Let there be light!

[Robert St Devil]

Does anyone take into consideration that the murderer was superbly cautious and deliberate in his street attacks that he prevented 4 women from making any sound? [Save Schwartz' statement] However, his sole assault inside of an apartment, and the woman is able to scream out...

[Phil Carter]

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.

My reference was to 'fish and chips'.. a specific food item.
In that case the fish WAS fried in batter. (Not just coated in flour..by the way)..hence my quoting the first places to sell such in that area was in Shoreditch and Hoxton in 1896.
As for the stab "not as Phil Carter would have us believe"..look it up. Its s fact. The man who opened the 'fish and chips' restaurants mentioned above was born in Whitechapel in 1856. As my Grandmother and all her 9 siblings, and their parents were living in Hoxton and Shoreditch in 1896..I have been told of these places. "Fish on friday" has (in terms of fish and chips) been tradition for many a Londoner for generations...which is where, as a lad, the details of the places mentioned above came up at meal times with Gran. She remembered the places well. ( she was b.1888).
As far as the Dickens reference is concerned..it refers NOT to fish and chips..which was my point..answering David's.

Fried fish? Possible. Boiled fish? Possible. Jellied eels? Possible. Raw eels..likely..freshly caught. But Fish and chips? Highly unlikely in 1888.

Boiled potato?..possible. Baked potato? Possible. Mash? Unlikely. Raw potato..more likely. Chips? Highly unlikely.

One has to consider the level of this woman's living situation. For the most part she didn't have two brass farthings to rub together. Raw potato was a known substinence of the poor. Wood or coal wasn't needed to be bought or loaned for a fire to be made up in order to boil anything. When bed linen was done for example...there were many women in the area who tried yo earn s few pennies by taking in other people's laundry and washing them by hand. Families and neighbours clubbed together to help one another. (Monday was traditionally "washing day"). But these folk were one step above the likes of the downcast in the East End. For they had nothing. Often no husband or man to provide income of sorts. Hence 'relationships' outside marriage between the poorest of the poor. Hence..in turn..the type of man cohabitating with these women were often only part time workers and fuelled by the resources of the local public house. Hence..this was where the women would find such men. Women..and men often stood outside such establishments in the hope of being offered the chance of being taken inside for a beer etc. More often, lonely women took their stone jug to the pub to fill up and take home with them. This was still happening after WW2.

I digress. Fish and chips was my point. The specific meal...fish and chips. Which did not exist in Whitechapel in 1888. That was my point.There were street vendors selling fried fish..but more selling raw eels (fished from the Thames using a hemp sack and old chicken bones left through the night..my uncle was still doing it in the 1960's) in the early morning hours. The vast amount was sold on to jellied eel vendors.

Phil

[Observer]

Hi Phil all of the above is quite correct. The error is mine, the truth is I was enmeshed with the "conversation" going on with David Orsam, and failed to interpret your comments correctly. I was under the impression that you were hinting that Kelly had eaten battered fish when in fact you were saying the opposite. All in all I still believe that Mary Kelly partook of fried fish and baked potato during her time spent out on the thursday night before her murder. If Maxwell is correct and Kelly was feeling nauseous to the point of vomiting in the street, I very much doubt that she had eaten fish and potatoes upon waking on the morning of the 9th November.

[Observer]

Does anyone take into consideration that the murderer was superbly cautious and deliberate in his street attacks that he prevented 4 women from making any sound? [Save Schwartz' statement] However, his sole assault inside of an apartment, and the woman is able to scream out...

If it was indeed Chapman, and her killer, which Cadosch heard in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street Robert, then Annie Chapman was able to get out the word "no" before she was murdered.

[Fisherman]

If it was indeed Chapman...

Indeed - if!

Possibly the quickest case of chilling off and developing rigor in the history of the East End - if...

A pointer to how George Bagster Phillips was totally off the mark - if...

An exception to the rule that this killer struck in the dark - if ...

A sound reservation there, Observer!

[Observer]

Indeed - if!

Possibly the quickest case of chilling off and developing rigor in the history of the East End - if...

A pointer to how George Bagster Phillips was totally off the mark - if...

An exception to the rule that this killer struck in the dark - if ...

A sound reservation there, Observer!

Yes indeed Fisherman. What on Earth would we do if the word if was prohibited from use to Casebook forum participants !

[Fisherman]

Yes indeed Fisherman. What on Earth would we do if the word if was prohibited from use to Casebook forum participants !

There´s a question I cannot answer!

[Caligo Umbrator]

Does anyone take into consideration that the murderer was superbly cautious and deliberate in his street attacks that he prevented 4 women from making any sound? [Save Schwartz' statement] However, his sole assault inside of an apartment, and the woman is able to scream out...

Hi, Robert.

With regards to the victims who met their fate out on the streets of Whitechapel and the claim that they were prevented from making any sound, we can say this - that whether they did or did not cry out is something we cannot know absolutely. We can only state with reasonable certainty that almost no one whose testimony has come down to us reported hearing any such outcry.

However, there is some evidence that the killer was not as cautious in his behaviour nor so careful to swiftly silence his victims as you suggest.

In the case of Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols, there was a widely reported claim in the newspapers at the time that a Mrs. Colville (sometimes spelt as Colwell) and her daughter Charlotte, residing in Brady St. had, in the early hours of the morning sometime before sunrise, heard coming along their street a female shouting out "Murder! Murder! Police! Police! Murder!". The disturbance moved to directly outside their dwelling. A 'scuffling and bumping' against their window shutters was followed by a woman again crying out "Murder! Police!" several times. The woman continued to cry out, her voice moving in a direction towards Bucks Row. Was this Nichols, knowing the mortal danger she was in and perhaps already wounded and trying to outrun her attacker? Certainly, the timing of this event is not at all inconsistent with other factors surrounding her demise.

In the case of Annie Chapman, we have the testimony of Albert Cadosch who was out in the backyard of No. 27 Hanbury St. and stated that between 5:20 and 5:30 A.M. he heard the spoken word "No" from an undetermined direction and then "a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard [No.27] from that of 29." Whether or not this was the killer carelessly allowing the body of his victim to fall noisily against the fence, we can only speculate. But we do know that the body was discovered very shortly after the times Cadosch stated.

In the case of Elizabeth Stride, there is, as you have noted in your enquiry above, a difficulty with your entire premise. If Stride was a victim of the Ripper and if the statements made by Schwartz can be taken at face value, then the actions he ascribes to the man who assaulted Stride can be seen as an opportunistic and unplanned attack, undertaken with little regard for the potential consequences should a witness be able and willing to identify him. "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her around and threw her down onto the footway and the woman screamed three times."
Perhaps the man Schwartz saw was not the killer or perhaps the woman Schwartz saw was not Stride. A possible resolution to this is the contradictory statement from Brown, placing Stride one street away at about the same time and the belief by some researchers, many of them active on this forum, that Stride may have been the unfortunate victim of some criminally minded individual, unrelated to the Ripper. However, the time, location and actions described in Schartz's statement coincide fairly tightly with known events.

In the case of Catharine Eddowes, it appears that there are no reports of any cries or sounds of struggles emanating from the presumed area of the attack or within the timeframe that such an attack would have required. So, in this instance, it seems that the killer was indeed able to accomplish his deed without any person becoming aroused as to his presence or the nature of his activities, at least until the discovery of the body. However, it would be wrong to apply the description of 'superbly cautious' to this attack, as the killer made off with part of the apron and then rather clumsily left it lying about in the street, as a potential clue to either his hideaway or his getaway route. Given the distance between the crime scene and the area he dropped the part of the apron, he would have had no way of knowing whether or not his crime had yet been discovered and also whether or not some person looking out of a window or entering the street might have observed him placing the apron piece where it was later found. For that reason, any theory that the apron might have been placed with the intention of drawing attention to certain graffiti that was present would be best discounted.

In the case of Mary Jane Kelly, there are several reports of a cry of "Murder!" having been heard. However, unlike the previous four murders when the victim was discovered very soon after the attack, it has never been ascertained at what hour Mary met her end. This makes it much less easy to attribute witness testimony regarding sounds or cries heard that morning directly to the event of her murder, as there is no precise timeframe in which to place such reports. She may have cried "Murder!" or she may have been restrained from crying out during the attack.

I am interested as to what direction you may be going with your statement.

Yours, Caligo.

[c.d.]

Does anyone take into consideration that the murderer was superbly cautious and deliberate in his street attacks that he prevented 4 women from making any sound? [Save Schwartz' statement] However, his sole assault inside of an apartment, and the woman is able to scream out...

Hello Robert,

But was it that they did not make any sound or that no sound was heard? That we don't know.

c.d.

[David Orsam]

Drunken women might say jokingly. What rubbish. and what do you mean by "otherwise"?

Why is it "rubbish"? Would you care to elaborate?

By otherwise I mean a drunken woman saying it but not being a joke, for example overreacting to something her partner has done or just talking drunken nonsense.

[David Orsam]

Someone talking in their sleep? Really...come on now be serious.

Why is this not possible? Perhaps it was the same woman who kept doing it, which is why it was a common occurrence. And you might want to respond to Richardnunweek's #711 in which he made the suggestion, rather than only to me.

[David Orsam]

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"

But I can't see why Kelly would say the words (either in a faint voice per Prater or loudly per Lewis) "oh murder" rather than scream or call for help or something like that. It doesn't seem a natural thing for someone to do in the circumstances.

[David Orsam]

Do you really believe that every woman who was ever assaulted in and around Dorset Street shouted out "oh Murder"

I find it baffling that you ask me this question because I have said very clearly that I don't believe that women who are assaulted would normally cry out "oh murder".

The evidence in the case is that what Prater heard that night was a common occurrence. That being so, why do you think it was indicative of a murder on that night but not on any of the other nights when she said she heard such a cry?

I suggest you can only answer this question by changing Prater's evidence to be that such a single cry of "oh murder" was not a common occurrence.

[David Orsam]

nothing will change my mind.

From the brief time I have known you on this board, this admission does not surprise me.

[David Orsam]

I have provided ample material to support my view.

If by "ample material" you mean "nothing" then that statement is correct.