Oh, murder!

[Varqm]

I agree with your last statement and yes I think it was an intruder.
In terms of defensive wounds-I think it shows, if anything, that she was not already completely incapacitated when he started to cut her throat-ie. strangled to death or unconsciousness. It may point to an intruder who snuck in while she was passed out and attacked her without strangling first or it could have been someone who she invited in-Blotchy who waited till she passed out and did the same.
Don't see how defensive wounds exclusively points to an intruder.

A client before or after Blotchy is less likely because how did the killer knew that Kelly was with somebody or not,making the killing undoable because of the noise/commotion.He would have to stand/listen outside the room,"put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch" [Abberline],how did he knew Kelly was asleep,half-asleep.
Blotchy on the other knew Kelly was drunk,alone,asleep and possibly left the door unlocked in the first place and returned.

[Michael W Richards]

Apropos the clothing, it's already been noted that Kelly took in laundry and the occasional female lodger, so it's quite possible that some of the clothing did not belong to Kelly.

We also know Sam that Maria claimed that some of the garments found were her laundry, presumably laundry that she did for others to make a few coins. In that context, I think Mary's proximity to fresh water, the ability to heat that water, and to wash several garments at once in a tub, might have lured Maria there in the first place that day. It was said that they spent the afternoon in that room. We also know that she gave Mary a few coins that night.

In some ways I am more interested in the burnt clothing than the others. I find it puzzling that after sieving ashes Friday afternoon and recovering items from the ashes, Abberline and a few of his squad returned to the room to sieve again Saturday morning. I, like Abberline, think that there may have been some interesting clues in the soot.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

People in Spitalfields forgot about things.

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

[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, didnīt 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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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).

[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