Eddowes Photograph

[Magpie]

Hi Magpie,

Has it ?
A "wall picture" was reproduced in Lacassagne's book (1899)...

Amitiés,
David

Sadly I've never read Lacassagne's book. Did he happen to say where he got the picture from?

[DVV]

Hi Magpie,

Has it ?
A "wall picture" was reproduced in Lacassagne's book (1899)...

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

With respect, the photograph under discussion has exactly the same provenence as the "wall" pictures of Eddowes.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

I agree entirely. There is no absolute in this, however, in a legal sense, I believe I am correct (please tell me if I am wrong) in saying the following.

The weight of doubt here is reasonable, based on lack of historical documentation, that being the defining factor in proof of provenance.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

I say again, like it or not, you cannot, and NOBODY can, prove provenance of that photo, without documentation of historical verification. That is what provenance actually is. And until you do, or can, the items remain in reasonable doubt of authenticity.

To be fair, there is a big difference between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".

Indeed, one might say that nothing outside mathematics can be proved in any absolute sense. Yet many things can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[Phil Carter]

.

I believe I said that whilst 'pretending for a moment that that body wasn't Eddowers'. You knew that. Twisting people's words is also a typical characteristic of someone backing a losing argument. As for replying to the rest of your post, I'm not even gonna bother repeating myself for the dozenth time only for it to fall on deliberately deaf and biased ears. You need to stop feeding the conspiracy theories and be objective.

M and P,

I note that in your comment, listed above, you are not going to "bother repeating yourself", yet attack again because you avoid the issue. I say again, like it or not, you cannot, and NOBODY can, prove provenance of that photo, without documentation of historical verification. That is what provenance actually is. And until you do, or can, the items remain in reasonable doubt of authenticity. That is why it is called PROOF of provenance. Have a pleasant evening.

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

Which is? You've wasted a lot of people's time in pursuing this stupid interest of yours, the least you can do is tell us what you found.

Agreed.
Chronophagy is something horrible.
Worse than anthropophagy, if you ask me.

Amitiés,
David

[Mascara & Paranoia]

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.

Then how did her ear, nose, mouth, throat and torso all get split wide open and/or mutilated? The only explanation for it is that a morgue attendant or someone performed the facial mutilations on the murder victim of a woman who had her throat cut and photographed their handiwork prior to doing the postmortem stitching. That and, yet a-effing-gain, all the visible wounds in the photograph are an exact match to those of Catherine Eddowes'.

Anyway, please don't bother responding.

Sorry, but I will. That's also a typical way of backing out of a losing argument whilst scrambling to remain a modicum of diginity, dude.

I have now discovered what I set out to find and, consequently, have no further interest in the matter.

Which is? You've wasted a lot of people's time in pursuing this stupid interest of yours, the least you can do is tell us what you found.

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

I believe I said that whilst 'pretending for a moment that that body wasn't Eddowers'. You knew that. Twisting people's words is also a typical characteristic of someone backing a losing argument. As for replying to the rest of your post, I'm not even gonna bother repeating myself for the dozenth time only for it to fall on deliberately deaf and biased ears. You need to stop feeding the conspiracy theories and be objective.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Pippin Joan]

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

[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.