Eddowes Photograph

[Ribbons and Bows]

M&P he doesn't have to answer all your questions in one sitting and he is correct in saying the facial wound would be visible in position you indicated. Deflecting in such a way is juvenile.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Where are the numerous answers to my numerous questions which you have avoided numerous times? You're wrong and you know you are.

[Simon Wood]

Even on her back a vicious facial wound "dividing all the structures of the cheek" should be clearly visible [see post mortem stitching]. Where is it?

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Oh, for god's sake. One, Eddowes is on her back, and two, the body is completely white as though the flash was too bright when the picture was taken (as I pointed out before) so of course you're not going to be able to see every single wound. That and there does appear to be a slash (though it could be the poor quality of photograph itself) that goes across her face, albeit in the opposite direction. Doesn't prove anything in way of that body being anyone but Eddowes.

As for missing things, it seems you choose to miss a great deal of detail from the picture to suit your own ends. What about the rest of the wounds? The open torso, the mutilated nose and ear? How do you think they happened?

[Simon Wood]

Hi M&P,

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—this cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth"?

You can't miss it—



Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Ripped open, cut, sliced...
That must refer to the state of the pic.

Amitiés,
David

[Mascara & Paranoia]

And exactly how many of those murder victims had their torso ripped open, their nose cut off and also a part of their ear sliced off? Because those are the visible wounds in addition to the slashed throat that that woman has. Those are also the same wounds that Catherine Eddowes had inflicted upon her. Who did all of those mutilations to that unnamed woman who supposedly died due to just a cut throat? The only explanation for them, pretending for a moment that that isn't Eddowes, is a morgue attendant or a police photographer or someone of that caliber.

You're being illogical and choosing what you want to see and ignoring the rest because it doesn't suit your baseless argument. I don't want to be rude, but come on, a little bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

Thank you for that presentation. My point exactly.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

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

[Phil Carter]

As for that so-called other woman's murder being reported, no it wasn't, as we don't know her name, the scene of the crime or why she wasn't thought to be a Ripper victim. There's no press reports, no police reports. Nothing. Which means one of two things: either that is Catherine Eddowes or someone imitated Eddowes' murder and mutilated a body that bares a good resemblance of the woman in question for the purpose of taking a single photograph of it. Again, I find that hard to believe.

Hello M and P,

Is it at all possible, that this photo has nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders? That it represents a murder that happened elsewhere? Not even 1888?
Just an odd photo lying around? It may have been put with the other photo's at Snow Hill for comparison for all we know. It wasn't labelled. It wasn't documented.
THAT isn't a conspiracy theory. And in my honest opinion, plausible.
As Simon Wood says, and as I have pointed out, the wounds on the body are different as well.

This photo's quality is so bad, there is, in my, and other people's honest opinion, reasonable doubt, because, again imho, authenticity can only be proven with documented historical provenance. We have none. Therefore reasonable doubt.

best wishes

Phil

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Sorry for getting a little hotheaded before, but I'm still gonna remain resilient in saying that that is unreasonable doubt. I have read the medical reports, looked at all the photos (even the sketches), compared them and those are clearly of the same person - Catherine Eddowes. And it is a conspiracy theory (with massive holes in it that makes very little sense), because for that body to be anyone other than Eddowes, that would mean that someone deliberately mutilated that so-called anonymous woman's corpse with the intention of making it look like Catherine Eddowes (which is a weak notion at best, as whoever supposedly done that would've had the actual woman in question's body on hand to photograph anyway, so it's a redundant thing to do); whether you believe in any conspiracy theory or not isn't the issue, it's still fueling that particular fire innit?

As for that so-called other woman's murder being reported, no it wasn't, as we don't know her name, the scene of the crime or why she wasn't thought to be a Ripper victim. There's no press reports, no police reports. Nothing. Which means one of two things: either that is Catherine Eddowes or someone imitated Eddowes' murder and mutilated a body that bares a good resemblance of the woman in question for the purpose of taking a single photograph of it. Again, I find that hard to believe.

[Simon Wood]

Hi M&P,

"One of your ilk" must include me, for I too have my doubts that it is a picture of Eddowes. Not for any sinister conspiratorial reasons, but rather because I think a wrong assumption has been made. Study the two drawings, carefully read the medical inquest testimony and then take another look at the photograph. Aside from the extent of the abdominal wounds being completely different, the body mass is at odds with Eddowes' petite, undernourished frame shown in the upright photographs.

To answer your two questions and save you continually having to repeat yourself, [a] how can we be 100% certain of the corpse's identity without any corroborative information? And [b] the fact the corpse [whoever it was] was being photographed by the police means that the murder had been reported.

No conspiracy theories; just reasonable doubt.

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

The only advice I can give you is to be fair enough to read and try to understand, insofar as you are able, the posts you quote.

And believe it or not, the provenance of such a document is an interesting question, Eddowes or not.

For the record, I've never believed in any conspiracy theory.

Amitiés,
David

[Mascara & Paranoia]

You are still contradicting yourself...
"The wounds are extremely difficult to pinpoint and see" but are "Ripper-esque"...

Your anwers are more ridiculous than my questions, I'm afraid.

What do you want to say exactly ?

That it is unquestionably Eddowes although it's "extremely difficult" to see anything that could identify her ?

I'd stick to my reasonable : very possibly Eddowes, however the subject is worth an examination.

Amitiés,
David

By wounds I meant the little details that you and your ilk are using to discredit the body as being that of Catherine Eddowes, and you know it. Moles, cheek abbrasions, et cetera. How is anyone gonna be able to see those, realistically, with such a poor photograph? Yet when it comes to the identical wounds that are damn well known to be those of Catherine Eddowes (the missing ear lob, the sliced nose, the extensive throat cut, the mutilated mouth, and yeah, oh yeah, the gigantic gaping wound in her torso) you somehow deduce that it must be someone else, because you can't see all the other [minor] wounds with clarity.

Seriously, how many corpses did the police happen by that had Ripper-esque abdominal wounds like that? The only thing that's ridiculous here is your desperate and dare I say it, deluded argument that there's a "possibility" that that's not Eddowes.

So. Again, two questions which you seem to avoid because they debunk your argument, who is that woman if she isn't Catherine Eddowes and why wasn't her murder reported? You're reaching, and you know it. And I'm getting tired of continually repeating myself and having to read new conspiracy theories about this case. They are not helping.

[DaveMc]

Hi all,

Am I the only one who sees the inverted "V" beneath her right eye in the photo in this post?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=124228&postcount=120

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,

Nope

But it's another consistency I didn't see.
I see consistencies in the lay of the hair. Disfigured nose. Collapsed lip (missing teeth), and the 'X' pattern on the right cheek that's like one in another mortuary image. Square shoulders. Soft chin.