Cry Murder!

[Ben]

I agree, Gareth; that would make sense.

All the best,
Ben

[smezenen]

Again smezenen, an interpretation that shows the phrase is perfectly compatible with frustration, annoyance, anger,....any one of which or all may be feelings someone would have when woken to a hangover or headache likely of gargantuan proportions, by someone either expected but resented, or not expected.

HELP....that was used to call for help often. "Oh-murder", as we can see, is not as clearly suggestive of imminent danger.

Cheers smezenen

I agree with most of your statement Michael, however being one who has experieced many hangovers and headaches I dont think she was yelling Oh Murder loud enough for neighbors to here it if seh had either of these conditions as a yell would only make the problem worse, especialy if it where of gargantuan proportions.

[Archaic]

Hearing, Memory & Perception

Thanks, Sam; I knew you'd come through!

There's a very common human phenomenon of simply "forgetting" the various conversations & audio stimuli one hears in a day or in a night, unless something unusual happens shortly afterward which helps you to recall one sound in particular and also imbues it with new significance.

I can see how if a Miller's Court resident had heard a cry of "Oh, Murder!" at ANY point in time recent enough to still be stored in their short-term memory, and subsequently learned that Mary Kelly was murdered, and at about what time, this might naturally color their memory of WHEN they heard WHAT.

And this slight shift in memory/perception could happen subconsciously, even in someone with completely honest intentions who wasn't trying to garner 5 minutes of fame, but only wanted to help.

Of course, it could happen even more easily to someone predisposed to earn their moment in the limelight.

Best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

Hi all,

To a point Sam made about whether or not the women actually heard a cry or not, unless you can prove some type of collusion, the fact they are in different locations and don't know each other to our knowledge and both gave roughly the same time and phrasing...and the closest one heard it the loudest, you almost certainly have a cry by a woman at that time, which sounded to them as if it was from the courtyard.

I know you've tried to slip that by before Sam, but they effectively corroborate each others story.

We have precedent within the Ripper coverage for at least 2 women to suggest that they heard cries like that phrase often at night, and due to that, they didnt pay it any real attention. They listened for more, to be sure that it wasnt actually signaling any danger or murder, and when satisfied by the lack of noise suggesting such an event after the cries, they disregarded them.

Just as both Liz and Sarah do that night....both must have listened for a follow-up, Liz even says she heard nothing more.

That is what I use to suggest the attack on Mary wasnt commenced when "oh-murder" is spoken....which leaves us with a silent slashing at her face and throat on her bed while she tried to fend off slices with her left arm....(no noise from a plank floor and what is Im sure a squeaky bed?), ...or no attack immediately following the cry. Which would suggest the cry was as characterized and assumed by the 2 ear witnesses...not a call for help.

If thats the case, why would Mary yell that and then be silent if still in the company of the person who caused her to exclaim the remark? If not someone she already knows.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

To a point Sam made about whether or not the women actually heard a cry or not, unless you can prove some type of collusion, the fact they are in different locations and don't know each other

It seems that all the witnesses were kept in Miller's Court until 5PM on the day after the murder, after which the police left them go. Unless they were forcibly separated and kept under individual police guard, they'd have had plenty of time to swap stories. Note that what I'm suggesting isn't necessarily conspiratorial, only that Prater may have heard a scream, and that Lewis provided the words, or vice versa. It's also possible that one or other of them was bandwagoning ("Oh, I heard that, too!").

[perrymason]

It seems that all the witnesses were kept in Miller's Court until 5PM on the day after the murder, after which the police left them go. Unless they were forcibly separated and kept under individual police guard, they'd have had plenty of time to swap stories. Note that what I'm suggesting isn't necessarily conspiratorial, only that Prater may have heard a scream, and that Lewis provided the words, or vice versa. It's also possible that one or other of them was bandwagoning ("Oh, I heard that, too!").

If we are playing within the realm of possibility however improbable or unsupportable....then I agree Gareth.

At present, we have no reason to discount or disbelieve anything they say on record. And all they tell us is that the cry came from the court....neither said Mary or Marys room. Perhaps in the improbable category they could have conspired or altered their stories to suggest that Mary or Marys room was the source of the cry too. Since that is just about the most probable source for the cry based on any post murder reflections.

They didnt though.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

...which leaves us with a silent slashing at her face and throat on her bed while she tried to fend off slices with her left arm...

Once more, Mike, she almost certainly did not fend off the slices with her left arm. There were jagged wounds (not "linear" wounds, as one might expect from a sharp knife-cut) on both her arms and forearms. None of those wounds were reported as showing signs of extravasation. Furthermore, as we can see from the photograph, there doesn't appear to have been any "seepage" of blood onto the flesh either side of the wounds on her left arm. Taking all this into account, it's a safe bet that those wounds were inflicted after the circulation had ceased. The same would be true of the facial wounds, and for the same reasons.

Apart from the cut throat, the only wounds that seem to have been inflicted whilst Mary was still alive were a small cut on her left thumb, and possibly some abrasions on the back of her left hand.

[Sam Flynn]

If we are playing within the realm of possibility however improbable or unsupportable...

Have you actually read the vacillating testimony of these gin-sodden harpies, Mike? If you want to gauge the probability of the gossip/collusion/bandwagoning scenario, look no further.

[richardnunweek]

Hi all,
Yet again we are taking the view that all witnesses are unreliable, even though we are 121 years futher on in time, they were there then, we obviously were not.
Just because [ in this case] the court residents, were in some cases gin sodden, they were only feet away from a gruesome murder, and i for one would suggest that we dont tar them all with the same brush.
Elizabeth prater, for what is is worth, i believe to be one of the most reliable ones,
When looking at witnesses statements, i always look for sentences or remarks, that a liar is unlikely to muster up.
For eg,
The Berner street quote. 'You will say anything but your prayers'
'She had her hand on his chest[ Lawande]
'Have you seen a man and woman pass this way'?[ Bleinkensop]
'Oh i have lost my hankerchief [Hutchinson]
'She came down the passage, she had her jacket and bonnet on, i do not own such things' [Elizabeth Prater].
She said 'Goodnight my pretty, she always called me that' [ Prater 9pm 8th nov].
These quotes imply truth. at least to me, although that may not be the case in all cases, witnesses who do show that trait, i tend to give the benefit of the doubt.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

She said 'Goodnight my pretty, she always called me that' [ Prater 9pm 8th nov].

That last one loses its impact a bit, Rich, when you consider that it's prefaced by Prater claiming that she herself said "Good night, old dear" to Mary Kelly, who was almost half her age. If anything, the two greetings should be reversed in order to give this passage anything resembling the ring of truth - by the same report, it was Kelly who was "tall, pretty and fair as a lily", after all.

To be honest, this sounds like sentimental guff to me - either of Prater's or the newspaper's invention.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

On the points you have made regarding the wounds to her left arm Sam, I have read them and see what you're saying, but I dont see the need to discount the medical opinion that some were indeed "defensive" wounds.

On Sarah and Elizabeths statements, if you have read something that suggests they were not deemed trustworthy by the authorities, or that what they claimed in the stories was improbable or impossible, then Im all ears.

But from what Ive read, without any known connection between them, their stories,....(which were taken separately as is the tradition)....did in fact corroborate each others tale...both with the time, and the phrase.

Best regards as always Sam

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Thing is though, if those were defensive wounds then that would mean that she was quite conscious when being slashed at (if I remember rightly your theory is that she was asleep when the assault began). Well, wouldn't she have screamed, rather than just lie there with her arms up to shield her face or whatever? Or was she still drousy from having just been rudely woken up?

What I'm saying is the defensive wound theory just doesn't ring that true.

[Sam Flynn]

On the points you have made regarding the wounds to her left arm Sam, I have read them and see what you're saying, but I dont see the need to discount the medical opinion that some were indeed "defensive" wounds.

Out of interest, whose medical opinion was that?

It bears repeating that the arms AND forearms, both left and right, sustained these jagged wounds. How could her killer have been in a position to have inflicted such wounds whilst simultaneously trying to cut her throat? How could he have cut BOTH arms AND forearms under a "defensive" scenario, period? I might imagine the NEAREST forearm to the killer copping a few blows, but not the arm as well... and certainly not the arm and forearm furthest away from the killer.

There was no reported extravasation in the wounds of the arms/forearms, and the wounds are apparently "clean", with no leeching of blood onto the skin either side of the wounds. How could that happen if the circulation was still functional? One would expect some seepage to be apparent, as well as later "smearing" if the killer manipulated her arms after death - but we see none at all on the photograph. (And, note, that's on the NEAREST arm - the one that would have copped the defensive wounds, if any were indeed inflicted, and which one might have expected to have shown signs of oozing if the circulation had still been viable at that time.)

Finally, the arm/forearm wounds are described as jagged, not linear, as one might expect from a direct swipe from the flailing of a razor-sharp knife.

[perrymason]

Thing is though, if those were defensive wounds then that would mean that she was quite conscious when being slashed at (if I remember rightly your theory is that she was asleep when the assault began). Well, wouldn't she have screamed, rather than just lie there with her arms up to shield her face or whatever? Or was she still drousy from having just been rudely woken up?

What I'm saying is the defensive wound theory just doesn't ring that true.

Thats a very good question, (but maybe a poor conclusion), when juxtaposed with what is known about her initial body position at the commencement of the attack in relation to her attacker,... she was facing away from the room, towards the wall, on her right side, on the beds right side....undressed and either on or just under a sheet.

Lets say her killer is the one that causes her to cry out....and even though no noise follows that call, that he is still in her presence at the door or in the room.

-Why isnt she yelling at him if he is a stranger?
-Why dont we hear evidence of sounds of struggle or muffled cries from a witness in the same house upstairs?
-Why would Mary be in bed with her back turned to the room if she has let a strange man in her room, or found him in it as she wakes?
-Why would Mary let a man into her room at around 3:45 that she didnt know?
-Since she is probably not awake if she stayed in the room since it went dark at 1:30am, the "guest" evidently wasnt expected to arrive later on. So why would she let him stay?

I wont belabour it with you, suffice to say there are a bunch of factors that suggest if the man was the cause for her cry out that he was still allowed to stay in her presence without struggle or screams. Then add the suggestive mutilation that is often associated with a pre-existing relationship of some kind by the killer and prey. The add a live-in relationship that had ended a week earlier, and one that had been going on simultaeneously with the live in relationship. Add the fact that the man she was having the affair with at one time in the past lived with her also, and had wanted to marry Mary. Add in that he will be committed to an institution for life in just a few years from that time. Add in a means of access to the room when locked that at least the ex live-in knew about.

Now add in the fact that of the 4 preceding Canonicals, there is not one piece of evidence of any kind that suggests the killer and prey knew each other before the murder night....nor that they met each other in a place that was in effect the private property of the deceased.

If you create a chart, like I did a few years back, citing all the relevant data from each murder including the Spring ones and Alice MacKenzie,.... medical, circumstantial and crime scene, you will see reasons for suspecting that the lack of noise following the cry, and the circumstantial evidence, suggests that Mary was in the presence of someone she knew if she made that call.

Which she almost certainly did.

All the best M & P

[FrankO]

What I'm saying is the defensive wound theory just doesn't ring that true.

Hi M & P,

According to Dr. Bond's autopsy report on MJK's body there was one small cut and several abrasions on her right hand that showed "extravasation of blood in the skin". These were the only wounds Dr. Bond referred to as showing that condition. Although none of the medical men involved in the whole Ripper case ever mentioned any defensive wounds, the condition of those small wounds actually means that they were inflicted while MJK was still alive.

That being the case, it seems that MJK did try to defend herself during the initial attack, but at the same time suggests that it was a short-lived defense, one not longer than mere seconds, during which she raised her right hand, may have uttered her cry of 'Murder' and then her throat was cut.

All the best,
Frank