Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

There most definitely is

So what is that evidence?

All you have come up with is the cry of murder which was not identified as being Kelly's voice and Prater told us this was a common occurrence in the area. So how can it possibly contradict Maxwell's testimony?

[Observer]

Isn't saying "let's hear no more of this common cry of murder malarkey" being selective with the evidence?

Because that cry of murder was precisely what Elizabeth Prater told us what a common occurrence in that area.

If you want to block your ears to it, like Prater and Lewis did, then that's up to you but the voice of the scream was not identified as Kelly's so that it could have been anyone, given that the evidence in the case is that such a scream was common.

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.

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.

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.

Either way, while one can argue that the scream might have been Kelly, it also might not have been so that it cannot properly be said to be evidence which contradicts the witness testimony of someone who saw Kelly alive.

It's evidence David, pure and simple.

[Observer]

I haven't "chosen to ignore" this at all Observer. In fact, I made a post on the subject addressed to Pierre on 19 May.

It was in #215 of the thread "Morris Lewis Revisited".

I said:

"Is the answer that one does not vomit up the entire contents of the stomach when vomiting, so that some partially digested food will remain in there? (otherwise a person could never vomit more than once in succession which does not seem to be the case)."

I never received any response to this question. Perhaps you can answer it?

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

[Abby Normal]

Hi David, yes, I did see your earlier question but couldn't recall anything specific at that moment.

According to press interviews with her friends Kelly was well known in the area and easily recognisable, not many women wore their hair long and loose and the colour made her stand out. Her apron always clean and white.

Insp. Drew wrote that Mary had been well-known to every resident and, sunny of nature, had been very popular.

An Echo reporter visited a local doss-house to ask if anyone knew the victim...two local dossers are quoted...

When asked, "Did anyone know her?"

- "Did anyone not know her? - a remark which hugely tickled his companions. Poor Mary Jane Kelly was a figure, it appears, in street brawls, sudden and quick in quarrel, and - for a woman - handy with her fists.

- An elderly man who wore a coat and waistcoat, but no shirt beneath, averred in pessimistic tones it was better for Mary Jane Kelly to have been done to death. "Wot was her life?" he muttered, spreading out his thin and not too clean hands to the fire. "Starvation three days a week, and then, when she got money, drink for the other three days. I knowed her. I guv her the money for her doss three weeks ago cos she hadn't none. Yes, matey, and that at two in the mornin'," he said, turning to our reporter whose intent bearing may possibly have suggested incredulity. "Mary Jane was a good soul." This testimony was freely offered. "She would spend her money lavishly when she had any, and when she hadn't any, why -"

These are the only snippets I could locate at the moment, so yes, she was well known, and people are said to have liked her.
In that sense, a local celebrity, someone remembered by many.

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

[Observer]

This is one of the weirdest questions I've been asked bearing in mind that you are saying Kelly did not obtain any drink from anywhere!

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

It's nothing more than pure assumption on your part. An assumption that she regularly frequented the Britannia and would have been known by the people drinking in there at that time of morning. It also assumes that anyone who did see her would have stepped forward to speak to the police.

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.]

"We have no idea if she had ever been into the Britannia before; perhaps she drunk in other pubs. So the people in the Britannia might never have seen her before or taken any notice of her if she had been in there. There were no photographs the police could show people to identify her."

[/I]All you have said is this:

"Wherever she went that morning would she have been recognised? Given her propensity to frequent beer houses, and the fact that she had lived in that area for 10 months, I'd say yes most definitely yes."

Prater went out for a drink that morning but didn't even go to a pub in Dorset Street. She went to the Ten Bells in Church Street.

I happen to think you are wrong to say that Kelly would "definitely" have been recognised in the Britannia and I don't see how it is possible to say this. At the very least, the evidence does not bear out such a statement.

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

One further thing. Why do you suppose the description of the man as seen by Maxwell talking to Kelly outside The Britannia was not circulated as a person of interest?

[Observer]

So what is that evidence?

All you have come up with is the cry of murder which was not identified as being Kelly's voice and Prater told us this was a common occurrence in the area. So how can it possibly contradict Maxwell's testimony?

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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."