Eddowes Photograph

[DaveMc]

I put this in the wrong thread elsewhere. But I guess it belongs here.
I'm certain now the body is dressed.

The only visible wounds may be on the face.
The dark line across the neck looks like a ribbon or tie over a stand-up collar.
There are bends and scratches on the picture.
One mark, the big line at the bottom, looks like a crack in the glass plate negative.

However, I'm certain now that the body is clothed.

[DVV]

It belongs in the "over exposed, bent, scratched, worn and eroded finish" category.

Hi Dave,

I agree with that, it's even the only thing neatly visible on the pic.
Hence my problem to identify with certainty the body with Eddowes'.
Unless I'm mistaken, the phtograph hasn't been discovered in a file stamped "Catharine Eddowes", but it has been thought - and generally accepted - that it was Eddowes.

In addition to what I've already said, I would point out that this pic serves no forensic nor identification purpose. Which would be unique in the WMurders photographs that we know.
Unique also is the obscene gash in the throat. Just compare it to Nichols and Chapman mortuary pics.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

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.

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.

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.

best wishes

Phil

[Mascara & Paranoia]

That's definitely Eddowes. Though I'm not too sure that may be the original photo though, it looks like it's been tampered with to an extent (not in a forgery way, but in an attempt to clear up what hypothetically may have been a blurry photograph, but the technology in the era that the image was recovered may have been sh*tty).

[DaveMc]

Some texts are qualified as "disputed".

I'd say this pic belongs to the "disputed images" category.

Amitiés,
David

No. Not really.
It belongs in the "over exposed, bent, scratched, worn and eroded finish" category.

I'm baffled by the things thought to be in picture.
This was never a good image the moment it hit the glass plate emulsion in the camera. It's only gotten worse since then.

Unless Catherine had an extra joint in her bicep, you can't even see her right elbow . It's not in the picture.

What is in the picture is what looks like the corner of a collar about the neck and a tacked lining to the coffin.
The only visible part of Catherine's body is her head.
She's not naked.

[DVV]

Problem with the right cheek, too...

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

Since those letters are so clearly put all over that photo, NOBODY can deny it has not been tampered with.

There aren't any breasts as such... and the nipples are almost invisible, without aereolae...compare THAT to the other Eddowes photo.

It ISN'T Eddowes in that photo.

I think some people should open their eyes.

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

Some texts are qualified as "disputed".

I'd say this pic belongs to the "disputed images" category.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Here are a few more letters for the soup. All you have to do is enlarge.

Near right nipple, RN, there are also faint letters below this. Over to the left, between the triangle and the dark L shaped "wound" M That is not a nipple either underneath the M. If anything, it is a mole. It is in the centre of the body. Over to the left, the number 6 and an A with a ring around it.

The large "wounds" are drawn in. a V, and an L. Its easy to see on both this snip and the negative as sgh kindly supplied. Rotate right to see clearly.
No breasts as such, no areolae outlines either.

These markings in NO WAY relate to the injuries Eddowes had. They are painted on in pen.

Conclusions?. Simple. This is NOT the woman we know as Catharine Eddowes.

This photo has been tampered with, on the negative. The signs are that it was done at Snow Hill Police Station.(Note the letters as I have described a few postings above, No. 55). When? Unknown.

The whole of the negative of this body has been written on. To represent injuries. There are too many discrepancies on this photo to call it authentic.

I urge all to see all the snippets I have posted, with all the things "wrong".

There are many other things wrong with this photo.

I believe the evidence to be clear, and too plentiful. And very, very cleverly done.

best wishes

Phil

[belinda]

So you're saying the photo is a cut and paste job?

[sgh]

Eddowes photo enhanced

Hi All,
Can't resist a photo enhancement.
To help clarify what you guys may or maybe not seeing regarding the left arm, here's my enhancement offering.
I have converted the image into a negative so that some details can be easier to identify.
In my opinion, the right arm is out of view, only her right shoulder is visible and we are simply seeing the outer edge of the coffin.
You will note the converging lines on the edge of the open coffin to the left of the photo as this edge is nearest to the camera lens - hence the edge appears wider as would be expected.
The alleged 'writing or whatever' on her right arm is nothing more than artifacts on a poor copy of the photo as correctly pointed out earlier by a previous poster.
If anyone has a better copy of this photo I will be only too pleased to enhance it, indeed any photo to do with jtr.

Best
Steve

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

The letters under the nose are, I think, MPA...... Metropolitan Police Archives
The letters down the side of her face are, I think SNOW....... as in Snow Hill police station, amongst others.

Get the idea now? No trick of the light, no bad plate..the negative has been written on. And the effect is to make the face look covered in wounds.

There is an M on the right eye too. The same pen has filled in the mouth. And I think the same pen made that triangle in the middle of the chest too. See the negative below.

Still no reason to question the photo's validity?

best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

"Have you already noticed the fact that no TC tattoo on the arm has been neatly side-stepped?"

I don't see that there is any reason to question the photo's validity...

How do you explain this line which I have highlighted in red? It seems to me that you are suggesting that this line is the inner part of Eddowes' right arm. However, it clearly is not... for 2 reasons

1. The line extends above and to the left of Eddowes' shoulder and
2. The bend in the "arm" is in the wrong place for an elbow.

Also it seems to me that you can see Eddowes actual arm (green line) THROUGH this object whatever it is. I may be wrong here, but I am guessing that this is a sheet or something transparent. In fact, I think that you can see threads on the sheet (blue line).

RH

[Phil Carter]

Alphabet soup...

Hello all,

Just a little thing to add to the list..just to keep the pot boiling.. well, tradition says that is how things are done...hahahaha..

Spot the alphabet soup.

All I have done is enhance the photo, double sized. with slight colouring, and shading. I have added and taken nothing away.

Now perhaps some may see what a composite load of twaddle this photo ACTUALLY is.

Right hand side of face.... running down from the temple to the chin and others, here and there...

Get the idea how this was put together now people? Its clever.....

best wishes

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

As I've mentioned in private correspondence, Phil, I certainly don't accept that the torso is out of focus. To my eye, it looks to be covered by a blanket or sheet. The abdominal 'wound' looks to be seepage through the material, and the 'tattoo' a manufacturer's name or even a laundry mark. This also explains the distorted right arm (to the left of the photograph) and the lack of definition around the breasts.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.