Eddowes Photograph

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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,

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

[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

[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]

@ 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).

[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...

[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.

[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.