The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[Henry Flower]

Dave, thank you. Getting up to speed now.

Sorry to be such a slow noob.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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