The ALLEGED photograph of the Kelly family

[Archaic]

Hi Chris. Thanks so much for your efforts to let us see this photograph, and I hope you will thank the family for us!
Their generosity is greatly appreciated.

I will comment in greater detail after I've had a chance to study the photo a bit more, but it certainly looks like an 1890's cabinet card. The women's clothing and the general appearance of the photo is more what one would have expected in a c.1885 photo of Mary Kelly.

I'll quickly address a specific issue that has been raised. Just because the photo has a painted backdrop doesn't necessarily mean it was shot indoors in a studio. There were traveling photographers who brought their own scenic backdrops and frequented fairs, holiday destinations, etc, so it's possible that the family really is squinting in the sun. Or they could be in a brightly-lit studio.

Celtic people tend to have light-colored sun-sensitive eyes. I'm Celtic with light blue-green eyes, and if I'm in bright light or subjected to a camera flash I go temporarily blind.

Again, it would help immeasurably to see the entire photograph, back of card included, and any studio name that might be on the card. Even the color of the cardstock can be a clue.

Best regards,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Chris. Thanks for posting this. Well done.

Cheers.
LC

[Ginger]

They do look as though they are squinting at something. Not sure that it being in the studio precludes it being bright though.

I do know that around the time of the American Civil War, it was a common practice for portrait studios to use glass rooms, rather like greenhouses, or glass-roofed rooms, to get enough light for the slow films of the day. I don't know if that was still the practice in the Ripper's day (assuming this photo was taken that late) but I'd not rule out that it may have been extremely bright in the studio.

-Ginger

[Sally]

Studio?

The family appear to be posed in front of a painted backdrop, presumably this is a studio photograph.

[Chris Scott]

Chris, maybe I'm just seeing things but is there handwriting right at the bottom? In the bottom right corner there seems to be the word "wife."

I have enhanced it a bit and am pretty sure it is not writing but just cracks in the lower edge of the image

[Robert]

Chris, maybe I'm just seeing things but is there handwriting right at the bottom? In the bottom right corner there seems to be the word "wife."

[KatBradshaw]

Looking back at the 'Mary' picture I have to say the fashions of that look more similar to that of Ethel Le Neve than of LVP.

This may be a Mary Kelly of the right family but not our Mary. I know from my own experience how many families reuse names over and over again. I have lost count of the Elizabeths, Johns, Hughs, Ellens and Leahs in my own family.

Dunno, just have a feeling that the family seems to fit but not the Mary.

[Bridewell]

Great Post

I think there is a similarity to the mother.

My main concern is that this picture would appear to me to be dated earlier than the single one. The clothes seem so to me and if that is the case then I would say that this is a picture of the family after Kelly's death and the picture is not Kelly or if the picture was of Kelly then this is not her family. If that makes sense.

There does seem to be a Celtic look to the family.

Chris,

As before, profuse thanks for exerting your powers of patient persuasion, and to the family concerned for their kindness in allowing us to now see both images.

Kat,

My instinct is to agree, but I'm simply not qualified to say anything more than that. Archaic's probably going to have a better idea than most, I suspect.

Regards, Bridewell.

[KatBradshaw]

They do look as though they are squinting at something. Not sure that it being in the studio precludes it being bright though.

It is interesting that Henry is holding a fiddle, suggestive of him being a player, possibly professionally? Might be an interesting links to Mary's performing cousin.

[Chris Scott]

I think there is a similarity to the mother.

My main concern is that this picture would appear to me to be dated earlier than the single one. The clothes seem so to me and if that is the case then I would say that this is a picture of the family after Kelly's death and the picture is not Kelly or if the picture was of Kelly then this is not her family. If that makes sense.

There does seem to be a Celtic look to the family.

I also felt this seemed to date earlier than the "Mary" picture and is another cause for concern
Chris

[Robert]

Thanks Chris, and thanks to the family too. Before the full picture was posted, I noted that Bridget's eyes were rather screwed up, but now when I look at the rest of the family, their eyes are even more so. Since this was taken in a studio, we can discount the sun, and a photographic flash is only momentary. Perhaps it was a family trait, but one which "Mary" didn't share.

[KatBradshaw]

I think there is a similarity to the mother.

My main concern is that this picture would appear to me to be dated earlier than the single one. The clothes seem so to me and if that is the case then I would say that this is a picture of the family after Kelly's death and the picture is not Kelly or if the picture was of Kelly then this is not her family. If that makes sense.

There does seem to be a Celtic look to the family.

[Chris Scott]

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