Eddowes Photograph

[DVV]

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

[Mascara & Paranoia]

The pic shows a throat cut. Not only the W victims had their throat cut.

But only the "W" victims had their torsos ripped open. If that's not a "W" victim, then who the hell is it and why was her Ripper-esque murder not reported? The only explanations for it are a) that's Eddowes and/or a legitimate Ripper victim or b) one of the morgue attendants or someone mutilated her face and took a photo of the woman after doing a postmortem examination. I find the latter scenario somewhat unbelievable somehow.

I didn't "deduce" it was not Eddowes.
On the contrary, in the post you've quoted, I said it was "very possibly" Eddowes.
And asking questions shouldn't be beyond you - for that's all I'm doing.

But it's a ridiculous question to ask that only as a very limited array of answers, all of which I've supplied.

Then Eddowes body is "hard to see properly" but you have no doubt it is Eddowes...
I cannot be so flat. The upper lip, for example, tells me it is Eddowes, but on the other hand, some other details seem to raise questions that could be cleared by a closer inspection of the original.

Such as? Most of the wounds are extremely difficult to pinpoint and see with any clarity, and I doubt looking at the original photo will clear things up either. The photo itself is poor quality and that's the only thing that's wrong with the picture as a whole.

[DVV]

Who else is it gonna be? There were no other Ripper murders and I somehow doubt the police would've mutiliated a random woman's body just so they can take a shoddy picture of it for whatever reason.

The pic shows a throat cut. Not only the W victims had their throat cut.

Also, that sketch looks strikingly similiar to the photo in question btw, so how anyone can deduce that the cadaver in the shell is anyone but Eddowes is beyond me.

I didn't "deduce" it was not Eddowes.
On the contrary, in the post you've quoted, I said it was "very possibly" Eddowes.
And asking questions shouldn't be beyond you - for that's all I'm doing.

I'm not sure how those Victorian camers worked, but didn't they have to put powder in it? Maybe there was too much or not enough and so the flash was too bright, hence how Eddowes' body is hard to see properly (it looks completely white and almost luminous, as though the flash was too bright when the picture was taken).

Then Eddowes body is "hard to see properly" but you have no doubt it is Eddowes...
I cannot be so flat. The upper lip, for example, tells me it is Eddowes, but on the other hand, some other details seem to raise questions that could be cleared by a closer inspection of the original.

Amitiés,
David

[Mascara & Paranoia]

it's neither Tabram nor MacKenzie.
Then it must be Eddowes ?!
I'd say it's very possibly Eddowes, an again, a look at the original wouldn't harm anybody.

Well, yeah. Who else is it gonna be? There were no other Ripper murders and I somehow doubt the police would've mutiliated a random woman's body just so they can take a shoddy picture of it for whatever reason. It's gotta be Eddowes and Eddowes only.

[ATTACH]8246[/ATTACH]

Also, that sketch looks strikingly similiar to the photo in question btw, so how anyone can deduce that the cadaver in the shell is anyone but Eddowes is beyond me. I'm not sure how those Victorian camers worked, but didn't they have to put powder in it? Maybe there was too much or not enough and so the flash was too bright, hence how Eddowes' body is hard to see properly (it looks completely white and almost luminous, as though the flash was too bright when the picture was taken).

[Victor]

it's neither Tabram nor MacKenzie.
Then it must be Eddowes ?!
I'd say it's very possibly Eddowes, an again, a look at the original wouldn't harm anybody.

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.

[DVV]

Hi M&P,

it's neither Tabram nor MacKenzie.
Then it must be Eddowes ?!
I'd say it's very possibly Eddowes, an again, a look at the original wouldn't harm anybody.

Amitiés,
David

[Mascara & Paranoia]

There's no probably about it. If that isn't Eddowes then who is she and why wasn't her murder reported? Especially seeing as her body was photographed by the police (and it is a photo, not a portrait, as why would they draw an intricate image of Eddowes in a casing when they had the actual body that they could more easily photograph instead? It doesn't make an iota of sense for it to be a portrait).

That's not Stride, Chapman or Nichols either, and it certainly ain't Kelly. It's Eddowes for definite.

[jason_c]

Hi Trevor,

I can't even see her nipple.



Hi Corey,

That's just it. It is to degraded, that's why there's no agreement anywhere. People see what they want to see. I've no doubts it's Catherine Eddowes.

Regards

Rob

We all now agree she isn't lying in a boat anyway.



I believe its probably Eddowes too.

[belinda]

Maybe the clothing has been pulled back caught behind her when she was put in the shell.

I don't see breasts (not "tits" please M&P) letters or clothing.

Only an inspection of the original photo could really clear this up and even then it might not be in the best condition now given its age.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

FIRSTLY APOLOGISING FOR REPEATING ALL THIS TOOT ...BUT.....
Ooh Dear M & P-
'tits' Oooooh please!!!! That if it is Kate- which I suspect it - without clothes or dignity- end of story!
Strangely prurient I feel-
Sorry to quote all that toot above chaps- but was so upset by the irreverence of it all!!! - M & P please.....can we stick to the cold facts- not your badly spelt fantasies about dead women in their sad SHELLS/boxes/AKA POOR COFFINS

Hmmmm

I'm sorry, but what? That's just the way I talk, there's no sick ulterior meaning behind it - at all. Also, ironic that you are critisizing my spelling. Seen the state of your grammar lately?

A photocopy?!!! unlikely and for why???...

For goodness sake where is this going?

I wouldn't say it was unlikely; it's a fairly reasonable explanation as to how bad the quality of the photo looks. Maybe the original was damaged and they felt the need to make a back-up and that's the one that we're seeing? It's not as if I was saying it was an ascertained fact.

Anyway, as you guys were...

[Hunter]

I assumed so. In a hypothetical sense, this whole case is too degraded to really get much out. "Jack the Ripper" is itself degraded. Just like this photo.

Corey,

That's the most sensable line in this whole thread.

[corey123]

Hi Rob,

I assumed so. In a hypothetical sense, this whole case is too degraded to really get much out. "Jack the Ripper" is itself degraded. Just like this photo.

Yours truly

[Rob Clack]

Not necessarily it looks as if she had small breasts in any event. add to that her undernourished state, with her laying on her back there would be almost no breast to see save perhaps the nipple.

Look at the photo taken which looks as if she was propped up that gives a better indication

Hi Trevor,

I can't even see her nipple.

Hi Rob,

This photo, honestly, is just too degraded to make much out of it. It is most likely Eddowed but we will never be sure I guess.

Yours truly

Hi Corey,

That's just it. It is to degraded, that's why there's no agreement anywhere. People see what they want to see. I've no doubts it's Catherine Eddowes.

Regards

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Trevor,

Thanks for the comment.

...there would be almost no breast to see save perhaps the nipple.

Exactly. THAT photo you refer to clearly shows a dark areolae around each nipple.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

The body is either covered or it's not. If you can see her right nipple then you should be able to see her right breast. You can't so she's covered up.

The lettering you claim to see isn't clear and also you have no way of knowing when/if it was put on the photo. Personally I think it's just a mixture of dirt and scratches on the photo.

Rob

Hello Rob,

Conversely, if you can see the nipple and not the dark areolae, then she isn't covered up and then it isn't Eddowes.

We have two differing opinions. Doubtful we shall agree. I can accept that.

best wishes

Phil