Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

Read what I said following following the above.

Do you mean this bit of rubbish:

"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"."

It's nonsense isn't it?

I mean, I've never tried to make anyone believe that an assault took place at all. On the contrary, I expressly said I don't think it was an assault.

Look at the exchange in #681:

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

ME: No.

How could I have been any clearer?

[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?

David,

You have a problem with your hypothesis about Prater telling the truth about the cry of murder being common and therefore not taking any action.

There are articles in the British Newspaper Archives about people hearing cries of murder. They did not ignore the cries but went to see what had happened.

Search the years 1887-1888 for "oh, murder" and "cry of murder" and you will find the articles. There is a variation of examples.

As you can understand, there are reasons to think that Prater did not tell the truth about why she did not take action when she heard the cry.

I have been discussing the possibility that Prater was afraid earlier. I think there is a reason to hypothesize that she was afraid, and that the statement about that type of cry being common is not true.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Dear Observer,

Here's the contradiction in this discussion.

In #677, you said of a woman crying out "oh murder":

"Now then, I don't know about you but in my opinion I'd say that cry was issuing from a damsel in distress."

I then asked you in #678 to answer the following question (which was, of course, your own question to me):

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

You answered in #680:

"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."

In my #682, I summed up your answer to my question, therefore, as being:

"Yes, we are to believe it."

and asked "Have I got that right?"

To which you said in #684:

"By jove he's got it."

So you were clearly saying that the single scream heard by Lewis and Prater could have been the result of a common assault.

But then in #704 you said the complete opposite:

"If the cry had come from some other assault then Sarah Lewis and Prater would have heard more, several screams, a male voice, the battering of a door should the victim require assistance."

So the contradiction is all yours.

[David Orsam]

There are articles in the British Newspaper Archives about people hearing cries of murder. They did not ignore the cries but went to see what had happened.

If they were living in an area where such a cry was not a common occurrence that would be easy to understand.

[Wickerman]

Come on Jon are you serious?

Firstly, am I even suggesting that the Echo reporter invented the dosser?

Secondly, I can give you loads more examples.

What about the reported bloodstains leading from Brady Street to Bucks Row after the Nichols murder, described as zig-zagging along the road? Should we be accepting them as definitely there because they were reported in a newspaper?

Did the scavengers who were cleaning the roads help to cart the body of Nichols off to the mortuary as reported in the East London Observer?

The Manchester Courier of 10 November reported that "The crime was first discovered by a young man named M'Carthy who went to the house yesterday with his mother to collect the rent" and who said "Mother, there's another murder" when he saw the body. Is that correct?

The Central News reported that Sir Charles Warren turned up at Millers Court at 2pm on 9 November. Is that correct?

The same agency reported that some "neighbours state they heard an altercation going on within the house in Miller's-court between the deceased and a man". Do we accept that as true?

Not everything in the newspapers is true Jon and I could give you a thousand more examples.

David, we are both familiar enough with press accounts to create such lists, of course we cannot accept everything we read. That is not what I am or have said.
Repeatedly, here on Casebook I have maintained and continue to maintain that we can only dismiss press accounts when we have information to the contrary.
As you have demonstrated above.


Now, let me ask, with nothing known to the contrary, by what measure do we dismiss a press account?

[David Orsam]

As you can understand, there are reasons to think that Prater did not tell the truth about why she did not take action when she heard the cry.

There are also reasons to think she didn't hear a cry at all aren't there?

1. The fact that she said she heard two or three screams in her written statement but then said it was only one muted cry in her oral evidence.

2. The fact that Mary Ann Cox never heard any cry at all despite being awake all night and said in evidence that she would have heard such a cry if there had been one.

So if you think Prater was a liar then perhaps you are right and she lied about everything.

Mind you, we've already had this exact same discussion so it's another case of Groundhog Day.

[David Orsam]

Now, let me ask, with nothing known to the contrary, by what measure do we dismiss a press account?

One has to consider the credibility of the account in the overall context of everything else that is known.

In the specific story about the dossers, I haven't "dismissed" it but there obviously IS reason to doubt it, namely that Kelly did not require doss money, as you have accepted.

[Wickerman]

Hello David...

My dear fellow..MJK eating fish and chips st 7am is highly unlikely. .for various reasons. .

The nearest two places selling fish and chips were in Hoxton and in Shoreditch..and those places only opened in 1896... even though the first fish and chip place in London was in 1860.
Secondly..the price . (1896) was 9d. MJK didn't have 9d so far as we know..not even Hutch could help her towards that cost.
Thirdly..fish and potato in the stomach doesn't mean fish and chips. It was far more the norm to eat raw potato too. As for the fish... there is no indication that said fish in stomach was coveted in or was mixed up with any batter. Crispy batter..being what it is..would take longer time to break down in the stomach.

That said..time wise..there is no reason why she could not have eaten at 7am..but fish and chips? Err..no. sorry.

I'm more inclined to think it was boiled fish and baked potato, something basic and cheap.

[Joshua Rogan]

Jellied eels and mash?

[Observer]

Do you mean this bit of rubbish:

"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"."

It's nonsense isn't it?

I mean, I've never tried to make anyone believe that an assault took place at all. On the contrary, I expressly said I don't think it was an assault.

Look at the exchange in #681:

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

ME: No.

How could I have been any clearer?

No it's not rubbish, that's your department.

Your attempts to confuse are to no avail. Look you've confused matters enough start at the beginning.

Some female cried out "oh murder "close, very close, to the front door of the house Sarah Lewis was residing in. In her opinion it did not seem to have come from the street. Prater also heard the cry, she described the cry as emanating from somewhere in the Court. My contention, and it's always been this, is that should the cry have come from any other source other than the assault perpetrated upon Mary Kelly, then Lewis, and Prater, would have heard a lot more than a single cry of "oh murder", a male voice more screaming. A single cry of "oh murder is consistent with Kelly being quickly subdued and murdered.

To suggest that Mary Kelly was in her room eating fish and potatoes between the hours of 5:30 and 7: 45 is rubbish. There was no evidence of this meal having been taken in her room not a single fish bone.

It's more than likely that Mary Kelly partook of fried fish, and a baked potato during her night out with Blotch man.

"Charles Dickens mentions the trend in Oliver Twist, when he refers to a “fried fish warehouse" (Such fish was also sold by street vendors, who would carry huge trays of the stuff slung around their necks). Back then, this fishy fare was generally served with a jacket potato or bread.

The fish was fried in oil, and was not as Phil Carter would have us believe fried in batter but was merely dusted with flour.

So there you have it this is my final say on the matter. There are a few outstanding replies which I will reply to David this exchange has gone on at a pace and I've missed a few. Apart from them as I said this is my final say on the matter.

[David Orsam]

My contention, and it's always been this, is that should the cry have come from any other assault other than the assault perpetrated upon Mary Kelly then Lewis and Prater, would have heard a lot more than a single cry of "oh murder", a male voice more screaming. A single cry of "oh murder is consistent with Kelly being quickly subdued and murdered.

As I don't believe that the cry of "oh murder" indicated an assault taking place, and never have done, everything you've have said on this subject seems to have been both redundant and a complete waste of time.

All you've done is created your own premise which you have taken great delight in destroying.

[Wickerman]

One has to consider the credibility of the account in the overall context of everything else that is known.

Well, isn't that just what I've been saying - we can rule out stories about little green men, with sharp knives - I'll accept that.
If we consider the context and everything else we "read" (as opposed to 'know'), then so long as nothing speaks against it we cannot reasonably dismiss it, can we?

In the specific story about the dossers, I haven't "dismissed" it but there obviously IS reason to doubt it, namely that Kelly did not require doss money, as you have accepted.

I'm not at all measuring the degree's of doubt we each may employ, my issue is the very specific question - "do we dismiss it, and if so, on what grounds"?

If we don't dismiss it, then we are accepting it, to what degree is immaterial.

I am accepting it, of course there are possibilities, like exaggeration or fibbing on behalf of Kelly to create sympathy, or the dosser who mistakenly used the term "doss-money" instead of "rent money". But, either this meeting took place or it didn't, or the words recorded in the account are verbatim, or they are not. Even inquest accounts are not verbatim, so we can't set the bar too high.
And, what is to be gained by a couple of dossers claiming to know the victim and subsequently offer examples of their meeting, if they really didn't?

If the reporter had been offering payment for information the whole place would have been lining up to tell some kind of story, but that was not the case.

[David Orsam]

Apart from them as I said this is my final say on the matter, bugger off and go and annoy someone else.

As far as I can tell, you came into this thread (having, as you told me, not posted for some time) with the intention of annoying me. Or, I don't know, avenging Fisherman or something.

First thing you said was that I'm selective in my use of evidence and you've not supported this in anything you've subsequently posted.

If you had wanted to discuss the subject of Maxwell's evidence, fine, but did it really need all the personal attacks?

If you want to "bugger off" great, go ahead, but I'm staying here thanks.

[David Orsam]

Well, isn't that just what I've been saying - we can rule out stories about little green men, with sharp knives - I'll accept that.
If we consider the context and everything else we "read" (as opposed to 'know'), then so long as nothing speaks against it we cannot reasonably dismiss it, can we?

No, I don't think it is supporting what you are saying Jon. Little green men strikes me as an attempt to simplify the issue. The issue is not about dismissing the story but whether there is any reason to doubt it. In the case of the dossers story there IS a reason to doubt it. We can't go any further. And we can't believe everything we read in the newspapers, which is what I thought the point at issue was.

[David Orsam]

I'm not at all measuring the degree's of doubt we each may employ, my issue is the very specific question - "do we dismiss it, and if so, on what grounds"?

If we don't dismiss it, then we are accepting it, to what degree is immaterial.

No, it's not a case of: if we can't dismiss it we accept it. We can doubt it can't we?