Stride Photo #2

[Stephen Thomas]

Is it or isn't it?

If it isn't, what is it?





(pictures originally posted by Dr John Watson)

[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.

[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?

[The Good Michael]

No way.

Unbeliever

[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.

[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?

[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.

[tji]

Hi all

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

tj

[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.

[tnb]

You are quite right, Steve - I have only heard about this waxworks show anecdotally before (which hasn't stopped it getting into my script - expect it next week, btw) but having done a little more digging today you are correct, it does appear that this first attempt at cashing in on the murders was simply a case of 'grab all the dummies you can and make them look gruesome'. This would obviously rule out the possibility of anything as close as this.

It could of course be from a later waxworks show - such as Tussauds' 'horror' exhibition - which I still think could be a possibility, but I do not know if the contents of that show are already documented.

Just a word of caution - things tend to come around fairly cyclically in this case, with one book or documentary or 'find' or whatever kicking off a brief snowball effect that brings the whole thing kicking and screaming back into the limelight (and many serious researchers into temporary hibernation), and seeing as this 'new' picture has turned up at almost exactly the same time as some very questionable photographs of a young Stride (and others, apparently, although the Stride one was so awful I looked no further), from a similarly untraceable source (as it stands at this moment), I would be very cautious about taking it at face value, for want of a better term.

With respect to Steve, I remain erring on the side of caution with this, and will do so very firmly until some info about provenance is forthcoming. Call me boring if you like.

[Archaic]

An Idea

Hi, guys.

If this photo is as i suspect from the 1939 William Roughead book 'Murder and More Murder', there might be a footnote or photo-credit that can be checked.

I would expect that there are members who have this book in their personal collection. (I bet SPE has a signed first edition, lol )
It will also be available at some libraries.

I recommend searching University Law School Libraries. They are all online these days. In my experience this kind of library holds on to the old books, whereas local libraries tend to run out of room and update constantly so routinely get rid of the older volumes.

I checked and the University of Washington Gallagher Law Library in Seattle has a copy of 'Murder & More Murder' but I won't have a chance to go there anytime soon.

However, Law School Libraries are a terrific resource; this same library is where I found 'A System of Legal Medicine' and some other old texts I was looking for.

My own best guess is that the second photo is from the 30's and represents some 'modern' murder and that its resemblance to Stride struck the author, so he decided to include it. I agree it looks very waxy and shiny but the left eye looks ever so slightly open and I doubt that a wax figure would be so carefully detailed. It is strange though...might there have been some wax reconstruction to aid in identification? Hopefully the author included some kind of footnote.

Best regards,
Archaic

[tnb]

Archaic - That's a good idea, but unfortunately I too have drawn a blank on all the libraries relatively close to me, which means pretty much 1/3 of Wales, including especially unfortunately the two I would be instantly entitled access to (one as a current student, the other as an alumnus). However, in searching I did come across a description of Roughead's book, which states it is concerned with Scottish crimes? It sounds like an interesting book, either way, I was just wondering if you have any more information on it, and whether it does indeed include the Whitechapel Murders or not?

[Steven Russell]

tnb

Dear tnb,
I apologise if my earlier post gave you the impression that I thought the "new" picture genuine. I merely meant to suggest that it was either real or a very good facsimile of Liz. I would not dream of calling you boring and I think your decision to err on the side of caution until further provenance is revealed is very wise.

I have never been to Mme. Tussaud's or The London Dungeon. Are they any good? If the new picture is a fake, I wonder how long it would take to rig up. I imagine a good waxwork would take quite some time but making up an actress with a basic resemblance to Liz less so. Can any theatrical Casebookers shed any light on this?

All the best and looking forward tremendously to the script.

Best wishes'

Steve.

[Rob Clack]

The photo I believe would be after 1988. It's certainly after 1946 because there is a photo of Elizabeth Short on the same page.

I can't help but feel it's from a modern book.

Rob

[Archaic]

World Catalog

Hi, Trevor.

I know very little about the book 'Murder and More Murder'; I don't even know for sure that the photo in question was taken from it- I just thought it was likely. The title was recalled as 'More Murder' which seems a bit incomplete, and in the photo the words "More Murder" are at the top of the right-hand page so I thought the words "Murder And" would fit very nicely at upper left... and when i looked it turned out there was a book of that name. That was my foray into Sherlockian deduction.

The online book-finder I like the best is called World Cat, short for World Library Catalog. It can be found at WorldCat.org. I know that universities all over America, Canada and England are linked in, so I would imagine that the ones in Wales are too. You can enter your location & see what you come up with.

By the way, you might be able to use a library even if you are not an alumni. I am an alumni of a couple of universities, which is quite handy, but if you contact the library they may give you a day-pass. They probably wouldn't let you check something out, but you can do on-site research. Then again, the schools that you are an alumni of might have an inter-library loan agreement with whomever has the book you are after; this is increasingly common. My research motto is "It never hurts to ask."

The internet has changed everything, I really recommend asking your local librarian & learning about the new resources available to all of us. I found things in Seattle that I never expected to find in so young a city- like the old book 'A System of Legal Medicine' and old medical journals. Those of you who live in older cities, especially university cities, will have extensive library systems to explore and they are the ones most likely to still hold some of the old volumes. Sometimes libraries even have older items in their storage areas that aren't out on the shelves. Librarians love to help look for obscure books, don't be afraid to ask.

Hope this helps... I still expect that a Casebook member will come along and tell us that they own the book in question.

Best regards,
Archaic