Eddowes Photograph

[Suzi]

Ooooh gawd we'll be back to this next!!

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Suzi,

I can't agree with you more. Simon started this thread by asking the provenance of this photo. Fair question, and in post #17 knowledgeable person Stewart answered.

But that's not good enough, is it?

No that doesn't cut the mustard does it?

No let's just ramble on, why don't we.

Roy

[Suzi]

Good morning Suzi,

I can't agree with you more. Simon started this thread by asking the provenance of this photo. Fair question, and in post #17 knowledgeable person Stewart answered.



Roy

Cheers Roy!!!! Glad I'm not the only vaguely sane one here!!!
Now about that pair of false eyelashes we can see just above the first cut-

(shut up Suz ! LOL xx- sorry)

...and thanks to Stewart WAAAAY back at the beginning when there was a sensible question- and a sensible- serious answer!!!!!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Suzi,

Thank you for your reply.
Sadly, I have to agree about irreverance. Of which I may be guilty. In which case, thank you for pointing it out.

However, there are questions relating to this photograph that in my honest opinion, need adressing.

1) There is a distinct lack of scarring on the torso itself compared to the known facts AND Foster's drawing.
2) There is also a distinct lack or scarring or injury on the cheek, again compared to the known facts, the other facial photo and Foster's drawing.
3) There are also no visible human breasts, or mammaries if you prefer, no areolae, all of which is clearly visible on Foster's drawing and especially on the photo of this lady taken AFTER the autopsy.
4) The explanatiuon of a sheet being over the body must be wrong if the simple fact that a mole in the middle of the chest is clearly visible when zoomed in upon.
5) The shoulder has, according to some, now become propped up with a "pillow", though for what reason a pillow under her shoulder in a transportation shell would be, I am at a loss to know why.
6) The explanation for the lack of mammaries above, doesn't in any way show reason for no areolae around the nipples, which are extremely small and almost invisible. And the photo and the descriptions of Eddowes herself AFTER the autopsy do NOT match this photo supposedly taken before the autopsy, because both the mammaries and areolae are clearly visible. The chest area on this photo is totally different.

Therefore, these things must be pointed out. The scarring to the face on the right hand side of the photo, together with loads of printed letters all over the body, penned in markings onto the negative, and the plain fact that a body once open doesn't neatly zip up again after the intestines are replaced within the abdominal cavity for transport, however reverently one puts it, means that this photo cannot be the lady we know as Eddowes.

There is just too much within this photograph that doesn't match the known facts relating to injuries and scars.


You ask where this is going? Simple.

It is my estimation that this photograph is NOT EDDOWES. I believe therefore serious questions should be asked about it's validity and authenticity.
I base this on the above reasoning amongst much much more.

I have previously stated I do not doubt that when found, amongst the other photographic plates of Eddowes, it was presumed to be her. However, closer examination with the technical apparatus we have today, easily reveals this negative plate to have been tampered with. And I would welcome the finder to give his views in light of the many discrepancies revealed with this photographic print.

We must also remember, as has been pointed out by others, that these plates were NOT labelled when found. The provenance is therefore not established. Just because a person "recognises" a photo to be X, doesn't mean it is X. There is also no written record of any photograph of Eddowes taken in the shell either.

A written label was given to this photo in Commander Millen's photographic album amongst others, supposedly used for lecture purposes. That doesn't give it, or any of the photo's handed in to the Black Museum for that matter any provenance. Just like MJK3.

That is why I question this photo. Fairly and reverendly. For historical accuracy purposes. Also because I am tired of having to accept what we have been told, without question. There is enough in this one example to question authenticity.

I apologise for the long winded reply, but have tried to answer you respectfully and in full.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

But that's not good enough, is it?

No that doesn't cut the mustard does it?

No let's just ramble on, why don't we. :

Hello Roy,
Thank you for your comment.

No, it doesn't cut the mustard when the negative has been tampered with. And it isn't just me that sees this.

No, we don't have to accept anything that is obviously riddled with discrepancies, and that has been pointed out. One by one.

If it had been one small problem, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Some people around here think that no one has the right to rock the established boat. We do have that right to point out things, especially when we have evidence enough to question authenticity.

respectfully, and with best wishes

Phil

[Bob Hinton]

Picture

But the picture is nothing discernible, it could be anything up to and including a marshmallow that's been dropped on a fire!

[Rob Clack]

Perhaps you would like to post us a high resolution copy of the negative Phil, so we can see these pen markings for ourselves.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hello Bob,

Thank you for the reply.

"Nothing is discernable"...which says... everything.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

If I had the negative, I would..I can only do my best with what is on this site, which I have tried to do in many previous posts.

best wishes

Phil

[Suzi]

Perhaps you would like to post us a high resolution copy of the negative Phil, so we can see these pen markings for ourselves.

Rob

Let's see it 'eh Phil- have a go 'eh

[Phil Carter]

Suzi,

Post 55. Blow it up..zoom in..clear as daylight.

best wishes

Phil

[Suzi]

OK cheers Phil-
Not a letter in sight though IMHO- not even a F M x

[DVV]

Phil, all,

I've just noticed something that tells me I was certainly wrong regarding the right cheek.

Comparing Eddowes "mutilated portrait" and "Eddowes body standing", it's pretty clear that the wound on the right cheek, visible on "Eddowes mutilated portrait", belongs in fact to the left cheek (both pics can be seen on the same page in Begg The Facts).

Note that in the portrait, the left eyebrow is clearly above the right one, whereas it is clearly the contrary in "Eddowes body standing".

Conclusion : Eddowes mutilated portrait is a reverted pic.
The wound I have been alluded to is therefore logically invisible in "Eddowes in the coffin".

Amitiés all,
David

[Rob Clack]

Hello Rob,

If I had the negative, I would..I can only do my best with what is on this site, which I have tried to do in many previous posts.

best wishes

Phil

What? Your only going by a poor low resolution copy which has faded and been badly handled for a hundred and twenty two years.
I think you should put a bit more thought into what you are posting before telling people to open there eyes.
There's no doubt in my mind that this is a photograph of Catherine Eddowes.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

alphabet soup

Rob,

here is a little clearer example. F, S, N O W all clear amongst others. I hope this helps.

best wishes

Phil