Let there be light!

[Observer]

Here's where the delusion is....

You seem to accept (reluctantly) that Prater's evidence is that a cry of "oh murder" was a common occurrence.

Yet you also seem to think that only in the early hours of 9 November did such a cry indicate that a murder was taking place.

Every other time that such a cry was heard (if I understand you correctly) it indicated that a common assault was occurring.

But what I don't understand is why the cry on 9 November was so special and different from all the other times that such a cry was heard. That is what you need to explain.

Here we go again, twisting the argument. More confusion. No you do not understand me. I don't believe you ever have. Prater was generalising when she spoke of the cry of "oh murder" being a common occurance. Note to all women being assaulted in and around Millers Court in the year 1888, could you please cry out "oh murder" once, and once only, upon being assaulted...thank you.

Ad nauseum...if a common assault was taking place "at the door" of Sarah Lewis, then it follows that she would have heard more than a single cry of "oh murder".

Ok lets hear what your explanation of the cry of "oh murder as heard by Lewis and Prater was down to. What do you suppose was happening?

[Observer]

Well you certainly never managed to do it.

Well you've been doing a bloody good impersonation of being annoyed

[David Orsam]

Well you've been doing a bloody good impersonation of being annoyed

You mean by being calm in the face of your personal attacks?

[Observer]

There isn't any evidence, as far as I am aware, to tell us what the police believed. As far as I know, we only have the account of Walter Dew which you have selectively ignored. For that reason I fail to see what your belief is based on other than that you personally don't accept Maxwell's account.

Don't you believe that if they believed her account then they would have issued a description of the man she said she saw talking to Kelly?

[Observer]

You mean by being calm in the face of your personal attacks?

Calm? Is that what you call it?

[Observer]

I try to concentrate on the evidence and the arguments. As I said at the start of this discussion, your comments about me were unfair and uncalled for. The fact that you have not withdrawn them or apologised only reveals the truth about you, not me.

There is no call for an apology, which is exactly why I hav'nt issued one.

[David Orsam]

Ok lets hear what your explanation of the cry of "oh murder as heard by Lewis and Prater was down to. What do you suppose was happening?

I don't really need to speculate because the evidence is that such a cry of murder WAS a common occurrence. That's why Prater didn't take any notice of it. But it seems to me to be the type of thing that drunken women would say, jokingly or otherwise. Someone in this thread has mentioned it could be something said in one's sleep, especially in the tense time of the Ripper murders. As I've mentioned, an actual assault (one leading to murder or otherwise) seems to be an unlikely cause because then I would expect actual screaming and a call for help.

Ultimately, what you are really trying to say is that Prater's evidence is wrong and that such a single cry of "oh murder" was NOT a common occurrence because she just means screams in general. Clearly this is why you were reluctant to answer my question about it. But the thing is, that's not the evidence. Prater's evidence was that the cry of "oh murder", such as the one she heard on 9 November, was a common cry. That's the evidence and it is why the evidence does not contradict Mrs Maxwell's account of speaking to Kelly in the morning.

[David Orsam]

Calm? Is that what you call it?

Yes, I don't know why you would think otherwise.

[David Orsam]

There is no call for an apology, which is exactly why I hav'nt issued one.

Except that it is utterly untrue to say that I'm selective in my use of evidence. You haven't supported in any way your accusation that I am. A civilised person would naturally apologise for making a false and unfair claim of this nature.

[David Orsam]

Don't you believe that if they believed her account then they would have issued a description of the man she said she saw talking to Kelly?

Do you mean her description which went: "I could not describe the man"?

[Observer]

I don't really need to speculate because the evidence is that such a cry of murder WAS a common occurrence. That's why Prater didn't take any notice of it. But it seems to me to be the type of thing that drunken women would say, jokingly or otherwise. Someone in this thread has mentioned it could be something said in one's sleep, especially in the tense time of the Ripper murders.

Drunken women might say jokingly. What rubbish. and what do you mean by "otherwise"? Someone talking in their sleep? Really...come on now be serious.

As I've mentioned, an actual assault (one leading to murder or otherwise) seems to be an unlikely cause because then I would expect actual screaming and a call for help.

Or unless the individual carrying out the assault was Jack The Ripper, and as was his wont he gave Kelly very little chance to cry out, other than to cry "oh murder"

Ultimately, what you are really trying to say is that Prater's evidence is wrong and that such a single cry of "oh murder" was NOT a common occurrence because she just means screams in general. Clearly this is why you were reluctant to answer my question about it. But the thing is, that's not the evidence. Prater's evidence was that the cry of "oh murder", such as the one she heard on 9 November, was a common cry. That's the evidence and it is why the evidence does not contradict Mrs Maxwell's account of speaking to Kelly in the morning.

Do you really believe that every woman who was ever assaulted in and around Dorset Street shouted out "oh Murder". Do you really believe Prater was indicating as much? Some might well have called out "oh murder", and a lot more besides. Whereas the single cry she heard on the night of the murder of Mary Kelly was the cry of Kelly herself being quickly snuffed out by the efficient Jack The Ripper.

[Observer]

Except that it is utterly untrue to say that I'm selective in my use of evidence. You haven't supported in any way your accusation that I am. A civilised person would naturally apologise for making a false and unfair claim of this nature.

As I've said I believe you are, nothing will change my mind. I have provided ample material to support my view. A civilised person wouldn't have got into an argument with the likes of you in the first place. So yes, I suppose I am uncivilised.

Anyway enough of this petty bickering. Believe what you will. I couldn't give a damn.

[Observer]

Do you mean her description which went: "I could not describe the man"?

Missed this one.

However

Was he a tall man ? - No; he was a little taller than me and stout.

The Coroner; What clothes had the man ? - Witness: Dark clothes; he seemed to have a plaid coat on. I could not say what sort of hat he had.

It's as good a description as Long gave regarding the man she saw with Chapman. Long's description was was put forward as being of interest.

[Observer]

Seeing as David seems to have retired for the night I will do the same, it's way past my bed-time. I shall sleep the innocent sleep of the un-civilised tonight. Ignorance is bliss don't you know.

[Wickerman]

I have already said that doubting a story is not dismissing it. But it is not accepting it either.

And of course my personal doubts have no bearing on whether a story is true or not but equally your personal conviction that it is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not either.

So unless you are saying we must believe everything we read in the newspapers without questioning or challenging it I don't quite know what you are saying.

David, my previous reply about people asking questions that cannot be answered was not directed at you specifically, I was making a general statement.

Anyhow, in reply to this post, my point is that there are degree's of acceptance. Whereas dismissal is quite definitive, you either do or you don't.

In my view it is quite reasonable to accept a statement without believing every detail, I have no convictions about a statement without knowing it to be true. There are some details in any press statement that could be exaggerations, or mistakes, neither of which require us to dismiss the statement out of hand.

As explained earlier in the dosser account I have reservations about what Mary may have used as a story to get the money, and that quite possibly that dosser used "doss money" instead of "rent".
Even if both my reservations turned out to be valid, that doesn't mean the dosser lied about knowing Mary, nor that the reporter made the whole thing up.

I do not 'believe' every witness statement published in the press, but neither do I dismiss it, not without learning something to the contrary.
Every statement we read should be taken with a degree of caution, likely varying degree's of caution, but some will just dismiss an account for no reason at all except that it speaks to something that contests their personal theory.