Millers Court - the demolition picture

[Sam Flynn]

If she had a window open in the back of the house that she could hear noises "as from the court" through. Or if that archway window is in her back corner. Despite all assurances to the contrary, a noise made from the court could not realisitically be heard as from that location by a woman only seconds awake from a drunk sleep with only a Dorset facing window.

Prater's words were "as from the court", Mike, which isn't the same as "definitely from the court". If the scream came from Kelly's room, then it would have carried through the house to a first-floor front room quite easily, and would indeed seem to have come "as from the court". Even a scream issuing from the court itself would have been audible from the first floor front, for that matter.

As I type, my room is in relation to the road outside almost exactly as the first floor front room of 26 Dorset Street was to the the "court" itself... and I just heard, quite distinctly, the noise of a car's wheels clatter over a manhole cover. In two hours' time, I shall hear folks returning from town shouting "good-night" to one another - and if I'm still awake at 02:00, or if something awakens me from my slumbers, I will be in a position to hear other revellers coming home from the night clubs. My door is shut, as are all the windows - it's a chilly night - and we have good double-glazing.

Another car has just driven over a manhole cover. Which manhole I don't know, but it sounded "as [if it came] from the road" alright.

[perrymason]

Hello Sam,

Youre right, as from the court is definately not the same as "from the court", however, there is no indication at all that Elizabeth heard that voice from inside the house,..as you suggested..."If the scream came from Kelly's room, then it would have carried through the house to a first-floor front room quite easily, and would indeed seem to have come "as from the court". And since she didnt say it was from Kelly's room, or inside the house, or sounded that way, it would seem within reason to surmise that the voice heard "as from the court", if from Mary Kelly, was cast into the court without the obstruction of closed windows or doors.

I dont know why you offered the story on things you hear based on your surroundings, because you dont believe that she heard a voice at all, youve already suggested as much, so we really neednt bash this about any further....youve accepted your two accounts from one source, and discarded the cry of "oh-murder" heard by two people and mentioned in I believe, every source on Elizabeth.

Youre well within your rights to your own beliefs Sam. Youre just not open to seeing the mountain beside the mole hill in terms of attributions and accounts.

The difference here is that I would like the truth and to use evidence to find it, whereas you already believe you are right despite any evidence to the contrary.

As Simon said....bravo for sticking to your guns. But as I might add, and its too bad that for the rest of us, because your conclusions mean that most of us cant read or interpret data properly. Which is insulting frankly.


Best regards

[Sara]

Chava post 207:
On the contrary even a quite small fire will throw a lot of reflected light, if the walls are whitewashed or a light colour. And the evidence is that the fire was still hot if not burning late in the morning, which means it must have been very fierce in the small hours (or so I read in - iirc - one of the dissertations on here recently).

It's not all that likely that anyone walking past the room would notice what was going on behind the window, esp among people living such irregular lives. It's customary among working class people who live huddled together to avert the eyes when walking past one another's windows. There is a kind of mutual delicacy in such matters.

By the way, was Mary the only one of the canonical victims (plus Tabram whom I believe to have been JtR's as well) to have a room of her own, to which she could take a man off the street? If so this might have some bearing on both the violence of the attack, and the apparent cessation of the attacks, if one is willing to indulge in a little psychoprofiling!

[Sam Flynn]

Youre well within your rights to your own beliefs Sam.

Not a belief, Mike - a conclusion based on a thorough reading of the evidence, with an open mind.

Youre just not open to seeing the mountain beside the mole hill in terms of attributions and accounts.

Incorrect - I gave reasons why that mountain of cloned reports and decontextualised press and inquest summaries, is not as "unclimbable" as one might think. Even mountains erode over time.

The difference here is that I would like the truth and to use evidence to find it, whereas you already believe you are right despite any evidence to the contrary.

I believe I have found the truth. That's not the same as "already believing I'm right" - that's for the Prater-directly-above-Kelly supporters to cogitate about, surely. It is that position, nigh-on a century old, that represents the article of faith here.

I'm in a slightly different position in that I have have concluded that we've got it wrong for all these years - and that conclusion is firmly based on the available evidence. For what are "Mrs Elizabeth Prater, who occupies the first floor front room", "I live in Number 20 Room, Miller's Court... above the shed", and "the couple in the room above the deceased", if not "evidence to the contrary"? And who is using their "belief that they are right" to sustain the rather romantic (and in my view, unquestionably discredited) notion that Prater lived in the room directly above Kelly? Not I.

[Ben]

It's not all that likely that anyone walking past the room would notice what was going on behind the window, esp among people living such irregular lives. It's customary among working class people who live huddled together to avert the eyes when walking past one another's windows.

Except when witness are specifically referencing an absence of light or noise, Sara, as Mary Cox did. She clearly did the opposite of "averting her eyes", and I think it reasonable to conclude that she saw no light or noise because there wasn't any at that time.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Sam,

Ive been rougher with you on this than is my norm, so Ill offer an apology and accept your statements as your foundation, and question it no-more,....frankly its the least interesting part of this story anyway. My beliefs are as they were going forward though.

On the light in the room, I think that Pilot Coat may have taken away some light that might be seen peripherally by someone at their door in the first few units, opposite Marys door. And the gaslamp would prevent someone, perhaps, from seeing any glow on the wall opposite the windows. So thats why I think Mary Ann is the best "light" witness. And light until 2am makes this much more interesting if true. That would indicate Blotchy has been there for 2 hours already....he would not be just a temp visitor like a "commercial" client would be.

Best regards all.

[Chava]

I was just reading The Worst Street in London by Fiona Rule--great book! And I was amazed to discover that Millers Court only went up in 1851. The owners--called Miller--built three up-and-down cottages, and then another three. I always thought that the whole thing was continuous--that the rooms upstairs were linked, and the rooms downstairs were linked. But it doesn't seem to be that way. That having been said, it seems to me that the inhabitants of the newer cottages were living in slightly better conditions than Kelly, who was living in a back room of the original house.

[White-Knight]

I can only say that I "discovered" this for myself, WK, and I remember opening a thread about it perhaps a year to 18 months ago. This was after I'd noticed the "Prater lived in the first floor front room" and "above the shed" details in (NB) separate editions of the Daily Telegraph. Until that point, I wasn't aware that anyone else had raised the potential significance of those two nuggets of info, and I was quite excited about it at the time. Still am

thanks, Sam. Must have been you then! it seemed reasonable then and again now to me at least. Where else could the potentially vacant room thing go do you or others think? I know there was mention of a couple renting a/the room at some point and that McCarthy is a shady character himself leaving little information on his properties but are there any other possibilities of exploring tenancy info for the rooms do you think, or is that well and truly an exhausted occupation? I guess if posters here, some of them very well informed ,are still struggling to locate the room Prater was in, the chances of finding out what was going on with that 'directly above' room are slimmer still aren't they?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi WK,

As Stephen Thomas reminded us, the Telegraph of 10th November states that a couple were located in the room above Mary Kelly, and that they slept soundly without noticing a thing that night. This would explain why their testimony has not been preserved elsewhere, why they were not called to give evidence - even the Picketts, who actually heard Kelly sing, weren't called either. If only the couple above had heard something of significance and were called to give evidence, I'm sure we wouldn't be having this debate!

[Stephen Thomas]

As Stephen Thomas reminded us, the Telegraph of 10th November states that a couple were located in the room above Mary Kelly, and that they slept soundly without noticing a thing that night. This would explain why their testimony has not been preserved elsewhere, why they were not called to give evidence

Indeed, Sam

No point in calling the couple in Room 14 directly above Kelly to the inquest.

'What did you hear that night?'

'Noffink, we was fast asleep.'

'Next!'

After Crippen was convicted one prosecution lawyer said that the case was so open and shut that they didn't even need to bother to call the man who personally sold the quicklime to Crippen to testify.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam and Stephen,

Sorry to interrupt your love-in.

"The Telegraph of 10th November states that a couple were located in the room above Mary Kelly, and that they slept soundly without noticing a thing that night. This would explain why their testimony has not been preserved elsewhere, why they were not called to give evidence."

Here's an assortment of inquest witnesses who also heard nothing.

NICHOLS—

Walter Purkess, manager, residing at Essex Wharf, deposed that his house fronted Buck's-row, opposite the gates where deceased was discovered. He slept in the front room on the second floor and had heard no sound, neither had his wife.

Emma Green, who lives in the cottage next to the scene of the murder in Buck's- row, stated that she had heard no unusual sound during the night.

EDDOWES—

Constable Richard Pearce, 922 City—

[Coroner] Did you hear any noise in the square?

[Pearce] None at all.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Simon,

Where were Mr and Mrs Pickett - who did hear Kelly sing, but were not called? Or any number of residents in Miller's Court who were inquest "no-shows", for that matter. The place was hardly deserted, but less than a handful of residents got called to testify.

Back to the love-in...

[White-Knight]

[QUOTE=Simon Wood;56469]
"The Telegraph of 10th November states that a couple were located in the room above Mary Kelly, and that they slept soundly without noticing a thing that night. This would explain why their testimony has not been preserved elsewhere, why they were not called to give evidence."

Here's an assortment of inquest witnesses who also heard nothing.

NICHOLS—

Walter Purkess, manager, residing at Essex Wharf, deposed that his house fronted Buck's-row, opposite the gates where deceased was discovered. He slept in the front room on the second floor and had heard no sound, neither had his wife.

Emma Green, who lives in the cottage next to the scene of the murder in Buck's- row, stated that she had heard no unusual sound during the night.

With the exception of Pearce, but the addition of the Pickets, doesn't the number of people close by who heard nothing bother you, Sam, Simon? I know our boy must have been swift and quiet but even so....? Isn't there room for more research here...along the lines of the 'don't want to get involved' train of thought.What has been done ,for example in tracking down descendants of these potential witnesses and teasing out family traditions, accounts previously untold ,perhaps only later to a family member...? The opinions of the descendants of police officers involved are well known ,it would seem, but who knows for example, if Emma Green ever privately spilled any extras at a later date? It bothers me that many of these people are taken at face value ,and/or thought of as unreliable and drunken fabricators..though I'm not saying Prater doesn't fit that bill.Its just that there seem to be a lot of assumptions that if anybody HAD heard more they would immediately tell of it. There may be many reasons not to want to get involved in a witness parade for these crimes...fear of reprisal, post-trauma,life already hard enough without a trail of police and journos beating your door down..maybe this is why inquest testimony remains lacking..the Pickets perhaps being a good example..could they have been forced to testify anyway, if they didn't want to?.and police questioning was more than a little perfunctory to say the least, wasn't it? None of your,'sit down and try to visualise..have a cup of tea..' more 'come on then, let's have it' ,wasn't it?

What say you, learned friends?

Humbly,
WK.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I think there can be considerable mileage out of conjecture that includes items like this.....there were many people within earshot of Marys voice, and at least 1 that walked by her room more than once. Elizabeth Prater says in one account that she goes down to Marys room and knocks on her door around 5:30am to see if she want to go for some "hair of the dog that bit her"...like Elizabeth herself is doing. My bet is that she did do this and didnt go to the windows because Mary might well have a "Joe" over.

Sarah's relatives are across the narrowish walkway down the court, and Julia is right beside them. McCarthy was in his shop for some of this time. Ample sources exist for any kind of alarm being sounded from #13. There were none mentioned,..only a cry described as "faintish" by her neighbour in 26 Dorset, "upstairs".......he says, avoiding a mess.

I would think that either some people heard something... but didnt put that in writing or swear to it, or the meeting of the killer and victim in the room, or at the door, wasnt an incident that frightened Mary in and of itself. Maybe briefly startled her..."oh-murder,... you scared me half to death", but not enough to get dressed, or complete her undressing for. And no appreciable noise is heard when he attacks her, and kills her, and slices her poor body to bits. Which means she was likely unaware of the impending danger, was attacked quickly and with force and perhaps only woke as the slashes started raining on her.

Anyone who can get in the room in the middle of the night, while Mary is partially dressed, hungover and just out of a booze driven semi-sleep of 2 hours or so, and remain there with her consent is a suspect. And there are at least 2 men to start with.

How come we dont see Fleming interviewed...he was known of by other neighbours....so how hard was it to march over to The Victoria Home and check on him and Hutch? Or maybe the same man?

Best regards all.

[Chava]

I just read Fiona Rule's excellent book about Dorset St. She gives us a lot of information about Millers Court and something there struck me as interesting. Lizzie Prater testifies that she could see the glimmer of light through the old disused door as she went up to her room which was above Kelly's. Kelly lived in the old back-parlour--probably originally the kitchen, since it doesn't sound as if there was a basement where the kitchen would be in later Georgian row houses. The old door could only be on the wall that divided that room from the rest of the house, and Prater would have accessed her room, not from the Court, but from within the house itself. So I think she would have entered from Dorset Street, walked past the 'shed' which would likely be the original morning room, and then walked up the stairs to her room, which would either be above the shed or above Kelly's room. And she could have seen light glimmering around the edges of the old door beyond the stairs as she went up. Especially since it was probably pitch-black going into that house.

If she walked back along the landing to the room above the shed, I think it's unlikely she would have heard anything, let alone Kelly cry out faintly. If she walked forward to the room over Kelly's, then she might well have heard something. If Prater didn't occupy that room, I am assuming someone else did, and we'd hear from them, because they would be the nearest to the murder. Or, I believe, the point would have been made that the room was vacant or its tenants away. After all, we can see the windows, there was definitely a room there. So I'm prepared to believe that Prater lived directly over top of Kelly. (However I'm still not putting too much stock on 'oh murder!)