Let there be light!

[Observer]

Indeed - if!

Possibly the quickest case of chilling off and developing rigor in the history of the East End - if...

A pointer to how George Bagster Phillips was totally off the mark - if...

An exception to the rule that this killer struck in the dark - if ...

A sound reservation there, Observer!

Yes indeed Fisherman. What on Earth would we do if the word if was prohibited from use to Casebook forum participants !

[Fisherman]

If it was indeed Chapman...

Indeed - if!

Possibly the quickest case of chilling off and developing rigor in the history of the East End - if...

A pointer to how George Bagster Phillips was totally off the mark - if...

An exception to the rule that this killer struck in the dark - if ...

A sound reservation there, Observer!

[Observer]

Does anyone take into consideration that the murderer was superbly cautious and deliberate in his street attacks that he prevented 4 women from making any sound? [Save Schwartz' statement] However, his sole assault inside of an apartment, and the woman is able to scream out...

If it was indeed Chapman, and her killer, which Cadosch heard in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street Robert, then Annie Chapman was able to get out the word "no" before she was murdered.

[Observer]

Hi Phil all of the above is quite correct. The error is mine, the truth is I was enmeshed with the "conversation" going on with David Orsam, and failed to interpret your comments correctly. I was under the impression that you were hinting that Kelly had eaten battered fish when in fact you were saying the opposite. All in all I still believe that Mary Kelly partook of fried fish and baked potato during her time spent out on the thursday night before her murder. If Maxwell is correct and Kelly was feeling nauseous to the point of vomiting in the street, I very much doubt that she had eaten fish and potatoes upon waking on the morning of the 9th November.

[Phil Carter]

No it's not rubbish, that's your department.

Your attempts to confuse are to no avail. Look you've confused matters enough start at the beginning.

Some female cried out "oh murder "close, very close, to the front door of the house Sarah Lewis was residing in. In her opinion it did not seem to have come from the street. Prater also heard the cry, she described the cry as emanating from somewhere in the Court. My contention, and it's always been this, is that should the cry have come from any other source other than the assault perpetrated upon Mary Kelly, then Lewis, and Prater, would have heard a lot more than a single cry of "oh murder", a male voice more screaming. A single cry of "oh murder is consistent with Kelly being quickly subdued and murdered.

To suggest that Mary Kelly was in her room eating fish and potatoes between the hours of 5:30 and 7: 45 is rubbish. There was no evidence of this meal having been taken in her room not a single fish bone.

It's more than likely that Mary Kelly partook of fried fish, and a baked potato during her night out with Blotch man.

"Charles Dickens mentions the trend in Oliver Twist, when he refers to a “fried fish warehouse" (Such fish was also sold by street vendors, who would carry huge trays of the stuff slung around their necks). Back then, this fishy fare was generally served with a jacket potato or bread.

The fish was fried in oil, and was not as Phil Carter would have us believe fried in batter but was merely dusted with flour.

So there you have it this is my final say on the matter. There are a few outstanding replies which I will reply to David this exchange has gone on at a pace and I've missed a few. Apart from them as I said this is my final say on the matter.

My reference was to 'fish and chips'.. a specific food item.
In that case the fish WAS fried in batter. (Not just coated in flour..by the way)..hence my quoting the first places to sell such in that area was in Shoreditch and Hoxton in 1896.
As for the stab "not as Phil Carter would have us believe"..look it up. Its s fact. The man who opened the 'fish and chips' restaurants mentioned above was born in Whitechapel in 1856. As my Grandmother and all her 9 siblings, and their parents were living in Hoxton and Shoreditch in 1896..I have been told of these places. "Fish on friday" has (in terms of fish and chips) been tradition for many a Londoner for generations...which is where, as a lad, the details of the places mentioned above came up at meal times with Gran. She remembered the places well. ( she was b.1888).
As far as the Dickens reference is concerned..it refers NOT to fish and chips..which was my point..answering David's.

Fried fish? Possible. Boiled fish? Possible. Jellied eels? Possible. Raw eels..likely..freshly caught. But Fish and chips? Highly unlikely in 1888.

Boiled potato?..possible. Baked potato? Possible. Mash? Unlikely. Raw potato..more likely. Chips? Highly unlikely.

One has to consider the level of this woman's living situation. For the most part she didn't have two brass farthings to rub together. Raw potato was a known substinence of the poor. Wood or coal wasn't needed to be bought or loaned for a fire to be made up in order to boil anything. When bed linen was done for example...there were many women in the area who tried yo earn s few pennies by taking in other people's laundry and washing them by hand. Families and neighbours clubbed together to help one another. (Monday was traditionally "washing day"). But these folk were one step above the likes of the downcast in the East End. For they had nothing. Often no husband or man to provide income of sorts. Hence 'relationships' outside marriage between the poorest of the poor. Hence..in turn..the type of man cohabitating with these women were often only part time workers and fuelled by the resources of the local public house. Hence..this was where the women would find such men. Women..and men often stood outside such establishments in the hope of being offered the chance of being taken inside for a beer etc. More often, lonely women took their stone jug to the pub to fill up and take home with them. This was still happening after WW2.

I digress. Fish and chips was my point. The specific meal...fish and chips. Which did not exist in Whitechapel in 1888. That was my point.There were street vendors selling fried fish..but more selling raw eels (fished from the Thames using a hemp sack and old chicken bones left through the night..my uncle was still doing it in the 1960's) in the early morning hours. The vast amount was sold on to jellied eel vendors.

Phil

[Robert St Devil]

Does anyone take into consideration that the murderer was superbly cautious and deliberate in his street attacks that he prevented 4 women from making any sound? [Save Schwartz' statement] However, his sole assault inside of an apartment, and the woman is able to scream out...

[Wickerman]

I have already said that doubting a story is not dismissing it. But it is not accepting it either.

And of course my personal doubts have no bearing on whether a story is true or not but equally your personal conviction that it is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not either.

So unless you are saying we must believe everything we read in the newspapers without questioning or challenging it I don't quite know what you are saying.

David, my previous reply about people asking questions that cannot be answered was not directed at you specifically, I was making a general statement.

Anyhow, in reply to this post, my point is that there are degree's of acceptance. Whereas dismissal is quite definitive, you either do or you don't.

In my view it is quite reasonable to accept a statement without believing every detail, I have no convictions about a statement without knowing it to be true. There are some details in any press statement that could be exaggerations, or mistakes, neither of which require us to dismiss the statement out of hand.

As explained earlier in the dosser account I have reservations about what Mary may have used as a story to get the money, and that quite possibly that dosser used "doss money" instead of "rent".
Even if both my reservations turned out to be valid, that doesn't mean the dosser lied about knowing Mary, nor that the reporter made the whole thing up.

I do not 'believe' every witness statement published in the press, but neither do I dismiss it, not without learning something to the contrary.
Every statement we read should be taken with a degree of caution, likely varying degree's of caution, but some will just dismiss an account for no reason at all except that it speaks to something that contests their personal theory.

[Observer]

Seeing as David seems to have retired for the night I will do the same, it's way past my bed-time. I shall sleep the innocent sleep of the un-civilised tonight. Ignorance is bliss don't you know.

[Observer]

Do you mean her description which went: "I could not describe the man"?

Missed this one.

However

Was he a tall man ? - No; he was a little taller than me and stout.

The Coroner; What clothes had the man ? - Witness: Dark clothes; he seemed to have a plaid coat on. I could not say what sort of hat he had.

It's as good a description as Long gave regarding the man she saw with Chapman. Long's description was was put forward as being of interest.

[Observer]

Except that it is utterly untrue to say that I'm selective in my use of evidence. You haven't supported in any way your accusation that I am. A civilised person would naturally apologise for making a false and unfair claim of this nature.

As I've said I believe you are, nothing will change my mind. I have provided ample material to support my view. A civilised person wouldn't have got into an argument with the likes of you in the first place. So yes, I suppose I am uncivilised.

Anyway enough of this petty bickering. Believe what you will. I couldn't give a damn.

[Observer]

I don't really need to speculate because the evidence is that such a cry of murder WAS a common occurrence. That's why Prater didn't take any notice of it. But it seems to me to be the type of thing that drunken women would say, jokingly or otherwise. Someone in this thread has mentioned it could be something said in one's sleep, especially in the tense time of the Ripper murders.

Drunken women might say jokingly. What rubbish. and what do you mean by "otherwise"? Someone talking in their sleep? Really...come on now be serious.

As I've mentioned, an actual assault (one leading to murder or otherwise) seems to be an unlikely cause because then I would expect actual screaming and a call for help.

Or unless the individual carrying out the assault was Jack The Ripper, and as was his wont he gave Kelly very little chance to cry out, other than to cry "oh murder"

Ultimately, what you are really trying to say is that Prater's evidence is wrong and that such a single cry of "oh murder" was NOT a common occurrence because she just means screams in general. Clearly this is why you were reluctant to answer my question about it. But the thing is, that's not the evidence. Prater's evidence was that the cry of "oh murder", such as the one she heard on 9 November, was a common cry. That's the evidence and it is why the evidence does not contradict Mrs Maxwell's account of speaking to Kelly in the morning.

Do you really believe that every woman who was ever assaulted in and around Dorset Street shouted out "oh Murder". Do you really believe Prater was indicating as much? Some might well have called out "oh murder", and a lot more besides. Whereas the single cry she heard on the night of the murder of Mary Kelly was the cry of Kelly herself being quickly snuffed out by the efficient Jack The Ripper.

[David Orsam]

Don't you believe that if they believed her account then they would have issued a description of the man she said she saw talking to Kelly?

Do you mean her description which went: "I could not describe the man"?

[David Orsam]

There is no call for an apology, which is exactly why I hav'nt issued one.

Except that it is utterly untrue to say that I'm selective in my use of evidence. You haven't supported in any way your accusation that I am. A civilised person would naturally apologise for making a false and unfair claim of this nature.

[David Orsam]

Calm? Is that what you call it?

Yes, I don't know why you would think otherwise.

[David Orsam]

Ok lets hear what your explanation of the cry of "oh murder as heard by Lewis and Prater was down to. What do you suppose was happening?

I don't really need to speculate because the evidence is that such a cry of murder WAS a common occurrence. That's why Prater didn't take any notice of it. But it seems to me to be the type of thing that drunken women would say, jokingly or otherwise. Someone in this thread has mentioned it could be something said in one's sleep, especially in the tense time of the Ripper murders. As I've mentioned, an actual assault (one leading to murder or otherwise) seems to be an unlikely cause because then I would expect actual screaming and a call for help.

Ultimately, what you are really trying to say is that Prater's evidence is wrong and that such a single cry of "oh murder" was NOT a common occurrence because she just means screams in general. Clearly this is why you were reluctant to answer my question about it. But the thing is, that's not the evidence. Prater's evidence was that the cry of "oh murder", such as the one she heard on 9 November, was a common cry. That's the evidence and it is why the evidence does not contradict Mrs Maxwell's account of speaking to Kelly in the morning.