Oh, murder!

[David Orsam]

...cue Diddles...

I appreciate that you have a long held theory that the cat was disturbed and thus woke Prater but I can't see that it has much to recommend it.

What awoke Prater was the cat rubbing her face and trying to get into her bed. There is nothing to suggest it had been alarmed or disturbed. Most importantly, Prater did not make any such suggestion.

Did Prater's cat wake her every single time it heard a noise of someone tapping on a door or window in the busy court? That seems unlikely. Mary Ann Cox said she heard several men going in and out that night alone.

[David Orsam]

Both had the same approximate time.

But did they?

According to the Echo's report of the inquest, Prater said:

"A black kitten, of which I am very fond, came to my bed, and rubbed itself against my face....it tried to get into the bed, and awoke me. That must have been about half-past four, as I heard the clock chiming. I pushed the kitten away...And, just as I pushed the kitten away I heard, "Oh! Murder!" It was as if it was a nightmare. It was just "Oh! Oh! (in a faint, gasping way) - Murder!"

So Prater is very clear, she heard the cry literally immediately after she heard "the clock" (which can only be the Spitalfields clock) chime (which she thought was the chime at 4.30).

But then according to the same report of the inquest, Lewis said:

"I woke at about half-past three. I heard Spitalfields clock strike...I could not sleep. I sat awake from then until a little before four o'clock, when I heard a female voice. It was a scream."

So, even allowing for the fact that Prater might have meant 3.30 or 4.00 rather than 4.30, the two accounts are completely different because Lewis said she heard the cry before 4am, and thus BEFORE the strike of the clock at that time, whereas Prater said she heard the cry AFTER the strike of the clock.

If their evidence is accurate they cannot have heard the same cry.

[David Orsam]

"As if at my door"..was what Sarah said.

But did she say this, Michael?

Perhaps you are referring to the Daily Telegraph report of the inquest in which she is reported as saying:

"It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at our door".

That is a strange expression. I haven't found it corroborated in other newspapers. According to the East London Advertiser:

"witness thought that it came from the house opposite"

But then according to the Morning Advertiser:

"The cry was from where the shop is."

Whatever she said in court was summarised in her deposition as being:

"The sound seemed to come from the direction of deceaseds room".

Nothing in the deposition is said about the sound being at her door.

If she actually said that she thought the cry came from the shop, she must have just been saying that it came from the general direction of Kelly's room, i.e. somewhere in the direction of the Dorset Street end of the court.

In her written statement, of course, she said no more than "I heard a scream like that of a young woman, and seemed to be not far away."

[Michael W Richards]

"As if at my door"..was what Sarah said. Which indicates the cry emanated from the courtyard somewhere. Very near to her. That's almost exactly what Elizabeth said. Both had the same approximate time. Added to that something just before the cry stirred Elizabeths cat, indicating that whatever the sound was it came from somewhere close. No further noise was heard.

A scenario that has a hungover sleeping Kelly padding to her door to answer what was likely a tap or knock on the door or window...cue Diddles...and being audibly dismayed at having to do so is entirely consistent with the evidence provided by the 2 aforementioned witnesses. Simple..just like I said before David.

It is in sync with the witnesses, it would explain how the killer got into the room, it would also address the likelihood that Mary knew the person well enough to allow them access at almost 4am. Which in turn explains why no further sounds, voice or the like, were needed. Which is why the women heard nothing further, though it can be safely assumed both were listening for such sounds.

[GUT]

Oh my dear boy, I mistyped at the end there, I meant self-confessed academic historian. Do forgive me.

A claim for which we are yet to see a shred of evidence, be it in the form of a deposition or a news report.

[John G]

You're thinking about judgments here John (i.e. in civil proceedings) not reports of the proceedings.

Of course! Thanks David, an obvious mistake. I must be getting tired, but hopefully not "tired and emotional" in the George Brown sense.

[David Orsam]

I'm not sure if I'm imagining this but when I was studying law as an undergraduate, admittedly some time ago now, I seem to remember a tutor mentioning that The Times Law Reports had to be approved by the judge. Is this correct?

You're thinking about judgments here John (i.e. in civil proceedings) not reports of the proceedings.

[John G]

I'm not sure if I'm imagining this but when I was studying law as an undergraduate, admittedly some time ago now, I seem to remember a tutor mentioning that The Times Law Reports had to be approved by the judge. Is this correct?

[David Orsam]

Well, sorry. But that is a problem. We simply do not know what was left out, what was misinterpreted, what was emphasized and what was speculations. You can compare articles and find both differences and similarities but journalists and editors knew each other and competed on the same market. Ask Fisherman.

As we know from many of your previous posts, my dear boy, you don't understand the difference between newspaper articles in general and newspaper reports of court proceedings. You never have understood it, you still don't understand it and I'm guessing you never will. But the fact of the matter, whether you like it or not, is that there was no sensationalism (i.e. fabrication) in reporting of court proceedings in the newspapers, nor was it even possible for there to be any, and, indeed, newspaper reports of court proceedings had their own special status in English law which recognised this. Ask a historian.

[John G]

Well, sorry. But that is a problem. We simply do not know what was left out, what was misinterpreted, what was emphasized and what was speculations. You can compare articles and find both differences and similarities but journalists and editors knew each other and competed on the same market. Ask Fisherman.

Are you suggesting that newspapers speculated as to what was said at inquests, rather than report the proceedings verbatim? What's your evidence for this?

[Pierre]

Yes my dear boy, you have trapped me there with your razor-like intellectual skills. For the newspapers surely sold thousands more copies by falsely reporting minor details of an inquest's proceedings. And the genius of it is that no-one could possibly ever have known what they were up to.

Well, sorry. But that is a problem. We simply do not know what was left out, what was misinterpreted, what was emphasized and what was speculations. You can compare articles and find both differences and similarities but journalists and editors knew each other and competed on the same market. Ask Fisherman.

[David Orsam]

The reason for the higher position of the inquest source is not per se that it is an original.

The reason is that reporters and editors had their own interests when writing about the case. They sold newspapers so they had very clear commercial interests.

The inquest papers where not sold on a market and therefore were not connencted to any commercial interests.

Yes my dear boy, you have trapped me there with your razor-like intellectual skills. For the newspapers surely sold thousands more copies by falsely reporting minor details of an inquest's proceedings. And the genius of it is that no-one could possibly ever have known what they were up to.

[Pierre]

My dear boy I can't tell you how much I am enjoying your delightfully amusing postings.

But you just did so most of your statements seem to become contradictions.

[David Orsam]

Yes, but we were not discussing the police investigations but the inquest, and at the inquest Prater said "cry". So you transformed the word in the inquest source.

You transformed in in #187 where I discuss the "oh" with you.



Wrong. She said "cry". At the inquest.

My dear boy I can't tell you how much I am enjoying your delightfully amusing postings.

[Pierre]

But my dear dear boy, if two words are synonymous with each other what does it matter which one is used?

Well my dear fellow, in her written statement Prater referred to hearing "screams of murder" whereas at the inquest she said it was a "cry".

Yes, but we were not discussing the police investigations but the inquest, and at the inquest Prater said "cry". So you transformed the word in the inquest source.

You transformed in in #187 where I discuss the "oh" with you.

"Then at the coroner's inquest it became a single scream in a faint voice."

Wrong. She said "cry". At the inquest.