The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[mklhawley]

Very similar certainly. I'm not convinced it's the same person, but there's certainly a similarity.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

There's too many look-alikes to be entirely convinced, but if we were forced to choose, the archdutchess has my vote.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Garza]

Typical. I go on hiatus for half a year and an alleged photo of the elusive MJK turns up. Never leaving this site again .

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I guess that we have all got over the shock of the photo not being Mary Kelly, however it really brings home the age of her, 24-25 , which is in complete contrast to the others, who were 15 years and more older..
One must ask the obvious.
Why did the killer not target, younger women, was it because they were not available, in the small hours,[ which I doubt] or was it because he was initially only targeting middle aged .
So why the different MO?
Why Mary Kelly?
Why was she [ apparently] the last of the series?.
Regards Richard.

[RavenDarkendale]

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

Side by side comparison

Roy

Maybe I'm nitpicking here but I can give an opinion.

When I first saw the alleged photo I felt something was wrong. The hair color and length I don't feel would match Mary Kelly judging from the crime scene photo.

As to Roy's comparison here, there are similarities, hairstyle and color, for instance and full lips. But the noses do not match, nor the earlobes. I really don't see the same lips either, the upper lip being different.

Just my opinion. for what it is worth...

[Garza]

Hi,
I guess that we have all got over the shock of the photo not being Mary Kelly

Hey Richard, I must have missed something in this thread. What evidence is there that this is definetly not Mary Kelly? It probably isn't - too good to be true comes to mind, just like to know. Thanks.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garza,
Obviously.. we do not know, that Chris's photograph was not Kelly, but apparently that avenue is exhausted.?
I would love it to have been Kelly in better times, and what a find that would have been.
Regards Richard.

[Chris Scott]

Hey Richard, I must have missed something in this thread. What evidence is there that this is definetly not Mary Kelly? It probably isn't - too good to be true comes to mind, just like to know. Thanks.

Hi Garza
basically all went quiet so I took that as a sign that something was amiss. Briefly what happened was that coming up three years ago I was contacted privately, because of the book about Kelly I had written. The person who contacted me claimed that she had a family connection with Mary Kelly. All she told me about herself (the person who contacted me) was that she was a middle aged woman born and living in Canada. She also told me that her surname was not Kelly.
She told me she had in her possession three items in which I might be interested, namely, a photo of Mary Kelly alive, a photo of the other members of the Kelly family after they moved to the USA and lastly the Kelly family Bible which included entries written by Mary.
After long negotiations the lady sent me the two photos. After long persuasion she allowed me to post them here but I have never had sight of any passages from the alleged family Bible.
When both pictures were posted here and on JTR Forums many pertinent questions were raised. Shortly after the pics had been posted my correspondent in Canada stopped replying to my messages and the e-mail account has now been deleted.
Make of that what you will - all I can say personally is this:-
I have no proof whatever that either picture is what was claimed for it, and there are weighty objections that were raised to both HOWEVER if it was a hoax I fail to see the point of it as it lasted for well over two years and the lady seemed very reluctant for anyone else to see these images. She stood to gain nothing from it, certainly nothing material as no monetary transaction was ever mentioned and no amount ever changed hands.
That really is all I know
Chris

[richardnunweek]

Hello Chris,
The more I look at that photograph alleged to be of Kelly, the more I am hooked on the possibility that it may be authentic, as you quite rightly say, no reason for a long period , for no monetary gain.
I can imagine a dressed down Mary Kelly being very similar, she does fit the pattern.
Its very unfortunate, that like so many times in the past on Casebook,we have had that dangling carrot before us, with no conclusion forthcoming.
Regards Richard.

[Garza]

Hi Garza
basically all went quiet so I took that as a sign that something was amiss. Briefly what happened was that coming up three years ago I was contacted privately, because of the book about Kelly I had written. The person who contacted me claimed that she had a family connection with Mary Kelly. All she told me about herself (the person who contacted me) was that she was a middle aged woman born and living in Canada. She also told me that her surname was not Kelly.
She told me she had in her possession three items in which I might be interested, namely, a photo of Mary Kelly alive, a photo of the other members of the Kelly family after they moved to the USA and lastly the Kelly family Bible which included entries written by Mary.
After long negotiations the lady sent me the two photos. After long persuasion she allowed me to post them here but I have never had sight of any passages from the alleged family Bible.
When both pictures were posted here and on JTR Forums many pertinent questions were raised. Shortly after the pics had been posted my correspondent in Canada stopped replying to my messages and the e-mail account has now been deleted.
Make of that what you will - all I can say personally is this:-
I have no proof whatever that either picture is what was claimed for it, and there are weighty objections that were raised to both HOWEVER if it was a hoax I fail to see the point of it as it lasted for well over two years and the lady seemed very reluctant for anyone else to see these images. She stood to gain nothing from it, certainly nothing material as no monetary transaction was ever mentioned and no amount ever changed hands.
That really is all I know
Chris

Very odd Chris indeed. A very elaborate and long hoax (if that) for no obvious gain.

In fact this has intrigued me more, much more, much much more.

Let's just say these photos are the real deal, would a family want that sort of public attention? That noteriety (sp)? Some people have a weariness about their ancestors (my mum was horrified when I showed her all the shotgun weddings and pregnent brides in her line), and there is a stigma about your ancestor being a prostitute - not only that but maybe one of THE most famous prostitutes in history.

If my memory serves the ancestors of Chapman want to be kept anon. I think?

Mary Kelly's family denied her when she died, heartbreaking (if true) that her family still denies her 125 years later .

I was skeptical of this photo and first, but this news has actually increased my belief (and belief is all it is atm) that this MIGHT be the real deal. Also, where is the 2nd photo?

[Chris Scott]

Hi Garza
It could be as you say about having a prostitute in the family, even way back. But we also have to bear in mind the context - a lot of people run a mile at the mention of the Ripper case. There have been other examples when potentially very interesting material could not be used because of family reservations - or even downright refusal - of use of the material. One example of this is images from the Kosminski family whose publication the family absolutely forbade, which of course had to be respected.
The second photo had its own thread at

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6523

Chris

[Wickerman]

One example of this is images from the Kosminski family whose publication the family absolutely forbade, which of course had to be respected.

Just on that one small point. Are you referring to the modern family, or the Kosminski family in the 19th century? In other words, are you implying a photo of Aaron might/does exist?

Thanks, Jon S.

[Chris Scott]

Just on that one small point. Are you referring to the modern family, or the Kosminski family in the 19th century? In other words, are you implying a photo of Aaron might/does exist?

Thanks, Jon S.

Hi Jon
I was referring to the modern Kosminski family (although not now living under that name) and I did not wish to suggest that there was a photo of Aaron. The images I referred to were of Aaron's sisters.
Chris

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Chris, just wanted to be sure on that.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garza]

Hi Garza
It could be as you say about having a prostitute in the family, even way back. But we also have to bear in mind the context - a lot of people run a mile at the mention of the Ripper case. There have been other examples when potentially very interesting material could not be used because of family reservations - or even downright refusal - of use of the material. One example of this is images from the Kosminski family whose publication the family absolutely forbade, which of course had to be respected.
The second photo had its own thread at

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6523

Chris

Never mind, have just starting reading the family threads. The family picture is wrong, hence the source if questionable. Ah well, never get your hopes up in Ripperology .

[RivkahChaya]

Doesn't anyone else think the hair is completely wrong? One of the few things we can see clearly in the Miller's Court photo is MJK's hair over her forehead. It looks very light brown or red, and soft & straight, not curly or kinky at all.

I have really curly hair, and one thing I can tell you is that if MJK had famously long hair, it wasn't curly. Curly hair pulls up into the curl, so even if it is quite grown out, it doesn't look very long. People who have hair that hangs down past their butt will have straight hair.