Oh, murder!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;413245]

My dear boy, I hardly need to tell you, of all people, that a scream is a scream.

"A scream is a scream". Haha, David! This is really too much!

So a scream of murder is a scream is it not?

But a scream is not a scream of murder.

Tell me my dear boy, of the hypothesis that screams were common at night in the east end, do you accept the hypothesis has good evidential support?

That is not the problem discussed in this thread and not the problem you wanted to give evidence for, again.

[David Orsam]

No, I did not miss it. What has general screams got to do with screams/cries of "murder"?

My dear boy, I hardly need to tell you, of all people, that a scream is a scream. So a scream of murder is a scream is it not?

Tell me my dear boy, of the hypothesis that screams were common at night in the east end, do you accept the hypothesis has good evidential support?

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, you must have missed my hypothesis set out in the first sentence of my post where I said "More supporting evidence about screams at night being common in the east end".

Then I provided the supporting evidence.

No, I did not miss it. What has general screams got to do with screams/cries of "murder"?

[David Orsam]

"Screams at night" = wrong definition for your hypothesis.

You wanted evidence for "screams (or cries) of murder".

Pierre

Oh my dear boy, you must have missed my hypothesis set out in the first sentence of my post where I said "More supporting evidence about screams at night being common in the east end".

Then I provided the supporting evidence.

[Pierre]

More supporting evidence about screams at night being common in the east end:

"Several persons living in Brady-street state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is by no means an uncommon incident in the neighbourhood…"

Pall Mall Gazette, 1 September 1888

"Screams at night" = wrong definition for your hypothesis.

You wanted evidence for "screams (or cries) of murder".

Pierre

[David Orsam]

More supporting evidence about screams at night being common in the east end:

"Several persons living in Brady-street state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is by no means an uncommon incident in the neighbourhood…"

Pall Mall Gazette, 1 September 1888

[Pierre]

My dear boy, may I be the first to congratulate you on a remarkably deft change of subject away from the question you have not answered to a question that bears little or no relation to the subject matter of this thread and is one which I have already answered for you on more than one occasion.

Thanks David. And let me be the first to congratulate you on not being a pit bull terrier.

[Joshua Rogan]

For info, here are the various versions of Prater's estimate of the time she awoke and heard the cry;

Police Statement: About 3:30 or 4am
Inquest deposition: about 3:30 to 4. I noticed the lodging house light was out, so it was after 4 probably
Daily News: between 3 and 4
East London Advertiser: about a quarter past 4 o'clock
Echo: about half-past four, as I heard the clock chiming
IPN: between half-past three and four on the morning
Irish Times: I awoke about 7 o'clock and heard a suppressed cry, "Oh, murder!"
Morning Advertiser: from 3.30 to 4.0
Penny Illustrated Paper: about half past three or a quarter to four
St James' Gazette: between half past three and four o'clock
Times: about half-past 3 or 4 o'clock

[David Orsam]

The paper is reporting Inquest transcripts, which are far less embellished than the street interview copy that you seem to prefer. The matter of the lights being out is embellishment....when she was asked the time in the Inquest she responded directly, and yes, since she gives a a range of times one of which has a second witness statement that marries exactly with her version, I tend to accept the 3:45ish.

Im sure youve noticed that press interviews are the ones that have little added details that do not appear in the courtroom in front of a jury, the Inquest transcripts are from statements made in court in front of a jury.

This is very muddled Michael.

Could you explain what you mean by "the street interview copy" which you claim that I seem to prefer?

What interview and what street are you referring to?

When you refer to an "embellishment" could you explain who you are saying adding the embellishment?

And, finally, what do you mean when you say that "press interviews are the ones that have added details that do not appear in the courtroom in front of a jury". What press interviews are you referring to in this context?

[John G]

The paper is reporting Inquest transcripts, which are far less embellished than the street interview copy that you seem to prefer. The matter of the lights being out is embellishment....when she was asked the time in the Inquest she responded directly, and yes, since she gives a a range of times one of which has a second witness statement that marries exactly with her version, I tend to accept the 3:45ish.

Im sure youve noticed that press interviews are the ones that have little added details that do not appear in the courtroom in front of a jury, the Inquest transcripts are from statements made in court in front of a jury.

I tend to look for the statements made in court by people who I would have some reason to trust and had special vantage points or insights...like in the Kelly murder, Sarah Lewis, Mary Ann Cox, and Elizabeth Prater,.. rather than Caroline Maxwell, or George Hutchinson.

"Oh murder" didnt was intend to be a cry for help, although based on the later events that night, it should have been. So....why does a sleeping hungover woman let someone into her room without making a fuss?

Did she let someone into her room? The evidence may suggest otherwise.

[Michael W Richards]

Even in the unidentified newspaper report you have posted, Prater does not say she heard the cry at 3:45am – or, at least, you could equally say she heard the cry at 3:30am, because she gives two alternative times, but you clearly choose to say 3:45 because it matches the evidence of Lewis.

Obviously, if you select the time stated by Lewis you will get a perfect match.

The problem is that the newspaper report does not mention the lodging house light whereas in the deposition it is stated that Prater revised her estimate on the basis of the lodging house light and concluded that the cry was probably after 4am because that light was off.

Unless you are saying that the writer of the deposition somehow imagined this evidence I'm not sure how the fact that you "don’t see any suggestion she heard it later than approx. 3:45" in that newspaper report gets us, or you, anywhere.

The paper is reporting Inquest transcripts, which are far less embellished than the street interview copy that you seem to prefer. The matter of the lights being out is embellishment....when she was asked the time in the Inquest she responded directly, and yes, since she gives a a range of times one of which has a second witness statement that marries exactly with her version, I tend to accept the 3:45ish.

Im sure youve noticed that press interviews are the ones that have little added details that do not appear in the courtroom in front of a jury, the Inquest transcripts are from statements made in court in front of a jury.

I tend to look for the statements made in court by people who I would have some reason to trust and had special vantage points or insights...like in the Kelly murder, Sarah Lewis, Mary Ann Cox, and Elizabeth Prater,.. rather than Caroline Maxwell, or George Hutchinson.

"Oh murder" didnt was intend to be a cry for help, although based on the later events that night, it should have been. So....why does a sleeping hungover woman let someone into her room without making a fuss?

[David Orsam]

Hi Michael,

What do you think the reason for asking that question was?

My dear boy, may I be the first to congratulate you on a remarkably deft change of subject away from the question you have not answered to a question that bears little or no relation to the subject matter of this thread and is one which I have already answered for you on more than one occasion.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Now we will see how these types of errors works according to you:

1. Poor acoustics/poor hearing/:

Example a): x hears "FBI" but the spoken word was I.
Example b): x hears "I" but the spoken expression was "FBI".

Which one is more reliable and why?

2. Poorly written / illegible notes:

Example a): x reads "FBI" but the written word was I.
Example b): x reads "I" but the spoken expression was "FBI".

Which one is more reliable and why?

3. Miscommunication between reporter and editor:

Example a): x reports "FBI" but the editor believes it is I.
Example b): x reports "I" but the editor believes it is "FBI".

Oh my dear boy what a divine list of incomprehensible questions - I don't think that any errors of hearing can be said to be reliable – but I believe you have a question pending from John G which you might want to answer in your absolutely delightful way.

[David Orsam]

The fact that a second witness heard what she describes as the same type of call out ALSO at 3:45 should cinch the matter, but....

Even in the unidentified newspaper report you have posted, Prater does not say she heard the cry at 3:45am – or, at least, you could equally say she heard the cry at 3:30am, because she gives two alternative times, but you clearly choose to say 3:45 because it matches the evidence of Lewis.

Obviously, if you select the time stated by Lewis you will get a perfect match.

The problem is that the newspaper report does not mention the lodging house light whereas in the deposition it is stated that Prater revised her estimate on the basis of the lodging house light and concluded that the cry was probably after 4am because that light was off.

Unless you are saying that the writer of the deposition somehow imagined this evidence I'm not sure how the fact that you "don’t see any suggestion she heard it later than approx. 3:45" in that newspaper report gets us, or you, anywhere.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, as usual I'm very happy to answer all your questions and on this occasion my answer to your question, which I see you have asked twice in two charmingly different ways, is this: poor acoustics, poor hearing, witnesses speaking very softly, witnesses mumbling or speaking otherwise incoherently, poorly written or illegible notes, miscommunication between reporter and editor etc.

Hi David,

Now we will see how these types of errors works according to you:

1. Poor acoustics/poor hearing/:

Example a): x hears "FBI" but the spoken word was I.
Example b): x hears "I" but the spoken expression was "FBI".

Which one is more reliable and why?

2. Poorly written / illegible notes:

Example a): x reads "FBI" but the written word was I.
Example b): x reads "I" but the spoken expression was "FBI".

Which one is more reliable and why?

3. Miscommunication between reporter and editor:

Example a): x reports "FBI" but the editor believes it is I.
Example b): x reports "I" but the editor believes it is "FBI".

Cheers, Pierre