Eddowes Photograph

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,
Thank you for your comments.
Agreed. And as your last sketch shows, the wound, in the mortuary, was open, unbroken from pelvis to chest. That tallies with the Doctors official notes. does it not?

best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

If she's naked then why can't we see her breasts?
The likely scenario is that she was put in the shell at Mitre Square, taken back to the City Mortuary, photographed in the shell and then put on the post-mortem slab and then undressed. Where an inventory of her clothes and belongings were taken.

Rob

[corey123]

Hi Rob,

I only wounder why hear clothes are so light. When report says she was wearing dark clothing.

[Rob Clack]

That's a good point, but she must be wearing something otherwise we would be seeing her breasts.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

If she's naked then why can't we see her breasts?
The likely scenario is that she was put in the shell at Mitre Square, taken back to the City Mortuary, photographed in the shell and then put on the post-mortem slab and then undressed. Where an inventory of her clothes and belongings were taken.

Rob

Hello Rob,

Thanks for the comment.

That would be a very good question, if, and I say if, she was covered. The picture following shows (on the left of the picture) her right nipple, without areolae, (that happens to have RN above it) and (on the right of the picture) the mole (that happens to have M above it). Therefore, body parts shown. Therefore, she isn't covered. That is why I ask..where are the breasts and mammaries, c/w dark areolae?
There are only two possible answers.

1) The body is Eddowes and she is covered or
2) The body is NOT Eddowes and is uncovered

Because the body cannot be Eddowes and uncovered.. because of the very thing you pointed out.

So therefore no body parts should be showing in this photo.

Also, the picture also shows lettering clearly, and the large triangular dark patch is in no way connected to the supposed open wound Eddowes has.

Imho therefore it isn't Eddowes. It doesn't match the descriptions in the testimony, both drawn by Foster and written by the Doctor.

respectfuølly, with best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

That's a good point, but she must be wearing something otherwise we would be seeing her breasts.

Rob

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

[corey123]

Hi Rob,

Perhaps she may be covered by a blankit of some sort. It all the mortuary photos besides Kates, they are covered in a blankit.

It might just be the lighting of the room or the angle of the photograph.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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...

[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.