Let there be light!

[Observer]

There was indeed evidence of a scream, or rather a muted cry of murder (according to Prater), but no evidence that this can be connected to the murder of Kelly.

Timing and location says otherwise.

[Observer]

The only thing that's incredible is that you have created your own premise that this was a common assault and then rubbished that premise.

I haven't said a word about any assault. I repeat that the evidence is that the cry of "oh murder" was a common occurrence in the neighbourhood at night.

Do you accept that this was the evidence?

See above

[Observer]

Well you said:

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

I thought it was strange question because I haven't said anything about common assault and I focused on the issue of the evidence relating to the "single scream" about which you have said precisely nothing despite that going directly to the issue of being selective with the evidence.

I have no idea whether the cry of "oh murder" was the result of a common assault or not. The only evidence is that it was a common sound in the neighbourhood at night. You need to confront that evidence rather than run away from it as you have done.

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?

[David Orsam]

Come now, I was working on the assumption that Maxwell was being truthful.

I can't not respond to this.

If the assumption is that Maxwell was being truthful then Kelly was alive at 8:00am and we don't need to worry ourselves about the Britannia!

[David Orsam]

Second Question for Observer

What do you make of Walter Dew's statement about Mrs Maxwell in his book?

"If Mrs. Maxwell had been a sensation-seeker-one of those women who live for the limelight-it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent."

[David Orsam]

Question for Observer

Tell me Observer, what do you make of the following in the Evening Post of 9 November 1888?

"One man has informed our representative that he was in the court at eight o’clock this morning when he saw Kelly go out for the purpose of fetching some milk. Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man. This was between ten and half-past, but the persons residing in the public house state that they have no recollection of her, and the point is rendered the more difficult through Kelly not being generally known."

[David Orsam]

Didn't one of the police recall her . Something about parading up and down the street with her friends.

That was Walter Dew. He said "Often I had seen her parading along Commercial Street, between Flower-and-Dean Street and Aldgate, or along Whitechapel Road. She was usually in the company of two or three of her kind, fairly neatly dressed and invariably wearing a clean white apron, but no hat."

[David Orsam]

Oh dear. What about the evidence surrounding Kelly's last meal? You wouldn't recognise evidence if it smacked you in the face I'm afraid.

Where do I find the evidence surrounding Kelly's last meal?

You do know what evidence is don't you?

[David Orsam]

. I don't know where you hail from, but let me tell you that here in the UK, we Brits, who like a bit of a drink will invariably frequent the same bars over a period of time, and it was no different in the Victorian age. Once again, Mary Kelly had lived in Miller's Court for ten months she was a bit of a soak. McCarthy tells us this. I'm 100 per cent certain, and it's certainly not an assumption, that Mary Kelly visited, on a regular basis, the public houses surrounding the area. She was loud in drink, McCarthy tells us this. I have no doubts, that Kelly was well known in the public houses in and around Millers Court. If you can't live with this then fair enough. Dream on.

So all you've done is ignore the point I made that Prater went to the Ten Bells that morning. Perhaps this was Kelly's regular drinking place.

And what you haven't said in your summary of where "we Brits" go is that they often go to where the beer is cheapest or where their friends hang out or any number of other reasons.

As for your comment "I'm 100 per cent certain, and it's certainly not an assumption", what utter rot. It's an assumption pure and simple.

Can we please stick to the evidence and not your assumptions as to what Kelly would or would not have done.

[David Orsam]

And this is why posters become increasingly frustrated with you David.

Are you speaking for other people now Observer?

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

[David Orsam]

The reason that no one came forward to say they had seen her drinking in any of the local bars is simple, she wasn't in any of them that morning.

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'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.

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.

[David Orsam]

A question. At what time do you suppose Mary Kelly partook of the meal of fish and potatoes?

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.

[David Orsam]

It's evidence David, pure and simple.

There was indeed evidence of a scream, or rather a muted cry of murder (according to Prater), but no evidence that this can be connected to the murder of Kelly.

[David Orsam]

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. 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". Come off it David.

The only thing that's incredible is that you have created your own premise that this was a common assault and then rubbished that premise.

I haven't said a word about any assault. I repeat that the evidence is that the cry of "oh murder" was a common occurrence in the neighbourhood at night.

Do you accept that this was the evidence?

[David Orsam]

As I asked, (and you have ignored this point) is it likely that should the scream have been the result of a common assault then no other utterances than the cry of "oh murder" should have been heard by Lewis? Especially Lewis who testified that the scream had emanated at her front door. No male voice, with the victim only uttering "oh murder". I doubt it David.

Well you said:

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

I thought it was strange question because I haven't said anything about common assault and I focused on the issue of the evidence relating to the "single scream" about which you have said precisely nothing despite that going directly to the issue of being selective with the evidence.

I have no idea whether the cry of "oh murder" was the result of a common assault or not. The only evidence is that it was a common sound in the neighbourhood at night. You need to confront that evidence rather than run away from it as you have done.