Open or Closed-Probabilities

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[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]

Hi Richard.

I can’t say that I recall ever having read the Prater quotation to which you have referred. Do you by any chance recollect the source?

The simple explanation for it having been largely ignored, I would venture, is that Kelly issued a cry of “Murder!” and was then found slain a few hours later. The overwhelming likelihood, therefore, is that the cry and murder were causally related – a situation that, for most people, obviates the need for additional elucidation.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[harry]

If one were asleep,would a single cry of murder be known as the cause of awakening them?A problem I have is knowing what awakens one.We might say the thunder awoke me,which might be true.but would we be able to say it was the first peal of thunder or a succeeding one.Or the first pistol shot,or the very first heavy trafic if those were the causes and there was more than one.What is our memory of these things,if we are truly asleep to begin with.
So was there only the one cry of murder in Millers court that night,and those that heard it,awake to hear it.Or were they oblivious of the cry that awoke them,then concious enough to hear one or more cries?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garry,
The source [ more of them exist ] comes from The Morning Advertiser of the 13 nov 88, quote..'The voice was a faintish one, as though someone had woke up with a nightmare'
If one takes the words 'Oh Murder'. and the Lottie story to Kit Watkins which refered to a 'bad dream' that Mary Kelly allegedly had, shortly before her death. ie between the double event, and November, and the dream was one of kelly being murdered, one could suggest that kelly may have had a reoccurance of that dream at 4am on the morning of the 9th, thus the apt wording of 'Oh Murder'.
That being the case it would then be credible that Maxwell did see kelly as she stated, I have not been put of by lack of witnesses having seen kelly drink beer that morning, for could it simply be a case of Mary drinking remains of Blotchy faces ale, which may have been poured in a glass at midnight, which she did not touch until she woke.
Just because no pot remained, does not mean she did not down the proceeds from a glass.
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Gary, I think that if "oh-murder" signaled any kind of attack commencement we could not ask for two more attentive witnesses listening for those sounds that would follow the cry out. Both were made attentive to any sounds by the cry and they both listened for any follow up sounds, which did not occur.

That there werent any suggests that if Mary made the cry out that she was in the company of someone she was not physically struggling with at that moment....in her room.....at around 4am. And 2 key Ripper principles are that they victim and killer are strangers to one another....and that the Ripper doesnt even use a knife until the victims have been quickly and quietly subdued.

Best regards

[Edward]

Did Mary discover a murder?

Could it be that Mary, coming home late at night opened the door to her room, discovered the sight of her murdered room mate, and at that point cried out, "Oh Murder"? She did have a woman temoprarily staying with her, I believe. Wasn't the room mate a prostitute? Additionally, a cry of, "Oh Murder" from Mary's doorstep could be described as if "coming from the court", and as "just outside" the other witness' door. Any cry from just outside Mary's door would not have to go through partitions, broken windows, pilot coats, etc. Finally, didn't at least two persons claim to have seen Mary alive the morning after the murder? I do believe Mary's door was open, I'm just advancing a notion that she may have been on the other side of it.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Harry.

Whilst I would agree entirely with your sleep-related observations, there are several issues which, I believe, ought to be accorded due consideration. To begin with, in Sarah Lewis and Liz Prater we have two witnesses who independently related what was essentially the same story. Both women heard the cry whilst situated in reasonably close proximity to the Kelly crime scene; and by her own admission, Sarah Lewis was not in a deep sleep, if she was sleeping at all. More importantly, perhaps, the police sealed off Miller’s Court as soon as Kelly’s body was discovered and set about questioning the residents and their visitors. This being the case, it seems unlikely that Lewis and Prater could have entered into any kind of collusion, and it must be considered doubtful that one woman overheard the story of the other, then decided to replicate it for less than honourable motives.

In view of the foregoing, it would seem that both Lewis and Prater told the truth as best they knew it. And since each woman heard only one cry for help, I consider it a near-certainty that this was the best Kelly was able to do before being overpowered and murdered. Indeed, in view of the fact that Jack the Ripper had become an accomplished killer by the time he added Kelly to his tally of victims, I remain somewhat surprised that Mary Jane was permitted to make any sound at all.

Hi Richard.

Thanks for providing the source of the Liz Prater observation. To my mind, though, Prater was merely providing context for the cry she heard rather than suggesting causality.

As for the ‘sighting’ of Mary Kelly when medical and other evidence suggest she was already dead, I think it likely that we are dealing with a case of mistaken identity. If, for example, Carrie Maxwell, Maurice Lewis and others had seen a young female coming and going from 13 Miller’s Court and heard through the local grapevine that a young streetwalker named Mary Kelly lived there, they may have confused Kelly with one of her regular visitors. If so, we have a logical explanation for Kelly’s rise from the dead, the anomalous description each provided of her (short and rather plump), and the impossible sighting of Kelly with Barnett in the Horn of Plenty when Barnett was known to have been at his Bishopsgate lodgings.

Hi Mike.

Whereas I would agree with you that any additional cries beyond the “Oh, murder!” would have been heard had Kelly made them, I would disagree with the assumption that this silence infers that Kelly could not have been under attack. On the contrary, it suggests to me that Kelly was very much under attack and was being subdued by way of strangulation – see Bond’s report and the ecchymosis (bruising) noted in the neck tissues. As for the contention that ‘the Ripper doesnt even use a knife until the victims have been quickly and quietly subdued’, I would suggest that the defence wounds inflicted to Kelly’s hands and arms suggest otherwise. Equally, given the fact that the Whitechapel Murderer’s identity has never been established, how can we be certain of the ‘principle’ that the ‘victim and killer are strangers to one another’?

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[perrymason]

Hi Gary,

I just captured this section of your post to counter...

Whereas I would agree with you that any additional cries beyond the “Oh, murder!” would have been heard had Kelly made them, I would disagree with the assumption that this silence infers that Kelly could not have been under attack. On the contrary, it suggests to me that Kelly was very much under attack and was being subdued by way of strangulation – see Bond’s report and the ecchymosis (bruising) noted in the neck tissues. As for the contention that ‘the Ripper doesnt even use a knife until the victims have been quickly and quietly subdued’, I would suggest that the defence wounds inflicted to Kelly’s hands and arms suggest otherwise.

The part that is underlined shows a subjective approach to the data Gary, and what Im trying to combat.....in fact Mary Kelly was attacked with a knife while she could still resist and that is not what occurred in all 4 of the prior "Ripper" attacks, save a simultaneous knife attack and choke by scarf that Liz Strides killer used.

To say "Jack" did attack while the victims could fight back based on Mary Kellys death is presupposing that he killed her, its not that the evidence suggests cumulatively that "Jack" attacks with a knife first.....and the attribution isnt based on hard evidence to begin with.

I stand by this......Polly, Annie and Kate's murders were almost identical in every aspect until the postmortem wounds,... and even in Kates case, they were abdominally focused mutilations as well. All were likely done by a right handed man, and he had all of them flat on their backs and unable to resist before he cuts anything.

All the best Gary

[Edward]

Hello, all,

Gary wrote: "As for the ‘sighting’ of Mary Kelly when medical and other evidence suggest she was already dead, I think it likely that we are dealing with a case of mistaken identity."

What medical evidence exists other than the fact that they discovered a savagely murdered female in Mary Kelly's room? Did Mary have tatoos or other disginguishing marks that would make identification certain? Blue eyes would seem to be a fairly common trait.

As for mistaken identity, how did Barnett identify the deceased (by her eyes, and an ear)? Did Barnett enter the room? Was he only allowed to peek through the window? Did he view the body at the morgue? Barnett was looking at a horribly mutilated corpse that he was told is Mary Kelly, and that's what he identified. I'm not denying that Barnett could identify Mary's corpse, I'd just like to see evidence of how he performed the identification. Mistaken identity can go both ways.

Best Regards, Edward

[c.d.]

It's not simply a question of Barnett's identification here. If it was in fact not Mary on the bed but one of her prostitute friends, how probable is it that Mary took one look and said "whoa, I am out of here" and took off never to be seen again? She would have had to have done so with no money and only the clothes on her back. Also, wouldn't the friends and/or relatives of the dead woman report a missing person to the police?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

It's not simply a question of Barnett's identification here.

Not just Barnett's either. Abberline's internal report states that the body had been identified by several people.

[perrymason]

Hello, all,

Gary wrote: "As for the ‘sighting’ of Mary Kelly when medical and other evidence suggest she was already dead, I think it likely that we are dealing with a case of mistaken identity."

What medical evidence exists other than the fact that they discovered a savagely murdered female in Mary Kelly's room? Did Mary have tatoos or other disginguishing marks that would make identification certain? Blue eyes would seem to be a fairly common trait.

As for mistaken identity, how did Barnett identify the deceased (by her eyes, and an ear)? Did Barnett enter the room? Was he only allowed to peek through the window? Did he view the body at the morgue? Barnett was looking at a horribly mutilated corpse that he was told is Mary Kelly, and that's what he identified. I'm not denying that Barnett could identify Mary's corpse, I'd just like to see evidence of how he performed the identification. Mistaken identity can go both ways.

Best Regards, Edward

The points you raise are valid Edward, we do not know exactly how the identification of Mary Kelly was made by Barnett, or where or precisely when for that matter, and we can assume safely that McCarthy and Bowyer gave their IDs on the spot that morning.

We do know that Marys eyes are not visible in the photo MJK1, from roughly the position of the large window, and the majority of her hair including its full length cannot be see as its down her back. I cant say whether anyone could make out her ear, in case the 'air/'ear issue was valid. I dont believe that Barnett ID'd Mary in the room......and that geographical connection when faced with a locked room from the inside and her being undressed in my mind is a key reason for anyone to assume that was Mary in the bed.... even before seeing her.

The reason I dont think Barnett mad his ID in that room is becauise my bet is that they didnt move that body much or at all when they entered, and that would mean they didnt flip back a flap covering her eyes so Joe could ID them.

He likely saw her as the jurors did....wrapped from head to toe with only her destroyed face visible....after her Volte Face surgery.

Best regards