Eddowes Photograph

[Hamrammr]

Arm is definitely obscured.

Sorry, I haven't read every single post in this thread (admittedly can't be bothered), but I just wanted to emphasise the strong theory that part of her right arm cannot be seen, purely because it bends in the wrong place and is clearly too flat. Drawings show where the coffin lid continues, and the estimated lay of her right arm beneath the cloth (or whatever) covering. If this has been covered already, please ignore. Too many threads to read!!!

[Hamrammr]

It may not need to be said, but so much of this photograph could be 'noise' i.e. scratches, aging, defacing, dirt, smudging etc. I have photos at home that have artifacts on them similar to those seen in this photo. Scratches alone can cause so much confusion, especially in black and white photos. And 'enhancement' can end up removing important elements that can be mistaken for defects.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Hamrammr!

Yes, indeed; we don't know for sure about the condition of the original negatives!

All the best
Jukka

[Hamrammr]

Thanks. I must stop stating the obvious though. Bad habit. Apologies.

Do you know if some clever, industrious sole has created a 3D projection of the whole coffin using this photo as a basis. I'm sure it's possible to estimate the appearance of the rest of the coffin from the angle the photo was taken. I've had a quick go but it was a tad rough. I just thought it might be able to get a better idea of how the body was lying if we could 'think outside the photo' as it were.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Hamrammr!

No, I haven't seen anything like that yet. But I'd surely like to see, not only of Eddowes, but of all the mortuary and crime scene photos!

All the best
Jukka

[DVV]

Where is this pic ?

I'd like to know.

But it seems kept hidden just like the Ark of Covenant.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I have been brought to the attention of the following article in which my name has been mentioned...

http://karenkpoulin1.spaces.live.com/default.aspx?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=cat%3dOther%2520Ripper%2520Research&sa=86587230

I wish to say a few things for clarification.

1) The conclusions of the writer of the article re. my "hypothesis" about the "Eddowes in a shell" photo, are not mine, and have been misinterpreted.
At no time have I presumed the body to be Mary Kelly, but someone that was NOT Catharine Eddowes. That said, after having read the complete article, it may be possible that the body is indeed Mary Kelly, but I am not convinced at the moment. I do, however, maintain that this photo is not Catharine Eddowes, comparing this photo to her other motuary photographs.

2) The "super-imposed" image on the side of the shell, I highlighted and compared to a photo of PAV. They are remarkably similar. I let other people decide on what they think of the pair of photos. The writer of the above article has her opinion. That is an opinion that the writer is entitled to. My opinion is as above, "very similar".

3) Questions around the articles from the Swiss newspapers about the Lacassagne involvement raise important points. I suggest that they be looked at thoroughly, as it could have a significant meaning.

I had to re-visit this thread in order to place on record my thoughts about an article mentioning my name and in reference to the body in the shell.

best wishes

Phil

PS. Could someone please have a look at the exact translation of the Swiss article, so as we are sure of it's contents to be correct in translation? Many thanks

[SaraCarter33]

As always phil well written and very interesting.