Eddowes Photograph

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

Thank you for that presentation. My point exactly.

best wishes

Phil

[Mascara & Paranoia]

And exactly how many of those murder victims had their torso ripped open, their nose cut off and also a part of their ear sliced off? Because those are the visible wounds in addition to the slashed throat that that woman has. Those are also the same wounds that Catherine Eddowes had inflicted upon her. Who did all of those mutilations to that unnamed woman who supposedly died due to just a cut throat? The only explanation for them, pretending for a moment that that isn't Eddowes, is a morgue attendant or a police photographer or someone of that caliber.

You're being illogical and choosing what you want to see and ignoring the rest because it doesn't suit your baseless argument. I don't want to be rude, but come on, a little bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss.

[DVV]

Ripped open, cut, sliced...
That must refer to the state of the pic.

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

Hi M&P,

In the interests of common sense could you please point out on the photograph the "deep cut over the bridge of the nose extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near to the angle of the jaw on the right side, across the cheek—this cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth"?

You can't miss it—



Regards,

Simon

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Oh, for god's sake. One, Eddowes is on her back, and two, the body is completely white as though the flash was too bright when the picture was taken (as I pointed out before) so of course you're not going to be able to see every single wound. That and there does appear to be a slash (though it could be the poor quality of photograph itself) that goes across her face, albeit in the opposite direction. Doesn't prove anything in way of that body being anyone but Eddowes.

As for missing things, it seems you choose to miss a great deal of detail from the picture to suit your own ends. What about the rest of the wounds? The open torso, the mutilated nose and ear? How do you think they happened?

[Simon Wood]

Even on her back a vicious facial wound "dividing all the structures of the cheek" should be clearly visible [see post mortem stitching]. Where is it?

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Where are the numerous answers to my numerous questions which you have avoided numerous times? You're wrong and you know you are.

[Ribbons and Bows]

M&P he doesn't have to answer all your questions in one sitting and he is correct in saying the facial wound would be visible in position you indicated. Deflecting in such a way is juvenile.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Not if the flash of the camera was so bright that the photo didn't take very well, which seems likely in this case.

As for not answering my questions, it's blatantly obvious why I haven't got any; because he knows he's being illogical and has been proven wrong. End of.

[Ribbons and Bows]

And I see what you're saying and do believe you have a valid arguement, but a camera flash would not drown out a slash as significant as Eddowes' to the extent it would not be visible.

There were a burst of killings at the time that could have caused the abdominal injuries as well, so there is no real ground for arguing that the state of the torso is a deciding factor.

[Sam Flynn]

In the interests of common sense could you please point out on the photograph the "deep cut over the bridge of the nose extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near to the angle of the jaw on the right side, across the cheek... you can't miss it"

Not to give too much away...

[Mascara & Paranoia]

@ Ribbons and Bows:

I'm still not convinced about that given the position of the body and how bright the photo is. She looks stony, so it's completely plausible to me that if a photo can have that effect then it can just as easily drown out a single wound, despite how deep is it (even the open torso doesn't look as graphic as you'd expect it do be and is slightly blurred, and that's the most noticable of all the wounds).

[Ribbons and Bows]

The camera has a massive effect on the wounds, causing them to look bulgy rather than jagged, but look at the angle of the camera and then at the location of the right cheek gash. Regardless of the condition of the gash, sutured or no, there would be a bulge on the cheek which would cause at the very least a shadow to be cast in the manner of the abdominal wound.

Please note I am just giving my insight and am not stating how I feel about the identity of the individual.

EDIT: I will give you that the abdominal slashing is incredibly similar to that of Eddowes, and if it were another individual it would be a considerable coincidence. Additionally, the damage to the nose is very distinct.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

The camera has a massive effect on the wounds, causing them to look bulgy rather than jagged, but look at the angle of the camera and then at the location of the right cheek gash. Regardless of the condition of the gash, sutured or no, there would be a bulge on the cheek which would cause at the very least a shadow to be cast in the manner of the abdominal wound.

Not necessarily. Phil Carter pointed out something that I then realised and commented on in one of my earlier posts; that's obviously the body of a women and yet her chest looks completely devoid of femininity, if you get my drift (yes, I mean 'breasts', Suzi et al). So if they won't show up on film, then I'm sure a deep abbrasion to the face won't either.

Please note I am just giving my insight and am not stating how I feel about the identity of the individual.

Noted.

EDIT: I will give you that the abdominal slashing is incredibly similar to that of Eddowes, and if it were another individual it would be a considerable coincidence.

Oh, thank you. /sarcasm

[Simon Wood]

Hi M&P,

If I knew I was wrong I wouldn't be bothering with this conversation. In addressing your "numerous questions" asked "numerous times", the front walls of Eddowes' abdomen were laid open from the breast bone to the pubes, the incision continuing down the right side of the vagina and rectum [see sketches], so I want to know why the non-contiguous wounds in the photograph don't reach as far as the navel. The kidneys are below and to either side of the topmost wound. How did the perpetrator locate and remove the left one through such a small opening? "The clothes were taken off carefully from the body, a piece of the deceased's ear dropped from the clothing". If that's the case why is what you obviously believe to be a part of the right ear visible by the jawline? Why is her chest and nose much broader than in the post mortem photographs? Why are her breasts not visible?

In short, what is it that convinces you this is a photograph of Eddowes?

Regards,

Simon

PS. Welcome back, Sam