The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[Addy]

Hi all,

It is absolutely fascinating! Thanks to Chris and the family for posting this picture. I feel there is indeed a lot of difference between these two women and I'm inclined to think "Mary" looks too dark to be the sister of Bridget, who has more the look of what you would expect from Mary. But who knows? I'm curious about extra information, if the family is willing to share.

Greetings,

Addy

[The Good Michael]

I just asked an expert who owns a hat museum. She says that the pin and dress are Victorian and the hat is Edwardian.

The problem as I see it is that the French Belle Epoque period covers late Victorian and early Edwardian, so where are we?

Possibilities.

Mike

[Bridewell]

Hello Bridewell


"In the late Victorian and early Edwardian period hats were worn perched atop piled-up hair, often tipped to one side or forward over the face. Mens' styles such as boaters and trilbys had been adopted into female fashion in the 1880s, and were popular daywear, embellished with flowers and feathers.

It would seem to me that in the 1880's the hat worn by a woman in public would be more likely to be the smaller hat, worn closer to the head than the wide-brimmed hat seen in the Edwardian era or indeed in the supposed photograph of Mary Kelly. You can see how I am wavering in my opinion of the photograph in question.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for that. The closest match I could find in the link:



Unfortunately it's labelled as Edwardian, so presumably 1901 - 1910 if that is correct. Having said that, I suspect that Parisian fashion and London fashion were not aligned to the same degree in the 19th century as they are today. I, too, am undecided, but that is how it should be, I think, at this stage. In fact it's quite encouraging that no-one has rushed to either accept or reject this image on the evidence available.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Semper_Eadem]

Hey all,

I'm starting to wonder if perhaps the 2 pictures of Mary and her sister Bridget might of become mixed up through the years. I know that sounds far fetched but it happens and Bridget looks more like the Mary from descriptions that I have seen with her light hair. Her build could also be described as stout although not very. I don't know sounds if i am clutching at straws or theories. I gotta say that both the Kelly sisters are very attractive.

I think those hats in the link Chris George supplied are more Edwardian then Victorian however their were a few that look circa 1888's. I knew the big hats from Titanic and Bonnets but almost nothing about the transition between the two. Perhaps Mary got a man's hat cheap and set to work feminizing for the picture. Also looking at her broach, I think the chain on it is interesting. Maybe she made that as well out of some old pieces. Maybe Mary was quite the fashionista

Geo~

[ChrisGeorge]

Good Afternoon All.

http://www.cartes.fsnet.co.uk/date/main.htm

I don't know if this helps -doesn't seem to show many ladies wearing hats, but hardly surprising for indoor shots. Most women in the 1880's do seem to have worn their hair up, though, if these are anything to go by. I don't see how it's possible to tell the length of the lady's hair in the photo unless she removes that hat!

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell

You are correct that in public ladies or women in the Victorian and Edwardian eras wore their hair piled up. She probably would not unpin it except in private. It might have been seen also as unseemly for woman, as opposed to a girl, to be seen out of doors with her hair down. As stated on one blog that discusses particularly Edwardian and 20th Century hats:

"In the late Victorian and early Edwardian period hats were worn perched atop piled-up hair, often tipped to one side or forward over the face. Mens' styles such as boaters and trilbys had been adopted into female fashion in the 1880s, and were popular daywear, embellished with flowers and feathers.

"The later Edwardian period saw the silhouette become narrower, and hats conversely became more vast. Enormous hats reached a peak during the 'Titanic' era, with brims sometimes extending beyond the wearer's shoulders. To secure these huge creations to the head, hat pins up to 18 inches long were skewered through the hair and hat (in a pinch, these could also double as a handy weapon)."

Also see this selection of images per Mr. Google here.

It would seem to me that in the 1880's the hat worn by a woman in public would be more likely to be the smaller hat, worn closer to the head than the wide-brimmed hat seen in the Edwardian era or indeed in the supposed photograph of Mary Kelly. You can see how I am wavering in my opinion of the photograph in question.

Best regards

Chris

[Robert]

The third photo from 1888 has a rather elaborate hat.

[Bridewell]

Good Afternoon All.

http://www.cartes.fsnet.co.uk/date/main.htm

I don't know if this helps -doesn't seem to show many ladies wearing hats, but hardly surprising for indoor shots. Most women in the 1880's do seem to have worn their hair up, though, if these are anything to go by. I don't see how it's possible to tell the length of the lady's hair in the photo unless she removes that hat!

Regards, Bridewell.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Phil

Well, the only people currently claiming that it is "our" Mary, are the family. Chris certainly isn't claiming it and nor, I think, is anyone on this thread. I don't know whether the family will tell Chris precisely why they believe that this is indeed THE Mary Kelly. Let's see.

As does Chris Scott, I have a completely open mind on the photograph being an image of the Mary Jane Kelly who died in Miller's Court. I just count this new puzzle as one more intriguing mystery to add to the many we have to ponder in this case of all cases. So, plod on, fellow Ripperologists!

Best regards

Chris George

[Robert]

Is there anything to be gleaned regarding the differences in dress between Bridget and "Mary"? To me as a non-expert, the dresses look very different regarding the shoulders. "Mary's" dress seems to have very rounded shoulders, whereas Bridget's has more angular shoulders - NOT the absurd shoulder pads of "Dynasty" of course, but there certainly seems to be a difference.

[Henry Flower]

Indeed Mike - we can now only wait to hear what other information Chris is given, or what else he can discover about the family and the photos.

And of course we can expect allegations quickly to be made of definite resemblances between the photo and half the women in hats ever to appear in Sickert paintings. Oh, I can't wait...

I'm off now. Good day to to you, and to all.

[The Good Michael]

Henry,

I was referring mainly to the lips and of course the earlobes. The general shape is similar as well. I see nothing that says they have to be sisters,however. And the jawline is absolutely different, in my opinion, with the alleged MJK having and extremely strong-looking one.

Mike

[curious4]

alleged photou

Hello all,

Looking at the police photo of Mary, one of the most poignant details, at least for me, is the carefully styled hair. In some versions of the photo you can also make out the ringlets at the side. As well as appearing much darker in the "alleged" photo, the hairstyle doesn t seem to fit either, or correspond with the sketch of Mary. I admit that she may have altered her hairstyle, but think it unlikely.

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. Chris, from a grey Stockholm, I envy your being in Ramsgate, must be lovely there just now.

[Chris Scott]

Hi guys
I am working through all the info and ideas on here - many thanks for all of them
I have just posted the message below to Forums and thought it appropriate and for the sake of clarity to post it here as well
Chris

Thanks How and all you guys
I am not investing too much emotionally and evidentially into these images and I have made it politely clear to the lady who sent them that I would take a LOT of convincing before accepting them as what is claimed.
The bottom line is that if it turns out that this image is NOT what is claimed then I will not be shattered as every item has to be judged and assessed on the same strict basis
Chris

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Thanks for going open Chris, and a big thank you to the sender, I really hope we collectively can advance and get this picture verified as the real deal.
I do have slight reservations though, as one cannot get away from the suspicion that the water was sufficiently tested, and the response was to release the photograph to increase that.
I hope I am wrong, but I am suspicious by nature, especially with such a possible ''asset'' as a picture of the most talked about victim of ''Jack the Ripper'.
But benefit of the doubt time.
Regards Richard.

[Henry Flower]

Sally and Mike, I'm not seeing it at all.

there are similarities in the lower half of the face between the Mary and Bridget photos, in proportion and general shape of features

I'm really trying, but I can't agree. Given that we are dealing with two small, low resolution images in which the faces are virtually without detail except for little dark outlines of the main features - eyes, nostrils, line of mouth - repeated viewing is always going to suggest similarities - because we're looking for similarities, and the brain is hardwired to find similarities. However, what strikes me is the tapering, thin nature of Bridget's lower half, while Mary's is bulkier, more solid. There could be a similarity of the mouth, though we really don't have enough visual information to make that claim. And, yes, they each appear to have two nostrils at the lower end of what we must assume are noses.

The overall face shape is the same as well as the neck length. The lips are strikingly similar and so are the ears. Both of the women have smallish noses

The face shape? No, I simply don't think it is. And from the two different angles we have I think it's very difficult to make that assumption. But Mike, where we might agree is that there might be some similarity in the proportions from nose to lips, and from lips to chin. That much I can see, but I can't say the jawlines are similar, because the angles don't allow me to see that. All I can see is that one jawline is tapering, straight, and long, the other quite a bit bulkier and rounder.

The lips, yes - possibly so. But the noses? We're not getting enough information from these photos to make that claim, surely? It's impossible to tell from what we have whether Bridget's nose is fleshy or pointy, sticks out a mile or is a delicate little button. The visual information isn't there. And as for the ears... with respect Mike, surely that's wishful thinking? We can see one lower half of one ear on Mary - that's all we have to go on. And that one lower half has from what I can see a more delicate, slender, refined shape than the earlobes on Bridget.

Portrait painting is part of what I do for a living, and I've spent a great deal of time studying photos that I get sent by family members wanting portraits from old photos, and these photos are the type that I dread: the face contains almost no useful information. It would take all of thirty seconds to erase the eyeballs, nostrils and the line of the mouth, and you'd see there was nothing left but a sea of grey. For us to be using such images to make forensic comparisons, and looking for similarities in the far less characterful lower halves of the faces (which aren't so similar in any case as far as I can see) while ignoring the more revealing and definitively dissimilar upper halves seems rather a forlorn and pointless task.

The useful suggestions have already been made and I can add nothing to them: study the actual photograph, front and back, look for maker's marks, have the clothes looked at by a professional clothing historian, compare and contrast all the faces in the family shot, and do as much research as possible into the family from which they came, and the provenance of the images.

Or we could look for imagined similarities in the almost indiscernible details of the two and a half ears with which we've been presented.