How reliable is the description given by Cox

[harry]

Mary Ann Cox says she saw Kelly take a man to her (Kelly's) room about midnight 8/9 November 1888,and Cox gives a description of that man.Age about 36,5ft 6ins in height,complexion fresh,small side whiskers and carrotty moustache.Blotches on his face.Another,to me,amazing observation,considering the circumstances.

Cox says she followed the pair(Kelly and man) into Millers Court,and passed them as they were at the door.So she would have been behind them,and unless the man stepped back for her to pass,a second or two at most,was never face to face.Although Kelly spoke,there is no record that they stopped and chatted.

Mrs Prater states that about 1.30 am,9th,the court was in complete darkness,imdicating the light in the court was not lit at that time.Would it have been lit at midnight?Doubtfull,as the lamplighter usually made the one trip to light lamps,and one to douse them,normally before nightfall and after daylight.Walter Dew,(that man again)states when he entered the court on the 9th,sometime after 10am,the lamp was not lit,but why should it be at that time?

I do not doubt Cox saw a man in the company of Kelly,I just cannot believe she saw him long enough,or in a situation such as to give the description she gave.

[The Good Michael]

Her description was more detailed than Hutchinson's. Of course that has happened often in witness reports. Poor Hutch couldn't even get colors right for the most part and had to say, 'dark' and 'light'. He certainly fixated on the gold chain, however.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Her description was more detailed than Hutchinson's. Of course that has happened often in witness reports.

Mike

This is patently untrue, Mike, and you know it !

Mrs Cox was describing a red head, who often have a 'fresh complexion' and
freckles (which might 'bunch together' in blotches..

Let's say that if someone was walking close behind you, you might turn round to see whether they were a threat -by instinct. A red head would stand out.

As for the rest -it was probably given in response to Police questioning..5'6"
is neither tall nor short, the way he wore his hair seems to have been a prevailing fashion, and aged 36 probably means 'middle to later '30s'.

Hutchs description manages to mention the footwear, the face even down to the eyebrows and eyelashes, and a very distinctive alliance of jewellery
amongst other things..

[Ben]

This is patently untrue, Mike, and you know it.

Indeed, Rubes.

It's factually incorrect, provably so.

[harry]

Ruby,
The man was wearing a hat,increasing the chances that the face would be in deeper shadow due to the darkness.

[Rubyretro]

Ruby,
The man was wearing a hat,increasing the chances that the face would be in deeper shadow due to the darkness.

True, but if we compare the circumstances of Mrs Cox's description with that
of Hutch's there is a big difference.

Hutch gave his whole description of A Man in order to explain to Police his motive for following Mary Kelly back to Miller's Court and hanging about for 3/4
of a hour, watching her room, just before she was murdered. Given that he was a man, and the Ripper was certainly a man (I can't bring myself to insert 'almost' before certainly), without A Man existing, Hutch would be/is
a very strong suspect. Therefore it is logical to pick over his very long and detailed description and ask ourselves whether it stands scrutiny.

Mrs Cox was a woman -therefore not a potential suspect- with a perfect reason for being in Miller's court that night. I cannot see any reason why she would lie with her description, and a carroty freckly man would be a strange thing to make up. I find it perfectly reasonable that the man would turn back to look at Mrs Cox, hard on his heels -it's the sort of thing people do.
Maybe he tipped his hat to a lady, rather than pulling it down ? Maybe the lamp was lit near Mary's door ? Maybe she kept a candle handy behind the broken pane, to light her way in ? Who knows...we can only speculate..

[FrankO]

Mrs Prater states that about 1.30 am,9th,the court was in complete darkness,imdicating the light in the court was not lit at that time.

Hi Harry,

Mrs. Prater states no such thing. She made no reference to the lighting in the court at all. There’s actually nothing in her testimony to implicate that the light opposite Kelly’s door was unlit at a quarter to midnight, when Cox met Kelly and her companion.

With that out of the way, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that Cox couldn’t have seen Kelly’s companion’s face, even if it was for just a second or two. Carroty hair and blotches do go together well and are outstanding enough to remember, so Cox may well have been quite accurate in describing the man’s facial features.

Seeing that she made her statement directly the next morning, I don't find it an amazing observation at all, certainly not if the light directly opposite Kelly's room was lit.

All the best,
Frank

[harry]

Frank,
I am certain that I have read where Prater does make that claim,be it in an official statement or a newspaper account.In time I am sure I will find it.

As to the carroty hair,Prater says the man was wearing a hat.I have agreed it could have been for a second or so,if the man had stepped back for her to pass in front of him.However she does not concede that happened..Perhaps you can explain where in her statement she says she had a face on view of the man.A blotchy face can go with any colour of hair,it is not specific to ginger or red.As to witnesses in general,it is widely held that they are not reliable as to accuracy even ten minutes after,let alone several hours.

So there is nothing out of the way yet.

[FrankO]

Hi Harry,

I've gone through Prater's official statements as well as a number of newspaper versions of her inquest testimony, but none of them contain the claim of a complete dark court. As soon as you've found and posted that claim, I quite possibly will change my mind, but until then there's nothing to indicate that the lamp opposite MJK's door wasn't lit. Indeed, I think that there's a very good chance that it was lit as a standard after dark, at least until McCarthy's shop was closed.

Seen in that light (no pun intended), I don't see why Cox's description should be amazing, or any more amazing than descriptions of others. She passed the couple at close range, with the lamp also close at hand and the light shining towards Kelly & Mr B. There's no reason for Cox to have lied or made things up, no reason to think why she couldn't have looked the man in the face even though she doesn't explicitly state so. So, she may well have been fairly accurate in how she described Kelly's companion. I put very little stock in witness descriptions because - like you stated - they are notoriously unreliable as a rule, but that's no reason to render Cox's observation as amazing.


All the best,
Frank

[harry]

Frank,
Yes I will post as soon as I find the reference.I myself was not surprised that the light could be out.I lived in such a court at one time,with the similar arrangement of gas lighting.It could be manually turned on and off,the gas mantles were prone to burn out at frequent intervals,and time and the elements would reduce the effective of the glass casing(grime and pitting),creating a feeble light even when lit.The fact that most were owned by slum landlords,meant not much effort would be made to quickly redress any failure in cases where the lamps failed.

I'll just add the following as a general guide for the benefit of all: Furthermore,most of the witnesses caught only a fleeting glimpse of a man whom they had no cause to take particular notice of at the time,and they did so in the half dark or by the ineffectual glow of a gaslight.
Recent research has demonstrated that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable even under ideal conditions,and their recollections of events deteriorates at an alarming rate.For these reasons,witnesses during the whitechapel murders are practically useless.

[harry]

A correction to the above post.The gas mantle in use in the early part of the 20th century,would not have been in the gas lamp in Millers court.The later gave an inferior light to those using the mantle which was introduced into general use 1889/90. Problems with the old ones though existed.(bad light,working components).

[harry]

A correction to the above post.The gas mantle in use in the early part of the 20th century,would not have been in the gas lamp in Millers court.The later gave an inferior light to those using the mantle which was introduced into general use 1889/90. Problems with the old ones though existed.(bad light,working components).

[Rubyretro]

Fascinating, Harry !

Are there still gaslamps in Lincoln's Inn ? (does anyone know ?)

[FrankO]

Thanks for that extra info about the gas lamps and mantles, Harry! It convinces me that the lamp in the court may have been out and does change my view a bit, although I still don't see Cox's description as more amazing than others. I think we'll agree that we'll never know how accurate or inaccurate it actually was and that the witness descriptions in this whole case are of no use.

All the best,
Frank

[harry]

Frank,
After quite a bit of searching,I have found the source from which I made the comment of darkness of the court.
It is in the book,'Jack the Ripper.The mystery solved'.Written by Paul Harrison,and first published 1991.Page 88,paperback edition.

The next witness was Elizabeth Prater of 20 Millers Court,the room immediately above Mary Kelly's.Prater had returned to the court at around 1.20a.m on the morning concerned.Passing Mary Kelly's room,Prater claimed that no lights were visible and that the court was in total darkness.

I should have checked for the source before posting,and not relied on memory.
Regards.