Relatives

[lynn cates]

convicted

Hello Bunny. Yes, sentence has already been passed.

Cheers.
LC

[Archaic]

My only hope is that all this dating the pic past 1890 means it's thought to be a fake, rather than it's supposedly MJK after 1888, alive and well....and some other poor girl butchered in her place.

Hi Debs.

Just to clarify, I don't think the photo's a "fake", I just haven't seen enough evidence at this point to be convinced it's the same Mary Jane Kelly we are all seeking. I would love for it to be her in a pre-1888 photo!! It would be nice to have a very different photo to remember her by than the dreadful crime scene photos we are all familiar with. My initial impressions are that it's a few years to late too really be her, but I could be mistaken.

I'm sure the family in touch with Chris honestly feels (or fears) that it's really her, and I'm grateful than they have shared even a portion of their family history and their old photographs with us.

I am thoroughly convinced that "our" Mary Kelly died a very cruel and horrific death in November 1888. I wish she didn't; I wish nobody did.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Debra A]

Hi Debs.

Just to clarify, I don't think the photo's a "fake", I just haven't seen enough evidence at this point to be convinced it's the same Mary Jane Kelly we are all seeking. I would love for it to be her in a pre-1888 photo!! It would be nice to have a very different photo to remember her by than the dreadful crime scene photos we are all familiar with. My initial impressions are that it's a few years to late too really be her, but I could be mistaken.

I'm sure the family in touch with Chris honestly feels (or fears) that it's really her, and I'm grateful than they have shared even a portion of their family history and their old photographs with us.

I am thoroughly convinced that "our" Mary Kelly died a very cruel and horrific death in November 1888. I wish she didn't; I wish nobody did.

Best regards,
Archaic

It was the outcome some of the wiser and less gullible predicted, Bunny. Some of us never learn.

[Chris Scott]

As anyone who has read my book on Kelly will know I am as convinced as one can be that the woman who died in Room 13 Millers Court was one and the same as the woman who had lived there in the preceding months and had been known to her neighbours, friends and lover as Mary Jane Kelly.
If the image that has been sent to me can be positively shown to postdate 1888 then to me it will be the death knell for its provenance and authenticity as a photo in life of Mary Kelly.
Chris

[Debra A]

I didn't mean you, Chris. I meant I hoped that was not the story the family would be proposing. We have had it before, for example with the Tottenham Mary Kelly.

[Chris Scott]

Sorry Debs
That wasn't a reply to your point nor did I think you meant me:-)
It was a general point that I personally do not subscribe to any of the Kelly survival stories
Regards
Chris

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The only person in a position to even make a personal judgement is Chris. without giving anything away , I must ask him the obvious.
'In your opinion when you look at the picture , can you see in your minds eye any possible resemblance to MJK, hair length, possible build, attractiveness?
From a personal point of view what is your gut feeling.
I find it frustrating, its a bit like having a picture of Jack himself with no face.
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

One point is, the photograph could be wrong but the genealogical relationship could be right.

[Chris Scott]

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

[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?

[Robert]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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?