Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

How do we know Prater and Lewis were not Jack the Ripper?

We don't know Pierre. But no-one is saying positively that they were Jack the Ripper.

You, however, are positively stating that they were independent witnesses and I would like your source for that statement please.

[Pierre]

Not sure of the purpose of this post. I repeat that the quotation I used was taken directly from Prater's sworn deposition.

The point is that we know she was "sworn" (you are trying to make us think she told the "truth"), we know it was a "deposition" (you are trying to make it sound as if it was an objective phenomenon) and we still do not know to what degree we can trust everything in the source, since it is not a tape recording.

[David Orsam]

You do not "change" "evidence". "Evidence" is sources and what you do with sources is that you interpret the sources.

If a witness says the colour of something was black and you say, "he/she must have meant white" you are changing the evidence of that witness

[Pierre]

Or imagined it?

Now you are "interpreting" the sources, David. Not "changing" them.

[David Orsam]

The press also had tape recorders. And everyone in those days was totally honest and trained in using tape recorders so they were able to obtain recordings which were 100 percent reliable.

Not sure of the purpose of this post. I repeat that the quotation I used was taken directly from Prater's sworn deposition.

[Pierre]

How do we know there wasn't collusion between Prater and Lewis?

How do we know Prater and Lewis were not Jack the Ripper?

If there are no sources, there is absence of sources. And then we can not pose such questions, since they are meaningless.

[Pierre]

Well that's another interesting thing. Lewis says she heard the cry "a little before 4". Don't ask me how she knows but that's what she says.

Prater tells us that she noticed the lodging house was out so concludes it was after 4am.

So one hears the cry before 4am the other hears it after 4am.

They are both different cries - one hears "oh" the other doesn't - one hears a loud scream or shout, the other hears a faint voice.

On the face of it, we are talking about two different events. The only way they become the same event is by changing the evidence of the witnesses.

You do not "change" "evidence". "Evidence" is sources and what you do with sources is that you interpret the sources.

[Pierre]

No, it wasn't, it was a direct quote from her sworn deposition.

The press also had tape recorders. And everyone in those days was totally honest and trained in using tape recorders so they were able to obtain recordings which were 100 percent reliable.

[David Orsam]

hearing a female cry out in distress at approximately the same time

Well that's another interesting thing. Lewis says she heard the cry "a little before 4". Don't ask me how she knows but that's what she says.

Prater tells us that she noticed the lodging house was out so concludes it was after 4am.

So one hears the cry before 4am the other hears it after 4am.

They are both different cries - one hears "oh" the other doesn't - one hears a loud scream or shout, the other hears a faint voice.

On the face of it, we are talking about two different events. The only way they become the same event is by changing the evidence of the witnesses.

[David Orsam]

And I would disagree, David. Unless there was collusion between Prater and Lewis

How do we know there wasn't collusion between Prater and Lewis?

[David Orsam]

Mrs Prater had been sleeping immediately prior to hearing the distress call, David. Sarah was attempting to get some sleep. Given their tiredness and possible alcohol consumption it may be the case that one or both women either missed part of the call for help or simply misremembered it.

Or imagined it?

[David Orsam]

Critically, she could not have seen the lamp outside the Commercial Chambers lodging house if her room had been directly above Kelly’s at the rear of the property.

Where does she say anything about a "lamp outside the Commercial Chambers lodging house"?

[David Orsam]

That’s how she was quoted in the press, David

No, it wasn't, it was a direct quote from her sworn deposition.

[John G]

But on what basis where Pratter and Lewis able to estimate the time they thought they heard the cry? This is no trivial point considering that, throughout the Ripper inquiry, some witnesses time estimates may have been way off, i.e. Edward Spooner.

[Garry Wroe]

You say it is a "common belief" but Prater said "I lived in the room over where the deceased lived."

That’s how she was quoted in the press, David, but journalists often made minor errors in their reportage. As Jon has already pointed out, at least one newspaper stated that Mrs Prater lived at the front of the property. Critically, she could not have seen the lamp outside the Commercial Chambers lodging house if her room had been directly above Kelly’s at the rear of the property.

Prater also said that the "faint voice" she heard sounded like it came from "close by" which does not make sense if it was the same sound which Lewis heard as a "loud shout".

It makes perfect sense if you refer to the scenario I have already detailed.

There is also the fact that Prater said she heard two words "Oh!" and "Murder!" whereas Prater only heard "Murder!".

Mrs Prater had been sleeping immediately prior to hearing the distress call, David. Sarah was attempting to get some sleep. Given their tiredness and possible alcohol consumption it may be the case that one or both women either missed part of the call for help or simply misremembered it.

On the face of it, therefore, I suggest that the only sensible and credible answer to my question is that Prater and Lewis were describing two separate and distinct events.

And I would disagree, David. Unless there was collusion between Prater and Lewis we have an example of two independent witnesses hearing a female cry out in distress at approximately the same time, each stating that she heard the word ‘murder.’ As far as evidence goes that’s pretty compelling to my way of thinking.