Eddowes Photograph

[Suzi]

Case closed then!!!!- LOL sadly not tho

[corey123]

Hi All,

Ok for real interepretation of this photo, Kate or not. What do you think these are? Blood vessels or dirt blotches?

[Suzi]

Photo blotches without a doubt!!!!!!!!...Why? what do you think they are??....vampires maybe......??

[corey123]

Hi Suzi,

No not vampires, werewolves. Just woundering.

They couldn't be blood vessles becuase they are too centred. Nothing is in that line besides the esophagus, larynx, and the spine.

Yours truly

[Suzi]

They're blotches on a very old-much handled photograph - and if it wasn't for Donald and Snow Hill etc etc- we wouldn't have it at all!- blotches or not!

[corey123]

Hi Suzi,

Your right, without Don, we wouldn't have alot.

I wish this photo wasn't so degraded though. It does sort of look like she is clothed doesn't she?

[Suzi]

Sorry don't see clothes/letters or anything- just poor Kate in a sad and sorry poor box

[corey123]

Hi Suzi,

Its hard to tell. I don't really know yet if she is or not, but if you look at it when pointed, it looks like she is clothed.

Check out Phils thread "Who is this person". I think someone pointed it out on it. Or it might be on this thread. Im not sure.

[Hunter]

Folks,

Its probably where the trachea comes out of the larynx. It is smaller and more constricted there. Or, it might be the pituitary glands. Would be the right spot.

Man! Some of the threads that has been going around lately

[Phil Carter]

This is the best copy I've got.
[ATTACH]8241[/ATTACH]

The problem is the marks could be anything and made at any time over the years, there's enough scratches and dirt marks covering the image to make us wary of what we see in it. It's also faded a little as well which doesn't help.
Don Rumbelow found the photo in the attic of Snow Hill Police Station and he said it's Catherine Eddowes which is more then good enough for me. If it isn't, then who is it?

Rob

Hello Rob,

Thank you for that. Much appreciated.

3 points.

Foster's drawings are accepted as being those that describe the written word of the doctors..or more or less. Right. In BOTH the written word and the drawings, TWO things are abundantly clear..

a) There is a CONTINUOS OPEN WOUND from the lower pelvic area up too between the breasts on Foster's drawing and as described by the doctor. There is NO continuous open wound here on this photo. Far from it infact..

b) There are the infamous V shaped "flaps" or whatever you wish to call them. Where, on this photo, is there a V shaped flap? It is easily deciferable on his drawing. There is no sign of a V shape cut on this photo.

then this as asked before...


c) The row of "teeth" BELOW the chin, easily visible on your photo. If they are not teeth, what are they? What human anatomical piece do they refer to? And if an open wound, then why isn't that listed in the mountains written by the doctor?


As far as provenace goes, I have no qualms with the fact that Don Rumbelow found this photo. Much as I , we, all of us respect the gentleman, that does not prove provenance I'm afraid.

The definition of provenance is the foillowing:-

(from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/provenance)

a. The history of the ownership of an object, especially when documented or authenticated. Used of artworks, antiques, and books.
b. The records or documents authenticating such an object or the history of its ownership.

also..

...In most fields the primary purpose of provenance is to confirm or gather evidence as to the time, place, and if appropriate the person responsible, for the creation, production or discovery of the object, but this will typically be accomplished by tracing the whole history of the object up to the present. Comparative techniques, expert opinions, and the results of various kinds of scientific tests may also be used to these ends, but establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation.

Wikipedia. (my emphasis.)


There is NO document or record as to the authenticity of this photograph. It was not with named label. Nor does there exist any reference to it in known documentation pre-discovery.

The presentation of all those photographs from 1987 in that photograph album reperesents no provenance either. There was no documentation for their existance.
Before that, when this particular photo was found, it was apparently amongst other photographs of Eddowes. That does not prove providence. Whether I believe, or you believe, that Don Rumbelow is right or wrong in his judgement of the identity of this body, establishing provenance is a matter of documentation. Thats the way it works.

I believe Mr Rumbelow made a wrong call this time. It is human to err. That doesnt make him any less "great" in my eyes. That is why I would like to hear his views on the matter.

Finally..you ask...who is it then. Rob?... I honestly wish I knew. I don't. But I have enough reason to doubt that is Catharine Eddowes, because of the three points above, amongst much else, that do NOT match the documented evidence of two people. Foster and the Doctor.

best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

a) There is a CONTINUOS OPEN WOUND from the lower pelvic area up too between the breasts on Foster's drawing and as described by the doctor. There is NO continuous open wound here on this photo. Far from it infact..

Probably because she is clothed.

b) There are the infamous V shaped "flaps" or whatever you wish to call them. Where, on this photo, is there a V shaped flap? It is easily deciferable on his drawing. There is no sign of a V shape cut on this photo.

Not easily decipherable in this photo. As I said it's in very poor condition.

c) The row of "teeth" BELOW the chin, easily visible on your photo. If they are not teeth, what are they? What human anatomical piece do they refer to? And if an open wound, then why isn't that listed in the mountains written by the doctor?

You've lost me on this one. How can you have teeth below the chin?

As far as provennce goes, I have no qualms with the fact that Don Rumbelow found this photo. Much as I , we, all of us respect the gentleman, that does not prove provenance I'm afraid.

The definition of provenance is the foillowing:-

(from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/provenance)

a. The history of the ownership of an object, especially when documented or authenticated. Used of artworks, antiques, and books.
b. The records or documents authenticating such an object or the history of its ownership.

I know what provenance is.

also..



Wikipedia. (my emphasis.)


There is NO document or record as to the authenticity of this photograph. It was not with named label. Nor does there exist any reference to it in known documentation pre-discovery.

The presentation of all those photographs from 1987 in that photograph album reperesents no provenance either. There was no documentation for their existance.
Before that, when this particular photo was found, it was apparently amongst other photographs of Eddowes. That does not prove providence. Whether I believe, or you believe, that Don Rumbelow is right or wrong in his judgement of the identity of this body, establishing provenance is a matter of documentation. Thats the way it works.

Don found the photo around 1966/67. Well if it was found amongst photographs of Catherine Eddowes then logically that's who it is.

I believe Mr Rumbelow made a wrong call this time. It is human to err. That doesnt make him any less "great" in my eyes. That is why I would like to hear his views on the matter.

That's your opinion, but he's in a better positon to know as he's seen the actual photograph and didn't base his opinion on a low resolution copy.

Finally..you ask...who is it then. Rob?... I honestly wish I knew. I don't. But I have enough reason to doubt that is Catharine Eddowes, because of the three points above, amongst much else, that do NOT match the documented evidence of two people. Foster and the Doctor.

To me it does based on the reasons I've already given.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Rob,

Thank you for your reply.

Our views clearly differ. I base my opinions on documented evidence. Foster and the Doctor. Two people there at the time., drawing and writing and witnessing the body, with wounds drawn and described not on this photo.
I accept we have different views.
There is still no provenance. Even though I'd love to say, yes..his (Mr Rumbelow's) word is final. There is no documentary evidence for the existance of this photo, nor of the photos that appeared miraculously in that album from 1987, labeled as the Whitechapel victims. There is no documented history.

respectfully, best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

Hi Phil,

I just think it's dangerous to base an opinion on such a bad quality photo. Just look at all the disagreement about what is and what isn't in the photo.

Regards

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Rob,

Thanks for the reply.
I do respect that comment. And I do see the reason for it being said. However, such a questionable piece of "evidence" invites authenticity verification. That right we all have. I do not just "accept" because I am told to. I can base an opinion against medical and documentary evidence. There is nothing at all wrong with that.

I think it just as dangerous to presume provenance without historical documentation. That goes for any photo that suddenly turns up.

If we are allowed to ask for provenance for "The Diary", "The Abberline Diaries", etc etc ...then we are also allowed to ask for provenance for anything that is laid before us. And it doesn't matter who presents it. And as you have seen, I respect Mr Rumbelow a great deal, as much as anyone else. That doesn't put him above the rest of us in terms of provenance. Because if that is the case...

Commander Millen, for example, was head of the CID... a man that supposedly has, because of his position, complete trustworthyness. Yet this fellow APPARENTLY walked around with evidence from the most famous set of murders in English History, presenting these photos at lectures AFTER he retired fromn the force. He didnt do those lectures for free I bet either. So WHO a person is, determines nothing. Millens apparent behaviour tells me much... questionably legal posession of Scotland Yard/Home Office documentary evidence of a series of murders.

That is IF you believe the story that Millen had the photos in an album, and loose ones, and loose documents (Bond Papers, hand written apparently, and are they stamped?) the paper sent in with the marginalia, (which I am yet to see if it is officially stamped, as there is no reference to an official stamp in Sourcebook) . In general, what was sent into the Black Museum in general in 1987 has been questioned by many more than me. On all of the above things.

Personally I think it all a little too convenient. 1888/1988 anniversary. And it will happen again in time for the 125th. Odds on.

So Rob, I do respect your comment, but I have the right to, and refuse to accept things that have provenance questions yet presented as definitive fact.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Let's look at this objectively.

If this is a photograph of Eddowes then, as no stitching is visible, it must have been taken after her clothes were removed [by 3.45 am on Sunday] but before her autopsy [2.30 pm on Sunday].



But if this is the case we have to ask why the mutilations are far more extensive in these two drawings—





We can further deduce that if this is a photograph of Eddowes then the intestines which "were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder" must have either been severed or tucked neatly back into the abdominal cavity by a doctor. But whichever was the case, once released from constraint by the abdominal muscles the intestines tend to erupt from the body and should therefore be clearly visible. Check out this autopsy at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRAh3Qse-Us [which I warn you is not for the faint-hearted].

SPE tells us in post #17 that it was one of the City Police photographs of Eddowes found by Don Rumbelow. But by the fact that it carries no identifying information and that there are too many discrepancies with the drawings and inquest testimony there is a case for suggesting that, given where the photograph was found, it was merely assumed in all good faith to be that of Catherine Eddowes.

Also, if this is a photograph of Eddowes, we have to ask why Frederick Foster needed to make a sketch of her in the mortuary.

Regards,

Simon