keep the head itself upright. That might be what we see in the close up of her face (although that could also be how the hair got pushed against the wall and/or how Kate naturally pinned her hair back or something).

But I think it's safe to say that the bizarro cartoon nail and dreadlocks is just wrong... In the original version of that photo the hair looks nothing like that and doesn't go up that far. The person retouching the photo (or reconstructing it, basically,w ith this many changes) may have heard a small nail was used and invented the size and position himself, along with the way he thought the hair would have to be to work like that... or he could have simply invented it up to try to explain why she was standing up straight when dead. It's no secret that people don't have accurate knowledge in order to think something up to try to explain something to themselves. Saying that the artist wouldn't have drawn it if it hadn't been there originally is like saying that none of the newspapers would have reported any detail they did unless it all had really happened, and that's just not how things worked.
Glenn L Andersson
28th February 2007, 10:59 PM
Well, my point was that the artist probably had heard of that some kind of props were used and thus painted in the pin on the picture -- not that he necessarily saw a visible nail on the original.
I don't believe, on the other hand, he just got the idea out of the blue.

Fact remains, on the original photographs there is something holding up the top hair of the corpse, although it is quite impossible to see what it is.
It is not even certain it had something to do with holding up the body -- I agree it would be rather fruitless because of the weight and I have always found this curious myself -- but something is holding the hair up, for one reason or another.

As for the 'dreadlock hair' I don't think anyone here in their right minds would ever consider that to be anything but artistic license, possibly in order to create a bit more dramatisation and effect. I think we all realise that is not what the hair looked like, which is also quite evident from the original photos.

All the best

[kingsxm]

Isnt the main reason for a peg/nail holding the hair up that the throat was so severely cut that it was necessary to keep the head upright? Rigor Mortis being a condition that affects muscle, if the muscle is severed, there would be no support and the neck would not be rigid- the only thing keeping the head attached being the vertebrae? This is what i had always supposed