Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

As you can understand, there are reasons to think that Prater did not tell the truth about why she did not take action when she heard the cry.

There are also reasons to think she didn't hear a cry at all aren't there?

1. The fact that she said she heard two or three screams in her written statement but then said it was only one muted cry in her oral evidence.

2. The fact that Mary Ann Cox never heard any cry at all despite being awake all night and said in evidence that she would have heard such a cry if there had been one.

So if you think Prater was a liar then perhaps you are right and she lied about everything.

Mind you, we've already had this exact same discussion so it's another case of Groundhog Day.

[Wickerman]

Come on Jon are you serious?

Firstly, am I even suggesting that the Echo reporter invented the dosser?

Secondly, I can give you loads more examples.

What about the reported bloodstains leading from Brady Street to Bucks Row after the Nichols murder, described as zig-zagging along the road? Should we be accepting them as definitely there because they were reported in a newspaper?

Did the scavengers who were cleaning the roads help to cart the body of Nichols off to the mortuary as reported in the East London Observer?

The Manchester Courier of 10 November reported that "The crime was first discovered by a young man named M'Carthy who went to the house yesterday with his mother to collect the rent" and who said "Mother, there's another murder" when he saw the body. Is that correct?

The Central News reported that Sir Charles Warren turned up at Millers Court at 2pm on 9 November. Is that correct?

The same agency reported that some "neighbours state they heard an altercation going on within the house in Miller's-court between the deceased and a man". Do we accept that as true?

Not everything in the newspapers is true Jon and I could give you a thousand more examples.

David, we are both familiar enough with press accounts to create such lists, of course we cannot accept everything we read. That is not what I am or have said.
Repeatedly, here on Casebook I have maintained and continue to maintain that we can only dismiss press accounts when we have information to the contrary.
As you have demonstrated above.


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

[David Orsam]

There are articles in the British Newspaper Archives about people hearing cries of murder. They did not ignore the cries but went to see what had happened.

If they were living in an area where such a cry was not a common occurrence that would be easy to understand.

[David Orsam]

Dear Observer,

Here's the contradiction in this discussion.

In #677, you said of a woman crying out "oh murder":

"Now then, I don't know about you but in my opinion I'd say that cry was issuing from a damsel in distress."

I then asked you in #678 to answer the following question (which was, of course, your own question to me):

"Are we to believe that the single scream as heard by Lewis and Prater was the result of a common assault?"

You answered in #680:

"I have only ever indicated that if it was not Kelly who produced the scream, then it was someone else in distress, someone being assaulted."

In my #682, I summed up your answer to my question, therefore, as being:

"Yes, we are to believe it."

and asked "Have I got that right?"

To which you said in #684:

"By jove he's got it."

So you were clearly saying that the single scream heard by Lewis and Prater could have been the result of a common assault.

But then in #704 you said the complete opposite:

"If the cry had come from some other assault then Sarah Lewis and Prater would have heard more, several screams, a male voice, the battering of a door should the victim require assistance."

So the contradiction is all yours.

[Pierre]

Pierre, of course Prater can only speak for herself but if she frequently heard the cry of "Murder" during the night then it was a common occurrence wasn't it?

David,

You have a problem with your hypothesis about Prater telling the truth about the cry of murder being common and therefore not taking any action.

There are articles in the British Newspaper Archives about people hearing cries of murder. They did not ignore the cries but went to see what had happened.

Search the years 1887-1888 for "oh, murder" and "cry of murder" and you will find the articles. There is a variation of examples.

As you can understand, there are reasons to think that Prater did not tell the truth about why she did not take action when she heard the cry.

I have been discussing the possibility that Prater was afraid earlier. I think there is a reason to hypothesize that she was afraid, and that the statement about that type of cry being common is not true.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Read what I said following following the above.

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?

[Observer]

Okay, you quoted me saying:

"And as I have already asked, does someone faced with a knife cry out "oh murder!" in a faint voice rather than screaming for help? It doesn't seem natural to me nor likely."

Where is the contradiction in this?

Read what I said following following the above.

[David Orsam]

Try again. I also quoted you in my body of text in post#704

Okay, you quoted me saying:

"And as I have already asked, does someone faced with a knife cry out "oh murder!" in a faint voice rather than screaming for help? It doesn't seem natural to me nor likely."

Where is the contradiction in this?

[Observer]

Try again. I also quoted you in my body of text in post#704

[David Orsam]

Because I quoted one of your posts in post#704

You quoted my post #698. In that post I said:

"Any woman out at four o'clock in the morning in that neighbourhood was in danger of being assaulted.

But I would have thought a woman being assaulted would most likely scream for help.

But hey, if you think that the cry of "oh murder" at that time in the morning was a woman being assaulted then fine, perhaps that's what it was.

Now, what's your point?"

There is no contraction in that post.

Your posts, on the other hand, as so contradictory that they are in danger of exploding the space time continuum.

[Observer]

Post #704 was by you. How could I perpetrate a contradiction in one of your posts?

Because I quoted one of your posts in post#704

[David Orsam]

Take a look at post #704. Look at the contradiction in terms perpetrated by yourself therein..

Post #704 was by you. How could I perpetrate a contradiction in one of your posts?

[David Orsam]

I can see why not. The fish and chips should have been in the road. It wasn´t.

Tell me Pierre. When a person vomits, do they expel the entire contents of their stomach?

[Observer]

Erm, but I posted in #682:

"So when you asked me:

"Are we to believe that the single scream as heard by Lewis and Prater was the result of a common assault?"

The answer is: yes we are to believe it.

Have I got that right?"

Your answer was: "By jove he's got it".

Now you are saying the complete opposite, namely that we cannot believe that the single scream as heard by Lewis and Prater was the result of a common assault.

So what is it?

Can we believe it or can't we?

Take a look at post #704. Look at the contradiction in terms perpetrated by yourself therein..

[David Orsam]

What do I see there? "Is"? Not "could have been", "was perhaps", but "is".

What is the evidence for that opinion, David?

Why are you quoting a post by Observer and asking ME for evidence for Observer's opinion?