How did he know?

[Wickerman]

I hope this image attachment works. Never done it before. I've circled what I believe to be the breast, although I may have placed the circle a bit too low.

Yes I'm sure that is far too low, those whiter 'ripples'? can be seen on the arms too, I'm sure they are folds in the white material that has been thrown over her, or a gown of some sort. The flash of the camera has caused a whiter reflection from the folds in the chemise, gown, robe, or shroud?
But, I'm sure we see the pointed tips of a collar just in front of the cut across the throat.

[chubbs]

I'm surprised you can see so well when I look at that pic it looks to me like the details over each breast are blurred and almost blanched, in fact I could almost swear she is wearing a kind of chemise that is buttoned up at the top but falls open just over the breastbone exposing part of the disfigured abdomen. In fact if you look close at the cut across the throat I'm sure we can see a small peak of the tip of a collar sticking up at the left side, and similar at the right.

I hope this image attachment works. Never done it before. I've circled what I believe to be the breast, although I may have placed the circle a bit too low.

[Wickerman]

...Take another look at the photo in question and you should be able to make out breast shapes/details that are very similar to those in the full length photo of Catherine Eddowes, especially on the nearer, right side of the body. I can clearly see sagging skin over the rib cage and the suggestion of a nipple. They are only 'suggestions' because, as you say, it is a poor quality image. However, it is not such a poor quality image that you wouldn't be able to see evidence of both breasts having been removed or sewn back on again. The evidence is not there, therefore in my opinion it is not a photograph of Mary Jane Kelly...

I'm surprised you can see so well when I look at that pic it looks to me like the details over each breast are blurred and almost blanched, in fact I could almost swear she is wearing a kind of chemise that is buttoned up at the top but falls open just over the breastbone exposing part of the disfigured abdomen. In fact if you look close at the cut across the throat I'm sure we can see a small peak of the tip of a collar sticking up at the left side, and similar at the right.

[jerryd]

I forgot to include the source for my comment above. The following was regarding the Annie Chapman murder.

The Lancet
September 29, 1888

There could be little doubt that he first strangled of suffocated his victim, for not only were no cries heard, but the face, lips and hands were livid as in asphyxia, and not blanched as they would be from loss of blood.

[jerryd]

If we look at Dr Bonds Post Mortem report on Mary - The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.
I have highlighted a point I would like to make. The chin area from the lips seems to be quite distinct in the photo. I could be wrong but I just can't see any incisions or any stitching of possible incisions in that area. Just an observation

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl.

The mouth area in the photograph looks very odd. Hard to tell I guess. As far as stitching goes. This victim doesn't appear to have any stitching anywhere. The press report I posted never said any stitching was performed, per say. She was pieced together. Take that for what you will, or she hadn't had that done to her at this point.

[jerryd]

You know, I don't think I've ever seen anyone unpack the meaning and possible significance of this tiny detail...

Mark D.

Hi Mark.

Wouldn't it mean she was not strangled, but the lips were blanched from loss of blood?

[jerryd]

Thanks for your reply, Jerryd.
Take another look at the photo in question and you should be able to make out breast shapes/details that are very similar to those in the full length photo of Catherine Eddowes, especially on the nearer, right side of the body. I can clearly see sagging skin over the rib cage and the suggestion of a nipple. They are only 'suggestions' because, as you say, it is a poor quality image. However, it is not such a poor quality image that you wouldn't be able to see evidence of both breasts having been removed or sewn back on again. The evidence is not there, therefore in my opinion it is not a photograph of Mary Jane Kelly.

Sorry to disagree with you, but the photo does not 'illustrate(s) a wound to the left arm'. It shows a dark shape, which you have interpreted as a wound. I don't know what that dark shape it is - and neither do you. There are several undecipherable dark shapes in that region of the photo. Your brain has interpreted one of them as a wound. It might be a wound, it might not be, but whether it is or not, for me it doesn't override the visual evidence in other parts of the photo. My repectful opinion is that you're placing too much emphasis on it.

Ripperology is a land dotted with rabbit holes that don't lead anywhere, except to another rabbit hole - and we're currently down one. Dark in here, isn't it?

Thanks chubbs.

I respect your opinion and observations. Thanks for that.

I've traveled down many rabbit holes in this case. Some have produced gold and others lumps of coal. Never hurts to be thorough. Within reason, of course.

[Mark J D]

... The lips were blanched...

You know, I don't think I've ever seen anyone unpack the meaning and possible significance of this tiny detail...

Mark D.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If we look at Dr Bonds Post Mortem report on Mary - The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.
I have highlighted a point I would like to make. The chin area from the lips seems to be quite distinct in the photo. I could be wrong but I just can't see any incisions or any stitching of possible incisions in that area. Just an observation

Regards Darryl

[chubbs]

Hi Chubbs.

Your eyes must be better than mine. Only one of the photographs I posted shows a body which clearly shows breasts. That IS Catherine Eddowes. I don't dispute that at all. The "shell/coffin" photograph is very poor quality, but I can't make out anything that resembles breasts on that body. In fact, the skin under her right arm appears to clump up and be void of some skin.

The simple fact is this, there appears to be a tear of the skin on the left arm. Catherine Eddowes has no such tear in her photographs and I'm not aware of any doctor stating she had skin torn from her arms. Kelly was said to have wounds to her arms and the picture in the shell illustrates a wound to the left arm, in my opinion. Whether the body in the shell is Mary Kelly or not is certainly up for debate, but, if that IS a wound on the arm as I think it is that I see, the body can't be that of Catherine Eddowes.

Last, several press reports state that Mary Kelly was placed in a coffin and photographed. So there is a chance a photograph was floating around of Mary Kelly in a shell/coffin. Here is one example of those reports. (Emphasis mine)

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.)
Saturday, 10 November 1888

Frightful Butchery.

The butchery was so frightful that more than an hour was spent by the doctors in endeavoring to reconstruct the woman's body from the pieces, so as to place it in a coffin and have it photographed.

To-night at midnight Dorset street and all the neighborhood was swarming with a typical degraded Whitechapel throng. Those with any money were getting drunk very fast. Many sober women and all the drunken ones were crying from terror, while the men lounged about singing or fighting and chaffing the women according to their ideas of humor. The police were and are doing nothing of importance. The poor woman's fragments, put together as skillfully as possible, are lying in the Houndsditch Mortuary in a scratched and dirty shell of a coffin often used before. While the body was being carried from the scene of the murder thousands crowded as near as the police would allow, and gazed with lifted caps and pitying faces at the latest victim.

Thanks for your reply, Jerryd.
Take another look at the photo in question and you should be able to make out breast shapes/details that are very similar to those in the full length photo of Catherine Eddowes, especially on the nearer, right side of the body. I can clearly see sagging skin over the rib cage and the suggestion of a nipple. They are only 'suggestions' because, as you say, it is a poor quality image. However, it is not such a poor quality image that you wouldn't be able to see evidence of both breasts having been removed or sewn back on again. The evidence is not there, therefore in my opinion it is not a photograph of Mary Jane Kelly.

Sorry to disagree with you, but the photo does not 'illustrate(s) a wound to the left arm'. It shows a dark shape, which you have interpreted as a wound. I don't know what that dark shape it is - and neither do you. There are several undecipherable dark shapes in that region of the photo. Your brain has interpreted one of them as a wound. It might be a wound, it might not be, but whether it is or not, for me it doesn't override the visual evidence in other parts of the photo. My repectful opinion is that you're placing too much emphasis on it.

Ripperology is a land dotted with rabbit holes that don't lead anywhere, except to another rabbit hole - and we're currently down one. Dark in here, isn't it?

[jerryd]

Mary Jane Kelly's breasts had been cut off, so the photo you're talking about has to be poor Kate Eddowes, doesn't it?


Post edited to remove the grisly photos - we really don't need to see them again, do we?

Hi Chubbs.

Your eyes must be better than mine. Only one of the photographs I posted shows a body which clearly shows breasts. That IS Catherine Eddowes. I don't dispute that at all. The "shell/coffin" photograph is very poor quality, but I can't make out anything that resembles breasts on that body. In fact, the skin under her right arm appears to clump up and be void of some skin.

The simple fact is this, there appears to be a tear of the skin on the left arm. Catherine Eddowes has no such tear in her photographs and I'm not aware of any doctor stating she had skin torn from her arms. Kelly was said to have wounds to her arms and the picture in the shell illustrates a wound to the left arm, in my opinion. Whether the body in the shell is Mary Kelly or not is certainly up for debate, but, if that IS a wound on the arm as I think it is that I see, the body can't be that of Catherine Eddowes.

Last, several press reports state that Mary Kelly was placed in a coffin and photographed. So there is a chance a photograph was floating around of Mary Kelly in a shell/coffin. Here is one example of those reports. (Emphasis mine)

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.)
Saturday, 10 November 1888

Frightful Butchery.

The butchery was so frightful that more than an hour was spent by the doctors in endeavoring to reconstruct the woman's body from the pieces, so as to place it in a coffin and have it photographed.

To-night at midnight Dorset street and all the neighborhood was swarming with a typical degraded Whitechapel throng. Those with any money were getting drunk very fast. Many sober women and all the drunken ones were crying from terror, while the men lounged about singing or fighting and chaffing the women according to their ideas of humor. The police were and are doing nothing of importance. The poor woman's fragments, put together as skillfully as possible, are lying in the Houndsditch Mortuary in a scratched and dirty shell of a coffin often used before. While the body was being carried from the scene of the murder thousands crowded as near as the police would allow, and gazed with lifted caps and pitying faces at the latest victim.

[chubbs]

WARNING: Graphic Pictures.

I debated with myself long and hard before I decided to post this. The subject has been controversial for many years, but this detail has been overlooked and I wanted to address it.

With that, and regarding the subject of this thread, I think the person seen on the bed in Miller's Court was not as hacked up in the face as we are led to believe by the photographs known to us. At least originally. The controversial photo of Catherine Eddowes in a coffin appears to be more of a possibility of being the same body we see in Miller's Court. It is not Catherine Eddowes as can be seen in the following photographs. I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but bear with me.

Here is a photograph of the "supposed" body of Catherine Eddowes in the coffin. I have circled on the victims left arm a wound that appears to be flesh torn away from the body.



Here is a photograph of Catherine Eddowes showing her arms. There is no torn flesh in this photograph on her left arm as we see there is in the coffin picture.



Finally, here is the photograph of Mary Kelly on the bed. Notice the wound with the torn flesh on the upper left arm above her elbow.

Mary Jane Kelly's breasts had been cut off, so the photo you're talking about has to be poor Kate Eddowes, doesn't it?


Post edited to remove the grisly photos - we really don't need to see them again, do we?

[Michael W Richards]

What about the midsection of the alledged Eddowes photo? I dont think they could ever get Marys midsection reconstructed to look like that. And in Marys id's, excluding McCarthy, only her face and partial head was allowed to be seen.

[etenguy]

It's sometimes called the 'coffin' photograph, but the argument is that it isn't a coffin, but a mortuary 'shell' used for transporting the body before the post-mortem.

This would suggest that what looks like stitching on her arm is not actually stitching (yes, I'm arguing against my own suggestion). Some believe what looks like stitching is actually a lid to the 'shell' as it seems to extend beyond her arm.

The poor quality of the photograph doesn't help.

Thank you, RJ.

It is as you say and if the picture is pre post mortem, then judging from the facial features, it would suggest the photo is more likely Catherine Eddowes but it is too difficult to be certain given the angle of the photo and the quality.

[rjpalmer]

I tracked down Donald Rumbelow's original wording in the authors' epilogues and he refers to more than one photograph of Eddowes.

"I found the photograph of Mary Kelly's body, along with the Eddowes images, in the filthy attic room at Snow Hill police station where the remains of the old museum had been dumped. At some point the Kelly picture had been fixed to something with a drawing pin: the holes at the top are still visible on reproductions." (p. 266, emphasis added).

I guess it is a matter of speculation whether that suggest the Eddowes photographs were part of a set or not.