The fire in the grate...

[Sam Flynn]

What Sam describes

...is poking a fire to get some warmth into the room, simultaneously causing the fire to brighten for a while. Sam is not describing...

putting either wool, velvet or cotton clothing, or a chunk of some fossil fuel on a fossil fuel based fire that has been untended since Mary went out.

I wouldn't quite agree with this either...

and creating light from that within a short period of time, is near impossible, without an accelerant. And the resulting smoke in that space if not properly vented would have killed her.

...which represents a teensy bit of exaggeration on your part, mayhap?

Of course the light from a bright fire may be glimpsed through the gaps in a curtain, or a coat slung loosely against a window pane - which is all I said. I also said that it doesn't materially matter whether the source of light was a candle or a fire, at the point at which Cox saw it - so there's really no need for you to wheel out the "impossible" and "lethal fumes" cards at all.

To address both yours Don, and Sams rebuttal....I have done this very experiment using charcoal base fires, and wood based fires, using velvet, pure wool and cotton clothing.

What Sam describes, putting either wool, velvet or cotton clothing, or a chunk of some fossil fuel on a fossil fuel based fire that has been untended since Mary went out, and creating light from that within a short period of time, is near impossible, without an accelerant. And the resulting smoke in that space if not properly vented would have killed her.

If Marys fire was fossil fuel...which is the most reasonable guess considering her means, it was a hearth for warmth, ..not light to read or entertain by. Unless fed wood, paper, or an accelerant.

Her full candle purchased that week was half burned, which sounds like it could have been burning from 11:45 until just before 1:30 when its blown out.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Bolo,

Yep, that's why Mary draped her clothes "neatly" folded over the back of the chair

The use of the adverb "neatly" in respect of Mary's clothing seems to have crept into Ripper lore in the latter half of the 20th Century. But that's for another thread

[Sam Flynn]

This is from the inquest testimony recorded by the morning advertiser on the 13th. The advertiser seemed very thorough in their inquest coverage, sometimes mentioning titbits not seen elsewhere.

Indeed, Kevin - I've found that the Morning Advertiser's coverage often repays scrutiny for that very reason.

[Sam Flynn]

Sure, but thats not what you suggested..you suggested it was the light source seen by Cox.

It amounts to the same, Mike. A revitalised, brightly burning fire, as seen from behind some tatty curtains or a coat hanging over the window (there were no "blinds" in Mary's window - so Cox was incorrect there), or a candle. You takes your choice - either could have been the source of the "light in the window" that Cox reported.

[CitizenX]

Hi,

Hi Jerry,But she didn't - that's the point - she said the police "produced" it and showed it to her.

(I refer the honourable gentleman to the "script" I dreamt up earlier )

This is from the inquest testimony recorded by the morning advertiser on the 13th. The advertiser seemed very thorough in their inquest coverage, sometimes mentioning titbits not seen elsewhere.

Maria Harvey, of New-court, Dorset-street, knew the deceased. On Monday and Tuesday she slept with the deceased. She saw the deceased on the Thursday night about seven o'clock. Joe came in while she was there. She left some clothes to be washed, including two shirts, petticoats belonging to a child, and a black overcoat.

The Coroner. - Two shirts belonging to the same man?

Witness. - No, sir. I saw the coat again on Friday, when it was shown me by some gentlemen.

Where did the "in a room in the court" quote come from?

Kevin

[bolo]

Bolo, when you consider that Mary Jane was about as rich as Catherine Eddowes was, and Catherine wore everything she owned out at night, ...clothes just lying about doesnt fit. These women were from the class below Poor. We know Mary Jane had dresses...we dont know where they were on Nov 8th, 1888. Could have been pawned long ago.

Best regards.

Yep, that's why Mary draped her clothes "neatly" folded over the back of the chair (or foot of the bed?) but she may have left the other clothes he got from Joe to pawn in a heap with the bonnet on top near the fireplace for later sale.

Obviously there were more pieces of clothing in that room at that particular night than just the ones she wore every day.

[Supe]

Michael,

And I dont believe a large bright fire would have ash still warm to the touch maybe 8 hours later.

With all due respect, what you believe isn't important to anyone but yourself. Depending on circumstances, ashes can well be warm after eight hours. That's why, even with modern fireplaces, you put the ashes from the previous night's fire in a metal container for dumping outdoors. And yes, if you don't daily clean the grate lots of luck starting a fire.

Don.

As does warming up the room on a cold, damp night when you've just brought company home.

Sure, but thats not what you suggested..you suggested it was the light source seen by Cox. And as we know, nothing that we are aware of in her room, other than her furniture, would burn very brightly if throw on ashes of a fire not tended for hours...which this fire was when first arriving home.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jerry,

It would make a huge difference if Maria saw the coat in a room in Miller's court before the police knew about it.

But she didn't - that's the point - she said the police "produced" it and showed it to her.

(I refer the honourable gentleman to the "script" I dreamt up earlier )

[Sam Flynn]

lighting the candle she just bought, likely on the large table, makes infinitely more sense than going to poke the dying fire first. That seems perfectly normal behavioral.

As does warming up the room on a cold, damp night when you've just brought company home.

[paul emmett]

Bolo, when you consider that Mary Jane was about as rich as Catherine Eddowes was, and Catherine wore everything she owned out at night, ...clothes just lying about doesnt fit. These women were from the class below Poor. We know Mary Jane had dresses...we dont know where they were on Nov 8th, 1888. Could have been pawned long ago.

Best regards.

Michael, I certianly agree about the clothes. But I had never heard Cox say that the candle(light) was out when she went back out after 1:00. How does that fit with the assertion that Cox still heard singing then?

I also agree that "the light" sounds like "the candle."

...just "light" actually, Mike - and only a small number of press reports mention it, and none of them state that Cox noticed it as she and Blotchy entered the room. In fact, when one looks at the most detailed report, that in the Daily Telegraph, it seems probable that Cox only noticed the light when she exited her room at midnight after warming her hands - "There was a light in the window but I saw nothing as the blinds were down". It seems likely that Kelly may have lit a candle, and/or revivified the fire with a good poke, just after she and Blotchy entered. Thus there was just enough light for Cox to notice it behind the "blinds" when she headed out of Miller's Court fifteen minutes later.

Hi Gareth,

Ive seen three accounts of the light seen so far trawling through press today, and youre right, it was just "light", and she didnt notice it until after Mary had entered.

However, the inference is clearly that she entered and lit the candle, not poked a low fire to spew some fireflies. She had nothing to burn that would offer much light that we know of, and when just entering, lighting the candle she just bought, likely on the large table, makes infinitely more sense than going to poke the dying fire first. That seems perfectly normal behavioral.

As does blowing the candle out when you dont need the light...fires back then didnt have "dimmers".

Cheers Sam.

Bolo, when you consider that Mary Jane was about as rich as Catherine Eddowes was, and Catherine wore everything she owned out at night, ...clothes just lying about doesnt fit. These women were from the class below Poor. We know Mary Jane had dresses...we dont know where they were on Nov 8th, 1888. Could have been pawned long ago.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

However, in quite a few press articles it mentions clearly that Mary Ann Cox saw candlelight in Kelly's room as she and Blotchy first went in...

...just "light" actually, Mike - and only a small number of press reports mention it, and none of them state that Cox noticed it as she and Blotchy entered the room. In fact, when one looks at the most detailed report, that in the Daily Telegraph, it seems probable that Cox only noticed the light when she exited her room at midnight after warming her hands - "There was a light in the window but I saw nothing as the blinds were down". It seems likely that Kelly may have lit a candle, and/or revivified the fire with a good poke, just after she and Blotchy entered. Thus there was just enough light for Cox to notice it behind the "blinds" when she headed out of Miller's Court fifteen minutes later.