How reliable is the description given by Cox

[Rubyretro]

.

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.

That's very interesting.

The Ripper seems to have chosen to use the cover of darkness for his crimes.
I wonder if he would have reached through the window, had the gaslight been lit outside the room...

It's a shame that we don't know why, and for how long, it had not been working !

[FrankO]

Hi Harry,

Thanks for posting that up. I don’t have a copy of Paul Harrison’s book, but does he mention a source to go with what he wrote about Elizabeth Prater?

I ask because both her police statement and her official inquest testimony don’t contain any remarks about the court being in total darkness (or not). Her police statement doesn’t mention anything at all about light or darkness. Her inquest testimony just says that, going up the stairs to her room, she could have seen a glimmer of light through the wooden partition had there been one, but she might not have noticed and she didn’t take particular notice.

All the best,
Frank

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

One thing I find odd about Cox's statement is that Kelly was drunk but she didn't notice until they made it to the door. I would imagine drunk in those days was at least as drunk as drunk today, and drunk people don't walk straight and it's noticeable.

In terms of the description, when you see a friend with someone you don't know, you always have a quick glance at the stranger and in that moment the brain can take in an awful lot about that person.

[FrankO]

Hi FM,

I agree that's odd, but perhaps Cox only started paying attention when she approached the point where she passed Mary Jane and her companion. After all, there was no special reason to pay attention to the people walking in front of her any earlier. So she only noticed that Mary Jane was drunk when she answered Cox.

Then there's her inquest deposition as presented in the Morning Advertiser of 13 November, which states that she owed money and that, therefore, she couldn't sleep all night. If she was really so upset that she couldn't sleep all night, then perhaps Cox just had her mind elsewhere until she realised she was going to pass the couple.

All the best,
Frank

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

I agree that's odd, but perhaps Cox only started paying attention when she approached the point where she passed Mary Jane and her companion. After all, there was no special reason to pay attention to the people walking in front of her any earlier. So she only noticed that Mary Jane was drunk when she answered Cox.

Then there's her inquest deposition as presented in the Morning Advertiser of 13 November, which states that she owed money and that, therefore, she couldn't sleep all night. If she was really so upset that she couldn't sleep all night, then perhaps Cox just had her mind elsewhere until she realised she was going to pass the couple.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Yeah, could be a few perfectly reasonable possibilities.

Problem is, by the very nature of any group of human beings, some of the witnesses would have lied or embellished; difficult to say whom.

[harry]

Frank,
As I wrote in my last post,'The next witness was Elizabeth Prater'.Harrison was talking about inquest testimony.
Harrison was a policeman.He talks about previously unseen material,but not specificaly alluding to the inquest.

In her testimony Cox stated she followed the couple into the court,and passed them as they were entering the room.I can only conclude from that,the unlikelihood of a frontal sighting, and if the court was as dark as stated,a difficulty in observing a carroty moustache or blotchy features.Unless the fire in the room was lit,and this I think would be unlikely.

[Rubyretro]

The darkness is one thing ; I suppose that there is always the possibility that
Blotchy or Mary could have struck a match, or even a candle, the better to
see the door latch and open the door.

However, I'm sure I'm sure that if you heard footsteps coming up behind you in the dark, you would naturally turn round to check that the person wasn't a threat.

Mrs Cox would not have made Blotchy nervous since she was a woman, and he might well have looked her full in the face as she passed at close quarters.

[FrankO]

He talks about previously unseen material,but not specificaly alluding to the inquest.

Hi Harry,

It would be very interesting to know what previously unseen material he did allude to.

I can only conclude from that,the unlikelihood of a frontal sighting, and if the court was as dark as stated,a difficulty in observing a carroty moustache or blotchy features.

Again, I don’t see why it has to be unlikely that she saw Kelly’s companion from the front. For instance, he may very well have waited for Kelly to open the door, standing at the far end of the door and more or less facing the approaching or passing Cox. But Fleetwood’s and Ruby’s suggestions are also quite feasible. Furthermore, it appears that the lamp opposite Kelly’s door was lit after all, as in her inquest testimony, as worded in the Daily Telegraph of 13 November, she replied to the Coroner’s question “The chin was shaven?”: “Yes. A lamp faced the door.”

All the best,
Frank

[harry]

Frank,
Well Harrison was a serving police officer in 1991 when his book was published,so he may well be available to answer questions to those who query his sources.As I said in a previous post,regardless of what Cox did say,My knowledge of such courts and gas lights is that even if lit,the light would have been such,(feeble)that given it was some yards away and high up on the wall,the face would have been in shadow from the hat being worn.
How bright were such lamps.They were fuelled by coal gas,of a very unpure kind.The inner mantle surrounded a naked flame,with a glass outer case.The burnt gasses soon discoloured the inside of the mantle and outer casing,and grime soon obscured the outside of the outer casing.The result being a very dim pool of light.The control valve was operated by a lever,and from each side hung a short chain with a small ring at the end.The lights were set high on a column or wall so as to be out of reach of the general public and children.The height reduced the effectivness.It was not untill 1889 that a more efficient type of mantle came into being.