The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[Chris Scott]

Going back to the fragment of the group photo, which shows Bridget : could the background of that be a photographer's studio? If anything, it looks like net curtains. Would curtains have been a normal background in a studio?

the alleged Kelly family pic is taken in a studio witj a painted backcloth
Hope this helps
Chris

[curious4]

Hello again,

My point exactly. Many "facts" passed down by word of mouth in my family have turned out to have been twi sted when examined in the cold light of ancestry.com or whatever.
Best wishes

C4

[ChrisGeorge]

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.

Hello C4

I don't know the exact circumstances surrounding the supposed photograph of Mary Jane Kelly -- perhaps Chris Scott knows more and can enlighten us. However, the scenario that you describe could well be the case. That is, if the photograph was not marked and dated at the time it was taken as to whom the person was who was photographed and when, an oral tradition can grow that the photograph depicts a person that it does not. Such oral traditions, elaborated upon or distorted through the years, can often be very misleading and unhelpful in trying to determine the truth.

Best regards

Chris

[Robert]

Thanks Chris.

[curious4]

photo

Hello Chris,

I have two photos of the period, one of a group of english soldiers, taken in france and dated, and one of a sailor taken in Malta, which isn t, so I suppose it varied. I don t know if the photo of Annie Chapman has a date on it?

Best wishes,

C4

[Livia]

This photo is alleged to have been taken in
Europe, traveled across the Atlantic and then
passed down from generation to generation
and presumably from household to household.

Why is there no foxing, no missing corners, no
scratches, etc. ?

I have family photos taken in the same time
period. They are photos glued onto cardboard
as most were in those days. The corners are
missing, the surface is scratched, there are
white spots where there should be black or
gray coloration, there's foxing (brownish stains
looks tea colored), etc.

These photos stayed in the same blanket box
in the same farmhouse for over a hundred years,
until they were passed down to me.

Why is this photo so pristine?

Hey Debs,

Maybe "Johnto" should have been written "John two"
to differentiate between father and son.

Liv

[Phil Carter]

Hello Livia,

A good question indeed. Around 10 years ago I was invited to stay at a private residence previously owned and used by the Royal Family in the LVP and Edwardian times. There were photographs adorning the walls of virtually every room. Even these photographs were in 'used' (for want of a better word) condition, even those where light was limited, heat was 'normal' and some mounted behind glass in solid frames. There were photos of many members of the then Royal Family, with children and grandchildren, friends and guests in relaxed privacy.
Few of the photos, if any, to the best of my recollection, were 'pristine'.
A very legitimate question, imho.

Kindly

Phil

[Robert]

Hi Livia

"John One" and "John Two" sounds a bit unlikely. A better bet would be "Big John" and "Little John" (no John Wayne or Robin Hood connotations!)

[Livia]

Maybe Robert.

Unless there were four generations of
John Kellys, then you'd have:

John Sr.
John Jr.
John I
John II

Regards,

Liv

P.S. No Maid Marion connotations either,
not if you valued your physical well being!

[Debra A]

This photo is alleged to have been taken in
Europe, traveled across the Atlantic and then
passed down from generation to generation
and presumably from household to household.

Why is there no foxing, no missing corners, no
scratches, etc. ?

I have family photos taken in the same time
period. They are photos glued onto cardboard
as most were in those days. The corners are
missing, the surface is scratched, there are
white spots where there should be black or
gray coloration, there's foxing (brownish stains
looks tea colored), etc.

These photos stayed in the same blanket box
in the same farmhouse for over a hundred years,
until they were passed down to me.

Why is this photo so pristine?

Hey Debs,

Maybe "Johnto" should have been written "John two"
to differentiate between father and son.

Liv

Hi Liv,

Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a scan of the photograph and not the original I think? That might account for the corners not being damaged if nothing else, because it isn't a scan of the photograph in its entirety, it's a cropped portion perhaps?
It looks like an authentic period picture (whatever period it comes from) so it's in good nick whoever the woman was.

Someone else suggested John two as well, but to me (and maybe it's just me,i don't know) that's the same problem as with John too becoming 'Johnto' whoever was writing it down not only spelled two or too wrong but also made it into one word-a name. A two part mistake, if you see what I mean?

[Rob Clack]

the alleged Kelly family pic is taken in a studio witj a painted backcloth
Hope this helps
Chris

Hi Chris,

No photographers name on the alleged Mary Kelly photo is there?
I'm not one for fashion trends (I thought flares and tank tops were still in fashion) so the only way I could help would be to trace the photographer.

Regards

Rob

[Robert]

Hi Debs

It looks as though there is part of the hat missing, so the family in sending Chris the scan didn't quite get the whole photo in.

On Googling for cartes de cabinet images, there do seem to be some that look in quite good nick, though I suppose the only way to tell is to hold one under a magnifying glass.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Liv,

Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a scan of the photograph and not the original I think? That might account for the corners not being damaged if nothing else, because it isn't a scan of the photograph in its entirety, it's a cropped portion perhaps?
It looks like an authentic period picture (whatever period it comes from) so it's in good nick whoever the woman was.

Someone else suggested John two as well, but to me (and maybe it's just me,i don't know) that's the same problem as with John too becoming 'Johnto' whoever was writing it down not only spelled two or too wrong but also made it into one word-a name. A two part mistake, if you see what I mean?

It could have been John Two or Johnny Two but with the passage of time be shortened to sound like "Johnto" which could have been what Barnett heard. Back then, with big families, names repeated and repeated and they had to find a way to distinguish individuals so you knew which person was being referenced. Just some additional thoughts.

Chris

[Rob Clack]

Hi Liv,

Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a scan of the photograph and not the original I think? That might account for the corners not being damaged if nothing else, because it isn't a scan of the photograph in its entirety, it's a cropped portion perhaps?

I think your spot on here Debs, photos from this period had a border around them so we are not seeing the full card. The photo would be developed onto paper and then stuck on the photographers card.

Rob

[Debra A]

It could have been John Two or Johnny Two but with the passage of time be shortened to sound like "Johnto" which could have been what Barnett heard. Back then, with big families, names repeated and repeated and they had to find a way to distinguish individuals so you knew which person was being referenced. Just some additional thoughts.

Chris

Yes, Chris, but that's a different thing to what others have been proposing on other threads about the name 'Johnto' being someone mis-hearing Barnett saying John too, or John two. I presumed Livia was responding on here to that scenario and one where I proposed Johnjoe may have been the misheard nickname, which was used in Ireland as shown by the 1901 and 1911 census.

Plus,another thing about the johnto nickname is that it was supposedly given by his army buds and not his family, I thought?