Eddowes Photograph

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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).

[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]

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]

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

[DaveMc]

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.

Hi Vic,

Nope

But it's another consistency I didn't see.
I see consistencies in the lay of the hair. Disfigured nose. Collapsed lip (missing teeth), and the 'X' pattern on the right cheek that's like one in another mortuary image. Square shoulders. Soft chin.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

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

By wounds I meant the little details that you and your ilk are using to discredit the body as being that of Catherine Eddowes, and you know it. Moles, cheek abbrasions, et cetera. How is anyone gonna be able to see those, realistically, with such a poor photograph? Yet when it comes to the identical wounds that are damn well known to be those of Catherine Eddowes (the missing ear lob, the sliced nose, the extensive throat cut, the mutilated mouth, and yeah, oh yeah, the gigantic gaping wound in her torso) you somehow deduce that it must be someone else, because you can't see all the other [minor] wounds with clarity.

Seriously, how many corpses did the police happen by that had Ripper-esque abdominal wounds like that? The only thing that's ridiculous here is your desperate and dare I say it, deluded argument that there's a "possibility" that that's not Eddowes.

So. Again, two questions which you seem to avoid because they debunk your argument, who is that woman if she isn't Catherine Eddowes and why wasn't her murder reported? You're reaching, and you know it. And I'm getting tired of continually repeating myself and having to read new conspiracy theories about this case. They are not helping.

[DVV]

The only advice I can give you is to be fair enough to read and try to understand, insofar as you are able, the posts you quote.

And believe it or not, the provenance of such a document is an interesting question, Eddowes or not.

For the record, I've never believed in any conspiracy theory.

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

Hi M&P,

"One of your ilk" must include me, for I too have my doubts that it is a picture of Eddowes. Not for any sinister conspiratorial reasons, but rather because I think a wrong assumption has been made. Study the two drawings, carefully read the medical inquest testimony and then take another look at the photograph. Aside from the extent of the abdominal wounds being completely different, the body mass is at odds with Eddowes' petite, undernourished frame shown in the upright photographs.

To answer your two questions and save you continually having to repeat yourself, [a] how can we be 100% certain of the corpse's identity without any corroborative information? And [b] the fact the corpse [whoever it was] was being photographed by the police means that the murder had been reported.

No conspiracy theories; just reasonable doubt.

Regards,

Simon

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Sorry for getting a little hotheaded before, but I'm still gonna remain resilient in saying that that is unreasonable doubt. I have read the medical reports, looked at all the photos (even the sketches), compared them and those are clearly of the same person - Catherine Eddowes. And it is a conspiracy theory (with massive holes in it that makes very little sense), because for that body to be anyone other than Eddowes, that would mean that someone deliberately mutilated that so-called anonymous woman's corpse with the intention of making it look like Catherine Eddowes (which is a weak notion at best, as whoever supposedly done that would've had the actual woman in question's body on hand to photograph anyway, so it's a redundant thing to do); whether you believe in any conspiracy theory or not isn't the issue, it's still fueling that particular fire innit?

As for that so-called other woman's murder being reported, no it wasn't, as we don't know her name, the scene of the crime or why she wasn't thought to be a Ripper victim. There's no press reports, no police reports. Nothing. Which means one of two things: either that is Catherine Eddowes or someone imitated Eddowes' murder and mutilated a body that bares a good resemblance of the woman in question for the purpose of taking a single photograph of it. Again, I find that hard to believe.

[Phil Carter]

As for that so-called other woman's murder being reported, no it wasn't, as we don't know her name, the scene of the crime or why she wasn't thought to be a Ripper victim. There's no press reports, no police reports. Nothing. Which means one of two things: either that is Catherine Eddowes or someone imitated Eddowes' murder and mutilated a body that bares a good resemblance of the woman in question for the purpose of taking a single photograph of it. Again, I find that hard to believe.

Hello M and P,

Is it at all possible, that this photo has nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders? That it represents a murder that happened elsewhere? Not even 1888?
Just an odd photo lying around? It may have been put with the other photo's at Snow Hill for comparison for all we know. It wasn't labelled. It wasn't documented.
THAT isn't a conspiracy theory. And in my honest opinion, plausible.
As Simon Wood says, and as I have pointed out, the wounds on the body are different as well.

This photo's quality is so bad, there is, in my, and other people's honest opinion, reasonable doubt, because, again imho, authenticity can only be proven with documented historical provenance. We have none. Therefore reasonable doubt.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi M&P,

The C5 weren't the only women to have their throats cut during the LVP [a period spanning twenty five years]; also, who's to say the corpse in the photograph was murdered in 1888?

Here's twelve women [there are more] who had their throats cut, any one of whom may have been photographed—

Harriet Lane 1875
Elizabeth Firth 1875
Emily Holland 1876
Emma Rolfe 1876
Mary Sanders 1877
Minnie Fantham 1877
Mrs Reville 1881
Emily Meakin 1882
Mary Belton 1884
Christina Smith [suicide] 1884
Lucy Clark 1888
[?] Potstami 1888

Reasonable doubt.

Regards,

Simon