Eddowes Mortuary Photo - Graphic

[Chris Scott]

Here is some work I did on one of the Eddowes photos
As with the Tabram exercise, I am posting the before and after
This picture is so degraded that the usefulness of this exercise is more limited

[Chris Scott]

The second Eddowes photo

[Cap'n Jack]

I do not see a clear purpose for the public display of these images, enhanced or otherwise.
Please explain your purpose here.

[Bailey]

Then, Mr Wolf, with all due respect, why would you bother to look at this thread? Going into something clearly labelled as what it is - complete with the GRAPHIC tag - so you can be offended by it seems a bit pointless. It's like a little old lady going to a dirty movie so that she can be indignant about it afterwards.

As for the purpose of the public display of these images, clearly, as we see with the thread on the MJK pictures, they have sparked debate, encouraged new thoughts and ideas and many of us have learned or perceived things about the case that might not have otherwise done. Sounds all good to me.

If you were planning to argue that their presence panders to prurience... well, if someone wants to see genuine gore for its own sake, there are far worse pictures online, and they're more recent and thus clearer, and in colour.

The one possible valid objection I could go with is that there is an element of disrespect to the women in question is the world seeing them in so vulnerable and unflattering a light, and that this is the only way they will be remembered. That is indeed sad, but you don't have to look very hard through these threads to see that there is a great amount of respect for the Ripper's victims on the boards.


B.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

No matter how delicate our sensibilities or how puffed up we are with maudlin sentimentality for the C5, there is information to be gleaned from photographs such as these.

The first example kindly posted by Chris is pre-post-mortem [in which the body looks like it's lying in a boat hull filled with assorted crap], and the second is post-post-mortem. In some versions the victim can be seen pinned to a wall by her hair.

Some respect and consideration the LVP authorities showed the dead.

What intrigues me about these two photographs is that, to my eye, they do not look like the same person.

It's a personal feeling, so I'm not going to waste my time arguing the point. Instead I would like to ask a question.

What is the provenance for these two photographs? Who first told us these were pictures of Eddowes?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

What is the provenance for these two photographs? Who first told us these were pictures of Eddowes?

I don't think there can be much doubt that it was Eddowes, Simon - who else could it be? It's not often we see photographs of a female corpse with a deeply cut throat, a damaged earlobe and nose, inverted "V" shapes on the cheeks, a jagged wound reaching from the base of the breastbone to the pubes, etc.

[Cap'n Jack]

I know I'm strange, but I do find that there is more than enough information in the police surgeon's reports written at the time of the murders to be able to reach one conclusion or even another. The actual written reports are far more explicit than any enhanced reproduction could ever be.
When an animal has fallen into a snare I don't think I need to see endless reproductions and enhancements of that animal's demise to pronounce that it had fallen into a snare.
I see no useful or clear purpose to the propagation of such images as we see here. I find it rank and extremely hurtful to the victims themselves, and whatever family members might remain.
I view it as nothing but cheap pornography.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

It's interesting to note that in the "vertical" photograph the victim doesn't have ^ marks under the eyes. Instead there are / and \ marks.

So I ask again—

Where is our provenance for these two photographs? Where's the big City Police/Scotland Yard/Home Office rubber stamp saying "Eddowes"?

Regards,

Simon

[jmenges]

The photograph published in Lacassagne's 1899 Vacher l'Eventreur and (incorrectly) labeled The Last Victim of Jack the Ripper is clearly from the same sets of mortuary shots of Eddowes as in the above. And I believe the C part of her tattoo 'TC' is visible on her right* forearm in the Lacassagne photograph. So I think the photo can be identified as being Eddowes from the description of her tattoo.

JM

*Robert McLaughlin can come along and correct me, as his book says right arm, but the victim page says the tattoo was on the left arm, and I see what looks like the letter C on her right...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

No disrespect, but "I believe", "I think" and "looks like" doesn't cut it.

Where is the provenance for these photos?

Or are we accepting the WM on say so?

Regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

Pure Catherine
there you lay degraded
an angel of death
suddenly upgraded
to photo shop
by chris scott

[Sam Flynn]

No disrespect, but "I believe", "I think" and "looks like" doesn't cut it.

Who else could it be, though, Simon - Dame Adelina Patti?

No disrespect, but please be reasonable.

[jmenges]

Hi Simon,

Well, here is the picture that was labeled The Last Victim of Jack the Ripper when it was first published in 1899.



George Sims refers to two photographs he was shown of Whitechapel murder victims that he described as 'unprintable'. One was the Millers Court photo, the other, I guess, it could be believed, was maybe the Eddowes photo.



Sorry I cannot be more precise as to how these images of Catherine Eddowes ended up in France and identified with the crimes of Jack the Ripper. That is a mystery.

JM

[Natalie Severn]

I would never think of Chris as someone wanting to post "pornographic" photos to be fair.
However,there are valid reasons why people get offended by such photographs .
First the photos of the murdered Catherine Eddowes show the public pictures of her "naked in death" which in our culture has always been considered "taboo" and deeply disrespectful of the dead person ,since the first thing that happens to a dead person, after they have been cleaned and prepared for burial or cremation, is for them to be ritually clothed, as a mark of respect-nobody is viewed, buried or cremated , "stripped naked" as in the above photos-in the UK at anyrate ,unless it has been expressly requested by them prior to death.
Second the photo shows the horrific injuries Catherine Eddowes"s body sustained together with the rough repairs to it undertaken in the mortuary, and that these should be for public consumption can also be perceived as degrading to the memory of that person.Again it is the "cultural norm" not the law of the land and on the casebook people stray from the "cultural norm",ie from what is considered decent and acceptable in wider society,and perhaps we should realise that when we do so on here, we may not only cause offence but also be considered anti-social odd balls.
Finally,we should not pretend on here that we are only about some clinical type of "crime busting" when we are viewing such photographs.Lets face it ,the photo viewing of the victims is a bit macabre at best and probably pretty ghoulish . After all, few of us are on here in any other capacity than playing the amateur detective.
As dear Neil Stubbings Sheldon pointed out not so long ago,and Neil has done so much to raise the profile of the victims , their families and their descendents, the victims were so much more in life ,than just these awful mortuary photos.
When we insist on repeatedly viewing their mutilated corpses , are we not likely to begin to forget about their humanity----and in the process ,our own?

Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Be reasonable?

Coloratura soprano Dame Adelina Patti lived until 1919, so the stiff obviously wasn't her.

I ask again. Where's the provenance, or are you really willing to accept hearsay as evidence, like everyone else has done with the WM?

The pics may well be of Eddowes, but how do you know for certain?

Where's your proof?

Regards,

Simon