More Eddowes photos..

[belinda]

The picture quality is very poor but I don't see any real reason to doubt that they are the same person.


Why would anybody go to all the trouble of "faking" photos of Catharine Eddowes? For money?

[FrankO]

I second Jason's and Belinda's view. The second photo even seems to be a photo taken (not at a straight angle) from a picture in a book.

Best,
Frank

[Ally]

The ears are not different shapes. The difference in angle from a straight on shot in the second picture to the left head tilt in the first, combined with the hair covering of the middle portion of the pinna in the second photo, might lend the more wildly speculative to conclude they are different shaped but they are not. Look at the top portions of the pinna which match as well as the lobules. They are a match.

In addition there is no getting around the exact placement of the gaping hole on the top portion of the nose bridge which matches in exact detail in both photos. When you add in the cheek lacerations, it's a no-brainer. Well at least for those who want to deal in facts as opposed to fantasy.

[Suzi]

Hi Ally-
As you say the points of the face/body are perfect- perspective makes a fool of the best artists- including myself!!!! (Not that I refer to myself as an 'artist!'

B U T posters Check out the Christ' from the feet up' paintings by Durer and Dali

Not sure why this thread is happening... to be honest!!!! The picture of the poor soul in the 'box' is Kate without a doubt- where did all this other stuff come from?

Suz x

[John Bennett]

One thing to bear in mind is that the Eddowes pic from Lacassagne (the second one in post #1 which was also in Rob McLaughlin's book) appears to have been heavily retouched (not an unusual thing in those days), hence perhaps a few discrepancies with the other versions we are all familiar with.

[DVV]

Hi John,

that's true, the body looks like a drawing.

Amitiés,
David

[Mascara & Paranoia]

So now you're doubting the credibility of all the photos of Eddowes? Talk about paranoia. You'd be doing the exact same thing you are now if there were more than one morgue photo of Chapman or Nichols. Of course the body isn't gonna look exactly in the same in each photo, that's just ridiculous to even presume. The photographer(s) are gonna move the body, take a different picture from a different angle, and all kinds of things that need to be taken into account that'll easily explain the alleged discrepencies. It ain't exactly rocket science.

As for the ear, the only reason it looks different in photo #2 compared to the first one is probably because that's a drawing of an existing police photograph of Eddowes, not the actual photo itself. It certainly looks like it's been sketched with a pencil or something to me.

[Magpie]

One thing worth pointing out is that in the first picture, that so-called "ruff" at the neck that some people were claiming as evidence of clothing in the "shell" picture is very much visible, despite the body being very definitely naked.

[Addy]

Besides all the above, even if it was someone else in all the pictures (personally I don't think so), wouldn't it have been known if there had been another woman murdered and mutilated in the same way as Eddowes had, around the same time? Wouldn't she have been seen as another Ripper victim?
Or do you suppose it is a picture of someone murdered in a different place and a different time? Even then, wouldn't there have been comments on the similarities of the murders? I doubt something like this would have gone unnoticed, while the pictures are all heaped together as being one and the same person.

Greetings,

Addy

[Mascara & Paranoia]

^ Exactly! It's completely illogical for that to be any other woman for that reason (well, that and common sense ). The murder would've been thought of as a Ripper victim, whether it was in the nineteenth century or the twentieth; there would've undoubtedly had been a lot of media coverage about a murder victim with identical wounds to that of Catherine Eddowes (and all the visible wounds are identical; even the body is a perfect match to Eddowes'), even if it happened in this day and age, no matter where in the world it took place/was discovered.

[joelhall]

Just a couple of notes on the photos and dead bodies. My field is molecular cell biology, and I won't pretend to be a forensic scientist, but I know a few things about human bodies post-mortem:

1. Rigor mortis causes a LOT of tension in the body, and gives you an idea of just how much tensile strneght our msucles have.

Primary flacidity is short lived right after death. Once ATP is no longer manufactured in the mitochondria, the cross-cycling muscle cells stops, leaving the bridges in a state called rigor. ATP only exists for minutes inside the muscles, and is quickly depleted after death. This may also be due to some muscular shortening.

As far as I'm aware this process starts (or at least is more apparent) around the face and head and then spreads through the body, those with the smallest muscle fibres and lower ATP compliments and lower glycogen levels no doubt stiffening first.

Of course this can be quicker in the cold, if the person was low on 'energy' etc. before death - there's a lot of factors which affect the time taken. Secondary flacidity doesnt return to the muscles for another day or sometimes two after rigor has set in, again the speed of which is dependent on other factors. Rigor of course affects the internal organs as well as skeletal muscles.

Rigor mortis can occur in as short as a couple of hours if conditions are right, but generally I believe it's around 6 until it is complete on the skeletal muscles.

These photos were not taken on the scene immediately following death. Indeed the post-mortem had already occurred as she has been scrubbed and sewn up. This is not a five mnutes job of course, so it's safe to say rigor had set in by the time these photos were taken.

2. After death, as indeed I have handled a dead body, the skin pulls back and recedes as the elastin loses is function. There are several processes occuring here. The muscles which attach to the epidermis obviously are overcome by rigor, but the skin also becomes dehydrated, and the skin loses it's elastic qualities (due to a protein called elastin no less). The dehydration is one of the main reasons people believe nails grow after death - it's caused by the skin shrinking. This is also the reason teeth become more apparent - the skin is shrinking around the face, lips and gums.

If you look at the lowr abdomen you can see how the elastic properties of the skin have all but ceased.

3. The lips in the photo clearly are swollen, no doubt due to the inflammatory reaction of being cut or having been hit in the mouth.

It also looks as if purge fluid has escaped from the nasal passage.

However, what is most appearent in the photo is the darkening of the oral mucosa - i.e. he tongue, lips, etc have darkened. This sometimes happens after a body has dried, and despite what you may have seen in Angels and Demons doesn't necessarily require heamorrhage to occur.

Hope that is helpful.

[corey123]

Joel,

That was wounderful. It explains alot and stiffens my opinion that the women in those photos is indeed Catherine Eddowes!(No pun intended)

[Shelley]

Trevor Marriot & National Geographic TV

Has anyone seen ' Jack the Ripper : The German Ripper ' on National Geographic TV Channel where Trevor Marriot has projected that Eddowes Face has crosses carved into it, the same as the Victim ' Carrie Brown '? I always considered that Eddowes has ' V ' shaped cuts on her face.

Just saying....

[Wickerman]

... I always considered that Eddowes has ' V ' shaped cuts on her face.

The 'V's cut into her cheeks, more accurately, flaps of skin, along with the fact that the tip of her nose was almost sliced off suggested to me that the killer ran his knife across her face:



Regards, Jon S.

[Stephen Thomas]

The 'V's cut into her cheeks, more accurately, flaps of skin, along with the fact that the tip of her nose was almost sliced off suggested to me that the killer ran his knife across her face:

Hey, nice one Jon.