Post-mortem Sketch of Catherine Eddowes

[Redsmith]

Hello.

This sketch of Catherine Eddowes (CE) doesn't look like CE - it looks like MJK.

1. The sketched woman has no ear, just a socket where it would be; but CE has at least some of the lower portion of her ear - it's visible in this photo.
   
2. The sketched woman is noseless; again, CE has some of hers.
3. The sketched woman has a cut running from the flaring of her right nostril, under the right cheekbone towards her (missing) ear, exactly like MJK; CE's cut runs from the top of her nose, obliquely towards the angle of her jaw.
   
4. This is just my impression but the face in the sketch looks heavier than CE's and more like MJK's: CE has a heart-shaped face whereas MJK has a squarer jawline.

I wonder if this sketch was mislabelled at source.

One thing (two things) against this argument would be the breasts, which are noticeable in the sketch - obviously MJK didn't have any by that stage. (Artistic force of habit?)

[John Bennett]

Well, Dominic, I think there are two things wrong with this idea.

1) The sketch shows a face that is still recognisable as a woman. Kelly's was 'hacked beyond all recognition'.

2) More importantly, the sketch appeared in The Pictorial News, 6th October 1888, when Mary Kelly was most certainly still alive.

No disrespect, but this seems like a case of trying to find something amiss that obviously isn't.
JB

[Redsmith]

Hello, John.

Yes, I saw the date. Nevertheless the sketch still resembles a youngish, stoutly-built woman; not a five-foot, 46 year-old. Funny business is not being hinted at, by the way, I'm just new to this and curious. Thanks for your time, though.

[The Grave Maurice]

In any event, Dominic, your idea was presented extremely well. I'd say you have a bright future here.

[John Bennett]

Funny business is not being hinted at, by the way, I'm just new to this and curious. Thanks for your time, though.

Hi Dominic,

sorry if I came over all snotty - not intended, believe me!

Best wishes
John

[mariag]

It's possible that a contemporary newspaper wouldn't print a picture of the full injuries because it would be too gory and upsetting for the public.

I doubt if a newspaper today would .

[KatBradshaw]

I would say that its def CE but that the drawer had never seen the body. They are going on the back of the a description. That being said I do think that it looks more like CE.

[George Hutchinson]

It's a very poorly executed sketch by someone who clearly isn't an artist, rather like the 'in situ' sketch. Its purpose was simply to show the extent of the injuries, not to get a likeness of the individual.

Now, if I'd been around in 1888, what with my Diddles drawings...

PHILIP

[Wickerman]

Dominic.
I think you may expect a little too much from these newspaper artists.
All they are trying to do is give a representation.
Today we have photography to compete with. Artistic renderings must be considerably more lifelike today because of photography.
In the late 19th century woodcut graphics were the norm, prettywell every period sketch you see in the press is only a representation not intended to convey a photographic likeness.
Photography had yet get its grip on the media.

You have to view such drawings with a Victorian eye...

All the best, Jon.S.

[Bailey]

"what with my Diddles drawings"

You like to draw diddles? Sounds like something out of the movie "Superbad."

B.