Is this Nichols photo genuine?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

No doubt answered before but Im going to ask:

Is this photo Nichols or who exactly is it?

P

[Howard Brown]

Lars:

No, its not.
No idea who the woman was....its been appearing with increasing frequency in addition to photos which claim to be of Nichols, Kelly, and Eddowes.

[Mr. Poster]

Hmmm...

Theres another photo that appears on the same sites saying its a young Stride.

Its a pity.

p

[Christer Holmgren]

On wonders why this happens. Who benefits? And how? Or is it just for the hell of it?
The one thing I can´t imagine is that somebody really believes it...

[Cris Malone]

The one thing I can´t imagine is that somebody really believes it...

People believe or try to get others to be believe stuff in this "field" that's sillier than this.

[Big Jon]

The "museum" claims these photos are genuine too.

[Howard Brown]

One reason for the proliferation of these erzatz victim-in-life photos is the increase in the number of mediums. I've been flying the flag on You Tube trying to straighten the nonsense out...once in a while I run into a stubborn neophyte who won't take my word for it. Some of the blame has to go to the intentionally misleading misinformation published by the daughter of Tony 'Uncle Jack' Williams. She is by no means the only mischievious anti-historian at it either.

If one person posts these photos on Google....chances are that people who are new to the Case see them and believe that they are legitimate in order to be in the loop with the old heads.

I predict that within 5 years these phony photos will be accepted by the majority of people with even the slightest interest in the Whitechapel Murders. Those like us, true to the accurate record, will have to battle the bullshitter and quick buck artists. Mark my words.

[Adam Went]

Unfortunately I think you're right, How. Sadly it's too easy for those without scruples to find any old photo of an unknown Victorian woman and claim that they've found a living photo of a Ripper victim. What makes it worse is that one day, if a genuine photograph of one of them other than Annie Chapman does appear, without definite proof (and I'm not sure what that would be) it would only make people with a genuine interest in the case even more doubtful.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Curryong]

Who is she? Some woman wearing a monocle and with early 1890's sleeves on her bodice. She has a bit of a frilly lace around her neck and what looks like a cameo brooch, so she's not wretchedly poor. I have seen the photo before and I wonder if she's not a barmaid, who's borrowed somebody's monocle for a bit of a laugh. These photos seem to pop up, be given a rest, pop up again...!

[Robert Linford]

Monocle? I assumed that was a flaw in the pic. I imagine her as some housemaid about to peg out the washing.

[Chris G.]

Hmmm...

Theres another photo that appears on the same sites saying its a young Stride.

Its a pity.

p

The alleged young Stride photograph was discussed by Daniel Olssen in Ripperologist 141 and shown to be bogus.



The only proven photograph of a canonical Jack the Ripper victim while alive is the one of Annie Chapman and her coachman husband on her wedding day. The Annie Chapman photograph was discovered by Neal Shelden on making enquiries with her modern-day descendants. A much better way of working than just plucking out a period photograph and claiming it is somebody. Bad news.