Open or Closed-Probabilities

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I was of the opinion that the description of the cry heard ie. 'Oh Murder' was described by Prater as like 'awakening from a nightmare'.
The delay in the wording may have described just that Oh.. Murder, the pause being realisation from Kelly that It was just a dream.
I can never grasp why that interpretation given by Prater has never been afforded more credence, does it not fit perfectly with court resident Lotties comments to Kit watkins just three years later?.
I have brought that point up many times over the years, but for some reason no importance has been attached to it, which I find perplexing..
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

Don’t misunderstand me, Mike. I’m not suggesting that the exhortation of ‘Murder!’ was used exclusively when a potential victim came face-to-face with the Whitechapel Murderer. I would, however, contend that its usage was largely confined to those instances when an individual, usually female, was either being assaulted or perceived an imminent threat of violence. Even when one looks at Mrs Humphrys’ late-night encounter with the black-faced William Holt, it is not difficult to understand how Holt’s appearance and behaviour, coupled with the environmental considerations of a dark and deserted locus, so unnerved Mrs Humphrys that they induced a cry of “Murder – Jack the Ripper!” In this instance, Holt did not surprise Mrs Humphrys, and neither did he annoy her. He engendered the perception that he posed a threat to her safety. And this, I remain convinced, tells us a great deal about the cry heard by Sarah Lewis and Liz Prater.

In answer to your question, I believe that the press hyphenated the “Oh, murder!” as a consequence of Liz Prater’s inquest testimony. Under questioning, she was asked to describe the cadence and rhythm of the cry she had heard. One newspaper, I seem to recall, indicated that she used a finger as might a conductor with a baton. On this basis, it is probably more accurate to interpret the cry as: “Oh … Murder!” From this, it might be inferred that the “Oh” was an articulation of surprise and possibly even disorientation. Then, following a slight pause, came the realization of what was happening to her – hence the more strident cry of “Murder!” If accurate, this interpretation suggests that Kelly’s killer deliberately roused her from sleep, resulting in the surprised “Oh”. If she then caught sight of the knife, the pause and more forceful cry of “Murder!” begin to make much more sense.

Ordinarily, Mike, I admire your refusal to accept ‘fact’ on the basis of blind faith. In this instance, however, I’m inclined to the view that the weight of evidence fails to support your theory regarding the open door and an annoyed Mary Kelly.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

All I can say in rebuttal Gary is that we have many statements from witnesses at some of the Canonicals and some non-C's like Martha that suggested that cries including the word "murder" were frequently heard and often dismissed by residents as street rows, and the death statistics dont support frequent life threatening events in connection with the word or phrase like "oh-murder".

Have you ever wondered why many press accounts of the Inquest hyphenate the words?I believe it was so it would be understood that there was a difference in either the volume or pitch or emphasis that occurs between the words. Like "oh-murder".

Thats one reason why I suggest annoyance would fit there...the hour being another.

Best regards

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry, Mike, but on the basis of present evidence I cannot agree with your interpretation relating to the cry of “Oh, murder!” Given that Catherine Picket was disturbed by Kelly’s singing shortly before the murder, we have independent evidence as to the degree of acoustic leakage from Kelly’s room. Also, remember that both Prater and Lewis were exhausted when they heard the cry. Prater, moreover, was certainly under the influence, and one suspects that Lewis may have been. Equally, each woman experienced a period of sleep before relating her story to the police. In view of these factors, any even remotely competent psychologist would anticipate substantial inaccuracies in those recollections. It’s the frailty of human memory, I’m afraid, Mike. It cannot be relied upon to provide reliable detail when the event stimuli have been inputted under conditions of fatigue and alcohol consumption. So whilst I have no doubt that Lewis and Prater did hear a cry of distress, and that the cry almost certainly emanated from Mary Kelly, I would exercise considerable caution with regard to the perceptual elements such as timings and acoustic specificities.

Equally, I think it unlikely that Kelly would have issued a cry of “Oh, murder!” as a concomitant to surprise or annoyance. Since she was notoriously volatile when in drink, I rather suspect that she would have adopted a more colourful turn of phrase had an unexpected visitor caused her to drag herself out of bed at three or four o’clock in the morning. I also think it likely that, under such circumstances, she would have launched into a tirade rather than restricting herself to a two-word utterance. To my mind, the cry of “Oh, murder!” represents a clear indication that Kelly felt herself to be in imminent danger. And the brevity of the utterance along with its semantic content are strongly suggestive that her fear was well grounded.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

Hi again,

Just to answer your points regarding the broken panes Gary, ......since one was blocked by a pilot coat and both were covered by the muslin curtain, and since the broken panes amount to some small panes within a window that has some 15 separate panes within it....and since the windows faced the 2 storey wall opposite Marys room,....it seems highly improbable that Sarah would have heard that sound " as if at the door" had the sound come out those small breaks. Liz may have heard the cry" as from the court" by way of that wall bouncing the sound up to her, but what most fits both womens description of where they felt the sound emanating from is at Marys door. Since we know of no other women who claimed to be in that court at that time making that cry....and since we do believe that Mary was in the room at the time based on the lack of believable evidence that suggests otherwise, it seems to me probable that she made the call while her door was open.

I believe that signals the time she voluntarily lets the man that kills her into her room....and that insinuates that she knew the person resonably well....considering the time.....and the fact that the "oh-murder" may have been called out in surprise or, more likely if she had been sleeping...in annoyance.

By the accounts of many witnesses "oh-murder" or calls like that were not indicative of any real trouble usually...it was drunk people spatting on the streets at all hours. So it was likely used by people to suggest their disbelief or annoyance,....something that being woken from a drunken sleep at 4am might be cause for.

Cheers Gary

[Garry Wroe]

Again, Sam, intriguing. My impression is that the observation originated from either Phillips or Abberline. But if, as you suspect, McCormick was indeed the source, it seems likely that here is yet another of those examples of descriptive embroidery which serve only to engender confusion. Clearly, if the clothing had been neatly folded and placed on a chair, the implication is that either Kelly retired to bed in the presence of her killer, or someone entered the room after she went to bed alone, possibly while she was sleeping. If the neatly folded attire could be definitively excluded from the equation, however, the possibility arises that the killer removed it at some point after launching the initial assault. Should this prove to be the case, it would reveal any number of psychological and behavioural insights into the killer’s method and motivations.

Thanks once again.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Garry,

I have to confess to being intrigued by your belief that Kelly’s clothing may not have been neatly folded and placed on a chair. Although the description is etched on my memory, I can’t for the life of me recollect the source(s).

The source for the "neat" bit, as far as I could establish, was Donald McCormick, who describes the clothing "in a neat pile at the foot of the bed". The "neatly folded" description seems first to have appeared in Donald Rumbelow's book. In short, I was unable to find a reference to Kelly's clothes being "neatly folded" any earlier than the 1970s, and no reference to "neatness" before the 1950s.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Tom.

Yes, I’m one of the golden oldies, I’m afraid – though my posting days don’t extend back to 1997. Probably the early Noughties is nearer the mark. Good to ‘chat’ again, anyway.

Your observation regarding the killer’s clothing is certainly interesting insofar as the night under scrutiny was cold and punctuated by heavy showers. As such, I’ve long believed it likely that the killer would have placed at least some of his clothing by the hearth. Not only would this have dried it out, it would also have afforded it some degree of protection against bloodstaining whilst the mutilations were in progress.

Hi Mike.

Although you make some interesting points with respect to the cry heard by Sarah Lewis and Liz Prater, it might be borne in mind that one of Kelly’s windows contained two broken panes – a consideration that would certainly have affected the timbre of any vocal emission made from within the room. Indeed, it may even have created the impression that the sound had emanated from somewhere outdoors.

Hi Sam.

I have to confess to being intrigued by your belief that Kelly’s clothing may not have been neatly folded and placed on a chair. Although the description is etched on my memory, I can’t for the life of me recollect the source(s). This is certainly one deserving of follow-up, not least because it may shed new light on the behaviour of both Kelly and her killer in the period leading up to the actual crime.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

Wasn't it Lewis or Prater,in the room above,who said they were awakened by the cat acting up,and then the cry of murder was heard.Perhaps there was sound or movement sensed and heard by the cat,that made the animal agitated.

Hi Harry,

Thats my take too on why Liz was wakened by the cat when the cry had not been made yet......Its my belief, as you can tell by the thread premise, that Marys door had to have been open if she made that cry to have been heard in the way described by the witnesses.....which makes sense since no-one else claimed to and I think that its unlikely a woman assisted the killer there... and cried out loud.

Liz heard it faintly...."as from the court"...which makes sense, and Sarah heard it at approximately the same time, "as if at her door" from the Keylers, .....which was across from Marys.

The reason why Im interested in this question is this.......IF Mary answered the door....by a knock or tap on the window or door which wakes Diddles upstairs, then she lets the killer in voluntarily....based on the fact that it would seem no further noise is heard.....when he or she closed the door again.

If Marys killer knew her,... then either "Jack" may also have known other Canonicals,.... or "Jack" only knew Mary from that Group, or...Marys killer knew her well enough to be invited in at almost 4am.

I would think that last one, if the case, narrows the suspect pool dramatically....for at least this one death.

Best regards Harry, all.

[Sam Flynn]

...her clothes were lying neatly folded on a chair

Actually, Garry, following an exhaustive search of the contemporary sources, I was unable to find anything that substantiated the suggestion that her clothes were "neatly folded" at all. There was a thread on the "pre-crash" Casebook boards where I showed - with some evidence to back it up - that the phrase "neatly folded" was a mid/late 20th Century interpolation into the Ripper mythos.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Sam,


Names like Packer, Hutchinson, Malcolm, and Schwartz come to mind, Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater....and Mary Ann Cox for that matter, do not. On the records, the last man to be seen with Mary Kelly alive comes from Mary Ann Cox....no-one has seen fit to discredit her to-date, why should we do so now?


Cheers Sam

what, who Malcolm ?............dont you drag me into this, i'm not that old

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Garry, aren't you a Casebooker from way back to 1997?

Anyway, regarding Mary's clothes. I personally feel that, like you said, Mary got undressed and got in bed. Her killer followed her lead and placed his clothes atop hers on the chair. This is why her clothes were not thrown into the fire along with the others around the room. Out of sight, out of mind. Once he was done, he got himself dressed and left, leaving her clothes still neatly folded on the chair.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

Hello Mac.

The central problem with your theory that Kelly was grabbed as she made to enter her room is that her clothes were lying neatly folded on a chair when her body was discovered. Although it is by no means impossible, I very much doubt that her killer would have concerned himself with any such irrelevance either before or after cutting her body to pieces. Accordingly, it seems likely that Kelly herself positioned the clothing as preparation for going to bed. If so, the notion that she was accosted at the door may be safely excluded.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[harry]

Wasn't it Lewis or Prater,in the room above,who said they were awakened by the cat acting up,and then the cry of murder was heard.Perhaps there was sound or movement sensed and heard by the cat,that made the animal agitated.

[sparta68]

Just a thought.....as I try to decide if this cry could be heard from inside the room or out on the court yard I have not seen it established who actually cried out.

What if it was Jack? I know that is very far fetched, but maybe he was worried no one would find the body he so neatly left soon enough. So maybe he changed his voice just enough to sound like a women hoping to draw a little attention. I know that the time of death and discovery though are several hours apart right?

Ok it was just a wild guess. I just made it because I believe Jack wanted his victims found in a reasonable time after he left. If all five murders are done by one person they all seem to be done to get the most attention possible for the most shock value possible.

then again maybe if I actually see a leprecon I can follow him back to his pot of gold to steal it....so its all a guess.