Room 13 Miller's Court

[John Bennett]

It's true that errors due to mishearing can creep in, and of course they didn't have tape recorders (I believe Gareth makes reference to Sarah Lewis' address in "Great Powell" rather than "Great Pearl"), and they didn't have access to proper courtrooms but instead had to scrounge and beg for alternative spaces to hold inquests, whatever they could find as if they were gypsies, but I suppose they did the best they could.

Interesting you should mention this, as a good trawl through press reports throws up many inconsistencies.

We have:
Great 'Powell' Street (Great Pearl Street) as already mentioned. (MJK inquest)
PC Hart (actually PC Hyde) in Frances Coles inquest.
Charles Brittan etc (actually Charles Bretton), Polly Nichols inquest
Walter Purkiss (probably Walter Purkins), Polly Nichols inquest
Cooley's Lodging House, Thrawl Street (more than likely Cooney's), MJK.

All sorts really. Plus Hardiman, Long/Burrell, Mrs Carthy, Mrs Buki, all of which seem to fall foul of 'Chinese Whispers'.

Sometimes it is possible to weed out the real people. Other times, it's impossible.

JB

[robhouse]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that the depositions are probably more accurate as to the facts than the inquest transcriptions. On the other hand, they often seem to be a bit more brief.

But as far as I understand, the document Stewart posted and quoted was not Prater's deposition, but rather was just an official version of the inquest transcription. I assume I am interpreting these things right. I am using the Ultimate Sourcebook. The Ultimate gives the "police witness statements" first (these are the depositions I assume). Then it gives the text of the inquest papers from the Greater London Record Office, which I believe are the official papers of the transcript from the day of the inquest... in other words it was transcribed like all the press versions. So as I said, I don't see why we should regard it as any more accurate than the press versions.

Prater's deposition does not mention the position of her room at all, but merely says she lives in "No 20 room 27 Dorset Street'.


Rob House

[Dave O]

Hi Rob,

You make a great point that it's important to look at everything, and you are right. While we have to judge every article upon its own merit, and many are just wrong, the newspapers often preserve accounts that otherwise would not have survived and so are very valuable. I don't think anyone could argue with that, but I would like to say that the depositions would not have been paraphrased accounts, though it's true that they leave out the questions and just consolidate the answers. There is a good reason that where there is conflict in accounts, it's usually the best bet to go with the official record if one is available, as Stewart has written.

It's important to consider how a clear case of murder would effect an inquest's procedure. In all other kinds of death, coroners regarded depositions as their private papers during their own lifetimes and they did not have to let anybody at all see them if they didn't want to, in fact there was no law that said they had to take down testimony at all.

But murder cases were different. The coroner would have to produce the depositions under specific circumstances, by law, since the inquest might spawn a murder trial. They would have to at some point send them over to the relevant criminal court clerk, where they would have been entered as secondary evidence in a trial, and the coroner would have been required to attend that trial as a witness. In cases where the inquest made an accusation of murder against some specific individual, the coroner was required to allow the defendant the opportunity to purchase a copy of the depositions. There was also an 1884 Home Office circular, which I have not read but have seen cited, that requested coroners to forward a copy to them as well.

Given the relevance of murder depositions to other parties, it was important that they be very accurate, and where procedure for depositions in all other cases is neglected in legislation, Section 4(2) of The Coroners Act 1887 specifically addresses what should happen when an inquest addresses a murder:

It shall be the duty of the coroner in a case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstances of the case, or so much of such statement as is material, and any such deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner.

The 5th edition of Jervis on the Duties of Coroners (1888) has a little commentary on general procedure related to this section:

The coroner should where possible follow the precise expressions of the witnesses in the first person. The depositions are afterwards forwarded under section 5 to the proper officer of the court in which the trial is to be, and copies supplied, upon payment, to the person charged in the inquisition, if he requires them. (p. 39)

So, these are good reasons for them to have been as accurate as possible. It's true that errors due to mishearing can creep in, and of course they didn't have tape recorders (I believe Gareth makes reference to Sarah Lewis' address in "Great Powell" rather than "Great Pearl"), and they didn't have access to proper courtrooms but instead had to scrounge and beg for alternative spaces to hold inquests, whatever they could find as if they were gypsies, but I suppose they did the best they could. The goal as outlined in Jervis (a standard reference work, I believe since the 1820s, and still in publication today) would have been to write down the witness' exact words as best as could be done, those that were relevant. So if the depositions record Prater as saying "I live at No. 20 Room Millers Court up stairs I live in the room over where deceased live", this is something very close or exactly to what came out of her mouth. I can see why Stewart would place an emphasis on the official records, because the people who made them had concerns in mind that the press did not have to worry about. If I recall correctly, Macdonald's deputy Alfred Hodgkinson was a solicitor, and I think he would have been aware of the need for accuracy (I am pretty confident that he is the person who took down the MJK depositions).

I remember reading somewhere that journalists took down their notes in shorthand. Not to knock the newspapers though as they are sometimes our only record of what was said at these inquests (where the depositions are lost), and very often include valuable color that would not be found in the depositions (you have cited the M.A., and I see that they have Barnett kissing the Bible, "Oh, well, I don't know nothing about such things. I've never been on such an errand before." great stuff).

Cheers,
Dave

[robhouse]

I just thought I would post this image of Miller's Court as I am trying to diagram where the witnesses were living. If anyone has feedback let me know.


Julia Venturnay was opposite Kelly's room, and above her I believe was Mrs. Keyler, where Sarah Lewis was visiting. The last house on the left was Mary Ann Cox, in number 5, which (I believe) was the ground floor..

Elizabeth Prater was above Mary Kelly, in No 20 Millers Ct, which was either in the front or the back of the building...

And (I hate to bring this up again), but I am still unclear on whether she was in the front or back or where she was. I have seen Stewart's post noting the official statement saying she lived over the deceased's room. It was also pointed out (by Sam Flynn) that the Daily Telegraph on Nov 10 stated that Prater was "the occupant of the first floor front room".

However, I dont think it was mentioned that the Daily Telegraph report AFTER the inquest (from Nov 13) has Prater saying:

"I live at 20 Room, in Miller's-court, above the shed. Deceased occupied a room below."

The official transcription of the inquest (image posted by SPE) held at the Greater London Record Office was also transcribed on the day of the inquest. "I live at No 20 Room in Millers Court up stairs I lived in the room over where deceased lived."

In all honesty, I am not sure which version should be considered more accurate, since both versions are basically (in my understanding) summarized transcripts of what was actually said.

In my opinion, all the inquest transcripts (including the official transcript cited above, AND the versions in the various papers should be regarded as incomplete and inaccurate in various ways). As far as I understand it, the person writing the transcipt would generally paraphrase and summarize what was actually said... often leaving out details that he deemed unimportant for whatever reason.

For example the official version of the inquest does not mention at all that Prater went into McCarthy's shop after waiting for her "young man". But several versions in the newspapers note that she said she did.

The Morning Advertiser, as another example, does not mention at all that Prater lived above Mary Kelly, but just says "I live at No. 20, in Miller's-court."

In other words, I do not see that the official version is necessarily more accurate than the others. I think to get a good idea of what was actually said, you must read a number of versions, and cross-reference and analyze them carefully.

(Incidentally, in general I think the most accurate version of the inquest, appears to be in fact the Morning Advertiser Nov 13, since seems to be the most detailed.)

Rob H

[Supe]

Simon,

I would think in this sense that "public" meant "for the use of the Millers Court residents", though I'm certain non-residents often availed themselves.

Gee whiz, because of the strange (to American ears) meaning of "public schools" I always thought that a public urinal was only for use by graduate Etonians and Harrovians.

Don.

[Jay Batsford]

I believe that i have a good explanation as to how Barnett undid the lock through the window! My home in the black country is of the same period as the picture mine being built in 1868 the door is only by my understanding of living in a house of the period 6ft 4" high! the length of the bricks from the outside corner of the wall to the door frame would be no more than 1ft long take into account that the depth of the window frame is 3 inches lower sill and 2 inches upper sill means that the frame was set 5 inches into the brick work! the hight of the frame is equal to the hight of the door but the broken pane of glass is in the top right corner and about 4ft from the floor! the bricks comprising the corner of the building are doubled and each brick is from my measurements is half its length wide and depth which means that two bricks set length ways to the door would measure 12 inches wide so the door column was 1ft sq! If the lock was on the top right hand corner of the door then somebody of average hight would have had no difficulty opening the door from the inside! Plus please draw your attention to the scuff marks on the iron drain pipe which looks as if persons both past and present to the pic had had to hold onto the pipe while placing maybe there left knee onto the window ledge to lean if they weren't of a certain hight like a woman perhaps? please feel free to comment!!!!

Hi Mike,

There's a wee () difference between a "urinal provided for public use" and a "private lavatory that might be used by members of the public in an unsanctioned manner".

Quite so Sam...you know that brings up another little niggle of mine, were there public sinks, or wells with pumps with the loo's, could someone wash up in one?

All the best Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

There's a wee () difference between a "urinal provided for public use" and a "private lavatory that might be used by members of the public in an unsanctioned manner".

Hi Michael,

I would think in this sense that "public" meant "for the use of the Millers Court residents", though I'm certain non-residents often availed themselves.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

My question was because AP has been looking into Public Urinals as relates to murder sites recently...seems like this one might be included.

All the best Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

I would think in this sense that "public" meant "for the use of the Millers Court residents", though I'm certain non-residents often availed themselves.

Regards,

Simon

Hi All,

"[Millers] court contains six houses, and is about 50 feet long, 5 feet 6 inches wide at the north end, and 17 feet 10 inches wide at the south end, and is approached by a covered entrance 26 feet 4 inches long and 2 feet 10 inches wide. At the north end of the court there are three public privies, and at the south end there is a public dust-bin."

Whitechapel Board of Works Annual Report 1878.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

The part I put in bold caught my eye, this would be "public" in the sense that all court residents shared the use of them,...or would that be open to the "public"?

Best regards Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

"[Millers] court contains six houses, and is about 50 feet long, 5 feet 6 inches wide at the north end, and 17 feet 10 inches wide at the south end, and is approached by a covered entrance 26 feet 4 inches long and 2 feet 10 inches wide. At the north end of the court there are three public privies, and at the south end there is a public dust-bin."

Whitechapel Board of Works Annual Report 1878.

Regards,

Simon

[Chava]

Hi Chava

I might be wrong but I think that the passage was there all along, probably designed as a tradesman's entrance. If you look at the 1928 photos taken from Dorset Street showing the frontages of #26 and #27 you'll see that the upper floor windows are spaced differently, indicating that the two houses were not an exact mirror image of each other, with the upper floors of #27 being 3 foot wider than those of #26, that is occupying the space taken up on the ground floor by the arched passageway.

Thanks, Stephen. I couldn't make sense of that alleyway, but a tradesmen's entrance would work. If that's the case, then Kelly's door would be original. You'd expect tradesmen and delivery men to use the back door, and there it is, handy to requirements.

I think that artists rendering Simon is more of what I'd expect to see, based on the minimal descriptions of that area that are available.

And my very best to you and everyone for the Holidays....it seems like its been a long year, we could use some cheer right about now.

And now, "god rest me Merry Gentlemen"...

Adieu, pour le moment.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Simon,

If 26 Dorset Street was the same in 1888 as it was in 1929, how did McCarthy get costermonger barrows through the door into his re-purposed lounge?

Costers' barrows were quite narrow. I posted a link to one up for sale a few pages back in this thread. 'Twas only about two feet wide and 7 feet long - about the dimensions of an upright piano, but nowhere near as tall or as heavy. Given that furniture-removers move pianos in and out of terraced houses via the front door, it wouldn't have been particularly difficult to treat a barrow in a similar fashion.