The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[Bridewell]

Chris,

I think it inevitable that you are going to be bombarded with questions, many of which, I suspect, you won't be able to answer. I therefore apologise for adding to the list.

Is it just the lighting or is there some kind of injury or birthmark to the right side of her right eye? (i.e. Is it any clearer on the original?)

Yours etc Bridewell.

[Archaic]

Specific Suggestions For Dating the Photograph

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.

Since the family has been so kind as to share the full portrait, would they mind sharing scans of the entire photograph, including its borders and back?


I'm guessing the photo is on cardstock. If that's the case, the border and/or reverse is likely to have the logo, name and address of the photographic studio who produced it. This can be traced.

There may also be the signature and/or batch number or code of the printing company who produced the blank cardstock which the photography studio used.

The exact dimensions of a.) the overall card and b.) the image upon it can also be used to help date it. Even little details like the shape of the corners on the cardstock can help to date it- whether square, rounded, etc.

Changing popular fashions & innovations in photography meant that different sizes & shapes were used at different times. Printing companies wanted to sell as much cardstock as possible, so it was in their interest to offer new designs quite frequently. Photography studios, particularly ones located in urban areas, needed to be "fashionable" and "up to date" in order to thrive, so they tended to buy "the most modern" designs available. They often sold their back-stock of "suddenly unfashionable" blank cardstock to photography studios in less-metropolitan areas. Cardstock was purchased by photography studios in large quantities, so the smaller, less wealthy studios would have a financial interest in using up much of their already-purchased supply even if a fashionable new style appeared.

What this means for dating photos is that there is no strict "cut-off date" going forward in time. A slightly older style cardstock might still be in use a few years later.
But certain innovations in the style and appearance of photographs are known to have occurred or been patented in specific years, so photographs displaying them can be dated to a time period of "not earlier than" a given year. In the case of this particular photo, that clue may be crucial.

I'd be willing to conduct some basic research on the photograph, and I can recommend some good professional services in the UK that either you or the family can use to help date the photo more exactly. Outside professional services would have the benefit of being completely objective and impartial. They don't have to be told anything about who the photo is purported to be; the Ripper case doesn't even have to be mentioned.

Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance.

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[Errata]

One of the problems with the idea that this is Mary Kelly is that Mary Kelly had blue eyes. In sepia tint photographs blue, grey, and green eyes look almost grey/brown. Khaki ish if you will. This woman's eyes are quite dark, which means her eyes are brown or hazel.

So since there were no contacts at the time, either they are mistaken about Mary Kelly's eye color, or this woman isn't Mary Kelly.

[Bridewell]

Hi Archaic,

I don't think I've ever learned so much from a single post. Thanks for that. I just hope the provenance is proven one way or the other.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Source?

One of the problems with the idea that this is Mary Kelly is that Mary Kelly had blue eyes. In sepia tint photographs blue, grey, and green eyes look almost grey/brown. Khaki ish if you will. This woman's eyes are quite dark, which means her eyes are brown or hazel.

So since there were no contacts at the time, either they are mistaken about Mary Kelly's eye color, or this woman isn't Mary Kelly.

Hi Errata,

I'll bow to your superior knowledge on sepia tint photographs. What is your source for Mary Kelly's blue eyes though?

Just to put a small spannerette in the works: My late father-in-law (who didn't wear contacts) had brown eyes as a young man, but they went blue in middle age! He ascribed this to the chemicals he was exposed to at Boots, which may, or may not, have been the cause.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I'll bow to your superior knowledge on sepia tint photographs. What is your source for Mary Kelly's blue eyes though?

Just to put a small spannerette in the works: My late father-in-law (who didn't wear contacts) had brown eyes as a young man, but they went blue in middle age! He ascribed this to the chemicals he was exposed to at Boots, which may, or may not, have been the cause.

Regards, Bridewell.

I just have spent a lot of time studying civil war portraits and the Romanovs. You get to where you can tell what the hair and eye color is.

As for my source, I just looked under the Victims link on the left. I had assumed she would have an unusual eye color since that was all she was identified by, and that's a tough sell with brown. It says she had blue eyes.

Stonewall Jackson had blue eyes, and all the Romanov children did, and Lily Langtree had violet eyes. If you look at photos of any of them, you can kinda see what I mean.

As for your father-in-law, it is very rare but it can happen. Usually it's a result of arcus, which can be due to high cholesterol amongst other things. But there are people who have a gene that shuts down melanin production as they get older. But I doubt it was the chemicals unless he started mutating in other ways. Gills?

[Cogidubnus]

Gills

But I doubt it was the chemicals unless he started mutating in other ways. Gills?

Thought it was only Lechmerians had gills?

Dave

[Archaic]

Hi Archaic,
I don't think I've ever learned so much from a single post. Thanks for that.
Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell, and thank you so much!

I just have spent a lot of time studying civil war portraits and the Romanovs. You get to where you can tell what the hair and eye color is.

Errata, the American Civil War and the Romanovs are two of my all-time favorite subjects! I've studied them since I was a kid. You probably know that my friend Cris Malone (Hunter) is a Civil War Re-enactor.

OK, back to the purported photo of Mary. The girl in the photo also looks rather small-framed and slightly built, as far as one can judge from her delicate facial structure. Mary Kelly was described as "stout" by those who knew her. In the 1880's "stout" meant "sturdily built", "strong and bold", "hale and hearty", etc. This young woman looks very refined and slender.

And while this last point isn't perhaps an objective one, to me she also looks very idealistic and innocent. I have to doubt that a girl who had been working as a prostitute in the 1880's would have been able to retain such a look for long.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Roy Corduroy]

She looks like Adelaide Bartlett

Side by side comparison

Roy

[jason_c]

Hi Bridewell, and thank you so much!



Errata, the American Civil War and the Romanovs are two of my all-time favorite subjects! I've studied them since I was a kid. You probably know that my friend Cris Malone (Hunter) is a Civil War Re-enactor.

OK, back to the purported photo of Mary. The girl in the photo also looks rather small-framed and slightly built, as far as one can judge from her delicate facial structure. Mary Kelly was described as "stout" by those who knew her. In the 1880's "stout" meant "sturdily built", "strong and bold", "hale and hearty", etc. This young woman looks very refined and slender.

And while this last point isn't perhaps an objective one, to me she also looks very idealistic and innocent. I have to doubt that a girl who had been working as a prostitute in the 1880's would have been able to retain such a look for long.

Best regards,
Archaic

Totally subjective, but to me she looks rather self assured in the photo .

[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.

[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

[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.

[Errata]

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

Side by side comparison

Roy

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

[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.