Let there be light!

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, would it be too cheeky to propose that the police dismissed those other claims of hearing a cry of "murder" because the purported witnesses claimed to have been shaken and terrified by what they heard, whereas the police knew that such cries were commonplace in the neighbourhood, and so any local who really heard such a thing - and was testifying honestly - would say that they had taken no notice of a not uncommon phenomenon?

Purely hypothetical, and reliant on circular reasoning, like so much else on this thread

Well, it would certainly be cheeky, I think we may agree on that.

But too cheeky? Nah.

[Henry Flower]

Fisherman, would it be too cheeky to propose that the police dismissed those other claims of hearing a cry of "murder" because the purported witnesses claimed to have been shaken and terrified by what they heard, whereas the police knew that such cries were commonplace in the neighbourhood, and so any local who really heard such a thing - and was testifying honestly - would say that they had taken no notice of a not uncommon phenomenon?

Purely hypothetical, and reliant on circular reasoning, like so much else on this thread

[Fisherman]

David, the fact that Sarah Lewis also heard a shout of "murder" and, in her own words, "took no notice of it" - does that suggest to you that such shouts were a highly alarming and rare occurrence at night in Spitalfields, or that they were, shall we say, not uncommon? Maybe even... frequent?

She doesn't state that she was alarmed, that it curdled her blood and she froze with fear; she states that she "took no notice of it". At the height of a local murder spree, she took no notice of it.

So that's two people who hear the shout (disregarding for a moment the witness who says she would've heard it if it happened, but did not). Two people: Prater states on the record that such cries were not uncommon, and Lewis describes a response that does not contradict, and in fact obliquely corroborates Prater's assertion: she took no notice of it.

Pierre wants fifty contemporary local opinions before he'll accept Prater's honesty, but of the two people who heard the scream both responded to it in a dismissive, nonchalant manner. It's not fifty people, but it's 100% of those who heard the shout.

In this context, it may be added that Prater and Lewis were not the only ones who spoke of somebody crying out "Murder!". There is an article somewhere - although I am not certain where - stating that there were a handful (or even more) Millers Court witnesses who spoke of such an outcry, but as I remember it, the police decided that many of these witnesses came forward out of a wish for some little limelight.
It lends a different light to the affair as a whole, and I have never been able to fully understand how the police were able to conclude that Prater and Lewis spoke the truth, whereas the others did not. If it was just a fanciful tall tale on account of either witness of the Millers Court dwellers, then it could have spread like a forest fire before the police were able to take down the testimonies, the way I understand things.
Cynical, maybe, but there you are.

[MsWeatherwax]

There is something that has been mentioned and that's the food Mary Kelly ate. Anyone have thoughts on that? After some quick googling it appears an average of 6-8 hours is required for basic digestion and it takes a minium of 30+ hours to become waste.

Columbo

Hi Columbo.

As someone else has said, emptying times vary wildly between people, so her stomach contents could be completely irrelevant.

There is evidence that a poor or restricted diet can also result in gastroparesis (delayed emptying of the stomach contents). Although Mary was apparently quite stocky, it's doubtful that someone reduced to prostitution, living on the 'worst street in London' (and with a possible alcohol problem) had a particularly brilliant diet. Different types of foods also have an effect on how fast the stomach empties - foods high in fiber will speed it up, while fatty foods will slow it down. It's not possible to know how the fish and potatoes Mary ate were cooked - if it was in the form of fried fish and chips (which were extremely popular at the time, I believe), this could have a significant effect on her digestion time, particularly if it was cooked in lard which essentially pure fat.

There are really far to many variables for stomach contents to be really useful in my opinion.

I know this has been touched upon before in this thread, but even today you will frequently find that time of death can only be ascertained to be within the last 24-48 hours, and occasionally an even larger window.

I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that it's a subject that is only really starting to be properly studied - there are multiple 'Body Farms' in the US now, and there was talk of one in Lincolnshire in the UK but that fell apart.

I have no doubt that the doctors involved in Mary's case were working to the best of their knowledge at the time, but the truth is it was (and still is) a judgement call. It's definitely not an exact science.

Alas, in my opinion, Mary's exact time of death is yet another un-solvable mystery.

[Henry Flower]

David, the fact that Sarah Lewis also heard a shout of "murder" and, in her own words, "took no notice of it" - does that suggest to you that such shouts were a highly alarming and rare occurrence at night in Spitalfields, or that they were, shall we say, not uncommon? Maybe even... frequent?

She doesn't state that she was alarmed, that it curdled her blood and she froze with fear; she states that she "took no notice of it". At the height of a local murder spree, she took no notice of it.

So that's two people who hear the shout (disregarding for a moment the witness who says she would've heard it if it happened, but did not). Two people: Prater states on the record that such cries were not uncommon, and Lewis describes a response that does not contradict, and in fact obliquely corroborates Prater's assertion: she took no notice of it.

Pierre wants fifty contemporary local opinions before he'll accept Prater's honesty, but of the two people who heard the scream both responded to it in a dismissive, nonchalant manner. It's not fifty people, but it's 100% of those who heard the shout.

[David Orsam]

I was more curious, since Prater didn't say she went outside to see if anyone was getting killed, if anyone else heard the same cry and went looking for it? I haven't seen any reports on that. If there is can someone point me to them?

Sarah Lewis, staying at 2 Millers Court, also heard a female voice shouting 'Murder' (although she said she heard a 'loud' shout whereas Prater only heard a "faint voice"). But she said she took no notice of it. No-one else heard it, so no-one investigated it. Mary Ann Cox at 5 Millers Court, who did not go to sleep all night, said she "should have heard" such a cry, had there been one, but she heard "nothing".

[David Orsam]

Hi Columbo,

It is a good observation. However, in the inquest source she says "cries of murder", so that is the specific concept she is talking about in at least that source.

It wasn't really a good observation then was it Pierre?

[Wickerman]

There is something that has been mentioned and that's the food Mary Kelly ate. Anyone have thoughts on that? After some quick googling it appears an average of 6-8 hours is required for basic digestion and it takes a minium of 30+ hours to become waste.

Columbo

General digestion times are of little use, Kelly's abdomen contained the remains of fish and potatoes, so just look up boiled fish and baked potato, which is most likely what those late night eateries served to the poor.
Digestion periods differ in everybody, so times given can only be only estimates.

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Pierre;385974]

Hi Columbo,

It is a good observation. However, in the inquest source she says "cries of murder", so that is the specific concept she is talking about in at least that source.



Well, they did. The police investigation source and the inquest source are both focusing on that statement made by Prater. So they were clearly interested in her statements about the cry of murder.

Regards, Pierre

I was more curious, since Prater didn't say she went outside to see if anyone was getting killed, if anyone else heard the same cry and went looking for it? I haven't seen any reports on that. If there is can someone point me to them?

Columbo

[Columbo]

Pierre,

Yet again you are reduced to asserting that someone who has successfully countered one of your hypotheses simply cannot follow your historically educated reasoning or methodology.

That being the case, why don't you shove your assertions of superiority up where the sun don't shine, and go post somewhere else, where the real historians will be able to follow you?

There is no evidence Prater told anything other than the truth. There is no evidence you have any historical bona fides. You don't write like a historian. You don't write like an adult. You write, frankly, like an undergraduate student with a chip on his shoulder.

I agree there's no reason for her to lie. I still wonder if anyone investigated the source when it happened though.

Columbo

[Columbo]

There is something that has been mentioned and that's the food Mary Kelly ate. Anyone have thoughts on that? After some quick googling it appears an average of 6-8 hours is required for basic digestion and it takes a minium of 30+ hours to become waste.

Columbo

[Henry Flower]

Pierre,

Yet again you are reduced to asserting that someone who has successfully countered one of your hypotheses simply cannot follow your historically educated reasoning or methodology.

That being the case, why don't you shove your assertions of superiority up where the sun don't shine, and go post somewhere else, where the real historians will be able to follow you?

There is no evidence Prater told anything other than the truth. There is no evidence you have any historical bona fides. You don't write like a historian. You don't write like an adult. You write, frankly, like an undergraduate student with a chip on his shoulder.

[David Orsam]

This is not an academic approach but the approach of a child believing what he reads. What are the sources at hand, David? They are sources for murder investigation and an inquest. But I understand that you simply - it is a simple fact - have no historical education and therefore can not follow me.

Pierre, I am very willing to learn and want to develop a "historical education" and I don't wish to be rude but you are, of course, just a name ("Pierre") on a screen and could be a schoolboy, or schoolgirl, posting unrelenting garbage.

So in order to assist me to develop my historical education, could you kindly direct me to some published historians who have written about murder investigations and who, in doing so, have discussed the "tendency" of sources in the way you have done so on this forum?

Given that you tell us your approach is the proper historical method I assume you must be able to provide me with loads of examples. Because I am sure you are not conducting a radical and groundbreaking approach to history on this forum which has never been done before by any published historian.

I look forward to your reply with a list of examples of murder investigating historians I can read to educate myself.

[David Orsam]

Why do you ask that question - since I have never stated that I "know" that. Did you not see the question I wrote?

Here it is again, David:

Is there a reason to think that the experience described by Prater is not true?

It would be better for the discussion if you could please try and read what other people say instead of putting words in their mouths. It would also help your own understanding a lot.

Firstly Pierre, you haven't even quoted yourself accurately. What you said in the same post about Prater was this:

"Was she telling the truth? Or do we see a tendency in the source, given that a murder occurred in Millerīs Court on the same night?"

So, by your own phrasing of the question, there are two possibilities: either she was telling the truth or.... she was not telling the truth. You are saying that there was a "tendency" in her evidence which must mean that she was not telling the truth.

So Pierre I did read what you said. You said that Prater was not telling the truth at the inquest about cries of murder at night being a common occurrence. I asked how you know she was not telling the truth. Instead of an answer you just posted drivel.

[Henry Flower]

You donīt get the point, David. The point is that no one else said anything about the issue.

So? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What you're inadvertantly admitting is that the only evidence we have on the issue is that the cry was not uncommon. You're admitting that there is no evidence or testimony contradicting Prater.

Prater did not express that phrase. She said "frequently" and "nothing uncommon".

Wow. Reduced to that. Just, wow.