Tweet
The author of this blog:
Claims that this the living Catherine Eddowes in 1883. Can anyone corroborate?
-TTD
Claims that this the living Catherine Eddowes in 1883. Can anyone corroborate?
-TTD
Attached Files
-
-
It's strange -I feel that I know that photo...I don't think that it's Eddowes though. Is it a photo of someone well known ?
edit: I have to say that there is a likeness to the post mortem photo.Last edited by Rubyretro; 09-09-2010, 08:47 PM. -
I have attempted some ham-fisted forensics using a scale and divider to determine and compare size and spacing of facial features but my results were inconclusive due to difference in photo size.
-TTDComment
-
Certainly could be her... although what's the provenance of the photo, and the evidence to support the claim?if mickey's a mouse, and pluto's a dog, whats goofy?Comment
-
Of course it's not Eddowes. The blog reads as if a student wrote it. Anyway, this photograph and other Whitechapel victims pics on the same blog has been previously discussed.
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4459
RobertComment
-
-
There are similarities, however I very much doubt it is her. She certainly looks (too) young (in my opinion) and too posh for someone who has been living in a doss house in Flower and Dean Street for two years already.
I don't think it is her however it would be nice if any real photos would pop up. Any progress on this? (I know chances are slim)
Greetings,
AddyComment
-
I think this photo doesn't even come from 1883 as claimed. The central parting in woman's hair and broad sleeves of her dress indicate that this picture was rather made in 60s of nineteenth century, some twenty years earlier that it is said on that blog.Comment
-
It looks to me like they probably just Google Catherine Eddowes. If I google myself I get this, http://www.katebradshaw.com/ and that aint me!In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice!
Comment
-
While I doubt its her it is worth noting that photography studios at the time had a stock of clothes for people to put on for the photograph. I've restored a lot of photographs of ag labs, domestic servants, cleaners etc wearing really quite posh attire that clearly wasn't theirs.Originally posted by Addy View PostComment
-
the date seems to be c1860's & probably mid - late if that's of any help so as the woman would appear to be in her 20's then the date and age of the pic don't rule it out....Comment
-
Hi Versa,
I didn't know that, that photographers had clothes in stock. On the other hand, it would help to make everybody look a bit the same. So you quickly get similarities. It would be nice if it was her 'though.
Greetings,
AddyComment
-
By the way, I've had a look at the site where these photos were posted. I don't think Liz is the woman in the picture, but the one they claim is Mary Ann Nichols does look like her (I would like to know where these pictures come from before I believe it). I even thought it a bit eerie, she does look like her and with the "attitude" I always imagined. Funny.
Greetings,
AddyComment
-
Surely we should be applying "historical method" to this:
1. what is the source of the photo?
2. do we have an original or a copy? who took the original, what do we know of them?
3. where is the original?
4. what is its "provenance" - i.e. where has it been since its was taken, is there a trail of evidence that is acceptable?
5. does internal evidence - hairstyle, clothing, features etc fit with other data?
One could go on. Discussion at any other level is fruitless and pointless, frankly.
PhilComment
-
Phil..
You'll be lucky!Surely we should be applying "historical method" to this:
1. what is the source of the photo?
2. do we have an original or a copy? who took the original, what do we know of them?
3. where is the original?
4. what is its "provenance" - i.e. where has it been since its was taken, is there a trail of evidence that is acceptable?
5. does internal evidence - hairstyle, clothing, features etc fit with other data?
Comment
Comment