Eddowes Photograph

[Phil Carter]

Hello Bob,

Thank you for the reply.

"Nothing is discernable"...which says... everything.

best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

Perhaps you would like to post us a high resolution copy of the negative Phil, so we can see these pen markings for ourselves.

Rob

[Bob Hinton]

Picture

But the picture is nothing discernible, it could be anything up to and including a marshmallow that's been dropped on a fire!

[Phil Carter]

But that's not good enough, is it?

No that doesn't cut the mustard does it?

No let's just ramble on, why don't we. :

Hello Roy,
Thank you for your comment.

No, it doesn't cut the mustard when the negative has been tampered with. And it isn't just me that sees this.

No, we don't have to accept anything that is obviously riddled with discrepancies, and that has been pointed out. One by one.

If it had been one small problem, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Some people around here think that no one has the right to rock the established boat. We do have that right to point out things, especially when we have evidence enough to question authenticity.

respectfully, and with best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Suzi,

Thank you for your reply.
Sadly, I have to agree about irreverance. Of which I may be guilty. In which case, thank you for pointing it out.

However, there are questions relating to this photograph that in my honest opinion, need adressing.

1) There is a distinct lack of scarring on the torso itself compared to the known facts AND Foster's drawing.
2) There is also a distinct lack or scarring or injury on the cheek, again compared to the known facts, the other facial photo and Foster's drawing.
3) There are also no visible human breasts, or mammaries if you prefer, no areolae, all of which is clearly visible on Foster's drawing and especially on the photo of this lady taken AFTER the autopsy.
4) The explanatiuon of a sheet being over the body must be wrong if the simple fact that a mole in the middle of the chest is clearly visible when zoomed in upon.
5) The shoulder has, according to some, now become propped up with a "pillow", though for what reason a pillow under her shoulder in a transportation shell would be, I am at a loss to know why.
6) The explanation for the lack of mammaries above, doesn't in any way show reason for no areolae around the nipples, which are extremely small and almost invisible. And the photo and the descriptions of Eddowes herself AFTER the autopsy do NOT match this photo supposedly taken before the autopsy, because both the mammaries and areolae are clearly visible. The chest area on this photo is totally different.

Therefore, these things must be pointed out. The scarring to the face on the right hand side of the photo, together with loads of printed letters all over the body, penned in markings onto the negative, and the plain fact that a body once open doesn't neatly zip up again after the intestines are replaced within the abdominal cavity for transport, however reverently one puts it, means that this photo cannot be the lady we know as Eddowes.

There is just too much within this photograph that doesn't match the known facts relating to injuries and scars.


You ask where this is going? Simple.

It is my estimation that this photograph is NOT EDDOWES. I believe therefore serious questions should be asked about it's validity and authenticity.
I base this on the above reasoning amongst much much more.

I have previously stated I do not doubt that when found, amongst the other photographic plates of Eddowes, it was presumed to be her. However, closer examination with the technical apparatus we have today, easily reveals this negative plate to have been tampered with. And I would welcome the finder to give his views in light of the many discrepancies revealed with this photographic print.

We must also remember, as has been pointed out by others, that these plates were NOT labelled when found. The provenance is therefore not established. Just because a person "recognises" a photo to be X, doesn't mean it is X. There is also no written record of any photograph of Eddowes taken in the shell either.

A written label was given to this photo in Commander Millen's photographic album amongst others, supposedly used for lecture purposes. That doesn't give it, or any of the photo's handed in to the Black Museum for that matter any provenance. Just like MJK3.

That is why I question this photo. Fairly and reverendly. For historical accuracy purposes. Also because I am tired of having to accept what we have been told, without question. There is enough in this one example to question authenticity.

I apologise for the long winded reply, but have tried to answer you respectfully and in full.

best wishes

Phil

[Suzi]

Good morning Suzi,

I can't agree with you more. Simon started this thread by asking the provenance of this photo. Fair question, and in post #17 knowledgeable person Stewart answered.



Roy

Cheers Roy!!!! Glad I'm not the only vaguely sane one here!!!
Now about that pair of false eyelashes we can see just above the first cut-

(shut up Suz ! LOL xx- sorry)

...and thanks to Stewart WAAAAY back at the beginning when there was a sensible question- and a sensible- serious answer!!!!!

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Suzi,

I can't agree with you more. Simon started this thread by asking the provenance of this photo. Fair question, and in post #17 knowledgeable person Stewart answered.

But that's not good enough, is it?

No that doesn't cut the mustard does it?

No let's just ramble on, why don't we.

Roy

[Suzi]

Ooooh gawd we'll be back to this next!!

[Suzi]

You got some interesting points, but regarding Eddowers not being wide open whilst being in the 'shell', that's easily explainable: the attendants or whatever they were called would've put her intestines and other misplaced bits and pieces back in her torso for transportation purposes, and in an effort to facilitate the cleaning process of the bloodied cobbles.

Regarding the tits, I gotta say I never really thought to look at them before, so I've only just noticed that, yeah, you're right in saying that there doesn't appear to be any that's noticable. But, the photo in question is really difficult to determine, so again, her not having a whole lot up front in the picture is easily explainable. Plus she's dead and lain on her back and talking about this is a little freaky.

About the mole, are we really sure that's a mole (I can't see it for the record, but still) and not a blemish on the photograph? I mean, the quality of the picture itself is terrible, it looks like it's all scratchy and as though it could be a photo copy of an original or something.



I can kind of understand the face not looking like Eddowes as seen in the other pictures, but, like you say, this photo is taken prior to her being fixed up, and I kind of get the impression that maybe people might look little a bit different to how they usually do if they'd had their faces sliced and cut into. Plus, again, blurry and grainy photograph. It's really hard to determine the exact wounds in this one.

I definitely know for a fact that that body is that of Catherine Eddowes though, as, who else would it be? Stride wasn't mutiliated, it doesn't look like Chapman or Nichols. And if there were any other murders of a Ripper caliber like what is evidently so in that picture, then this supposedly mystery woman would've been given an idenity and a place as the sixth canonical victim. I mean, if that's not Eddowes, then who is she and why was her murder not reported? Especially given the uncanny nature of her extremely Ripperesque crime.



Maybe. Though the only question of validity regarding the picture is, was this the original photo or a duplicate, hence the poor quality?

FIRSTLY APOLOGISING FOR REPEATING ALL THIS TOOT ...BUT.....
Ooh Dear M & P-
'tits' Oooooh please!!!! That if it is Kate- which I suspect it - without clothes or dignity- end of story!
Strangely prurient I feel-
Sorry to quote all that toot above chaps- but was so upset by the irreverence of it all!!! - M & P please.....can we stick to the cold facts- not your badly spelt fantasies about dead women in their sad SHELLS/boxes/AKA POOR COFFINS

Hmmmm

A photocopy?!!! unlikely and for why???...

For goodness sake where is this going?

[DVV]

Hi M&P,

the right cheek is neat and visible.
Where's the wound ?

Amitiés,
David

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Hello M and P,

I will give some very good reasons why I don't think that body CAN be Eddowes.

Take a few things and put them together...

1. We are told that photo is taken when the body is in the "shell"...
2. The "shell" is used to transport the body to the mortuary...
3. Look at the drawing from Foster, done at the crime scene, Mitre Square,
before she was loaded into the "shell", PRE AUTOPSY
4. The other photo of Eddowes standing shows her AFTER the autopsy...

Right. Foster's drawing shows the body of Eddowes opened up wide. GAPING wounds.
That picture in the "shell" is taken PRE autopsy..because if it wasn't, the stich marks nearly all the way from her pubes to her up to her throat would show. Therefore, ipso facto, put the two things together... she is wide open before the autopsy.

The body in that photo is NOT wide open.
The nipples show no aereolae. Look at the Eddowes photo AFTER the autopsy.
The nipples themselves are barely visible on this photo.
There are no breasts as such.
There are no signs of torso wounds that match the drawing of Eddowes done by Foster.
There is a mole showing in the middle of the body. This shows that there is no sheet over the body.

You got some interesting points, but regarding Eddowers not being wide open whilst being in the 'shell', that's easily explainable: the attendants or whatever they were called would've put her intestines and other misplaced bits and pieces back in her torso for transportation purposes, and in an effort to facilitate the cleaning process of the bloodied cobbles.

Regarding the tits, I gotta say I never really thought to look at them before, so I've only just noticed that, yeah, you're right in saying that there doesn't appear to be any that's noticable. But, the photo in question is really difficult to determine, so again, her not having a whole lot up front in the picture is easily explainable. Plus she's dead and lain on her back and talking about this is a little freaky.

About the mole, are we really sure that's a mole (I can't see it for the record, but still) and not a blemish on the photograph? I mean, the quality of the picture itself is terrible, it looks like it's all scratchy and as though it could be a photo copy of an original or something.

The wounds on the face in the drawing do NOT match the photo. The markings on the right hand side of the face in the photo, are made up of pen marks, with many letters.(Post 55). Likewise the mouth, nostrils and right eye.
There are letters of the alphabet all over the body, and pen marks.The biggest being a singular "triangle" in the centre of the body, on it's own unconnected to the other wounds. Below this, the pen marks V and L, left hand side, lower torso. The whole negative has been tampered with by pen.

Take away the pen marks...hey presto..no wounds. Therefore, quite simply. It cannot be Eddowes.... Who's body, pre autopsy, is wide open.

I believe that this photo, when found amongst the other photographic plates, was mistakenly presumed to be Eddowes. That I can accept. Human error.

So if you take Foster's drawing as accurate, which isn't to my knowledge in dispute, then ipso facto, that face cannot be Eddowes from Mitre Square, and by the same reasoning, the body in that photo cannot be that of Eddowes from Mitre Square either. Because it is pre autopsy, and the visible mole in the centre of the body shows that there is NO sheet over the body.

I can kind of understand the face not looking like Eddowes as seen in the other pictures, but, like you say, this photo is taken prior to her being fixed up, and I kind of get the impression that maybe people might look little a bit different to how they usually do if they'd had their faces sliced and cut into. Plus, again, blurry and grainy photograph. It's really hard to determine the exact wounds in this one.

I definitely know for a fact that that body is that of Catherine Eddowes though, as, who else would it be? Stride wasn't mutiliated, it doesn't look like Chapman or Nichols. And if there were any other murders of a Ripper caliber like what is evidently so in that picture, then this supposedly mystery woman would've been given an idenity and a place as the sixth canonical victim. I mean, if that's not Eddowes, then who is she and why was her murder not reported? Especially given the uncanny nature of her extremely Ripperesque crime.

All these things show quite clearly that this is NOT the woman we know as Eddowes. It resembles NOT the drawing from Foster, nor the other photo taken AFTER the autopsy.

By your own words, that I totally agree with..this photo has been tampered with. Therefore, it is must be, by definition, clearly open to question of validity.

Maybe. Though the only question of validity regarding the picture is, was this the original photo or a duplicate, hence the poor quality?

[DaveMc]

Hi Belinda,

My position too.

Until a necessary inspection of the original, I don't want to be too confident that it's an Eddowes' pic, nor I want to appear too suspicious that it's not.

Wait and hope a confirmation either way.

Amitiés,
David

I've done it until my eyes hurt with most the techniques I know.

There's a fingerprint or stamp on the left.
I'm certain some kind of writing.

It's very teasing.
Just to the left of the right armpit and starts on the coffin rail:
There's one part of the photo that looks like it starts off " C a t h " (in print)
but it also looks like "C E in (space over armpit) Coffin"

I've convinced myself that it's "C E in coffin"
but it's still subject to being a "holy tortilla".

[DVV]

I don't know Only inspection of the original can really solve this one.

Hi Belinda,

My position too.

Until a necessary inspection of the original, I don't want to be too confident that it's an Eddowes' pic, nor I want to appear too suspicious that it's not.

Wait and hope a confirmation either way.

Amitiés,
David

[belinda]

I don't know Only inspection of the original can really solve this one.

Does the original still exist?

[Phil Carter]

Unless I'm mistaken, the photograph hasn't been discovered in a file stamped "Catharine Eddowes", but it has been thought - and generally accepted - that it was Eddowes.

Hello David,

My thoughts exactly. I believe the photograph has been mistakenly presumed to have been Eddowes. It would be interesting to hear from the finder on this issue.

best wishes

Phil