Eddowes Photograph

[DVV]

Some texts are qualified as "disputed".

I'd say this pic belongs to the "disputed images" category.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

Since those letters are so clearly put all over that photo, NOBODY can deny it has not been tampered with.

There aren't any breasts as such... and the nipples are almost invisible, without aereolae...compare THAT to the other Eddowes photo.

It ISN'T Eddowes in that photo.

I think some people should open their eyes.

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

Problem with the right cheek, too...

Amitiés,
David

[DaveMc]

Some texts are qualified as "disputed".

I'd say this pic belongs to the "disputed images" category.

Amitiés,
David

No. Not really.
It belongs in the "over exposed, bent, scratched, worn and eroded finish" category.

I'm baffled by the things thought to be in picture.
This was never a good image the moment it hit the glass plate emulsion in the camera. It's only gotten worse since then.

Unless Catherine had an extra joint in her bicep, you can't even see her right elbow . It's not in the picture.

What is in the picture is what looks like the corner of a collar about the neck and a tacked lining to the coffin.
The only visible part of Catherine's body is her head.
She's not naked.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

That's definitely Eddowes. Though I'm not too sure that may be the original photo though, it looks like it's been tampered with to an extent (not in a forgery way, but in an attempt to clear up what hypothetically may have been a blurry photograph, but the technology in the era that the image was recovered may have been sh*tty).

[Phil Carter]

Hello M and P,

I will give some very good reasons why I don't think that body CAN be Eddowes.

Take a few things and put them together...

1. We are told that photo is taken when the body is in the "shell"...
2. The "shell" is used to transport the body to the mortuary...
3. Look at the drawing from Foster, done at the crime scene, Mitre Square,
before she was loaded into the "shell", PRE AUTOPSY
4. The other photo of Eddowes standing shows her AFTER the autopsy...

Right. Foster's drawing shows the body of Eddowes opened up wide. GAPING wounds.
That picture in the "shell" is taken PRE autopsy..because if it wasn't, the stich marks nearly all the way from her pubes to her up to her throat would show. Therefore, ipso facto, put the two things together... she is wide open before the autopsy.

The body in that photo is NOT wide open.
The nipples show no aereolae. Look at the Eddowes photo AFTER the autopsy.
The nipples themselves are barely visible on this photo.
There are no breasts as such.
There are no signs of torso wounds that match the drawing of Eddowes done by Foster.
There is a mole showing in the middle of the body. This shows that there is no sheet over the body.

The wounds on the face in the drawing do NOT match the photo. The markings on the right hand side of the face in the photo, are made up of pen marks, with many letters.(Post 55). Likewise the mouth, nostrils and right eye.
There are letters of the alphabet all over the body, and pen marks.The biggest being a singular "triangle" in the centre of the body, on it's own unconnected to the other wounds. Below this, the pen marks V and L, left hand side, lower torso. The whole negative has been tampered with by pen.

Take away the pen marks...hey presto..no wounds. Therefore, quite simply. It cannot be Eddowes.... Who's body, pre autopsy, is wide open.

I believe that this photo, when found amongst the other photographic plates, was mistakenly presumed to be Eddowes. That I can accept. Human error.

So if you take Foster's drawing as accurate, which isn't to my knowledge in dispute, then ipso facto, that face cannot be Eddowes from Mitre Square, and by the same reasoning, the body in that photo cannot be that of Eddowes from Mitre Square either. Because it is pre autopsy, and the visible mole in the centre of the body shows that there is NO sheet over the body.

All these things show quite clearly that this is NOT the woman we know as Eddowes. It resembles NOT the drawing from Foster, nor the other photo taken AFTER the autopsy.

By your own words, that I totally agree with..this photo has been tampered with. Therefore, it is must be, by definition, clearly open to question of validity.

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

It belongs in the "over exposed, bent, scratched, worn and eroded finish" category.

Hi Dave,

I agree with that, it's even the only thing neatly visible on the pic.
Hence my problem to identify with certainty the body with Eddowes'.
Unless I'm mistaken, the phtograph hasn't been discovered in a file stamped "Catharine Eddowes", but it has been thought - and generally accepted - that it was Eddowes.

In addition to what I've already said, I would point out that this pic serves no forensic nor identification purpose. Which would be unique in the WMurders photographs that we know.
Unique also is the obscene gash in the throat. Just compare it to Nichols and Chapman mortuary pics.

Amitiés,
David

[DaveMc]

I put this in the wrong thread elsewhere. But I guess it belongs here.
I'm certain now the body is dressed.

The only visible wounds may be on the face.
The dark line across the neck looks like a ribbon or tie over a stand-up collar.
There are bends and scratches on the picture.
One mark, the big line at the bottom, looks like a crack in the glass plate negative.

However, I'm certain now that the body is clothed.

[Phil Carter]

Unless I'm mistaken, the photograph hasn't been discovered in a file stamped "Catharine Eddowes", but it has been thought - and generally accepted - that it was Eddowes.

Hello David,

My thoughts exactly. I believe the photograph has been mistakenly presumed to have been Eddowes. It would be interesting to hear from the finder on this issue.

best wishes

Phil

[belinda]

I don't know Only inspection of the original can really solve this one.

Does the original still exist?

[DVV]

I don't know Only inspection of the original can really solve this one.

Hi Belinda,

My position too.

Until a necessary inspection of the original, I don't want to be too confident that it's an Eddowes' pic, nor I want to appear too suspicious that it's not.

Wait and hope a confirmation either way.

Amitiés,
David

[DaveMc]

Hi Belinda,

My position too.

Until a necessary inspection of the original, I don't want to be too confident that it's an Eddowes' pic, nor I want to appear too suspicious that it's not.

Wait and hope a confirmation either way.

Amitiés,
David

I've done it until my eyes hurt with most the techniques I know.

There's a fingerprint or stamp on the left.
I'm certain some kind of writing.

It's very teasing.
Just to the left of the right armpit and starts on the coffin rail:
There's one part of the photo that looks like it starts off " C a t h " (in print)
but it also looks like "C E in (space over armpit) Coffin"

I've convinced myself that it's "C E in coffin"
but it's still subject to being a "holy tortilla".

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Hello M and P,

I will give some very good reasons why I don't think that body CAN be Eddowes.

Take a few things and put them together...

1. We are told that photo is taken when the body is in the "shell"...
2. The "shell" is used to transport the body to the mortuary...
3. Look at the drawing from Foster, done at the crime scene, Mitre Square,
before she was loaded into the "shell", PRE AUTOPSY
4. The other photo of Eddowes standing shows her AFTER the autopsy...

Right. Foster's drawing shows the body of Eddowes opened up wide. GAPING wounds.
That picture in the "shell" is taken PRE autopsy..because if it wasn't, the stich marks nearly all the way from her pubes to her up to her throat would show. Therefore, ipso facto, put the two things together... she is wide open before the autopsy.

The body in that photo is NOT wide open.
The nipples show no aereolae. Look at the Eddowes photo AFTER the autopsy.
The nipples themselves are barely visible on this photo.
There are no breasts as such.
There are no signs of torso wounds that match the drawing of Eddowes done by Foster.
There is a mole showing in the middle of the body. This shows that there is no sheet over the body.

You got some interesting points, but regarding Eddowers not being wide open whilst being in the 'shell', that's easily explainable: the attendants or whatever they were called would've put her intestines and other misplaced bits and pieces back in her torso for transportation purposes, and in an effort to facilitate the cleaning process of the bloodied cobbles.

Regarding the tits, I gotta say I never really thought to look at them before, so I've only just noticed that, yeah, you're right in saying that there doesn't appear to be any that's noticable. But, the photo in question is really difficult to determine, so again, her not having a whole lot up front in the picture is easily explainable. Plus she's dead and lain on her back and talking about this is a little freaky.

About the mole, are we really sure that's a mole (I can't see it for the record, but still) and not a blemish on the photograph? I mean, the quality of the picture itself is terrible, it looks like it's all scratchy and as though it could be a photo copy of an original or something.

The wounds on the face in the drawing do NOT match the photo. The markings on the right hand side of the face in the photo, are made up of pen marks, with many letters.(Post 55). Likewise the mouth, nostrils and right eye.
There are letters of the alphabet all over the body, and pen marks.The biggest being a singular "triangle" in the centre of the body, on it's own unconnected to the other wounds. Below this, the pen marks V and L, left hand side, lower torso. The whole negative has been tampered with by pen.

Take away the pen marks...hey presto..no wounds. Therefore, quite simply. It cannot be Eddowes.... Who's body, pre autopsy, is wide open.

I believe that this photo, when found amongst the other photographic plates, was mistakenly presumed to be Eddowes. That I can accept. Human error.

So if you take Foster's drawing as accurate, which isn't to my knowledge in dispute, then ipso facto, that face cannot be Eddowes from Mitre Square, and by the same reasoning, the body in that photo cannot be that of Eddowes from Mitre Square either. Because it is pre autopsy, and the visible mole in the centre of the body shows that there is NO sheet over the body.

I can kind of understand the face not looking like Eddowes as seen in the other pictures, but, like you say, this photo is taken prior to her being fixed up, and I kind of get the impression that maybe people might look little a bit different to how they usually do if they'd had their faces sliced and cut into. Plus, again, blurry and grainy photograph. It's really hard to determine the exact wounds in this one.

I definitely know for a fact that that body is that of Catherine Eddowes though, as, who else would it be? Stride wasn't mutiliated, it doesn't look like Chapman or Nichols. And if there were any other murders of a Ripper caliber like what is evidently so in that picture, then this supposedly mystery woman would've been given an idenity and a place as the sixth canonical victim. I mean, if that's not Eddowes, then who is she and why was her murder not reported? Especially given the uncanny nature of her extremely Ripperesque crime.

All these things show quite clearly that this is NOT the woman we know as Eddowes. It resembles NOT the drawing from Foster, nor the other photo taken AFTER the autopsy.

By your own words, that I totally agree with..this photo has been tampered with. Therefore, it is must be, by definition, clearly open to question of validity.

Maybe. Though the only question of validity regarding the picture is, was this the original photo or a duplicate, hence the poor quality?

[DVV]

Hi M&P,

the right cheek is neat and visible.
Where's the wound ?

Amitiés,
David

[Suzi]

You got some interesting points, but regarding Eddowers not being wide open whilst being in the 'shell', that's easily explainable: the attendants or whatever they were called would've put her intestines and other misplaced bits and pieces back in her torso for transportation purposes, and in an effort to facilitate the cleaning process of the bloodied cobbles.

Regarding the tits, I gotta say I never really thought to look at them before, so I've only just noticed that, yeah, you're right in saying that there doesn't appear to be any that's noticable. But, the photo in question is really difficult to determine, so again, her not having a whole lot up front in the picture is easily explainable. Plus she's dead and lain on her back and talking about this is a little freaky.

About the mole, are we really sure that's a mole (I can't see it for the record, but still) and not a blemish on the photograph? I mean, the quality of the picture itself is terrible, it looks like it's all scratchy and as though it could be a photo copy of an original or something.



I can kind of understand the face not looking like Eddowes as seen in the other pictures, but, like you say, this photo is taken prior to her being fixed up, and I kind of get the impression that maybe people might look little a bit different to how they usually do if they'd had their faces sliced and cut into. Plus, again, blurry and grainy photograph. It's really hard to determine the exact wounds in this one.

I definitely know for a fact that that body is that of Catherine Eddowes though, as, who else would it be? Stride wasn't mutiliated, it doesn't look like Chapman or Nichols. And if there were any other murders of a Ripper caliber like what is evidently so in that picture, then this supposedly mystery woman would've been given an idenity and a place as the sixth canonical victim. I mean, if that's not Eddowes, then who is she and why was her murder not reported? Especially given the uncanny nature of her extremely Ripperesque crime.



Maybe. Though the only question of validity regarding the picture is, was this the original photo or a duplicate, hence the poor quality?

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

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

For goodness sake where is this going?