Eddowes Photograph

[Mascara & Paranoia]

If you read my post #172 you'll see that it does not necessarily follow that the corpse in the photograph has to have been the victim of a Ripperesque murder.

Then how did her ear, nose, mouth, throat and torso all get split wide open and/or mutilated? The only explanation for it is that a morgue attendant or someone performed the facial mutilations on the murder victim of a woman who had her throat cut and photographed their handiwork prior to doing the postmortem stitching. That and, yet a-effing-gain, all the visible wounds in the photograph are an exact match to those of Catherine Eddowes'.

Anyway, please don't bother responding.

Sorry, but I will. That's also a typical way of backing out of a losing argument whilst scrambling to remain a modicum of diginity, dude.

I have now discovered what I set out to find and, consequently, have no further interest in the matter.

Which is? You've wasted a lot of people's time in pursuing this stupid interest of yours, the least you can do is tell us what you found.

Well, actually, it is. If you claim this to be Eddowes, it is....

I believe I said that whilst 'pretending for a moment that that body wasn't Eddowers'. You knew that. Twisting people's words is also a typical characteristic of someone backing a losing argument. As for replying to the rest of your post, I'm not even gonna bother repeating myself for the dozenth time only for it to fall on deliberately deaf and biased ears. You need to stop feeding the conspiracy theories and be objective.

[DVV]

Which is? You've wasted a lot of people's time in pursuing this stupid interest of yours, the least you can do is tell us what you found.

Agreed.
Chronophagy is something horrible.
Worse than anthropophagy, if you ask me.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

.

I believe I said that whilst 'pretending for a moment that that body wasn't Eddowers'. You knew that. Twisting people's words is also a typical characteristic of someone backing a losing argument. As for replying to the rest of your post, I'm not even gonna bother repeating myself for the dozenth time only for it to fall on deliberately deaf and biased ears. You need to stop feeding the conspiracy theories and be objective.

M and P,

I note that in your comment, listed above, you are not going to "bother repeating yourself", yet attack again because you avoid the issue. I say again, like it or not, you cannot, and NOBODY can, prove provenance of that photo, without documentation of historical verification. That is what provenance actually is. And until you do, or can, the items remain in reasonable doubt of authenticity. That is why it is called PROOF of provenance. Have a pleasant evening.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

I say again, like it or not, you cannot, and NOBODY can, prove provenance of that photo, without documentation of historical verification. That is what provenance actually is. And until you do, or can, the items remain in reasonable doubt of authenticity.

To be fair, there is a big difference between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".

Indeed, one might say that nothing outside mathematics can be proved in any absolute sense. Yet many things can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

I agree entirely. There is no absolute in this, however, in a legal sense, I believe I am correct (please tell me if I am wrong) in saying the following.

The weight of doubt here is reasonable, based on lack of historical documentation, that being the defining factor in proof of provenance.

best wishes

Phil

[Magpie]

With respect, the photograph under discussion has exactly the same provenence as the "wall" pictures of Eddowes.

[DVV]

Hi Magpie,

Has it ?
A "wall picture" was reproduced in Lacassagne's book (1899)...

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

Hi Magpie,

Has it ?
A "wall picture" was reproduced in Lacassagne's book (1899)...

Amitiés,
David

Sadly I've never read Lacassagne's book. Did he happen to say where he got the picture from?

[DVV]

Hi Magpie,

no, he didn't say anything about the provenance.
Could it be McDonald - who is extensively quoted in Lacassagne ?

Amitiés,
David


edit: Arthur McDonald, Le criminel-type dans quelques formes graves de la criminalité, 2e ed, Lyon, 1894 (trad, H. Coutagne)

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I haven't read Robert McLaughlin's "The First Jack the Ripper Photographs", so this may have already been covered.

According to their respective biographies Melville Macnaghten and Robert Anderson knew Marie Francois Goron, chief of the Paris Surete, who in 1889 came to London to seek help with a murder case— L'affaire Gouffé—in which a process server had been strangled with the girdle of a dressing gown. Goron worked on the case with Dr. Jean Alexandre Eugene Lacassagne, Professor of Medicine from the University of Lyon.

This chain of circumstance might explain how Lacassagne, via Goron, sourced the Kelly and Eddowes photographs for his 1899 book "Vacher l'Eventreur et les crimes sadiques", but does not immediately explain how the Kelly photograph had been obtained five years earlier by a medical student, André Lamoureux, for his 1894 thesis "De l'éventration au point de vue médico-légal", one of many theses "presented and defended before the faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of Lyons during the school year 1894-1895". But as both men were at Lyon, and Lamoureaux' thesis was about evisceration, it is perfectly possible that his source for the photograph was Lacassagne.

At a dinner given in London in March 1890 Marie Francois Goron said, "Nobody can blame your force in that matter [Jack the Ripper]. Those who criticize do not know what it means to hunt for a clue to a criminal who does not leave the slightest trace behind him. C'est impossible."

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Hi Simon,

I've never seen Lamoureux's book.
How many and which pics are there ?

There are two, in Lacassagne's, and it's worth noting that Eddowes pic's caption reads : "last victim of JtR".

Worth noting also, McDonald French translation was also published at Lyon (Storck, 2nd edition, 1894). Again, do you have this book, and if so, are there JtR related pics ?

You certainly have something, Simon, with that "Lyonnaise connection" (Lamoureux, McDonald, Lacassagne).

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I believe there's only the Kelly photograph [MJK1] in Lamoureaux' book. I have never seen it, nor McDonald's.

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Btw, Simon, what I read from McDonald in Lacassagne looks like a summary of the worst press reports (Kelly's heart found on her leg, mutilated woman in December 1887, and so on and so on...).
I just realized that it's the main source used by Desnos for his 1928 articles. Several sentences are almost the same.

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

Sorry, David, you've got me stumped. Who is Desnos?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Would somebody please tell me which particular part of the human anatomy is placed, when the skin is broken, under the jaw line, containing a bright white horizontal line interspersed with equi-distant vertical lines? It is certainly NOT the trachea, which is vertical and lower, also in the centre of the throat, not horizontal to one side under the jaw-line. I would imagine the doctors would notice such a wound protruding from the throat. Anyway, THIS line of bright pearly's isnt even connected to the throat wound.
Right click on Eddowes pic and zoom in.

best wishes

Phil