The light in Mary's room

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'd imagine this has been discussed previously and would be interested to hear opinions:

At the inquest, Mary Ann Cox stated:

There was a light in the window, but I saw nothing, as the blinds were down.

The Pall Mall Gazette reported on the 12^th November, when viewing Mary’s body:

The inspector, holding a candle stuck in a bottle, stood at the head of the filthy, bloodstained bed, and repeated the horrible details with appalling minuteness. He indicated with one hand the bloodstains on the wall, and point with the other to the pools which had ebbed out on to the mattress. The little table was still on the left of the bedstead, which occupied the larger portion of the room. A farthing dip in a bottle did not serve to illuminate the fearful gloom, but I was able to see what a wretched hole the poor murdered woman called "home".

The former during the night; the latter in broad daylight.

My reading of Mary Ann Cox’s statement is that she would have expected a decent view into the room had the blinds not been down. From what I understand the only candle found in Mary’s room was that in a broken bottle. Such a candle did not illuminate the room from inside when the jury viewed the body in daylight.

My question is: would the light from a candle have been sufficient to prompt Mary Ann Cox’s testimony?

[Wickerman]

The mention of a "light in the window" was at midnight when she was with Blotchy, but there was also a lamp outside the room.
I would assume Cox was referring to a glimmer of light from behind the curtains or coat, not a candle in the window, and not a candle elsewhere in the room, but a reference to the fire in the room?

[The Macdonald Triad]

I'd imagine this has been discussed previously and would be interested to hear opinions:

At the inquest, Mary Ann Cox stated:

There was a light in the window, but I saw nothing, as the blinds were down.

The Pall Mall Gazette reported on the 12^th November, when viewing Mary’s body:

The inspector, holding a candle stuck in a bottle, stood at the head of the filthy, bloodstained bed, and repeated the horrible details with appalling minuteness. He indicated with one hand the bloodstains on the wall, and point with the other to the pools which had ebbed out on to the mattress. The little table was still on the left of the bedstead, which occupied the larger portion of the room. A farthing dip in a bottle did not serve to illuminate the fearful gloom, but I was able to see what a wretched hole the poor murdered woman called "home".

The former during the night; the latter in broad daylight.

My reading of Mary Ann Cox’s statement is that she would have expected a decent view into the room had the blinds not been down. From what I understand the only candle found in Mary’s room was that in a broken bottle. Such a candle did not illuminate the room from inside when the jury viewed the body in daylight.

My question is: would the light from a candle have been sufficient to prompt Mary Ann Cox’s testimony?

I was always under the impression the Ripper burned clothes in Kelly's room to either get rid of evidence or for light. That's why the teapot had it's spout melted off.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The mention of a "light in the window" was at midnight when she was with Blotchy, but there was also a lamp outside the room.
I would assume Cox was referring to a glimmer of light from behind the curtains or coat, not a candle in the window, and not a candle elsewhere in the room, but a reference to the fire in the room?

My reading of Cox's statement is that had the blinds been up, she would have been able to see into the room, which suggests to me the light was coming from inside the room. It's possible the fire was burning at that point. Has this discussion taken place in the past? What was the outcome in terms of whether or not a candle would be sufficient to illuminate the room to an extent that fits with Cox's statement?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I was always under the impression the Ripper burned clothes in Kelly's room to either get rid of evidence or for light. That's why the teapot had it's spout melted off.

'Quite a few possibilities, but a decent option is that Mary voluntarily put the clothes on the fire to keep the two of them warm.

You would probably have to ask whether or not burning someone's clothes was a price Mary felt was worth paying. Perhaps the murderer paid her for the privilege knowing he'd get his money back anyway. Perhaps she was drunk and just thought aye let's get them on, who cares.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I was always under the impression the Ripper burned clothes in Kelly's room to either get rid of evidence or for light. That's why the teapot had it's spout melted off.

I think for the light is the more probable of these two.

As you'll know, it was a different world back then: people more active during the night, different sleeping patterns - I think in Victorian times the habit was to have a few hours sleep, get up and do something for a few hours, and then go back to bed for a few hours - so a light in a room during the night quite probably wasn't anywhere near as unusual as it would be today and wouldn't have induced a neighbour to go knocking on the door. Most of us will automatically assume he would have not have taken that risk; I personally think he would have done.

[Scott Nelson]

From what I understand the only candle found in Mary’s room was that in a broken bottle. Such a candle did not illuminate the room from inside when the jury viewed the body in daylight.

I think the jury viewed the body in the morgue. They were taken to the room during the inquest, after the body had been removed.

[Abby Normal]

cox saw light from the candle and or the fire. not sure whats the significance.

marys killer stoked up the fire and burned tje clothes after he killed her, probably for more light. thats the significance... a large hot fire in which it burned clothes and melted a teapot.. pointing to a dark night time murder.

[Wickerman]

I can't recall any prolonged debate on the question, nothing beyond the occasional remark. But as you mention it I have wondered why everyone assumed the fire was lit by the killer to give him light (per Abberline). It was November after all, Kelly might have had a fire just to keep warm of an evening.

Think of the context, who's talking about light, or fire?, no-one.
So why is Cox raising the matter?
I assume because Cox herself said she came in to warm her hands at 1:00 am. Evidently then, Cox herself had kept a fire going, so she was only assuming Kelly would have a fire going too. She says Kelly had a fire (light from the window), when she opened the door for Blotchy.
Prater remarks that had there been a light from the room (about 1:30), she should have noticed it as she climbed the stairs.

[Parisi North Humber]

Does the timing of light (or lack thereof) emitting from Mary's room indicate when she was killed?
I.e.
1. Mary was killed by either candle or firelight sometime before 1.30-1.45 (allowing Prater/Cox margin for error).
2. She was murdered in the dark without any illumination.
3. She was murdered in daylight.

it

[Parisi North Humber]

Sorry my digitizer is randomizing again.

Helen x

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think the jury viewed the body in the morgue. They were taken to the room during the inquest, after the body had been removed.

Aye, good point, thanks for the correction.

[Fleetwood Mac]

cox saw light from the candle and or the fire. not sure whats the significance.

In the event the light was coming from a fire, it would lend weight to the proposition that Mary had retired for the night.

According to a Pall Mall Gazette article, the room was not illuminated by a candle. Mary Ann Cox could not see into the room: not because the room wasn't illuminated, but because the blinds were pulled down. While not conclusive, Cox's statement, to me, increases the likelihood that the fire was burning when Mary was with Blotchy.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I can't recall any prolonged debate on the question, nothing beyond the occasional remark. But as you mention it I have wondered why everyone assumed the fire was lit by the killer to give him light (per Abberline). It was November after all, Kelly might have had a fire just to keep warm of an evening.

Think of the context, who's talking about light, or fire?, no-one.
So why is Cox raising the matter?
I assume because Cox herself said she came in to warm her hands at 1:00 am. Evidently then, Cox herself had kept a fire going, so she was only assuming Kelly would have a fire going too. She says Kelly had a fire (light from the window), when she opened the door for Blotchy.
Prater remarks that had there been a light from the room (about 1:30), she should have noticed it as she climbed the stairs.

A reasonable assumption, when you consider the singing has stopped also, is by the time Prater arrives home; they have gone to bed, or Mary has been murdered.

[Wickerman]

A reasonable assumption, when you consider the singing has stopped also, is by the time Prater arrives home; they have gone to bed, or Mary has been murdered.

I'm more inclined towards a third option, Kelly was back out on the street before 1:30.