Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

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.

That is simply not a true statement. Mrs Long was able to estimate the man's age and say that he was of foreign "shabby-genteel" appearance wearing a deer-stalker hat.

The few details that Maxwell gave - not tall and wearing a dark coat - were far too vague and could have applied to virtually anyone.

It's amazing really because you have accused me of being selective with the evidence and here is a classic example of you being as selective as it's possible to be. Ironic, no?

[David Orsam]

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.

Could she not have woken up, felt very hungry, had some fish and potatoes then some drinks which made her sick and she vomited?

[David Orsam]

1. There is NO officially recorded time of death ( a lawful requirement infact)

Phil, this was discussed earlier and it was not, in fact, a lawful requirement to provide an "officially recorded time of death".

[Pierre]

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

"If"..."was not a common occurrence" demands comparison. There is no such data. Therefore there is no possibility to compare areas.

Also, the problem can not be solved from a point of view where it should be more "easy" or less difficult to understand. The understanding subjects - you, in this case, and me - may feel we understand, since we find it "easy". That may lead very wrong indeed.

The problem therefore remains.

And to remind everyone else about what the problem is, here is

the text in my original post:

"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]

"If"..."was not a common occurrence" demands comparison. There is no such data. Therefore there is no possibility to compare areas.

Also, the problem can not be solved from a point of view where it should be more "easy" or less difficult to understand. The understanding subjects - you, in this case, and me - may feel we understand, since we find it "easy". That may lead very wrong indeed.

The problem therefore remains.

And to remind everyone else about what the problem is, here is

Surely the problem is solved Pierre.

The normal response to hearing a cry of "oh murder" would be to investigate it. But this would be less likely if such a cry was a common occurrence.

In the case of the cry "oh murder" in Millers Court on 9 November, we have evidence from Prater that such a cry was a common occurrence. Therefore it is understandable that she did not investigate it.

All your pseudo-scientific gobbledigook designed to complicate the point cannot disguise this very simple answer.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;386884]

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

No, there is no historical reason to think so, since you have another independent source backing her statement about hearing the cry of murder. So that can be ruled out.

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.

You mean the police investigations and the inquest. The situation for the creation of the second source is very different. The tendency in both sources is to explain away - to minimize the significance for - why she did not take any action. For the inquest source, we have a highly formalized situation, and the tendency is stronger. In the police investigation you have: "I did not take much notice" but in the second you have "I took no notice" (my cursives).

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.

That is easy to explain. Cox was living in No 5, in the last house "top of the court" as she said at the inquest. Cox also said "it was raining hard". So that is another explanation for why she did not hear it. Prater was living above Kelly, Lewis was staying just opposite.

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

Most people lie about things in their life even on a daily basis. The tendency in the sources shows that Prater had a motive for not leaving her room and go and look for the source of "Oh, murder!". She was protecting herself.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;386969]

Surely the problem is solved Pierre.

The normal response to hearing a cry of "oh murder" would be to investigate it. But this would be less likely if such a cry was a common occurrence.

David, there are no sources telling us how common it was. We have one single source were one single person makes one single statement and that source have a tendency. Firstly, you can not generalize from one single source, it is no statistical source. Secondly, you have not performed any source criticism but you take the statement in the source at face value and believe it is true. History does not work like that. You miss the whole point of the information you can obtain by analysing the sources. You often make this mistake. Sources must be objects for source criticism. You can not just "believe the sources" without any critical thinking.

In the case of the cry "oh murder" in Millers Court on 9 November, we have evidence from Prater that such a cry was a common occurrence. Therefore it is understandable that she did not investigate it.

It is very clear that you do not understand the problem of historical sources. As I told you, you can not take a source from a murder inquest and just believe it is telling you the truth. You must perform internal and external source criticism.

All your pseudo-scientific gobbledigook designed to complicate the point cannot disguise this very simple answer.

You are very rude, David. And that is good. It shows everyone here what your true character is.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

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.

"A natural thing"?

Is that all you have, David?

I gave you some search criteria. Go and look. You will find people in the past screaming "Murder!" even when they are committing suicide! How "natural" is that? How "logical" (another of your darlings) is that?

And another thing. "Murder!" was also used as a call for help. Go to the sources.

[Joshua Rogan]

Is it possible that Prater was afraid, and also that such cries were common?

[Michael W Richards]

I cannot believe the inane things people get stuck on in these discussions. If it helps someone, you can use the following guidelines...the cry at approximately 3:45 was heard by 2 sources, and both sources kept listening for more follow up noises. None were heard. Sarah heard the cry "as is at her door", Elizabeth heard it "as if from the court". The call out did not signal an actual murder, as Elizabeth was well placed to hear further sounds after the cry and there were none. She was also used to hear Mary "move about" in her room.The cry of murder in that area during that period was used to convey impatience, aggravation, disbelief, and a thousand other emotions having nothing to do with murdering anyone. This is OBVIOUSLY one of those cases.

If Mary had opened her door, (the knock on it woke diddles), then she might have exclaimed in aggravation when she found someone standing there wanting in, and Sarah would hear it "as if at her door" and Elizabeth would hear it "as if from the court". She let him in. That suggests someone she knew well.

This site is supposed to be for people who know the cases and the evidence well.....but it obviously cannot filter out members who cant seem to figure out the simplest answer to a question.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;386961

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.

Oh, no David. That wonīt do.

"Changing Praterīs evidence". It is your "evidence" that Observer would change. Because it is your interpretation of the source that people here want to change. They do not agree with you, David. They do not think that you are right. They want to think by themselves and they do not want you to dictate the past for them.

Regards, Pierre

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hello, Pierre.

You suggest that "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."

I am certain that such a search may indeed reveal many stories involving people investigating a cry of "Oh, Murder" and then discovering a half-dead victim of robbery or assault lying in the street or in a back garden somewhere.
However, such a search would be valueless as it would be an entirely prejudiced endeavour.
Newspapers are very unlikely to report all the occasions that people investigated a cry of "Oh, Murder" only to find that the old lady next-door had simply spilt a cup of milk on the floor of her kitchen or a cat had knocked over her favourite vase.

Your, Caligo

[Pierre]

Is it possible that Prater was afraid, and also that such cries were common?

Hi Joshua.

Would Prater have been too afraid to go and see what caused a common scream of murder?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, there is no historical reason to think so, since you have another independent source backing her statement about hearing the cry of murder. So that can be ruled out.

But does Lewis really back Prater's statement?

Lewis said: "I heard a female voice shout loudly one Murder!"

Prater said: "I heard a cry of oh! Murder!...the voice was in a faint voice."

Would you say they are describing the same thing or different things?

And of course Prater said in her written statement:

"I heard screams of murder about two or three times in a female voice".

How can this be explained?

[David Orsam]

You mean the police investigations and the inquest. The situation for the creation of the second source is very different. The tendency in both sources is to explain away - to minimize the significance for - why she did not take any action. For the inquest source, we have a highly formalized situation, and the tendency is stronger. In the police investigation you have: "I did not take much notice" but in the second you have "I took no notice" (my cursives).

I don't see much difference Pierre, in practical terms, between "much notice" and "no notice". In fact, I don't see any difference at all because that's how human beings speak. I want to stress that Prater was a human being not a robot.

I do, however, see a difference between her saying "I did not take much notice of the cries" and her saying that she took no notice of "a cry".