Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: The Red Handkerchief... - by The Good Michael 1 minute ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Red Handkerchief... - by Lechmere 1 hour and 3 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Red Handkerchief... - by Fisherman 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Red Handkerchief... - by Sally 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Red Handkerchief... - by Fisherman 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Red Handkerchief... - by Sally 1 hour and 28 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: The Red Handkerchief... - (20 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito - (17 posts)
Sickert, Walter: Some thoughts, after a year's study: - (9 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (5 posts)
Barnett, Joseph: Barnett's candidacy - a few issues - (4 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally? - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Mar 6, 2014, 11:56 pm
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm
Donald Swanson
Edit: Chris
Dec 9, 2012, 3:40 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.
Mike Covell: A Study in Red – The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper
March 3, 2014, 3:42 am.
Mike Covell: Almost there….
January 24, 2014, 4:05 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper - Year in Review 2013
December 28, 2013, 7:31 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper At Last? - Review
December 9, 2013, 2:08 am.
Mike Covell: From Whitechapel to Whitefriargate
November 27, 2013, 4:15 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #141  
Old 04-08-2012, 12:30 AM
Cogidubnus Cogidubnus is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 2,820
Default

A question for Chris...an odd thought that occurs...could you tell us please how long these pictures have been in your possession?

Many thanks

Dave
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-08-2012, 08:42 PM
Carol Carol is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 376
Default

Hello everyone,

I'm very behind with Casebook at the moment and the three fascinating threads with regard to the proposed photographs of Mary Kelly and her family. So the last few days have been quite taken up with reading all the posts on these three threads. I have found the following regarding the gigot sleeves in Jayne Shrimpton's 'Family Photographs and how to date them'.

The 1890's chapter:

'Sleeves at this time were essentially narrow but featured a distinct vertical puff at the shoulder. By 1893, however, the puffed sleeve was expanding rapidly into the full gigot or leg-o'-mutton style, a shape characterised by a wide puff in the upper arm, while the lower arm fitted closely. This sleeve style dominated the decade between 1893 and 1897, and is easily recognisable in photographs. Sleeves were at their widest in 1895 and 1896, their width often exaggerated further by a broad collar or other horizontal detailing on the shoulders.'

Then there is a paragraph relating to bodices, followed by a paragraph which starts with this sentence:

'By 1897, the vast gigot or leg-o'-mutton sleeves were beginning to deflate and in the last years of the decade sleeves were essentially narrow but generally featured a neat, round puff ball, or gathered flounces or a modest puff at the top.'

My bound volume of Home Chat covering the dates January 4th to April 25th 1896, has paper patterns shown in every issue that ladies could send off for. Most of the patterns are for dresses and jackets (called coats) with enormous gigot sleeves. Mind you, the winds of fashion were just beginning to change judging from the following extract by Camilla, who, with her close friend, Lady Betty, was in charge of fashion at Home Chat.

'Town is a little dull this week, as everybody is taking a holiday preparatory to renewed exertion in the coming season; but before the world vanished, I obtained various glimpses of new modes from unsuspecting strangers and complient friends.

As a result of my observations, I came to the conclusion that the big sleeves will not be relinquished without many a struggle; indeed! On most afternoon gowns they are still conspicuously in evidence, and, so long as we retain the wide skirts and large hats, this is as it should be.

For the tailor-made cycling dress, or coat and skirt style, they are distinctly of less generous proportions than heretofore, and on some evening gowns; but the rule is by no means universal, so we may still appear in the beloved puff without risk of being quite demode.'

I would just like to say 'Thank you' to Chris and the mysterious lady and her family. Exciting, innit!

Carol

P.S. Great to have you back Archaic! Couldn't be more 'up your street' than this, could it!

Last edited by Carol : 04-08-2012 at 08:48 PM. Reason: Keyboard not complying with my fingers
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-08-2012, 09:04 PM
Premium Member
Chris Scott Chris Scott is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ramsgate, Kent
Posts: 1,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogidubnus View Post
A question for Chris...an odd thought that occurs...could you tell us please how long these pictures have been in your possession?

Many thanks

Dave
Just under two years
Chris
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-08-2012, 10:47 PM
Cogidubnus Cogidubnus is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 2,820
Default

Thanks Chris...just my curiosity I guess...thanks again for posting them

Dave
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-09-2012, 11:39 PM
Semper_Eadem Semper_Eadem is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 70
Default ?Questions?

Hi Chris S, just a quick question and I might sound like an idiot for asking this but did the lady say that her family surname was Kelly? I can understand if it wasn't and she doesn't want to give the real surname.

The reason I say this is that we can't seem to find any Kellys that fit on the census from what I have seen. So again this leads me to think that Mary Kelly wasn't the real name of the woman who was murdered at Miller's Court.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-09-2012, 11:52 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 2,698
Default And Me

Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper_Eadem View Post
Hi Chris S, just a quick question and I might sound like an idiot for asking this but did the lady say that her family surname was Kelly? I can understand if it wasn't and she doesn't want to give the real surname.

The reason I say this is that we can't seem to find any Kellys that fit on the census from what I have seen. So again this leads me to think that Mary Kelly wasn't the real name of the woman who was murdered at Miller's Court.
I don't think you sound like an idiot, as it's a very sensible question to ask. There has to be something amiss with the name or surely someone would have turned something up by now. I await Chris's reply with interest.

Regards, Bridewell.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-10-2012, 12:35 AM
Premium Member
Chris Scott Chris Scott is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ramsgate, Kent
Posts: 1,859
Default

Hi
The only info I have been given is that the lady who has been in touch with me - and is the source of these two images - claims to be the descendant of one of the brothers shown in the back row of the family photo. His surname, obviously, was Kelly but she is descended from him (allegedly) via his married daughter and so the lady in question has never borne the surname of Kelly.
I keep carefully saying "alleged" and "she claims" etc not because I intrinsincally distrust her but because I have to date seen no documentary evidence in supoort of these claims
Chris
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-10-2012, 01:01 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 2,698
Default

Thanks Chris. I'm sure we all understand why you write as you do. I think, unusually, this thread is one of the few where every poster is of the same mind. Can't say that very often!

Best Wishes, Bridewell.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-10-2012, 03:36 AM
Brenda Brenda is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 273
Default .

I've never felt that "Kelly" was the name we should be looking for. She had been married, and I've never heard of another Victorian woman that went back to her maiden name after the death of a husband.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-10-2012, 03:52 AM
jason_c jason_c is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda View Post
I've never felt that "Kelly" was the name we should be looking for. She had been married, and I've never heard of another Victorian woman that went back to her maiden name after the death of a husband.
Is this true? It could be very interesting information if it is.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.