Eddowes Photograph

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Could someone please tell me the provenance of this Eddowes photograph?



Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Photograph

Hi All,
Could someone please tell me the provenance of this Eddowes photograph?
[ATTACH]7723[/ATTACH]
Many thanks.
Regards,
Simon

The photograph was first published by Farson in 1972. As a knowledgeable Ripper researcher, working backwards, that should tell you its origin.

[Addy]

Hi Simon,

A while ago there was a long discussion about an enhanced photograph of Catherine Eddowes. In that thread someone asked the same question as you do and someone posted a picture of the original file with the photographs attached. Perhaps you can find them.

Greetings,

Addy

[looby64]

I have seen another mortuary picture of Catherine Eddowes and it looks as if she has been photographed propped up against a wall, is this so and why would this be done?
Thanks Looby

[Addy]

Hi,

yes, at one point she was photographed, as some say, with her hair attached to the wall to keep her up. Probably because that way they could photograph her in a more natural position (my opinion ), after all the equipment back then wasn't easy to move.

Greetings,

Addy

[Phil Carter]

The photograph was first published by Farson in 1972. As a knowledgeable Ripper researcher, working backwards, that should tell you its origin.

Hello Stewart,

I read the above and looked in my copy of Farson's Jack the Ripper. Although the paperback version is from 1973, published by Sphere, it does not contain the above photograph. The paperback version I have contains two photographs of Eddowes, plate 4a, the first of the known (before the French version discovery) of Eddowes standing, or propped up against the wall. The other being plate 4b, a "head and shoulders" half-photo, taken from the front-right hand side of the victim.
Does this mean that the original book print is different in terms of which photographs were used, comparing the two versions of the book?

Also, reading the second answer you wrote, I referred to Farson's introduction in his book. There are two passages that I believe can be linked to the provenance.. I quote from Farson's introduction..

"....With the encouragement of Colin Wilson I became one of the amateur criminologiosts myself and joined in the obsession....."

".....A few hours later at Maenan Hall, I explained my interest to Christabel Aberconway and she was kind enough to give me her father's private notes which she had copied out soon after his death....."

The first refers to Colin Wilson, eminent historian and author, the second to the Dowager Lady Christabel Aberconway, daughter of Sir Melville Macnaghten.

In both cases, I therefore ask a few pertinent, though perhaps presumptive questions.

If Colin Wilson was the source, where did he get the photo from?

If Christabel Aberconway was the source, her father, Sir Melville Macnagthen is the ORIGINAL source. This is MOST intriguing, because I was under the distinct impression that he (Sir M.M.) had destroyed all his papers on the subject. Yet here we are with the possibility of NOT just a photograph, unseen I might add, in posession of the daughter of one of the central police officials of the Whitechapel murders, but also that "his notes, COPIED DOWN by his daughter AFTER his death", were, infact, NOT destroyed, but in existance.
Those notes could NOT just have been private notes, because they happened to have with them an official police photograph. And of course, the obvious question is this. As the photograph came from Macnagten's original notes, I ask what OTHER photographs and papers this man had in his posession, having NOT destroyed his "papers" on the subject?

I find this most confusing. And I would welcome an explanation, should you know of one. Many thanks!

with best wishes, as always,

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

I did the easy part and worked out that in all probability the photograph came from Macnaghten. But what I want to know is who told Dan Farson it was a photograph of Eddowes? Because it isn't.

It's all very fascinating.

Regards,

Simon

[Suzi]

Addy
Kate was never photographed tied up by her hair-- propped up sadly against a wall maybe,which is bad enough- see Robert Mc Laughlin's wonderful book 'The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs'

The mortuary/ coffin picture is without doubt Kate-check the 'injuries'

Why is there any doubt here?

[Suzi]

Mortuary head shot of Kate c/o SPE/Skinner

Eddowes from Vacher l'Eventreur c/o Robert Mc Laughlin

Eddowes c/o SPE/Skinner

[Suzi]

Hair shot!

c/o Rob Mc Laughlin

[Addy]

Hi Suzi,

I guess the last picture is the one I heard about. I never saw it before. I can imagine people thinking it is not Kate, it is an awful picture. But indeed, the wounds are the same.

Greetings,

Addy

[Suzi]

These pics are available on site here- the Vacher l'Eventreur ones come from Robert Mc Laughlin's book

[Addy]

Hi Suzi,

I've visited the picture section only once. When I read a book I often skip the mortuary photographs, I've seen them a couple of times and that's enough.

Greetings,

Addy

[Stewart P Evans]

Who?

Hi Stewart,
I did the easy part and worked out that in all probability the photograph came from Macnaghten. But what I want to know is who told Dan Farson it was a photograph of Eddowes? Because it isn't.
It's all very fascinating.
Regards,
Simon

No it didn't come from Macnaghten, it was a City case not Metropolitan. Who is it a photograph of then???

[Sox]

I have seen another mortuary picture of Catherine Eddowes and it looks as if she has been photographed propped up against a wall, is this so and why would this be done?
Thanks Looby

To my knowledge, cameras of this era could not take a picture at an angle i.e pointing downwards. I came across this little oddity while doing research on Jesse James, I was curious as to why he was pictured propped up in his coffin (as were many slain outlaws from that period) so I spoke to a friend who specializes in sepia photography, and that's what she told me.