Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil,
Purely tongue-in-cheek chatter on my part.
May be wrong was there not two people , don't forget Prater upstairs..
I was reflecting on the cry out, and looking at possibilities how it could have happened if Maxwell saw Mary Kelly, it could not have been Kelly's death, the nightmare scenario is there , so is the possibility what I suggested,
The other two possibilities.
Some discovering the body via the window, or seeing the murder happen is a non starter , anyone would have screamed to such an extent , that the whole of Dorset street would have known about it.
The other possibility , that it came from somewhere outside the court , would not correspond with ''just outside my door''.
Three people being involved, would fit in nicely with the Chapman, Stride , Eddowes, and Kelly victims.
Chapman saw a man and woman outside number 29, they could have been accomplices whilst the killer and Annie were in the back yard.
In Berner street, a couple was seen, on a couple of occasion's, and the man approaching [ Broad shoulders] would fit the broad shouldered Pedachenko[ who was alleged to wear women's clothes]..also the Lipski/Levitsky would figure well if Pipe-man was the latter, and a lookout.
In Mitre square, we have the couple in Church passage, and a man in orange place, asking if a night watchman saw a man and woman pass.
In Dorset street..we have a young couple pass down the street, and the apparent enticement of a well dressed woman, by a man with another woman
All of this is pure imagination, but you can see [ hopefully] what I am just suggesting.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Fantasy apart, Richard, how could anyone be certain that a two word cry would be heard - let alone provide an alibi or time of death? As it is we only have the cry mentioned by a single person.

Are you not perhaps putting cart before horse - someone heard a cry hence it could have been a deliberate effort to be heard? That doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.

Phil H

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Just a thought as I am munching away at my breakfast, what If the cry was a deliberate ploy by someone, who wanted to suggest a time of death.
The word 'alibi' springs to mind.
If someone had a night alibi, then if the investigation to follow uncovered screams of murder around 4am, it would suggest that the death happened at that moment.
It would have been the norm, not to investigate one cry out, but it would suffice, to remain in any court residents mind to inform at a future investigation.
So who would need to secure themselves an alibi,surely if the killer was responsible for the other murders, that, would not have been a priority, and what's more a female had to be responsible for attempting to confuse the T.O.D.
Could the Ripper have had a female accomplice?
Indeed could the killer have had two accomplices , the names Winberg, and Levitsky , spring to mind, who If memory serves me right, were alleged accomplices of one Dr Pedachenko?
The cry of ''Lipski'' could have been mistaken for Levitsky could it not.
This breakfast is giving me too much food for thought, too much colouring in the orange juice.....
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

if Mrs Prater's room is at the front of the building (over the shed) rather the rear, it just might explain the possibility of her hearing a cry from the court faintly, whilst the other witnesses, facing on to the court, heard it louder?

But as I recall, no one reported hearing a louder cry, did they?

Phil H

[Cogidubnus]

Two-edged

(Has it not now been demonstrated that she may have had a room overlooking the street rather than the court (i.e. over the cart shed)? thus the old idea that it had to be Kelly who spoke may no longer be valid.

On the other hand, Phil, if Mrs Prater's room is at the front of the building (over the shed) rather the rear, it just might explain the possibility of her hearing a cry from the court faintly, whilst the other witnesses, facing on to the court, heard it louder?

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

I made the point there, with an example, that someone sleeping, or dozing, who wakes and hears something, may then doze off again. They may not realise that when they awake again, but they can have lost minutes or hours.

Not to mention that 1) past memories are often reshaped by present knowledge; and 2) the human brain strives to make sense of nonsense. Did Britain have the whole backwards masking on record albums fiasco that the US did in the 1980s? Some people claimed that rock groups (particularly heavy metal and punk groups) would put messages into song tracks that were backwards-- that is, someone reversed the master track on magnetic tape. Supposedly, the human brain could understand this on a subliminal level.

It was all nonsense, but religious groups were often playing examples of re-reversed tracks (they would transfer a record album to reel-to-reel tape, and then play it backwards), and claiming to hear messages. They were always short messages, things like "Satan is king," and once someone told you what to listen for, you could understand what set them off. Like I said, it was all nonsense, but if you approached the project with a priori assumptions, that certain groups wanted to promote "Satanism," or some kind of badness, subliminally, and albums contained backward messages, you would believe you'd found the Easter egg.

The tracks really sounded more like "Saaaatn ishking," with emphasis on the wrong "syllable," and I use that word loosely. But the people who already believed the music groups were evil didn't need much convincing.

Now, knowing that "Murder!" may have been a common expletive changes things, but I think there is certainly the possibility that someone heard something, from "mother," to "were there?" and in light of the morning's events, remembered it as "murder." Especially likely if the person was half-asleep at the time.

@ RivkahChaya

The scenarios you mention (living person shows up, real body found, etc) happen a lot, true. That is how they know 100% that the mistake was made.

And, in all those cases, no one took an opportunity to vanish.

Yet I would bet that in some cases, the mis-identification of the body is viewed by the real person as a good thing, as they have reason to disappear, and they know nobody will be looking for them.

They are still left with the problem of establishing a new identity. That is something which is much easier if you plan for it, in which case a body isn't really an opportunity.

This was 1888. If you had the funds to travel far enough, you didn't need someone thinking you were dead in order to get yourself lost. On the other hand, even if people did think you were dead, you couldn't just go around calling yourself be a different name, and living three blocks away from where you used to live. Someone would recognize you, or at least you'd have to worry someone would.

I want to see some sort of evidence that Mary Kelly wanted to disappear. She didn't seem to be afraid of anything, other than JTR, and didn't mind being out alone at night. That doesn't seem like the behavior of someone who is looking for the first opportunity to shed her present identity.

Not only that, she seemed to enjoy standing out, with the no hat, and the white apron (I wonder if the latter may have been some sort of "disease-free" cue to customers, true or not). That's not the behavior of someone thinking of running away.

It also sounds like she has been building a clientele on her own since moving to Whitechapel. She may have worked for madams or pimps previously, and decided she wanted to be independent. Why start over again? Letting other women use the room makes me wonder if she didn't aspire to running her own brothel some day. You can't climb the ladder if you keep jumping off it.

I just don't see it. I can't see any reason for her wanting to leave, let along disappear.

[RavenDarkendale]

@ RivkahChaya

The scenarios you mention (living person shows up, real body found, etc) happen a lot, true. That is how they know 100% that the mistake was made. Yet I would bet that in some cases, the mis-identification of the body is viewed by the real person as a good thing, as they have reason to disappear, and they know nobody will be looking for them. Getting the identity of the body wrong is merely one more possibility in a world of possibilities when it comes to the crimes of JtR...

[Phil H]

But someone in the courtyard cried it out that night...and didnt make another sound.

If I might suggest:

Was not heard to make another sound.

There is a discussion of another thread about what Mrs Lilley said in relation to the Nichols' killing. I made the point there, with an example, that someone sleeping, or dozing, who wakes and hears something, may then doze off again. They may not realise that when they awake again, but they can have lost minutes or hours.

The words heard, whomever said them, could have been many things. It could have been a part of a conversation, with that word emphasised, perhaps said more loudly. It might have been an expletive. For all I know, Mrs Prater stayed wide awake and whomever uttered the phrase wandered off down the street.

(Has it not now been demonstrated that she may have had a room overlooking the street rather than the court (i.e. over the cart shed)? thus the old idea that it had to be Kelly who spoke may no longer be valid.

Phil H

[Michael W Richards]

we have testimony in other Ripper cases where the phrase "murder" is mentioned specifically and it was noted that the cry usually meant nothing of the sort.

But someone in the courtyard cried it out that night...and didnt make another sound. Perhaps someone shut her up with their hand.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Phil

"The threat "I'll murder you!" was not to be taken literally either - it might imply a good thrashing, nothing more."

Indeed. When I was a lad, the vogue, if I recall properly, was to proclaim, "I'll knock your head off!" If memory serves, William F. Buckley once made this threat publicly to Gore Vidal. Seems that Mr. Vidal went to his grave, head intact, notwithstanding.

Cheers.
LC

There have been a few unfortunate people who were arrested (although as far as I know, not charged solely for the one reason) when the person they happened to threaten with murder was found dead the next day. A friend of mine (with a pretty sick sense of humor in general) once said it's a good thing they don't come and arrest you for rape if you say "F*** you!" to someone, who is then raped the next day.

Actually, I'm sort of surprised we don't have witnesses in the Ripper cases full of "So-and-so [Kelly, Kidney, Barnett, etc.] once threatened to kill Such-and-such victim."

Anyway, that someone coincidentally said "Oh, murder," rather than "Oh balls" ("bollocks" over the pond) on the night in question seems very likely, if it was indeed used that way. It could even have been a drunken Kelly trying to pull open the latch, and scratching herself on the broken pane.

PS "I'll knock your block off!" over here. It even made the ad copy for Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots.

[lynn cates]

"I'll knock your head off!"

Hello Phil

"The threat "I'll murder you!" was not to be taken literally either - it might imply a good thrashing, nothing more."

Indeed. When I was a lad, the vogue, if I recall properly, was to proclaim, "I'll knock your head off!" If memory serves, William F. Buckley once made this threat publicly to Gore Vidal. Seems that Mr. Vidal went to his grave, head intact, notwithstanding.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I recall in my youth (say 1950s/60s0 that "Oh murder!" was a mild expletive frequently used by people of a certain age - like "Blimey!", "Ruddy Hell!" or "Bloody...." all of which have now been over-taken by rather boring Anglo-Saxon words beginning with "f" or "c".

The threat "I'll murder you!" was not to be taken literally either - it might imply a good thrashing, nothing more.

If I saw a script of a C19th melodrama, such as "Maria Marten and the Red Barn", in which the heroine at the moment of death raised an arm and exclaimed, "Oh murder!" then I might accept it as theatrical parlance. Could Mrs Prater have swapped another sound or cry for one she thought (from stoires etc0 was right?

I don't attach much importance to the "Oh murder!" cry - its is not IMHO anyway a likely response to discovering a potentially fatal attack on one's person. A shrill scream would be more appropriate in such circumstances.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

The cry was described a little clearer in the Morning Advertiser..

"..The cat went on to the floor, and that moment I heard "Oh, murder!" I was then turning round on my bed. The voice was "a faintish" one, as though some one had woke up with a nightmare."

That is interesting. I suppose "Jack the Ripper" nightmares were not uncommon in Whitechapel at the time, and it's not impossible, and even somewhat likely, that someone in the area had one the night night of the Kelly murder. It's even possible that Kelly herself had one, and it wouldn't be a premonition, since we have Barnett's account of her being afraid of the Ripper. It might not have been her first nightmare. Assuming that is true, it's an interesting coincidence that someone having bad dreams about the murders should meet up with him, but given how many women were probably having similar experiences, probably not unusual.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Until proven otherwise, I will stick to the ''Nightmare'' opinion as voiced by Prater.
It would be the most likely solution ,if indeed Kelly was seen at 8 15am.
The horrors of drink as poor Mary put it, as she had been drinking for some days past.
I do not believe the cry was the actual attack on her, it would not fit in with Blotchy, or A man[ time wise], but IF witness Hutchinson was telling porkies about leaving the area at 3am, he would be in the frame.
I wish the police had left us a inventory of room 13, was there a red hanky present? if so it would leave us with two options.
a] The tale of the Hanky involving Mary and A man, was the truth.
b] The tale was invented, as indeed Hutch was in the room, and left his hanky there,[although most likely innocent of her murder]
B] is a educated guess, as who else but the owner would be certain of its colour.
It would not surprise me in the least, if Hutch spent some time in Mary's room that morning, even if he was without money, he could have promised her a IOU, and I am sure she would have welcomed the company anyway, as I would suggest, she was paranoid about being alone in that room.
It all adds up to either 'A' man existing , but leaving Kelly alive , and Hutch telling all the truth, or 'A' man existing, but Hutchinson not walking about after three o'clock, spending a couple of hours in her room, again leaving her very much alive, being present when she awoke with the cry.
All of this would be on par with the morning sightings.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

I still think "Oh, murder!" is a strange thing to say upon finding a body. I've a feeling something else was said, or shouted, that was retrospectively translated to "Oh, murder!" by the hearers once they learned what had happened.

The cry was described a little clearer in the Morning Advertiser..

"..The cat went on to the floor, and that moment I heard "Oh, murder!" I was then turning round on my bed. The voice was "a faintish" one, as though some one had woke up with a nightmare."

So she did not hear a loud scream, probably more like a gasp of surprise? Whereas, Sarah Lewis in an upstairs room looking down on room 13 below, across the passage, claimed the scream was loud, and just the single word "murder", it appeared to come from outside her door.

Mrs Kennedy just confirms Lewis's claim as to the direction of where the cry came from, but, I wonder if the cry appeared louder because of the broken window in Kelly's room. Either that or the cry came from another woman stood outside, in the Court, who presumably had either just opened Kelly's door, or had peeked through the window?

Who knows..

Regards, Jon S.