Let there be light!

[Wickerman]

In turn, I'd like to hear Wickerman's thoughts.

The way he was dressed?,..... or that he was asking stupid questions (did anyone know Mary, she was the local **** for goodness sakes) - dumbass!.....what with red hair, white apron, who couldn't know her, etc.
Or maybe they were just making fun among themselves, you know like idle drunks often do.

My serious response is simply, that I still wonder why anyone will ask a question that we cannot possibly answer.

[Joshua Rogan]

Not quite contemporary Jon, that is from 1901 isn't it? I'm not saying there wasn't a fish shop in 1888, but it could have sprung up in the intervening years.

[Wickerman]

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.

Good point, yes I also looked through Mayhew's book on the "London Poor", yes there were fried fish stalls.
Also, something I must have missed earlier is this, a contemporary overview of Dorset St., here on Casebook....

"Now, gentlemen, I should like to explain, for the benefit of the Press, that there are twenty houses on each side of Dorset Street. ("There ought to be more," said a man in front, "considering how we want 'em.") There are five lodging-houses, two belong to Mr Crossingham - ("Good luck to him; he's a toff!") - one to Mr. Oyler, and I own two. (Half a dozen voices were heard together saying, "Wish it was twenty-two!") Now, if any one of Mr. Crossingham's lodgers has not got his money, does he chuck you out? ("No; he would let you stop a week and give you a bit of grub!" was shouted.) There are four shops - one fish-shop and three general shops and it is a remarkable coincidence that the three shops are all of that same historical name, "McCarthy."......

A fish shop in Dorset St.

[David Orsam]

Hi, David,
This is very interesting.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on why they were laughing so much.

In turn, I'd like to hear Wickerman's thoughts.

[Joshua Rogan]

I think Walter Dew makes mention in his memoir that the police referred to the area as FFF - fried fish and fights.

[David Orsam]

And, what is to be gained by a couple of dossers claiming to know the victim and subsequently offer examples of their meeting, if they really didn't?

If the reporter had been offering payment for information the whole place would have been lining up to tell some kind of story, but that was not the case.

The reporter said he had to pay 4d to enter the lodging house. I'm sure he wanted something in return for his money. And somehow he got it.

[David Orsam]

I'm not at all measuring the degree's of doubt we each may employ, my issue is the very specific question - "do we dismiss it, and if so, on what grounds"?

If we don't dismiss it, then we are accepting it, to what degree is immaterial.

No, it's not a case of: if we can't dismiss it we accept it. We can doubt it can't we?

[David Orsam]

Well, isn't that just what I've been saying - we can rule out stories about little green men, with sharp knives - I'll accept that.
If we consider the context and everything else we "read" (as opposed to 'know'), then so long as nothing speaks against it we cannot reasonably dismiss it, can we?

No, I don't think it is supporting what you are saying Jon. Little green men strikes me as an attempt to simplify the issue. The issue is not about dismissing the story but whether there is any reason to doubt it. In the case of the dossers story there IS a reason to doubt it. We can't go any further. And we can't believe everything we read in the newspapers, which is what I thought the point at issue was.

[David Orsam]

Apart from them as I said this is my final say on the matter, bugger off and go and annoy someone else.

As far as I can tell, you came into this thread (having, as you told me, not posted for some time) with the intention of annoying me. Or, I don't know, avenging Fisherman or something.

First thing you said was that I'm selective in my use of evidence and you've not supported this in anything you've subsequently posted.

If you had wanted to discuss the subject of Maxwell's evidence, fine, but did it really need all the personal attacks?

If you want to "bugger off" great, go ahead, but I'm staying here thanks.

[Wickerman]

One has to consider the credibility of the account in the overall context of everything else that is known.

Well, isn't that just what I've been saying - we can rule out stories about little green men, with sharp knives - I'll accept that.
If we consider the context and everything else we "read" (as opposed to 'know'), then so long as nothing speaks against it we cannot reasonably dismiss it, can we?

In the specific story about the dossers, I haven't "dismissed" it but there obviously IS reason to doubt it, namely that Kelly did not require doss money, as you have accepted.

I'm not at all measuring the degree's of doubt we each may employ, my issue is the very specific question - "do we dismiss it, and if so, on what grounds"?

If we don't dismiss it, then we are accepting it, to what degree is immaterial.

I am accepting it, of course there are possibilities, like exaggeration or fibbing on behalf of Kelly to create sympathy, or the dosser who mistakenly used the term "doss-money" instead of "rent money". But, either this meeting took place or it didn't, or the words recorded in the account are verbatim, or they are not. Even inquest accounts are not verbatim, so we can't set the bar too high.
And, what is to be gained by a couple of dossers claiming to know the victim and subsequently offer examples of their meeting, if they really didn't?

If the reporter had been offering payment for information the whole place would have been lining up to tell some kind of story, but that was not the case.

[David Orsam]

My contention, and it's always been this, is that should the cry have come from any other assault 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.

As I don't believe that the cry of "oh murder" indicated an assault taking place, and never have done, everything you've have said on this subject seems to have been both redundant and a complete waste of time.

All you've done is created your own premise which you have taken great delight in destroying.

[Observer]

Do you mean this bit of rubbish:

"You acknowledge that Kelly should have made more noise upon being faced with a knife, and yet you would have us believe that an assault (which was serious enough for the victim to have cried oh murder) took place "at the front door" of Sarah Lewis and the only utterance was as single cry of "oh murder"."

It's nonsense isn't it?

I mean, I've never tried to make anyone believe that an assault took place at all. On the contrary, I expressly said I don't think it was an assault.

Look at the exchange in #681:

YOU: Do you accept that a cry of "oh murder" indicates that someone is being assaulted?

ME: No.

How could I have been any clearer?

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

Jellied eels and mash?

[Wickerman]

Hello David...

My dear fellow..MJK eating fish and chips st 7am is highly unlikely. .for various reasons. .

The nearest two places selling fish and chips were in Hoxton and in Shoreditch..and those places only opened in 1896... even though the first fish and chip place in London was in 1860.
Secondly..the price . (1896) was 9d. MJK didn't have 9d so far as we know..not even Hutch could help her towards that cost.
Thirdly..fish and potato in the stomach doesn't mean fish and chips. It was far more the norm to eat raw potato too. As for the fish... there is no indication that said fish in stomach was coveted in or was mixed up with any batter. Crispy batter..being what it is..would take longer time to break down in the stomach.

That said..time wise..there is no reason why she could not have eaten at 7am..but fish and chips? Err..no. sorry.

I'm more inclined to think it was boiled fish and baked potato, something basic and cheap.

[David Orsam]

Now, let me ask, with nothing known to the contrary, by what measure do we dismiss a press account?

One has to consider the credibility of the account in the overall context of everything else that is known.

In the specific story about the dossers, I haven't "dismissed" it but there obviously IS reason to doubt it, namely that Kelly did not require doss money, as you have accepted.