Oh, murder!

[Elamarna]

Would slashing the throat several times disguise a fracture of the hyoid bone typically found after strangulation? (Not disputing what you say - just posing the question as I don't know the answer).

Bridewell,

it could and I say could have resulted in the Hyoid bone being severely damaged and in several pieces., Did they actually checking the Hyoid in 1888? I certainly don't ever recall it being mentioned in the cases in the Whitechapel.

Steve

[Bridewell]

Bridewell,

it could and I say could have resulted in the Hyoid bone being severely damaged and in several pieces., Did they actually checking the Hyoid in 1888? I certainly don't ever recall it being mentioned in the cases in the Whitechapel.

Steve

Nor do I, though presumably they knew of it and what the significance of its fracture might be?

[Elamarna]

Nor do I, though presumably they knew of it and what the significance of its fracture might be?

I would not assume that as when mentioning strangulation there is no reference to it, perhaps they did not use it as a sign.

steve

[David Orsam]

There is nothing in the half-hour chime to indicate which chime it was so the likelihood, it seems to me, is that both witnesses were truthful. Perhaps Mrs Prater heard the clock strike '3', then dozed off and was woken by the kitten just as the clock struck at 4.30. She might reasonably 9though incorrectly) assume that the time was 3.30.

Well if that's truly the case then I suggest it supports the notion that they heard different screams/cries at different times during the night bearing in mind that Prater said she heard a 'faint voice' while Lewis heard a loud scream (not to mention that Prater initially believed there to have been multiple cries).

[Pierre]

Well if that's truly the case then I suggest it supports the notion that they heard different screams/cries at different times during the night bearing in mind that Prater said she heard a 'faint voice' while Lewis heard a loud scream (not to mention that Prater initially believed there to have been multiple cries).

It does not support any "notion" that they heard "different cries". The reason for this is that testimony often has a variation over time even when given by the same person.

So there is no evidence for two different persons in the past screaming about murder from the perspective of the variation in the statements.

Here is the small set of statements we have from the police investigation and the inquest:

"...screams of murder about two or three times in a female voice" (Prater 1),"...she screamed out murder, I only heard it once" (Lewis 1), A cry of "oh, Murder!" in a "faint voice" (Prater 2), and "a female voice shout loudly one Murder! (Lewis 2).

As we see, and as you say yourself, the statements of Prater 1 and 2 differ.

In Prater 1 you have "screams of murder", i.e. multiple, in Prater 2 you have "oh, Murder!", i e. singular. This does not mean that Prater heard two different persons screaming, but if we follow your idea of two different scream(s) that interpretation would be more valid for Prater alone, since she made two different statements.

In Lewis 1 you have her own reflection "I only heard it once", and this means that there was not one or two or three screams in her description, but she describes exclusively what she heard herself (This does not mean that the sound of the scream(s) in reality was corresponding to her statement later given). It is a subjectice interpretation for herself as subject. In Lewis 2 you have "loudly" "one Murder". This may indicate that the "faint" cries heard by Prater did not reach Lewis and that only one cry was loud. As you see there are multiiple problems here.

So your idea is not valid, David.

Cheers, Pierre

[David Orsam]

It does not support any "notion" that they heard "different cries". The reason for this is that testimony often has a variation over time even when given by the same person.

So there is no evidence for two different persons in the past screaming about murder from the perspective of the variation in the statements.

Here is the small set of statements we have from the police investigation and the inquest:

"...screams of murder about two or three times in a female voice" (Prater 1),"...she screamed out murder, I only heard it once" (Lewis 1), A cry of "oh, Murder!" in a "faint voice" (Prater 2), and "a female voice shout loudly one Murder! (Lewis 2).

As we see, and as you say yourself, the statements of Prater 1 and 2 differ.

In Prater 1 you have "screams of murder", i.e. multiple, in Prater 2 you have "oh, Murder!", i e. singular. This does not mean that Prater heard two different persons screaming, but if we follow your idea of two different scream(s) that interpretation would be more valid for Prater alone, since she made two different statements.

In Lewis 1 you have her own reflection "I only heard it once", and this means that there was not one or two or three screams in her description, but she describes exclusively what she heard herself (This does not mean that the sound of the scream(s) in reality was corresponding to her statement later given). It is a subjectice interpretation for herself as subject. In Lewis 2 you have "loudly" "one Murder". This may indicate that the "faint" cries heard by Prater did not reach Lewis and that only one cry was loud. As you see there are multiiple problems here.

So your idea is not valid, David.

Oh my dear dear boy, you have, quite charmingly, misunderstood the premise on which my post was made. To be clear, this was that if, as Bridewell was suggesting, neither Prater or Lewis were really aware of the time they heard a sound then there is no good reason remaining to think they heard the same sound.

My dear boy you can't get away from the fact that Prater's final and very clear position in her evidence was that the sound was in a faint voice and it is very hard to reconcile that with a loud scream.

And my dear boy, you are right to highlight the inconsistencies in Prater's evidence but then it does lead to the possibility that she didn't hear a sound at all during the night but was making it all up.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear dear boy, you have, quite charmingly, misunderstood the premise on which my post was made. To be clear, this was that if, as Bridewell was suggesting, neither Prater or Lewis were really aware of the time they heard a sound then there is no good reason remaining to think they heard the same sound.

My dear boy you can't get away from the fact that Prater's final and very clear position in her evidence was that the sound was in a faint voice and it is very hard to reconcile that with a loud scream.

And my dear boy, you are right to highlight the inconsistencies in Prater's evidence but then it does lead to the possibility that she didn't hear a sound at all during the night but was making it all up.

How interesting, David. Is there any evidence that Prater "was making it all up"?

[David Orsam]

How interesting, David. Is there any evidence that Prater "was making it all up"?

Oh yes my dear boy, you see she told the police immediately after the murder that she heard "screams of murder about two or three times" but then when it came to the inquest this became a single cry of "Oh! Murder!" in a faint voice.

When someone changes their story so dramatically, my dear boy, this could properly be put before a jury as evidence that they are making the story up.

[Pierre]

Oh yes my dear boy, you see she told the police immediately after the murder that she heard "screams of murder about two or three times" but then when it came to the inquest this became a single cry of "Oh! Murder!" in a faint voice.

When someone changes their story so dramatically, my dear boy, this could properly be put before a jury as evidence that they are making the story up.

Hardly. People in Spitalfields forgot about things. They drank, didn´t sleep well, and worried about the murder in No 13. So no, since she did tell the police already on the 9th.

And using strong words does not help you. "Dramatically". Really, David!

[David Orsam]

People in Spitalfields forgot about things.

Oh my dear boy, what an interesting statement. Do you have any data to support it?

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, what an interesting statement. Do you have any data to support it?

Sure. The data referred to by yourself in your own post above:

Oh yes my dear boy, you see she told the police immediately after the murder that she heard "screams of murder about two or three times" but then when it came to the inquest this became a single cry of "Oh! Murder!" in a faint voice.

[David Orsam]

Sure. The data referred to by yourself in your own post above:

Oh my dear boy, I only cited an instance of a single person changing her story because, I suggested, she might have been making it up.

Do you have any data to support your claim that people in Spitalfields forgot about things?

[Wickerman]

Would slashing the throat several times disguise a fracture of the hyoid bone typically found after strangulation? (Not disputing what you say - just posing the question as I don't know the answer).

Thankyou Colin.
Something to consider.
I've also read that the hyoid bone is not always broken during strangulation.

I think there is a reasonable question to pose knowing that pressure points in manual strangulation differ greatly when compared to the use of a ligature.

We might ask, does the hyoid bone break with the use of a ligature, is it more likely or less likely to break the bone.
I wouldn't know.

[Wickerman]

There is nothing in the half-hour chime to indicate which chime it was.....

Colin.

In the town where I was brought up there were distinct secondary chimes associated with the quarter-hour chime. I just assumed Spitalfields Church would be the same.
In a time when the ordinary citizen could not afford a watch, it is only reasonable to expect the town clock needs to differentiate the three quarter-hour chimes so ordinary people who could not see the clock could tell which quarter-hour it was.

[Sam Flynn]

We might ask, does the hyoid bone break with the use of a ligature, is it more likely or less likely to break the bone.
I wouldn't know.

I'd have thought it less likely, in that a ligature would have to be precisely placed over the hyoid in order to effect a breakage. A ligature applied above or below the hyoid would still restrict blood-flow to the head to the extent of causing syncope or death, without necessarily breaking the hyoid. Manual pressure, being a somewhat more coarse-grained method of strangulation, would surely result in hyoid fractures more often than would a ligature.