Room 13 Miller's Court

[Celesta]

I would tend to agree, Tom, were it not for a nagging feeling I've got that the light just doesn't seem right for that time of year and those weather conditions. Perhaps Rob Clack or another of our splendid resident snappers can help soothe my savage breast?

Sam, I see what is bothering you. The shadow on the bricks, to the right of the door, is wider and deeper at the top, than it is lower down. If the sun were lower in the sky, wouldn't that shadow be more uniform along the bricks, and narrower at the top? Still, I think it is a gloomy day and that may be a factor in how the shadows play.

If you look at the water pan, the shadow is a narrow band right next to the pan, rather than being more elongated, as it should if the sun were lower and more westerly. It could be that the photo was taken around early afternoon. Although I would have sworn, earlier today, that it was taken later.

[George Hutchinson]

Debate is always good if it gives rise to new evidence (not theories... they make me yawn) but I cannot really see anything thus far in this thread that is open to serious reappraisal.

Prater not only said she lived above MJK, but (correct me if I'm wrong, Stewart) that she could actually see chinks of light through the floorboards from MJKs room because there were only floorboards dividing the upper and lower rooms.

The pan by the window has been discussed many times. The rational conclusion is that Joseph Martin took MJK1/2 through the broken window pane and then, when processed and the pan placed out of harm's way, the wider image of the back of #13 was taken.

I do realise it seems unusual that images from the jurisdiction of the Met may turn up at Snow Hill in the City, but having established that the photos of MJK ARE MJK, then - strange or not - we have to accept the likelihood that the photo of #13 was taken at the same time. Sure, there's a small possibility that it relates to a later crime but it is highly unlikely.

No reason to think anything new is going to be discovered here, but always good to see a deeper contrast of the broken window panes.

I vainly await the appearance of a certain feline at that upper window.

PHILIP

[Stewart P Evans]

Wriggling

Thanks for that, Stewart - your observation in respect of the lodging-house is apposite and certainly works. I'd only observe in respect of the inquest transcript that "a" and "thuh" ("the") might easily be confused and overlooked - which cuts both ways, of course (i.e. the papers may have misheard "the room" for "a room"). However, please forgive me if I believe that there remain reasonable grounds for doubt, which I still do.

Gareth I do believe that you are wriggling. Prater's evidence clearly indicated the rear of the lodging house that looks into Miller's Court and her statement clearly says she occupied the room over where deceased lived.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for that, Stewart - your observation in respect of the lodging-house is apposite and certainly works. I'd only observe in respect of the inquest transcript that "a" and "thuh" ("the") might easily be confused and overlooked - which cuts both ways, of course (i.e. the papers may have misheard "the room" for "a room"). However, please forgive me if I believe that there remain reasonable grounds for doubt, which I still do.

[Celesta]

Hi, Celesta.

I hope you can find it, because I side with the early posters on this thread, Monty and JB, who felt that the stretch suggested in these pics would take a long and possibly bloodied arm.

I'm not sure where I saw it. It was recently. I'll retrace my reading material and see if I can find it. Will let you know.

[Stewart P Evans]

A Fine Marshalling

Hi Stewart,
A report in the Daily Telegraph of 10th November, which gives a very detailed description of the general layout of Miller's Court, and states that Mrs Prater "occupied the first floor front" room. I believe Prater also gave her address in her police statement as "27 Dorset Street", which is interesting in itself - albeit that reverts to "26" at the inquest.
Then there's her statement about her noticing "the light being out in the lodging house, where the windows look into Miller's Court", when she was awoken by Diddles. Various ingenious explanations have been advanced for this, which arguably stretch the definition of "lodging house" too far - e.g. Prater was referring to a neighbouring court (presumably New Court) on the same side of Dorset St as Miller's Court. However, I'd argue that the simplest explanation for her using the lodging-house light as a benchmark was that Prater's window(s) fronted onto Dorset Street itself.
I also did a survey (now lost, alas, due to the server crash) of all the newspaper reports I could find, and discovered that only a comparative handful used "THE room above deceased's room" - most accounts refer to "A room above deceased" or, on one or two occasions that I recall, "ALMOST above the deceased's room".
There is also that intriguing snippet - again, in the Telegraph - that "the couple in the room above" Kelly said they'd slept soundly throughout the night of her murder without hearing any scuffling sounds.
Chinese whispers? Perhaps, but taking all these threads together I found that I inclined to the conclusion that Prater's room was not above Kelly's after all.
Thanks for asking.
(PS: above written from memory, so apologies in advance if I got anything wrong!)

A fine marshalling of your evidence Gareth, but I would not agree. I am, of course, aware of what the Daily Telegraph report says but you know how unreliable newspaper reports can sometimes be, and this report appeared on the morning of the 10th, two days before the inquest and at a time when many early erroneous reports were appearing. The Times in fact states that Prater's room was above Kelly's, thus sort of negating the Telegraph report.

The giving of the address as No. 27 (McCarthy's shop) seems to be an error. Regarding the lodging house where she saw the light was out, Crossingham's, at no. 17 opposite, could hardly be said to 'look into' Miller's Court (all you would see from there would be the arched entrance). I am not sure of the location of the lodging houses to the rear of Miller's Court but there was a tall building at the end of the court which did overlook, and look into, Miller's Court. Prater's words included the phrase, "...as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging house where the windows look into Miller's Court." So this does seem to indicate that it was the rear of that particular building at the end of the Court. The lodging house opposite the front of 26 Dorset Street could hardly be described thus, and she surely wouldn't have heard noises at the back of that building.

However, the clincher for me comes with Prater's written statement from the Kelly inquest papers, and you can clearly see what that says -

[Sam Flynn]

What is the evidence for this statement? And Gareth believes it is compelling.

Hi Stewart,

A report in the Daily Telegraph of 10th November, which gives a very detailed description of the general layout of Miller's Court, and states that Mrs Prater "occupied the first floor front" room. I believe Prater also gave her address in her police statement as "27 Dorset Street", which is interesting in itself - albeit that reverts to "26" at the inquest.

Then there's her statement about her noticing "the light being out in the lodging house, where the windows look into Miller's Court", when she was awoken by Diddles. Various ingenious explanations have been advanced for this, which arguably stretch the definition of "lodging house" too far. However, I'd argue that the simplest explanation for her using the lodging-house light as a benchmark was that Prater's window(s) fronted onto Dorset Street itself, where there be lodging-houses.

I also did a survey (now lost, alas, due to the server crash) of all the newspaper reports I could find, and discovered that only a comparative handful used "THE room above deceased's room" - most accounts refer to "A room above deceased" or, on one or two occasions that I recall, "ALMOST above the deceased's room".

There is also that intriguing snippet - again, in the Telegraph - that "the couple in the room above" Kelly said they'd slept soundly throughout the night of her murder without hearing any scuffling sounds.

Chinese whispers? Perhaps, but taking all these threads together I found that I inclined to the conclusion that Prater's room was not above Kelly's after all.

Thanks for asking.

(PS: above written from memory, so apologies in advance if I got anything wrong!)

[Tom_Wescott]

Probably not, Tom. But when do you think this was taken - before or after entry?

Robert

It would have been before entry I believe, because after entry, people were constantly walking in and out, and we know the photographer left BEFORE Dr. Phillips left. It stands to reason the photog took pics outside while waiting for the door to be open.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

Probably not, Tom. But when do you think this was taken - before or after entry?

Robert

[Tom_Wescott]

The inquests ran off the diagrams. Bringing in crime scene photos would not have been normal. Dr. Phillips owned a set of the Kelly photos. As for him having had them taken, he probably just means that he was the one who spearheaded getting the photographer there in the first place. I would imagine Phillips would know the morgue photographers better than the police would. But I don't think we're talking about two different sets of photos here, do you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

I don't understand why Bowyer wasn't given Phillips' photo to look at. It's almost as though Phillips just came along with the photo and produced it all of a sudden.

Would this photo have been Phillips' personal property? He says that he had it taken - not the police.

[Stewart P Evans]

Location of Prater's Room

From the popular sources -

A-Z (Begg, Fido and Skinner), page 361, "Lived in the room immediately above Mary Jane Kelly, whom she had known well for some five months."

The Complete History of Jack the Ripper (Sugden), page 328, "One of them was Elizabeth Prater, who lodged in Room 20 in 26 Dorset Street, above Mary's room."

[Stewart P Evans]

Evidence?

Prater lived at the front of the house over 'the shed', not above Kelly.

What is the evidence for this statement? And Gareth believes it is compelling.

[Tom_Wescott]

The photo was taken inside a court. As the reporter mentioned in the excerpt I posted, the court was darker because it's walled in. You also have to take into account the cloud coverage as it would have been when the photo was taken. And then there's the fact that we're looking at a 120 photograph taken on 120 year old equipment. No two versions of that photo appear the same, you know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Since we know that Dr. Phillips was in possession of all the Kelly photos, I'm sure you'd agree its a relatively safe bet this was the photo he produced.

I would tend to agree, Tom, were it not for a nagging feeling I've got that the light just doesn't seem right for that time of year and those weather conditions. Perhaps Rob Clack or another of our splendid resident snappers can help soothe my savage breast?