The ALLEGED photograph of the Kelly family

[Robert]

One small point : it would be interesting to know whether there is any family resemblance to the alleged photo of McCarthy - maybe the holder of that photo could give her opinion at some point.

[curious4]

Sorry, getting fixated on this! Looking at the other police photo of MK you can make out part of her hand, at least the thumb, I think, and it seems to be quite long as are the fingers of the family in the photo.

With apologies for any obsessive behavior,
C4

[curious4]

Hello Chris,

I agree that the group photo is more likely to be genuine. It might be imagination, or wishful thinking but the picture of the sister does remind me of the photo of Mary Kelly, mutilated as it is. The shade of hair, the forehead, and just something about her. Wonderful find if it is genuine!

Best wishes,
C4

[niko]

Hi C 4 I totally agree with you when you say that the eyes are a "family trait" although in the alleged photo of Mary here she does not have the family eyes. Like Iv'e said umpteen tmes, I grew up in the East End and three of my class mates their past relatives had been involved in the Whitechapel murder's, one was Kelly, I remember a teacher once asking kelly about his great, great, relative Mary Jane Kelly, kelly blocked himself and did not say anything and class went on, where I saw that kelly didn't like to talk about it, I never ever mentioned it to him, I supose out of respect. This Kelly had the same eyes, somthing simular to a Clint Eastwood look. If the photo of Mary is genuine and the Kelly family too, which I think is genuine all I can say is that Mary Jane Kelly (to me) was beautiful. All the best, agur.

niko

[Chris Scott]

I have just posted this answer on Forums and thought it might be fitting to post here as well as it addresses certain points
Chris

Hi Steve
Thanks for your message
1) Yes - both images are from the same source
2) A hoax is always a possibility and one I have not dismissed. All I can say is that these images were sent to me nearly two years ago and it is only recently that the lady who sent them gave permission for me to post them. If it is a hoax I would ask:
a) Why wait so long?
b) What does she gain? Certainly I have never been asked to pay for these images or their use and she has made it VERY clear that under no circumstances does she want to be identified or get directly involved in Ripper related discussions
I did say in another post that I THINK (but this is not confirmed) that the permission to share may be due to the fairly recent death of a family member who may have been the source of the objection.
I have said in other posts that I am by no means convinced that the images truly reflect what I have been told about them. And the sender of these images is fully aware of my scepticism.
My main objection is that the single image (the "Mary" photo) seems to have no similarity whatever with the family depicted in the other image. I can see many family traits among the members of the family pic but cannot see any of those in the image of the single girl.
All I can say is that if I have been hoaxed then I do not see the point of it as I do not and will not use the images for gain or promote them as proven images of the Kelly family.
The only other thing I can really add is that all "evidence" for these attributions is, as far as I can see, based on family stories and long standing traditions rather than documentary evidence. I have asked more than once if there is any documentary material to support the claims made for these images but I was told that if such exists it is not within the branch of the family with which I have dealt.
The other thing which I have repeatedly (but politely!) asked is how the lady who contacted me about this is connected with the Kelly family. All she would say to date is that she is connected by marriage via one of the younger brothers shown in the back row of the family photo.
I hope this clears up some points. I KNOW there are many issues which people will want to know but I have - and will - tell you all that has been told to me.
If I have been hoaxed then so be it. I have dealt with other correspondents who contacted me because of the Kelly book - such as the "Mary Kelly in Tottenham" story - and I have no cause to believe that any of these people were not honest in their beliefs - which of course does not make what they believe true!
As I have conveyed elsewhere I am now stepping down from the Ripper field as I have many other things I wish and have to do but I felt that these two images were potentially important and wanted to submit them as a "swan song"
I will keep an eye on these threads for a while and answer where I can - it would be churlish to spring two images like these on you and then just walk away but after that I will be off to pastures new
Finally - my gut feeling - for what it is worth - is that of either of these images has any claim to being genuine, it would be the family group.
Chris Scott

[curious4]

Hello,

I think the "squinty" eyes are a family trait. I had a neighbour whose sons had the same eyes. I thought her boys were goodlooking, shame about the screwed-up eyes, until one day when she commented that my sons were goodlooking, just that they looked so surprised all the time! In the eye of the beholder, I suppose. If you look carefully some do not have the squinty eyes. (Father and daughter) and one has one of each eyes.
Cheers,
C4

Ps Mother seems to be wearing Catherine Eddowes type clothes, long jacket trimmed with fur.

[niko]

the Kelly's eyes

Hi everyone, just a thought, I wonder if the clothes expert's on the board's can tell us the clothes the Kelly family are wearing are summer or winter clothing ?
As for the hanging eyelid that most of the Kelly family have in the photograph,
If it's true that their squinting, which I think their not. I for one am sure that after dressing up and paying for a family photo to be taken, which copies were pobably made, to share with the rest of the family members, don't you think it most likely to choose a family photograph where there not "squinting" unless their eyes were naturally like this. I thank the Kelly family for shareing the photos with us, all the best, agur.

niko

[KatBradshaw]

The idea that the Kellys went to America is interesting given the fact that we have been unable to find viable families in Britiain post 1891. Plus fits in with many Irish as we know.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Just done a quick check on Victorian army enlistmen up to 1916, term of service was 21 years, unless invalidated out, or one bought themselves out for a considerable sum.
Other enlistment periods mentioned were 10-12 years, but these soldiers were encouraged to continue.
One wonders why Henry was apparently out of service at such a young man, was he invalidated out , or the money found to buy out, or was there compassionate reasons?
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Great to see the family picture,one wonders what happened to Henry's ambitious army career ?[ remembering Fiona's post] although its possible that as his family moved to America, he went to.
Was there not a time period of enlistment back then, will have to look that up.
Regards Richard.

[Semper_Eadem]

The clothes seem a bit behind the times, late 180's early 1890's but as the Kelly's probably didn't have a lot of money like most immigrants I could see them getting a lot of used clothes or keeping their old clothes for a while which was common back then.

It does seem a very brightly lit, I wonder if this was taken outside.

[The Grave Maurice]

True, Robert. The shot is very well lit.

[Robert]

There don't seem to be any shadows behind them.

[The Grave Maurice]

This is quite exciting. Excellent work, Chris.

It certainly does look as though they have a collective "sun squint". I like the idea that it may have been shot in very well-windowed room. I wonder if it could even have been shot outside (as was done with early motion pictures).

[jason_c]

With the senders permission here is the alleged photograph of the Kelly family (minus Mary). The ONLY info I have been given on this is:
- This was taken in the USA after the family had emigrated there after Mary's death
- I do not have a date for when this was taken
- I do not know where the family lived, what happened to them or if any of them came back to the UK
- I have asked for any further available info
- The named individuals as told to me are
1) Female in back row far right - Bridget Kelly, Mary's sister
2) Front row, younger male extreme left - Henry John Joseph Kelly, Mary's oldest brother
3) Middle of front row - John Joseph Kelly, Mary's father
4) Right of front row - Bridget Kelly Snr, Mary's mother.
The three younger males in the back rwo are the younger brothers but I was given names for none of them

That is ALL I know at this stage and as with the other photo I do not have any ground for stating positively that this IS the family of Mary Jane Kelly. I am only reporting what I have been told.
Personally the main objection is the singular lack of resemblance of the young woman in the single picture to anyone in this photograph.
I am unable to give any more info at this point and I know there will inevitably be many queries about this image but if I get any more details from the sender I will post them here.
Again in the interests of being even handed I am placing an identical post on Casebook and Forums.
Chris

There may be at least some resemblance between "Mary" and her eldest brother Henry John Joseph Kelly(front left)