Stride Photo #2

[Steven Russell]

Dear all,
I find this "new" picture fascinating. What is its earliest known appearance?

I do not think the difficulty tji mentions with the ears is insurmountable. The disputed picture does, on first glance, seem to have a much larger ear than that shown in the image we all recognise as Liz. However, the resolution is low and where the ear ends and the hair begins is indistinct. It almost looks as if the disputed image may have had Vulcan ancestry. Also, if you squint a bit, you can convince yourself that the lobes are similar: both showing a sort of elongation possibly caused by an earring having been tugged on or torn out.

The wounds do appear different, though, and on the accepted photo there appears to be an angled wrinkle (ten past six if it were clock hands) slightly above and outside the corner of the mouth on the subject's right hand side which is not so obvious on the less well known image. But in both cases, the cheekbones are prominent and the cheeks themselves have a sunken appearance.

Then again, is that a mole on the real Liz's right upper lip? It seems visible in Dr. Watson's picture as well, and both show some discolouration in similar places on the lower lip.

If the background has been altered (and to my untrained eye this looks possible) then we must ask not only "Why?" but "When?" Could be a perfectly innocent explanation.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that this "new" picture is of Elizabeth Stride. Frankly, I'm undecided. Which brings us back to the original question: "If it isn't, what is it?"

My purely personal opinion is that there are two possibilities:

1) This is a genuine photograph of Stride, taken before the body was undressed and therefore earlier than the other, or

2) This is a very good (you have to admit there is a genuine resemblance) forgery or mock-up made by someone with access to the undisputed photograph.

With great respect to tnb, the idea of a contemporary waxwork seems unlikely to me. I seriously doubt if they would, or could, have been that accurate. An account of the Victorian waxworks show I have read describes a hastily cobbled together affair featuring mannequins splashed about with fake blood. A modern waxwork is a different matter, of course. Which brings me back to the question, "Where and when was this 'new' picture first seen?"

Best wishes and all thoughts welcome,

Steve.

[tji]

Hi all

to me the womans ear on the left looks a lot larger than the photo on the right.

tj

[Adam Went]

Definitely not Liz. The hair is different, the eyes are different, the nose is a lot thicker, the face is more rounded, the skin colour even appears to be different....to go along with what other posters have already pointed out above.

It's difficult to judge given the poor quality of Victorian era photography, but no, pretty sure we can rule this one out.

Cheers,
Adam.

[tnb]

Just a guess, but there was a waxworks show located along Whitechapel Road at the time of the murders, showing models of the victims, and I am guessing they would have photographed at least one of their models to use in publicity. That certainly doesn't look like skin texture in Dr. Watson's picture, and were it wax that would perhaps explain the seemingly exaggerated light reflection - I quite agree that the majority of technology at the time would not have captured light on skin to that extent, but wax would be much more reflective, and therefore give the camera more to play with. It would also make sense that, were they making a model to stand up, that they would perhaps base it on the way in which the body was known to look in the mortuary, but adapt the covering sheet (which would not stay on with the model upright) to something more like a dress fitting around the neck - particularly if the proprietor(s) had been amongst those who had managed to gain admission to view the bodies in the mortuaries, or spoken to those who had.

Just a theory. Has anyone told 'Dr John Watson' of this thread, so he can perhaps throw some light on how he came across this?

[Jon Guy]

the slash wound is similiar...

Hi Madam Red

No it`s not. I did quote the Doctor in the original thread, when I mentioned that Stride`s throat wound tailed off under the right angle of the jaw, unlike the the wound in the picture.

[The Good Michael]

No way.

Unbeliever

[kensei]

The person in the picture definitely seems to be wearing a garment as there seems to be a collar encircling her neck, but the black fabric seen in the well known picture of Liz isn't a garment but a sheet or tarp covering her in the morgue.

Where did this come from?

[Madam Red]

Hmm... In the already confirmed picture of Liz, she seems to have thicker hair. But the hair style is the same, the facial features are similiar, the slash wound is similiar...

However, the overall quality of the picture bugs me. The surface area looks a lot smoother than it should be. The picture also appears as if someone cut, copied, and paste the woman's figure onto a white background. Then cleaned it up.

...And where's that ray of sunlight on her cheek and ear coming from? It's bugging me, could the era's photography capture it on film so well?

Well, I'm a noob when it comes to telling a fake from the genuine article, so probably don't trust my opinion.


If it's not her, it might just be someone's artwork.

[Stephen Thomas]

Is it or isn't it?

If it isn't, what is it?





(pictures originally posted by Dr John Watson)