Eddowes Photograph

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I can't believe I've been arguing this all day, but here goes (again).

"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?

I can't see the missing piece of ear in the photo, but what you can see is an extent of damage/mutilation to the right ear (lobe?), most noticable in this photograph:



As for why certain parts of her body are less clearer in this photo compared to the others, I can only assume that it's due to the flash of the camera when the picture was taken. It's not an implausible explanation and it makes a lot more sense than the picture being some kind of hoax.

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

Er, looking at it?

All the wounds that are visible correlate perfectly to that of the other photos of Eddowes' corpse. You got to remember that a) this was before she was stitched up and b) after the body was removed from the crime scene, so the intestines would've been put back in her thorax for transportation purposes and the position of the body wouldn't be the same as those seen in the diagrams because the body would've been disturbed; it's not exactly rocket science. That and the presumed lighting issues regarding this particular photograph are the only things that make it stand out from the rest. Nothing more.

What convinces you that this isn't a photograph of Eddowes?

[Simon Wood]

Hi M&P,

I've never suggested the photograph is a hoax. That was someone else. I simply believe that in all good faith it's been misidentified. What's wrong with that? Mistakes happen. And I speak as one who's made a few in my time.

What convinces me that this isn't a photograph of Eddowes?

All the discrepancies I have thus far pointed out which have little to do with lighting.

Regards,

Simon

[Magpie]

The lack of detail in the torso can be easily explained by the body being covered up to the neck with a sheet, possibly in anticipation of a viewing from the coroner's jury and/or witnesses or next of kin.

[Magpie]

Hello David!

Well, a thought came to my mind;

Could it be a lid on the coffin?!

Here's a presentation of my idea!

All the best
Jukka

I'm with Jukka on this one. It's clear in the uncropped version that Stewart provide that "arm" is to straight, uniform and untapered to be an arm

[jason_c]

Hi M&P,

The C5 weren't the only women to have their throats cut during the LVP [a period spanning twenty five years]; also, who's to say the corpse in the photograph was murdered in 1888?

Here's twelve women [there are more] who had their throats cut, any one of whom may have been photographed—

Harriet Lane 1875
Elizabeth Firth 1875
Emily Holland 1876
Emma Rolfe 1876
Mary Sanders 1877
Minnie Fantham 1877
Mrs Reville 1881
Emily Meakin 1882
Mary Belton 1884
Christina Smith [suicide] 1884
Lucy Clark 1888
[?] Potstami 1888

Reasonable doubt.

Regards,

Simon

Its less likely to be before 1888 as photographing victims was hardly routine. The reason we have a larger number of Eddowes' photographs is because of the interest the Ripper case aroused and the procedures of the City Police.

The above arguement doesnt mean its Eddowes. Simply its more likely to be Eddowes than a typical murder a few years earlier.

[Phil Carter]

Helllo Jason,

Fair point. Then again..murders AFTER 1888 arent included on that list either are they?

The ultimate question is.. Is there any historically documented provenance to this photograph?
Answer... No.
Therefore, there is no provenance to prove authenticity. Without documentation, that IS the answer.

And that applies to EVERY piece of so called "factual evidence"..whether we like it or not. Millen's little "lecture show album" included.
No provenance.
That's called reasonable doubt.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jason,

The photograph may well have been taken after 1888. We have no way of knowing. Just for the record I found a further 47 murders and suicides by cut throat and other assorted mutilations between 1889 and 1901, and that doesn't include people killed in the most horrific industrial accidents. Again, we have no way of knowing the circumstances which resulted in the taking of this photograph. I was merely making the point that a corpse with a severed throat and other injuries was not an uncommon sight at mortuaries.

Reasonable doubt.

Regards,

Simon

[Pippin Joan]

I agree that there are many similarities, but too many discrepancies. This photo is a victim of terribly poor technology, mishandling, and pointless touch-ups.

The "teeth" in the throat is the gristly trachea. One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the obvious ligature marks under the chin, most clear in the photo around Post #102. Another signature of JTR.

Is it possible that there was another stabbing victim whose photo was bunched together with Eddowes, as if someone thought it might belong in that file?

So, no provenance, but a middle-aged woman who has been strangled, throat cut, and senseless mutilation.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

If that's someone completely unaffiliated with the Whitechapel murders, then why wasn't there a Ripper scare when the body was discovered? Even Rose Mylett and Carrie Brown got the world to think that Jack the Ripper was at it again, yet here we have a body that resembles his exact m.o. more than any other non canonical victim, and yet there's no press coverage? Why don't we know this anonymous woman's name? Exactly how do you explain that if that body isn't Eddowes? Genuine question and one that actually needs answering if you want your arguments to be even halfway plausible.

[Pippin Joan]

I agree. It's one of the known victims, but a really lousy photo.

[Phil Carter]

Hello M and P,

A fair question indeed. I think though it answers itself.

There is no historical documentation for any of the photographs. Ergo, no photo can be labelled as being "X" or "Y" or "Z"..i.e. on the basis of origin, there is NO corrobative proof of identification. Supposition is not fact. Neither is presumption.

Therefore, your above argument also means that it could be anybody in that photo.. It doesn't have to have anything to do with 1888 at all. How can you date this photo? You can only assume or presume. It is not a proven fact that these photo's are the people we are TOLD they are. For all we know, Millen, IF the story WE ARE TOLD is correct, or someone else for that matter, could have put that lot together themselves.
There is no evidence of historical documentation. Therefore, no historical documentary provenance.

Reasonable doubt.

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

There has been speculation that this could be Kelly after reconstructive surgery to aide in identification and there seems to be no outline of breast at all. There is also apparent lascerations in her right ribcage and left arm. But, I would think that any reconstruction of Mary's face to even this extent would be miraculous. The photo has obviously been mishandled. You can notice the crease in the middle where it has been folded at one time. I don't believe this picture has been tampered. Just abused.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

There is no historical documentation for any of the photographs. Ergo, no photo can be labelled as being "X" or "Y" or "Z"..i.e. on the basis of origin, there is NO corrobative proof of identification. Supposition is not fact. Neither is presumption.

Therefore, your above argument also means that it could be anybody in that photo.. It doesn't have to have anything to do with 1888 at all. How can you date this photo? You can only assume or presume. It is not a proven fact that these photo's are the people we are TOLD they are. For all we know, Millen, IF the story WE ARE TOLD is correct, or someone else for that matter, could have put that lot together themselves.
There is no evidence of historical documentation. Therefore, no historical documentary provenance.

It's a black and white police photograph. That and the state of it tells me that it was taken in the twentieth century if not the Victorian period at least (pretending for a moment that that body isn't a Ripper victim). Whether it was taken in the 1800's or the 1900's is irrelevant, there still would've been media coverage of a Ripper-esue murder, either as the killer's comeback or as a copycat killing. There has been nothing of the sort.

That and all the visible wounds in that photograph match those of Catherine Eddowes. Every. Single. One. The ear, the nose, the throat, the torso, even the mouth (she also has the same type of hair as Eddowes). This photo was taken before the body was stiched up. It was taken after the body was removed from the crime scene. It's the only photo of what happened between those two processes. That's the only reason it stands out from the other pictures of her cadaver. The wounds even match the sketches and the diagrams.

Use. Common. Sense. And stop being illogical.

Reasonable doubt.

You just keep telling yourself that.

[Simon Wood]

Hi M&P,

If you read my post #172 you'll see that it does not necessarily follow that the corpse in the photograph has to have been the victim of a Ripperesque murder.

Anyway, please don't bother responding. I have now discovered what I set out to find and, consequently, have no further interest in the matter.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello M and P,

Whether it was taken in the 1800's or the 1900's is irrelevant

Well, actually, it is. If you claim this to be Eddowes, it is....

That photo could have come from anywhere, at any time. How do you know it wasn't a photo of a Ripper-like victim from the French series of murders? Sitting around having been used for a comparison?

You don't. Neither do I. Nobody does.. It wasn't labeled when found. It has no documantary corrobarative proof to name it as anybody in particular.
That is a fact. As I said before, presumption and assumption does not mean provenance.

That means, reasonable doubt.

best wishes

Phil