Let there be light!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Columbo;385923]

Didn't Prater say "such cries were not un-common"? That doesn't necessarily mean it had to be cries of "murder" does it?

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.

Which is very interesting to me is that after several murders of prostitutes, and the police patrols, civilian patrols etc, and the fact everyone was emotionally charged about the murders, no one went to investigate this cry of "murder".

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

[David Orsam]

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

You do realise that something which happens frequently and is "nothing uncommon" is a common occurrence don't you Pierre?

[David Orsam]

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

But that was the EXACT point I was making!

No-one else said anything about the issue so you cannot say "it was not a common occurrence according to a lot of people" which were your exact words.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;385922]

The problem, Pierre, with your idiosyncratic approach of looking for "tendencies" - for which you have never provided an example of any actual historian doing such a thing - is that you never factor in the possibility of the witness telling the truth.

Not idiosyncratic, that is just a word for specific things done by people. Idiographic means explaining and understanding the past - writing about it - from a point of view where you do not use structural regularities. David, it is remarkable that you know nothing about source criticism. It is known world wide at the universities. And it is not my job to fill that gap. So stop accusing me of not having provided you with material. I gave you lists of literature and obviously you did not bother to look into it.

If Prater frequently heard a cry of murder from the back of the lodging house then there was no "tendency" in her evidence was there? She was simply telling the truth.

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.

So how do you know Prater was not telling the truth?

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.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;385921]

That is an inaccurate summary of the evidence Pierre.

Yes it was a common occurrence according to Prater but you cannot say it was not a common occurrence "according to a lot of people" because no-one else has expressed a view.

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

In short, the only evidence we have is the evidence of Prater who said it was a common occurrence based on her own experience.

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

[David Orsam]

I just cannot see Dr. Bond (and Phillips?), provide a conclusion as to ToD based on the last known time she ate unless that information was obtained somehow.

Well exactly the same thing happened in the 1907 murder of Emily Dimmock (as set out in my book 'The Camden Town Murder Mystery'). The doctor in that case had 'made inquiries' as a result of which he understood that Emily usually took her dinner between 11pm and midnight and went on to draw conclusions about time of death as a result. This case went to trial so that we definitely know there was no evidence as to what time Dimmock ate her meal on the night she was murdered. It was no more than a guess in other words and I have no doubt that this is essentially what happened in 1888.

[Wickerman]

I would just add from my last post that there is no way the police could have known when MJK had her "last meal" unless they knew what time she was murdered. Even if there was evidence that she ate dinner at 10pm (which there wasn't) the police could only have known this was her last meal if they knew she never ate any food in the morning (because she was dead).

We do know that enquiries were made to establish whether Cox's story could be corroborated. That if Cox was telling the truth someone should have seen Kelly with a red-headed, rough-looking character in a pub or elsewhere, up to midnight or thereabouts.
No such confirmation was found.

The police would certainly conduct investigations at all the local late-night eatery's, as a result of the finding of abdominal contents, to see if anyone remembers serving Kelly, with or without a male companion.
Whether they were successful in that pursuit or not, the press were certainly not informed, so we do not know.

I just cannot see Dr. Bond (and Phillips?), provide a conclusion as to ToD based on the last known time she ate unless that information was obtained somehow.

Incidentally, I'm not at all suggesting the ToD given by Bond was correct - that is a separate issue entirely. In fact I think it was wrong, but right or wrong is not my issue here. I am only debating how Dr. bond arrived at that conclusion.

[Henry Flower]

The two Prater-sources (police investigation, inquest) can only be used for writing idiographic history. Not nomothetic history. The Prater-sources give the impressions of one single individual. Not the impressions of 50 people or more.

Congratulations on the jargon, you must be so smart! Did anyone suggest that Prater was doing anything other than giving her own impressions? No. The question you are being asked, and I'll say this slowly since you seem to be having trouble grasping this, is: do you have any evidence that she was not being honest? A "tendency" is one explanation for her testimony, another is that she was telling the truth. What do you have, beyond an unsupported suspicion, that the former is true?

I apply the right method to the sources in this matter, since it is the only one possible by historical and sociological standards.

Bollocks. Assuming without evidence that people are lying in their sworn testimony simply because it suits your hypothesis to do so is never the "only possible" method by historical standards. Stop pretending to be a scientist/sociologist/historian.

You are not a bird. Does this mean that you are not able to study birds and draw conclusion about birds? And how about studying dinosaurs?

No, it means that when studying birds and dinosaurs I don't assume without evidence that someone who lived in Spitalfields in 1888 must have been lying about what was not uncommon in Spitalfields in 1888. D'uh!

No one says that Prater was a liar. There is no evidence for that. If there is any tendency in the source, it might be that she was afraid. What do I base this on? That she was barricading the door with two tables.

Barricading her door? In Spitalfields? At the height of a vicious murder spree targeting women? No ****! That proves that females were living in fear. It absolutely doesn't provide evidence that she lied on oath.

f it is an historical fact that she was afraid when she heard "Oh, murder!" and did not want to go down the stairs to see if there was anything to be afraid of, she did not tell the court this. Why?

Because it's an unsupported assumption you're making.

Did she think she could have saved Kelly? All this, marked in blue, are pure speculations. But they are more reliable than the statement that such a cry was common and we know it was because Prater said it.

Oh of course, pure speculation and invention are far more reliable than her sworn testimony. Pierre, simply asserting it doesn't make it true. For this to be a "tendency" we have to assume she would have a reason to lie, we have to assume that some social opprobrium would attach to a female who did not risk her life by going out at 4am in Spitalfields to see if Jack the Ripper might be murdering someone downstairs. It just doesn't add up on any level.

No, that is not the habit. The habit is to question everything I think and everything everybody else is thinking.

Strange then that is seems almost impossible for you to concede even the possibility that you are wrong, that the simplest explanation for Prater's testimony might be that she was telling the truth. No, instead you absurdly demand the corroborating statistical testimony of fifty others. Do you have any sworn testimony contradicting her claim? Any at all?

You're exhibiting a tendency Pierre.

Regards, Pierre[/QUOTE]

[David Orsam]

Didn't Prater say "such cries were not un-common"? That doesn't necessarily mean it had to be cries of "murder" does it?

I think the answer has to be yes. That's what "such cries" means.

[Henry Flower]

The problem, Pierre, with your idiosyncratic approach of looking for "tendencies" - for which you have never provided an example of any actual historian doing such a thing - is that you never factor in the possibility of the witness telling the truth.

If Prater frequently heard a cry of murder from the back of the lodging house then there was no "tendency" in her evidence was there? She was simply telling the truth.

So how do you know Prater was not telling the truth?

Precisely. Pierre's reasoning (let's be generous) is entirely circular. There are two possibilities:

1: Prater heard a cry of murder but took little notice because such cries were not uncommon in one of the meanest, most chaotic, violent, alcoholic, deprived streets in London

Or

2: Prater heard a cry of murder, did nothing about it, and invented a story about it being a frequent occurrence in order to justify her failure to do anything. In other words, a tendency.

Pierre has no source, no evidence suggesting that 2 is more likely than 1. Pierre offers no evidence whatsoever to back up his preference. And that's all this is, Pierre, your preference, whatever technical historical jargon you introduce in an effort to give yourself an entirely unearned authority.

[Columbo]

The problem, Pierre, with your idiosyncratic approach of looking for "tendencies" - for which you have never provided an example of any actual historian doing such a thing - is that you never factor in the possibility of the witness telling the truth.

If Prater frequently heard a cry of murder from the back of the lodging house then there was no "tendency" in her evidence was there? She was simply telling the truth.

So how do you know Prater was not telling the truth?

Didn't Prater say "such cries were not un-common"? That doesn't necessarily mean it had to be cries of "murder" does it?

Which is very interesting to me is that after several murders of prostitutes, and the police patrols, civilian patrols etc, and the fact everyone was emotionally charged about the murders, no one went to investigate this cry of "murder".

Columbo

[David Orsam]

The problem, Pierre, with your idiosyncratic approach of looking for "tendencies" - for which you have never provided an example of any actual historian doing such a thing - is that you never factor in the possibility of the witness telling the truth.

If Prater frequently heard a cry of murder from the back of the lodging house then there was no "tendency" in her evidence was there? She was simply telling the truth.

So how do you know Prater was not telling the truth?

[David Orsam]

it was not a common occurrence according to a lot of people but a common occurrence only according to Prater.

That is an inaccurate summary of the evidence Pierre.

Yes it was a common occurrence according to Prater but you cannot say it was not a common occurrence "according to a lot of people" because no-one else has expressed a view.

In short, the only evidence we have is the evidence of Prater who said it was a common occurrence based on her own experience.

[David Orsam]

I see this as a mistake on his part, it left the police with an untenable window of opportunity for the murder to have taken place, anywhere from midnight to 9:00 in the morning.

Yes that is true. And that should have been the range for time of death: sometime between midnight and 9 (or 10)am.

I would just add from my last post that there is no way the police could have known when MJK had her "last meal" unless they knew what time she was murdered. Even if there was evidence that she ate dinner at 10pm (which there wasn't) the police could only have known this was her last meal if they knew she never ate any food in the morning (because she was dead). A circular argument in other words. Thus, whatever way you want to look at it, and not forgetting that different people have different rates of digestion, Bond could not properly have formed an estimate of time of death from the stomach contents.

[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?

Hi David,

Thank you for a relevant and very good question! The discussion about the cry might just have concealed more important questions.

Yes, Prater could "only speak for herself". So it was not a common occurrence according to a lot of people but a common occurrence only according to Prater. Or was it? Letīs not get sloppy with the sources, so what did Prater say? In the police investigation she said:

"I did not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging-house where the windows look inte Millers Court."

Problems with the source ("problems" = discussable issues):

1. She wanted to explain (since this is what she did) why she did not take much notice. Why would she have wanted to do that?

2. She used the expression "frequently". What did Prater mean by that? We can not draw any conclusions from our own experiences. What is the validity of the concept "frequently" in this old source?

3. 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?

4. She also gave a wider, a more detailed, explanation for her not taking much notice, giving a statement about a specific location: "...as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Millers Court".

So what did Prater say at the inquest? Did she stick to her evidence? Did she use other expressions? How do we know which expressions are the "most accurate", if any?

At the inquest Prater stated that:

"...the voice was in a faint voice - the noise seemed to come from close by - It is nothing uncommon to hear cries of murder so I took no notice...".

Problems:

1. "Nothing uncommon" is different expression compared to "frequently". Uncommon can be the opposite to common but if you use binary concepts you loose the possibility of the scale: Since it was nothing uncommon, does this mean that it was common? Is it just an expression with low validity? What is the motive for giving that statement?

2. "I took no notice". In the investigation she said she did not take much notice. So going from not taking much notice - the opposite being a little notice or no notice? - to taking no notice. Is it a contradiction? Or is it just an expression with low validity? What is the motive for giving that statement?

So the conclusion is that

1. Prater told Abberline and the court about her experience.
2. She wanted to explain why she did not take much notice and then why she took no notice.
3. She first stated that her experience was frequent, then she said it was not uncommon.
4. She specifically pointed out an area as the location for the frequency of the scream "Oh, murder!" and that location was in and around a small area where Kelly lived. Why did she do that? Was Kelly "frequently" screaming "Oh, murder!"?

Or is there a reason to think that the sources have a tendency connected to Praterīs statements about the scream?

Is Prater trying to "normalize" the scream she heard?

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

Regards, Pierre