Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

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

No.

Now could you please answer my question.

[Observer]

Then why did you ask me the following question:

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

Are we to believe it or not?

Again, 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, so cut the crap

[Observer]

See above is not an answer to my question, which was:

Do you accept that a cry of murder was a common occurrence in the neighbourhood at night?

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

[David Orsam]

What the hell are you talking about? Let me make this simple for you. If it was not Kelly who cried out "oh murder" then it was someone else, are you following? Understand? Lewis put that scream "at her door", Prater said somewhere in the Court. In other words very close by, a woman crying out "oh murder", "oh murder" David get that? Now then, I don't know about you but in my opinion I'd say that cry was issuing from a damsel in distress. Get it? Do you see what I'm saying?

Then why did you ask me the following question:

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

Are we to believe it or not?

[Observer]

Wow, I've heard of people contradicting themselves but this takes the biscuit.

You said to me only a few posts ago:

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

Now you tell me that absent Kelly's murder it couldn't possibly have been anything else!!!

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.

What the hell are you talking about? Let me make this simple for you. If it was not Kelly who cried out "oh murder" then it was someone else, are you following? Understand? Lewis put that scream "at her door", Prater said somewhere in the Court. In other words very close by, a woman crying out "oh murder", "oh murder" David get that? Now then, I don't know about you but in my opinion I'd say that cry was issuing from a damsel in distress. Get it? Do you see what I'm saying?

[David Orsam]

If the content of your book is anywhere near the content of your posts in this forum I have no intention of reading your book. However, was she a regular "face" in the bar in question.

Thank you for the unnecessary insult.

If you had read the book you might have learnt something which would have saved you making false assumptions about Mary Kelly's life.

Asking me if Dimmock was a regular at the bar in question is a daft question because there is no evidence that Kelly was a regular at Ringers.

However, the Eagle public house off Camden Road was one of the closest bars to where Dimmock lived but her regular haunt was the Rising Sun in the Euston Road, some considerable distance from her home in St Pauls Road. So that knocks on the head the idea that a woman who drank MUST have been a regular at the closest bar to where she lived.

Further, the police had considerable advantages in 1907 because they had a photograph of Dimmock while alive and her face was not mutilated after death. Yet, even though they knew Dimmock had an assignment to meet a man in the Eagle on the night of her death, they still could not establish she had been in there. The female barkeeper didn't recognise her photograph.

No-one else came forward to say they had seen Dimmock in there, despite her living so close to the bar. It was only after they had arrested Robert Wood that one of Wood's friends came forward to say that by pure chance he had met him and Dimmock in there and the barkeeper then recognised Wood in a line up and figured she did remember Dimmock being in there after all.

According to you, however, she MUST have been seen in the Eagle by so many people that evening because she lived locally and drank and "we Brits" blah blah blah and all that rubbish that you spouted but perhaps that only applies to Kelly for some reason and not Dimmock.

[David Orsam]

Are you speaking for other posters? I havn't regularly posted in here for some time, so I don't know where you get that from.

No I have no idea; I was asking you and, at the same time, showing you how easy it is to make such statements.

[David Orsam]

I am indeed David, Fisherman being the poster in question.

You're using Fisherman to support your claim that "other posters" are becoming frustrated with me?

Forgive me for failing to control my laughter.

[Observer]

Are you speaking for other people now Observer?

Are you quite sure other posters haven't become increasingly frustrated with you?

I am indeed David, Fisherman being the poster in question.

Are you speaking for other posters? I havn't regularly posted in here for some time, so I don't know where you get that from.

[Observer]

But that "simple" answer is based on the twin assumptions that someone drinking (or serving) in that bar would (a) have known who she was and (b) would have taken notice of her.

I have no doubts that she would have been recognised.

I've already made the point on this forum, but I don't suppose you to have read it, that in the similar case of the murder of Emily Dimmock in 1907 who went for a drink in a local pub in Camden Town (the Eagle) on the night of her murder, the police had terrible difficulty finding anyone who could confirm she was there yet she was definitely there. You can read all about it my book "The Camden Town Murder Mystery" if you like.[

If the content of your book is anywhere near the content of your posts in this forum I have no intention of reading your book. However, was she a regular "face" in the bar in question.

I've also made the point that Kelly was clearly out drinking on the Thursday night (as she was identified as being drunk by Mary Ann Cox) but where is the evidence as to where she was drinking? Answer, none was produced. Why? You tell me.

Kelly's inquest was over and done with in record time, a lack of written evidence regarding the places she drank in prior to her murder is not proof that her movements were not known.

[David Orsam]

She was found at 10 45, it takes the stomach 6 hours to clear after an average meal. Partly digested food was found in her stomach. Doctor Bond estimated that she had eaten 3 or 4 hours before her death, you say perhaps it was 2 hours, lets say 3. So in effect she could have been murdered at 7:45 a.m. Well if Maxwell is correct this can't be so as she sighted her at approx 8:30 a.m. So Maxwell testifies that she saw her at approximately 8:30 a.m. lets take three hours off this and it comes to 5:30 a.m. Kelly was eating her last meal, fish and chips in all likelihood, at 5:30 a.m in the morning. So a night of drinking heavily, singing her head off until 1 o clock in the morning, and she wakes up and has a meal of fish and chips at half past five in the morning. Yeah right. You just love "evidence" any evidence of fish and chip shops being open at 5:30 in the morning?

I love the "lets say 3" as if that is a scientific way of going about this.

But if it was 3 hours and she was murdered at 10:00am then her last meal would have been at 7:00am.

[Observer]

I don't know. Dr Bond said she had eaten about 3 or 4 hours before she was murdered but it's not a simple matter to calculate this, not least because different people have different rates of digestion. Perhaps it was 2 hours before her murder.

She was found at 10 45, it takes the stomach 6 hours to clear after an average meal. Partly digested food was found in her stomach. Doctor Bond estimated that she had eaten 3 or 4 hours before her death, you say perhaps it was 2 hours, lets say 3. So in effect she could have been murdered at 7:45 a.m. Well if Maxwell is correct this can't be so as she sighted her at approx 8:30 a.m. So Maxwell testifies that she saw her at approximately 8:30 a.m. lets take three hours off this and it comes to 5:30 a.m. Kelly was eating her last meal, fish and chips in all likelihood, at 5:30 a.m in the morning. So a night of drinking heavily, singing her head off until 1 o clock in the morning, and she wakes up and has a meal of fish and chips at half past five in the morning. Yeah right. You just love "evidence" any evidence of fish and chip shops being open at 5:30 in the morning?

[David Orsam]

Timing and location says otherwise.

As for timing we don't know when Kelly was murdered (that's the whole point!) and as for location we have the evidence of Prater that a cry of murder was common in the neighbourhood. So was Kelly regularly being murdered then?

[David Orsam]

See above

See above is not an answer to my question, which was:

Do you accept that a cry of murder was a common occurrence in the neighbourhood at night?

[David Orsam]

A strange question? If the scream did not emanate from Kelly's mouth then it's quite obvious that some other woman was in distress. Can you not see that?

Wow, I've heard of people contradicting themselves but this takes the biscuit.

You said to me only a few posts ago:

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

Now you tell me that absent Kelly's murder it couldn't possibly have been anything else!!!

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.