The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[curious4]

Danae, disregarding it is your prerogative of course, but personally I'd prefer to wait until Chris has more information or further evidence.



It's reasonable to assume on the evidence that Mary Kelly was self-assured:

'Said to have been possessed of considerable personal attractions.'

'Detective Constable Walter Dew claimed to know Kelly well by sight and says that she was attractive and paraded around, usually in the company of two or three friends. He says she always wore a spotlessly clean white apron.'

Maria Harvey, a friend, says that she was 'much superior to that of most persons in her position in life.'

Joseph Barnett and Mrs. Carthy, a woman with whom she lived at one time, say that she came from a family that was "fairly well off" (Barnett) and "well to do people" (Carthy). Mrs. Carthy also states that Kelly was "an excellent scholar and an artist of no mean degree."

Even if you take the stories of carriage rides and Parisian jaunts with a pinch of salt, they still suggest a young woman with certain airs and graces, and undoubtedly a sense of self-assurance.

Not that I'm saying I think it's her on this photo - merely that I don't think the confident demeanor or poise contradicts what is known of Mary.

In the versions of this quote I have read, it ends with "and no hat".

Cheers,
C4

[curious4]

Good morning all,

I wonder if this could be a case of family history by word of mouth being twisted over the generations? Thus, this is great aunt Mary, she knew Mary Kelly who was killed by Jack the Ripper becomes this is great, great aunt Mary who was killed by Jack the Ripper. Perhaps also a reason for emigrating - a new start and also away from the killer.

Best wishes,
C4

P.s. please excuse any typos - problems with my laptop, so using my phone and my arms are too short!

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
Henry sums it up nicely, the quotes from several witnesses indeed show a person who was on a higher level then the other victims, she even had her own room[ albeit rent was owed].
She was attractive, not only according to Dew, but McCarthy's fifteen year old son, she was good natured, despite the folk-law of ''Black Mary'' she kept herself clean although her clothes were worn.
This however was in late 1888, not 1885, and if her ex landlady was truthful, had some nice dresses at one time, although long gone at the time of her death.
We 'could ' be witnessing a picture of Kelly which was taken as stated in 1885, and that picture was sent to her family , either before death , or after, amongst her belongings.
One can imagine that she was proud of her appearance in former days, and would have kept that picture , possibly in her room on the night/morning of her death.
Not only could we have a picture of her , but something from room 13.
Regards Richard.

[Henry Flower]

The pic doesn't come from Fairclough so it can be genuine.

DVV. You are a bad boy.

[Henry Flower]

Danae, disregarding it is your prerogative of course, but personally I'd prefer to wait until Chris has more information or further evidence.

The girl in the picture looks extremely self assured as well as intelligent, almost like she had gone to a presitious school for young ladies. I disregard this photo as MJK.

It's reasonable to assume on the evidence that Mary Kelly was self-assured:

'Said to have been possessed of considerable personal attractions.'

'Detective Constable Walter Dew claimed to know Kelly well by sight and says that she was attractive and paraded around, usually in the company of two or three friends. He says she always wore a spotlessly clean white apron.'

Maria Harvey, a friend, says that she was 'much superior to that of most persons in her position in life.'

Joseph Barnett and Mrs. Carthy, a woman with whom she lived at one time, say that she came from a family that was "fairly well off" (Barnett) and "well to do people" (Carthy). Mrs. Carthy also states that Kelly was "an excellent scholar and an artist of no mean degree."

Even if you take the stories of carriage rides and Parisian jaunts with a pinch of salt, they still suggest a young woman with certain airs and graces, and undoubtedly a sense of self-assurance.

Not that I'm saying I think it's her on this photo - merely that I don't think the confident demeanor or poise contradicts what is known of Mary.

[DanaeChantel]

I'm rather of the opinion that it isn't Mary Kelly, both because the eye color is evidently wrong, and because the woman in the picture is wearing too fashionable clothing. Mary Kelly had evidently been a prostitute for several years, and had already drank herself out of a brothel and onto the streets. For Mary Kelly to look as young as the woman in that picture, she would have to have posed for it before turning 20, probably before 18, and the clothes are too modern for her to be a teenager. But they are too stylish for her to have had them at the end of her life. Also I forgot. The jewelery is too expensive. It's not that expensive, but it's not something a streetwalker could afford to keep. Or to buy.

I don't think it's a swindle or anything. When we were going through all the pictures of when my sister and I were kids, 90% of the ones labeled as me were my sister. And we don't look that much alike. My parents just hadn't slept through the night in four years. It might be a different Mary Kelly, or it might be a different relative who was labeled as Mary Kelly, and the real picture of Mary Kelly has someone else's name on it.

Absolutely!! The woman in the picture looks to me like a young girl from a wealthy family. She looks too young to be Mary Kelley and yes, MJK would have not been able to keep or afford clothing and jewelry such as in the photograph being a prostitute from Whitechapel. The girl in the picture looks extremely self assured as well as intelligent, almost like she had gone to a presitious school for young ladies. I disregard this photo as MJK. It is possible this picture is mislabeled.

[DVV]

The pic doesn't come from Fairclough so it can be genuine.
Chris, you're great.

[Bridewell]

But Not To Me

And also a cropped dark Beatle style haircut which Victorian women didn't wear back then unless they worked down the mines or whatever and is completely different from the hair of the body on the bed which is straight and swept back .

Thanks for the side by side photos on page 4 here, Roy.

They look like the same person to me. Check the left eyebrow.

And if this is the same Mrs Bartlett I wouldn't be surprised that glamorous (sic) photos of her were sold on street corners for a penny.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...-466#highlight

Hi Stephen,

To me they look similar, but not the same. I think the bottom of the left ear is different, as is the top lip. My perception is that Adelaide Bartlett's nose is thicker & coarser than that of "MJ Que?". It's not a bad likeness, but I don't think it's the same woman. No doubt I'll be proved wrong (again!).

Regards, Bridewell.

[DanaeChantel]

Hello Chris,

May I please add my thanks for this information and the photo.

Practically, questions must be asked.

If the photo was taken in 1885, what was her age?
The family would know the names of all the siblings. Do THEIR ages match up with any known facts with 'our' Mary? Are they all older?
IF they are all older, were they all living at home in 1888 when the family emigrated?
Did EVERY family member emigrate?
Where in Ireland did they live?
For a seemingly so close knit and devoted family, why didnt anyone contact the police and identify THEMSELVES as a relative, let alone not turn up at the funeral.
I also note that we have not heard why, with knowledge that people have risen a gravestone for Mary a few decades ago, now is the time to claim knowledge of 'Mary Kelly' and not at some time in the past? Why now?

And how many family members SINCE have known about the 'truth' re Mary? For with so many siblings, the family 5 or 6 generations along would likely be enormous- yet nobody has breathed a word for 124 years?
The story is equally, if not more important than the photograph, imho.
Not being dismissive- am respectfully looking for supporting evidence etc.

Kindly

Phil

Phil, I could not have said this better myself and in my most humble opinion, I have always wondered if Mary supposedly had that many family members living in London, why oh why would they not come to her funeral and/or offer to pay for and lay her to rest???? I understand they were possibly ashamed or maybe frightened but for every single one of them to just stay away and not move a muscle in the direction of her remains to at least pay their respects is odd. I am curious as to where the family photo came from???? Were her family members that cold blooded to not come forward??? Why does the lady want the entire picture held back??? I have actually not seen the picture myself of Bridgett. Does the lady who has the family photo know the family or is she family??? Its sad that the family just stayed away and let McCarthy pay for the funeral when they were her flesh and blood. If they were like this, well no wonder she ran off from home and had nothing to do with them!!!!! They should have been ashamed of themselves.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As it is clear, that the group photograph is separate from Kelly's, one can assume that the family were sent that image, by either MJK herself , or was in the personal belongings sent to her brother John Jo, as in John Joseph.
The picture clearly was a reminder of better times, and may well have been one of several dresses her landlady retained until Mary fetched them.
I do not have a problem with the clothing, as for the length of hair, it was tucked up under the hat, anyway hair grows in three years,.
I still have a feeling this is real, just a small doubt remains.
I guess it's watch this space.
Regards Richard.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Archaic,

Your insight into LVP and Edwardian finery and fashion has been fascinating to read. Thank you for taking the time to write and explain.

For the record, it was I who pointed out the business of other genealogical evidence re, this claim attached to this photograph. In actual fact twice, once quite early in the thread and again when adressing Robert.

Best wishes

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

Did not Mary kelly have blue eyes? The woman in this photo appears to have VERY dark eyes-dark brown i would say.

And also a cropped dark Beatle style haircut which Victorian women didn't wear back then unless they worked down the mines or whatever and is completely different from the hair of the body on the bed which is straight and swept back .

Thanks for the side by side photos on page 4 here, Roy.

They look like the same person to me. Check the left eyebrow.

And if this is the same Mrs Bartlett I wouldn't be surprised that glamorous (sic) photos of her were sold on street corners for a penny.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-466-18860405&div=t18860405-466#highlight

[Scorpio]

I am glad to end all the cloak and dagger shenanigans that I hate. After very persistent but gentle pressure from myself the lady who originally sent this image has agreed to it being openly posted for comment and opinion.
The alleged information I was sent claims that Kelly was one of six children - 4 brothers (originally 5 but one died young) and 2 daughters. The only names of her siblings I was given was that her sister was named Bridget and her oldest brother was named Henry John Joseph. Her parents were named Bridget Kelly and John Joseph Kelly. At an unspecified date after Mary Jane's murder the whole family moved to the USA and, as far as I am aware, remained there.
The only info specific to the image I am posting below is that it was allegedly taken in 1885.
Let me emphasise (and the person who sent this to me is well aware of this) I am by no means convinced that this is an image of the Mary Kelly who died at Millers Court. One of the main stumbling blocks for me is the (in my opinion) lack of resemblance between this alleged image of mary and that of her sister Bridget from the family group photo.
To be as even handed as I can I am posting this same post on Casebook and JTR Forums at the same time.
Also let me emphasise that no financial transaction has taken place - no money has been asked for or offered for this image.
Chris

Hi, Mary Kelly had a full face with a light, slightly freckly complexion, quite light blue eyes, and thick dark chestnut hair. This person is not
Mary Kelly.

[Archaic]

Explaination of Terminology

Hi everyone. Thought I would take a minute to explain some of the terminology being used in this discussion. I'm so familiar with them that I sometimes forget that others are not.

Strictly speaking, the Victorian Period spans the years of Queen Victoria's long reign, 1837-1901.

- Thus the latter portion of the Victorian Era includes the 13 years from 1888-1901 when Mary Kelly was already deceased. So her dress and jewelry could be called "Victorian", but if they can be definitely traced to that 13-year span the photo cannot be her.

People continued to wear "Victorian" items in later years, particularly jewelry. (I'm sure many of us wear favorite antique pieces and old family heirlooms today.)

Strictly speaking, the Edwardian Period spans King Edward's reign, 1901-1910. But it's usually extended to at least WWI, and often to the end of WWI, and even to the 1919 Treaty of Versailles.

However, jewelry and fashions are evaluated stylistically and by the details of their constructions, materials, etc. Styles have a tendency to develop, overlap, morph, recede, revive, etc- there are no hard and fast dates. Dates really only come in when there is solid proof, such as a patent date, a maker's mark, etc., that can be traced. As with photographs, this usually results in a time period being indicated as "not earlier than" a given date. It seldom results in a hard-and-fast date.

When evaluating jewelry and fashions, the terms Victorian, Art Nouveau, and Edwardian are much more nebulous. For example, the artistic style known as "Art Nouveau", "New Art", is often described as the period from 1890 or 1895 to 1915 or 1918...this is because the style developed over time, influencing other styles to a greater or lesser extent, mixing with them, etc. The style didn't start and stop on a given day. (Example: If you consult an early 1920's catalog, chances are you will encounter items that show definite stylistic traits one would term 'Art Nouveau'. The new Art Deco style was developing, but didn't really burst forth until 1925.)

'Belle Epoque' is an even more nebulous a term. It's generally applied to the period in France encompassing the late 19th C. up to the advent of WWI in 1914. I've seen a number of different "starting dates" for it. There really is no starting date. It's applied stylistically to a highly creative period in art, literature, fashion, etc.

I believe the best chance of firmly dating the photograph beyond dispute rests with whether the cardstock contains a studio name, address, date, or printing code.
Even the font used on the card can be dated stylistically, but that won't be anywhere near as accurate as being able to trace the photography studio or cardstock printer. If that leads us to a firm date later than 1888 we'll know it's not the Mary we are seeking.

And as I think Robert pointed out earlier, even if this photo can be reliably proven to pre-date 1888, that still won't prove it's of "the" Mary Kelly who was murdered in Miller's Court. Instead it will lead to a rigorous genealogical investigation. Evaluating the photograph is only a first step.

Hope this helps a little.
Best regards,
Archaic

[Abby Normal]

I am glad to end all the cloak and dagger shenanigans that I hate. After very persistent but gentle pressure from myself the lady who originally sent this image has agreed to it being openly posted for comment and opinion.
The alleged information I was sent claims that Kelly was one of six children - 4 brothers (originally 5 but one died young) and 2 daughters. The only names of her siblings I was given was that her sister was named Bridget and her oldest brother was named Henry John Joseph. Her parents were named Bridget Kelly and John Joseph Kelly. At an unspecified date after Mary Jane's murder the whole family moved to the USA and, as far as I am aware, remained there.
The only info specific to the image I am posting below is that it was allegedly taken in 1885.
Let me emphasise (and the person who sent this to me is well aware of this) I am by no means convinced that this is an image of the Mary Kelly who died at Millers Court. One of the main stumbling blocks for me is the (in my opinion) lack of resemblance between this alleged image of mary and that of her sister Bridget from the family group photo.
To be as even handed as I can I am posting this same post on Casebook and JTR Forums at the same time.
Also let me emphasise that no financial transaction has taken place - no money has been asked for or offered for this image.
Chris

Wow. Just saw this thread. very exciting stuff.

However. Did not Mary kelly have blue eyes? The woman in this photo appears to have VERY dark eyes-dark brown i would say.