Relatives

[miss marple]

Joseph Barnett could not possibly identified Mary by her ears as in Dr Bond's post mortem report.
Her ears had been partly cut off. This is fact.
Barnett probably said 'air' instead of in a cockney accent. Her hair was her most identifiable feature.
Beyond that, concentrate on Mary's history, she died in 1888 age 25, She came from a poor working class Irish family who moved to Wales to find work. Her father worked in a mine, she maybe married a miner. If she moved to Cardiff in the early 80s and was in London by 1884. That photo would have to date from very early 80s before her breach from her family when she was a teenager.
So a very poor teenager has a photo taken, wearing fashionable middle class clothes of a fashion some 15 years in the future, loaded down with expensive jewellery.

With her background I find that impossible to believe.
Miss Marple

PS fashion was much slower in Victorian times, women wore the same clothes for years and sometimes' turned' their dresses, which meant when they faded on the outside were resewn with the fabric reversed outside.A working class women from the early eighties would not be wearing those clothes.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chris.
Many thanks again for the shot of the ear , all of this is terribly important in accessing any claim made by the owner of the photograph.
I do[ without viewing] have a gut feeling that this could be the real deal, albeit cautious, the teeth shape would be of great importance if indeed a false tooth was prominent.
Talking technically , is it not possible to colourize a old photograph which would give possible hair colouring for example.?
This could be a tremendous find Chris,and I pray to god it is, it would be respectful in memory to this poor woman , if we can show her as a living soul.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

One of the press interviews mentioned Mary Kelly had either, an overbite or prominent teeth (buckteeth?).

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

It seems to look that way, Jason.

[jason_c]

Thanks Debs (and Stewart). I wonder if that might be a hereditary feature in the family Chris is in contact with.

Does her sister Bridget have a slightly misshapen right ear? To me it looks kinked at the top.

[Robert]

Thanks Debs (and Stewart). I wonder if that might be a hereditary feature in the family Chris is in contact with.

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks for that link Debra - Can't speak for anyone else but it's certainly cleared up a misapprehension for me!

Dave

[jason_c]

SPE's original post is here:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...7&postcount=55

Thanks for the link. As someone who has a distinguishing "malformed" ear I was never convinced about the hair misheard as ears argument.

I cant really tell from the picture Chris posted if her ear is malformed to any extent. Anyone else have an opinion on it?

[Debra A]

SPE's original post is here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=39307&postcount=55

[Debra A]

One ear is visible and, oddly, the lobe does look strange. Rather than being rounded as a normal lobe it seems to have a sunken area and almost a ridge along the outer edge
See below

Didn't SPE once post an account of someone at the inquest ( I cannot remember who, sorry) who confirmed it was 'ears and eyes' and elaborated by explaining Barnett said Mary's ears were a peculiar shape?

[The Good Michael]

Archaic's post is very good and seems to be in broad agreement as to date
I still stand by my original date, at least 1890s. People have tried find hats in the 1880s that match. None of the shapes are quite right, but the important thing is that overall common hat wear in 1880s was the high small bonnet or the small brimmed tifter. I can only make a comparision, any vintage or theatrical head gear I have come across have been of the former or latter. Any photo of woman from the early 80s actually wearing hats have been of the former or latter.
The style of the jacket is more important, as the jacket with its broad lapels is an 1890s jacket. That type of jacket was not worn in the early 80s.

So Costume,jewellery and the technical evidence of the photo itself are all factors, I dont think the photo is a fake, just maybe the wrong Mary Kelly.

Miss Marple,

I respect your opinion, but 1880s and 1890s have far too much fashion crossover to dismiss a photo based upon a belief in a hat or jacket not being in vogue. Fashion does have + and - factors of several years, unless, again, you are referring to a specific name brand such as Stetson which can be pinpointed to an exact year. General fashion is up for grabs I'm afraid.

Cheers,

Mike

[Chris Scott]

A shot in a million. When you mentioned her eyes I was immediately reminded of Barnett's testimony of identifying the body through Kelly's eyes and ears. Can you see her ears in the picture? Any distinguishing traits such as excess cartilage or an unusual fold?

One ear is visible and, oddly, the lobe does look strange. Rather than being rounded as a normal lobe it seems to have a sunken area and almost a ridge along the outer edge
See below

[miss marple]

This is good post as people are contributing lots of points, and as Chris as done so much work on this,and the result will be significant, its important the photos should be subject to a detailed examination.
Archaic's post is very good and seems to be in broad agreement as to date
I still stand by my original date, at least 1890s. People have tried find hats in the 1880s that match. None of the shapes are quite right, but the important thing is that overall common hat wear in 1880s was the high small bonnet or the small brimmed tifter. I can only make a comparision, any vintage or theatrical head gear I have come across have been of the former or latter. Any photo of woman from the early 80s actually wearing hats have been of the former or latter.
There are hundreds of photographs of women in 1890s show a broader trimmed hat often elaborately trimmed with flowers or feathers.After the mass production of Ostrich feathers on South African farms[ as has been pointed out] The feathers became more accessible for the cheaper hat. The brims got huge by the 1900s leading to the' picture hat' frequently trimmed with ostrich.
Extreme Paris fashion engravings of the 80s or paintings by Tissot may sometimes show broader hats but this is the wealthy minority of the market which took till the 90s to filter down and become fashionable and produce cheap copies
The style of the jacket is more important, as the jacket with its broad lapels is an 1890s jacket. That type of jacket was not worn in the early 80s.

So Costume,jewellery and the technical evidence of the photo itself are all factors, I dont think the photo is a fake, just maybe the wrong Mary Kelly.

Miss Marple

[Robert]

I think the Barnett quote is ambiguous, isn't it? "Ear and eyes," or " 'air and eyes."

[jason_c]

Richard
I appreciate your frustration
The hair is hard to judge because of the voluminous hat but I would guess that the hair had been gathered up under the hat.
The face itself I would describe as attractive rather than beautiful.
The most striking feature, in my opinion, are the eyes which are dark and wide.
I am probably just judging from what I hope the picture is but the overwhelming mood of the face I would describe as a wistful sadness.
Chris

A shot in a million. When you mentioned her eyes I was immediately reminded of Barnett's testimony of identifying the body through Kelly's eyes and ears. Can you see her ears in the picture? Any distinguishing traits such as excess cartilage or an unusual fold?