Stride Photo #2

[m_w_r]

Oh! 1988! Sorry, Mark, I misread it as 1888! What a schmuck.

Regards,

Steve.

Steve,

No problem. I should probably have pointed out in my first post above that an appeal court decided that Oscar Slater didn't kill Miss Gilchrist, although I described her as his "victim". I, too, am a schmuck.

Regards,

Mark

[Steven Russell]

So several of us seem to be agreed on a few points:

1) If the picture is a fake, it was certainly mocked up after 1988 before which time the genuine photo was not available. The resemblance between the two images makes this conclusion inescapable.

2) It must have taken some degree of effort for the faker to create this image. What possible motive could he / she have had for its creation when the genuine article was readily available? I feel that the only possible answers have already been touched upon on this thread i.e. a MODERN waxworks-type exhibition or some sort of movie project.

3) Why would the person responsible for the mysterious book use this image rather than the real one? Copyright? Laziness? Poor research?

All very interesting, to my mind at least.

Regards,

Steve.

[Archaic]

Hi, Stephen, I looked at your close-up comparison of the 2 photos and I'm afraid I have to disagree with you; I don't think they are the same person at all.

Liz Stride has a longer, more slender face with a high forehead and a more delicately shaped nose. Liz's hair isn't as dark and curly and it looks longer... her brows look to be a lighter color. Her lips seem larger. That's my opinion, anyway.

Thanks for enlarging them and putting then side by side.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Steven Russell]

Steve,

No problem. I should probably have pointed out in my first post above that an appeal court decided that Oscar Slater didn't kill Miss Gilchrist, although I described her as his "victim". I, too, am a schmuck.

Regards,

Mark

We're all schmucks - even Sir AC Doyle after Slater failed to acknowledge Doyle's efforts in materially helping to set him (Slater) free. Ungrateful swine!

Best,

Steve.

[Tom_Wescott]

It is not a photograph of a human being, so of course it's a fake. I'm amazed at this debate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Scott]

Just out of interest there is a painting of Liz Stride at

http://cellarstudios.net/index.php?pr=Paintings

but I don't know the name of the artist

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I did post on the other thread about this, but I think there is little doubt that it is a waxwork, quite a good one, but a waxwork, nevertheless.

The accounts of the waxwork shows in contemporary newspapers confirm that there would have been effigies of the victims, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they wouldn't have modelled them in life, but included all the gory details, to satisfy the public's morbid curiosity. There is no reason this couldn't be one of those, or a later one modelled for some other display.

I wonder what happened to the models of the other victims? They've obviously long since turned into mice nests, but it would be great to see some photos of them if there were any still around, just for curiousities sake.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Chris!

An interesting painting, thank you!

All the best
Jukka

[Stephen Thomas]

I did post on the other thread about this, but I think there is little doubt that it is a waxwork, quite a good one, but a waxwork, nevertheless.

Hello Jane

You and Tom Wescott too. The question that has to be asked is how the hell waxwork operatives in the LVP got access to a certain body in a certain morgue or otherwise secret police photographs, and as an adjunct, how did said waxwork operatives produce such a magnificent reproduction.

Hello Archaic

I'll give you the height of the forehead and the width of the mouth.

You don't miss a trick, do you you.

[Tom_Wescott]

I never suggested it's a waxwork. I said it's not a photograph.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stephen Thomas]

I never suggested it's a waxwork. I said it's not a photograph.

Oh OK, right, my friend.

So what the effing 'ell is it?

That's what I started this thread for.

And believe it or not it IS a photograph.

Try and find someone who says it isn't.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

If it's not a photograph or a waxwork dummy, what is it?

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Some digitally manipulated drawing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jane Coram]

Hi Stephen,

Well, obviously it can't be stated for certain that it is a waxwork figure, without knowing more about it, but as Simon's just said if it isn't then what is it?

It's certainly not a photograph of the real Elizabeth Stride. The neck wound is different and although it's not a bad likeness, there are considerable differences in the features. Judging by the fact that the figure was upright when the photograph was taken, it's shininess and it's rigidity, it is a waxwork. I can't really see it can be anything else. If it is a modern book, then it certainly could be a mock-up done some other way, a lot depends on the date of the book, but I'd probably plumb for a waxwork, looking at how shiny it is.

Madame Tussaud made the majority of her figures simply from measurements and sketches and just by looking at the subject and remembering what they looked like. It's not that difficult to sculpt a very good likeness of someone, just from sketches and memory, for a competent artist. If you look at some of Madame Tussaud's early works that were not taken from death masks, but sketches, they are absolutely superb. So I can't really see any problems with it being a contemporary waxwork.

As to how they got access to the body. We know that newspaper artists were allowed into the mortuary to sketch the victims, so why not an artist from a wax museum? He could even have just borrowed or bought the sketches from the newspaper artists. So he would have had reasonable access to everything he needed to do the portrait.

That of course is supposing that it's a contemporary work. If it was done after the discovery of the mortuary photograph, (depending on the date of the book of course), then they could have just used that.

Hugs

Jane

xxx

[Stephen Thomas]

The neck wound is different and although it's not a bad likeness, there are considerable differences in the features. Judging by the fact that the figure was upright when the photograph was taken, it's shininess and it's rigidity, it is a waxwork. I can't really see it can be anything else.

Hi Jane

I'd say it's almost certainly a waxwork but I'm just exploring the possibility that it isn't. For instance the 'waxiness' could have been due to the attentions of the undertaker and the wound looks the same to me.