The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[Semper_Eadem]

Howdy All,

How exciting! Where to start? This is my first post on this site I am more of a reader then a poster.

I do want to get my two cents in regarding the catalog picture from 1883 that Deb posted a few pages back. Not only was the hat similar to the one worn by the Subject/Mary J Kelly in the photograph but also the collar on the dress in the catalog is quite similar as well to the one in the photo.

assuming it was Kelly, perhaps the photo was taken in France in 1885 and if it was Kelly and she was born in 1863 or 1865 she would of been either 22 or 20 so she might of looked younger then her age. Also Mary is described as stout, but I remember some one mentioning that she spent time in a clinic/sanitarium in her late teens because of illness, perhaps if it was TB there would be a good reason why she appears so thin in the photograph. I also noticed her wistful/sad look which would fit given the history she related to Joseph Barnett.

Now I still wonder if her name was Mary Kelly or if that was an alias? Perhaps if this is actually the woman who was murdered in Miller's Court then perhaps we will find the out as well. All of this is food for thought anyways.

I also want to add my thanks to Mary's family for having the courage to step forward and contact Chis Scott with their information. If this was Mary, I can understand why they would have wanted to keep quite about their relationship with her in 1888 given the moral grounds of the time and why later on they might have thought it best to let sleeping dogs lye.

Chris, Thanks for sharing this. I really haven't been into the Ripper lately. What little historical study I have done has been on the Yersinia Pesetas.

Regards,
Semper Eadem
(Geo Lorton)

[Sally]

Comparison

I actually think that there are similarities in the lower half of the face between the Mary and Bridget photos, in proportion and general shape of features. The eyes are different, but otherwise, not so different in my opinion.

[The Good Michael]

After looking again at the alleged picture of Bridget, I am of the opinion that there are some similarities between the photo of her and the photo of her alleged sister. 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. That is all I can safely say. I think it's good to view these in isolation from the group photo though I wonder if there are features the alleged Kelly might share with her other alleged siblings such as eye shape and jawline.

I defer to Chris on this. I also want to apologize for not thanking Chris for his work and dedication earlier. It was remiss of me.

One thing that really stops me from saying, "Yes, this very well could be Kelly," is the fact that her photo is separate. This could mean that she had been away from home for a long time and perhaps this photo was taken in France or at Mrs. Bouquet's (my spelling) home and was sent to her family to show that she was well, even if she wasn't, and it does seem 1885 would have been about the time that she realized her life was going nowhere, or just before that realization sank in.

Cheers,

Mike

[Errata]

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.

[Henry Flower]

Agreed, Phil. As fascinating as the photo is, the photo alone cannot be proved to be 'our' Mary Jane Kelly, but it could conceivably be proved not to be (if, for example, she is indeed conclusively shown to be wearing fashions not worn prior to 1889. So far I think the jury is out on that one, though those with some expertise seem to think it post-dates 1888.)

More information is obviously needed - and so far the other piece of evidence we have, the portion of the family photo showing the supposed younger sister, does not inspire much confidence. Not all siblings look remarkably similar, granted, but I wouldn't put any money at all on those two faces having the same two genetic parents. I might be wrong on that, of course I might. But as Chris honestly pointed out, they look worryingly dissimilar.

So, for me, so far we simply don't have enough to go on. I'd love it to be her - not only because we all want to know as much as possible, and we all love verified new discoveries; but also because the photo is beautiful, and I'm sure that if it were MJK she would've been proud of it. It would restore humanity to someone who has risked becoming a mere cipher.

Chris's research has consistently brought us wonderful insights from unexpected sources, and I'd like to thank him for his admirable caution and for his honesty in presenting these images to the forums. I hope this family deal honestly with him whatever transpires to be the truth behind the images.

[Celesta]

Hi Chris.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that the next logical step would be to examine the photograph itself for clues as to when it was created.

[B
Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

Great post, Archie.

[Phil Carter]

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.

Hello Robert,

Lets also just hope for Chris' sake then that the family tell him the whole story- because if not- the claim is impossible to verify on the photo alone.- interesting the photo is in every way.
Yup-let's see.

Kindly

Phil

[Robert]

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.

[Phil Carter]

Well, if the hat dates from the mid 90s or later, then if it's Adelaide, she'd have to be 40+ in Chris's photo, which is extremely unlikely.

Hejo Robert,

Please forgive my stupidity. Lets presume ALL the photographic details are right, in every way. It still wont make this MJk of Millers Ct fame UNLESS the story details can be corroberated and give supporting evidence, will it?
Surely if the claim is that this photo is MJK then to consider this are we to gather that bang on, supporting evidence is already in hand?

Kindly

Phil

[Henry Flower]

Dave, thank you. Getting up to speed now.

Sorry to be such a slow noob.

[Robert]

Well, if the hat dates from the mid 90s or later, then if it's Adelaide, she'd have to be 40+ in Chris's photo, which is extremely unlikely.

[Errata]

[ATTACH]13517[/ATTACH][ATTACH]13518[/ATTACH]

Side by side comparison

Roy

Jeez. Are we sure that's not the same woman?

[Robert]

It's an attractive face, not exactly beautiful, but a face with character. It's the kind of face you want if you're going to be an actress.

[Cogidubnus]

Too right!

This is fascinating and intriguing stuff. It interests me that when you have any degree of mental investment in a case, and then are presented with this image, the mind wants it to be of Mary Kelly - and hopes that it can be conclusively shown to be so. Or am I alone in this mental peculiarity?

No you're far from alone

Is there any chance of posting the image of Bridget on casebook? I went to JTR forums to try to view it but they are not accepting new registrations.

If I've got this link business right, it's here:-

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6469&page=5

All the best

Dave

[Henry Flower]

This is fascinating and intriguing stuff. It interests me that when you have any degree of mental investment in a case, and then are presented with this image, the mind wants it to be of Mary Kelly - and hopes that it can be conclusively shown to be so. Or am I alone in this mental peculiarity?

If a film version of the Adelaide Bartlett story is ever made I propose that Audrey Tautou (of Amelie fame) must play the lead.

Is there any chance of posting the image of Bridget on casebook? I went to JTR forums to try to view it but they are not accepting new registrations.