Millers Court - the demolition picture

[Fisherman]

We can only move with our own convictions and try to stay open to impressions and opportunities offered by others, Michael! I may add that much of your thinking in the Kelly case - something I have opposed numerous times in the past - is something I now embrace.
And so the exchange goes on, Michael - and itīs good to have you around as part of it!

The best!
Fisherman

Michael writes:

"people will buy that 2 excepts from 1 source saying something no-one else says, beats 8 contrary accounts all agreeing.....including the Times, because you said it"

Thatīs not true, Michael, just as it is not fair. I seem to remember that you participated in the posting on a thread just like this one a year or two ago, where I said exactly the same thing as Sam - well, to be more exact, I offered the possibility that Praters room stretched from a front to Dorset Street, to a window to the yard. I thought - and still think - that there is no way around the "snippets" that annoy you. To me it is pretty obvious that Prater lived in a fronting room over the shed.

Any which way, it is not as if mathematics and statistics rule the outcome of what is right and what is wrong. Such things would have provided us with a flat earth.

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I think youre right, I was unfair to Sam. You may consider that an apology for my anger Sam. Because my issues arent with him specifically at all, they are with the Math that gets done around here. I know you feel he is right, and on that thread you mentioned I think I mentioned that perhaps the room had fore and aft windows, because....a voice heard from Dorset Street cannot be isolated to have originated from that court...particularly by someone who was 2 seconds earlier in deep sleep. Of course I allowed that maybe both sides were correct to address the conflicts, which at a 1 to 8 ratio are visibly in evidence, and was informed my suggestion must be incorrect. It seems the truth is in who says what, not what evidence is used to support it.

And if we had a single source that said Elizabeth heard the voice "through the archway"...many here would be throwing numerous accounts out that say "as from", "seemed to proceed from" referring to the courtyard not the archway....if....a senior member here suggests it.

We have a single paper that printed words that spawned this, not the cumulative data. Ive always suggested here that anyone is entitled to their own perspective, and Ive rarely found that to be reciprocal.

Youve taken your share of abuse here too for ideas youve offered that are shaped by evidence and conjecture...so I know you can see this Fisherman. The irony is that Ive allowed myself to experience it anyway regardless of the unpleasant aspects, and in many cases, unfair dismissals. Why is a huge question to me these days.

I appreciate your "appeal", and wish you the best FM.

Cheers.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"people will buy that 2 excepts from 1 source saying something no-one else says, beats 8 contrary accounts all agreeing.....including the Times, because you said it"

Thatīs not true, Michael, just as it is not fair. I seem to remember that you participated in the posting on a thread just like this one a year or two ago, where I said exactly the same thing as Sam - well, to be more exact, I offered the possibility that Praters room stretched from a front to Dorset Street, to a window to the yard. I thought - and still think - that there is no way around the "snippets" that annoy you. To me it is pretty obvious that Prater lived in a fronting room over the shed.

Any which way, it is not as if mathematics and statistics rule the outcome of what is right and what is wrong. Such things would have provided us with a flat earth.

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

Here's a rough sketch of Millers Court that took me well over 2 minutes to do.

Yes, I know, 1898

No sign of #20 though. Maybe that room was overlooking Dorset Street.

[Stephen Thomas]

I never said that "I live at Number 20 Room, Miller's Court, above the shed", and neither did I say that I "occupied the first floor front room" of 26 Dorset Street .

Hi Sam

And you didn't tell a Star reporter in a personal interview 'She lived in #13 room and mine is #20 which is ALMOST ABOVE HERS (capital letters from the newspaper article, not me).

Many thanks for the Lodging House information. Very much appreciated. But I realised that I was late for work halfway through writing that post this morning and didn't get round to asking you what argument exactly were you rebutting when you said you thought Prater, when she said 'lodging house', was referring to #26 Dorset Street?

Best wishes

ps. Simon's being a bit mischievous today isn't he?

I never said that "I live at Number 20 Room, Miller's Court, above the shed", and neither did I say that I "occupied the first floor front room" of 26 Dorset Street - so kindly don't vent your frustration on me.

You may be assured that I experience no glee in playing ping-pong with one who believes that totting up references from a clutch of often vague and decontextualised sources somehow trumps two very specific and logically consistent snippets of information. Especially when that information is taken from separate and detailed accounts, one apparently verbatim, published in a respected national daily.

Let me understand that statement.....you quoted the "specific and logically consistent quotes" from the Telegraph, one source, which within the quote itself offers us a geographical impossibility and the only reference of all papers that says "shed", and Im the one who quoted the London Times, and 7 other papers that made no mention of "shed" but all mention Mary being below Prater's room, and those are the ones you categorize as "a clutch of often vague and decontextualised sources"?

Calling the London Times particularly, a "vague and decontextualized source" is simply amazing to me.

And where did this come from .." and neither did I say that I "occupied the first floor front room" of 26 Dorset Street.

Not from the Inquest reporting of Telegraph coverage on this site, thats for sure. Seems to me you added to the prefix and suffix of the quote to make it work for you. The actual quote is" I live at 20 Room, in Miller's-court, above the shed. Deceased occupied a room below.

This has been an eye opening series of exchanges Sam, sadly ...I think its time to rest.

Best regards.

[Celesta]

Hi Simon,What's the point of accuracy in general? My view is that, if we are to take this "Ripperology" thing seriously, we should insist on it. Heaven knows, this case is full enough of grey areas and myths as it is!

It's not just Ripperology; it's history. Ripperology is not a side-road of history. It's just as important to insist on accuracy in this area as it is in any other. No dedicated historian wants to mislead people, or rewrite history. If your instincts tell you this discrepancy is important, then it probably is. You're correct not to want to discard it until we have the information necessary to resolve the matter beyond doubt.

[Sam Flynn]

As have I, although it seems with less glee and smiles than you, because people will buy that 2 excepts from 1 source saying something no-one else says, beats 8 contrary accounts all agreeing.....including the Times, because you said it.

I never said that "I live at Number 20 Room, Miller's Court, above the shed", and neither did I say that I "occupied the first floor front room" of 26 Dorset Street - so kindly don't vent your frustration on me.

You may be assured that I experience no glee in playing ping-pong with one who believes that totting up references from a clutch of often vague and decontextualised sources somehow trumps two very specific and logically consistent snippets of information. Especially when that information is taken from separate and detailed accounts, one apparently verbatim, published in a respected national daily.

Hi Jon,

Back on thread at last! My apologies - again - for dragging this out. Just fighting my corner, you understand

As have I, although it seems with less glee and smiles than you, because people will buy that 2 excepts from 1 source saying something no-one else says, beats 8 contrary accounts all agreeing.....including the Times, because you said it.

Ive learned that unknowns like me, making some relevant observations and offering some well founded arguments that fly in the face of accepted beliefs...as yours do, take a pile of crap for it.

So....now that we all know the playing field better, back to that demolition.

Cheers.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Simon,

Okay. Let's agree that the generally-accepted location of Elizabeth Prater's room [directly above MJK in Room 13] was wrong. What does it matter in the grand scheme of things?

What's the point of accuracy in general? My view is that, if we are to take this "Ripperology" thing seriously, we should insist on it. Heaven knows, this case is full enough of grey areas and myths as it is!

[Stephen Thomas]

Is it possible to zoom in any further, or, how close can we get in ?

Hi Jon

The image used by Chris Scott at the start of this thread is a tiny part of the original photo and really cannot be enlarged any further without losing detail.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Many thanks for your reply.

Okay. Let's agree that the generally-accepted location of Elizabeth Prater's room [directly above MJK in Room 13] was wrong.

What does it matter in the grand scheme of things?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

Unfortunately much of Miller's Court has already been demolished, and what's left (Mary's room especially) is mostly occluded by debris.

Back on thread at last! My apologies - again - for dragging this out. Just fighting my corner, you understand

[Jon Guy]

Hello

Is it possible to zoom in any further, or, how close can we get in ?

[Sam Flynn]

Since the recent interpretation on layout and locations has been wholly dependant on the single source in The Telegraph's coverage....from the Inquest....

Incorrect. Two sources, on separate days - one of which gives us the most detailed account of the layout Miller's Court of any contemporary source of which I'm aware. Don't knock it.

Ill be interested to see how that claim is discounted while maintaining that the article is still "the" authorative piece...

Nobody's making a claim for authoritativeness - I wouldn't even afford some official records that accolade. It's about making sense of all available sources.

despite 8 other sources that agree with only that point, perhaps this will be easier for some to discard that I would imagine.

It's not just about the two reports in the Telegraph - it's about making sense of precisely what Prater said apropos the noise, the "back of the lodging-house where the windows look into the Miller's Court". It's right to weigh that up against other sources, but one must be very, very aware that these are often pithy, decontextualised and frankly cloned accounts. It's like Chinese Whispers at times. Even the official records aren't perfect, because scratchy-nibbed court clerks make errors too - "Great Powell Street", anyone?

Again, and for the "final-plus-one'th" time: "I live at Number 20 Room, Miller's Court... above the shed"... What on earth caused the reporter to make that detail up? There is no feasible answer, other than "He didn't make it up - that's precisely what he heard Prater say".