Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

there is no reason to think that the statements were lies.

Yes there are reasons Pierre and I've told you what they are but you seem to want to ignore them.

But if it is the case that the statements were not lies why do you keep saying that Prater lied when she said cries of murder were a common occurrence?

Either Prater's statement was truthful or it was not. Which is it?

[Pierre]

The same thing. It seems likely that, contrary to common belief, Prater did not live in the room directly above Kelly's. From her various descriptions of the lodging house lamps and occurrences in Dorset Street it would appear that she occupied a room at the front of the property - in other words one that overlooked Dorset Street rather than Miller's Court. This would explain why she described the cry of 'Murder!' as not very loud. Sarah Lewis, on the other hand, heard the cry from a position which overlooked the court. Add to this the fact that one of Kelly's windows contained at least one broken pane (and was thereby less able to impede the transmission of sound from within the room) and it becomes obvious why the cry appeared louder to Sarah than it had to Mrs Prater.


Please see above, Pierre. I would also encourage you to read Mrs Prater's various press accounts. Should you do so you'll find that Prater could hear Kelly moving about her room when ascending the staircase, not from within her own room. Again, this makes all of the difference when attempting to reconcile the statements made by Prater and Lewis.

Hi Garry,

Yes, I have seen this discussion about the location of Praterīs room before and she might have been living directly above the shed.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

since we have two independent sources

Those two supposedly independent sources do not corroborate each other as to the volume of the scream nor as to what was actually screamed.

How do we know that Kelly and Prater did not have a discussion during the morning or early afternoon of 9 November before they spoke to the police?

[Pierre]

Yes there are reasons Pierre and I've told you what they are but you seem to want to ignore them.

But if it is the case that the statements were not lies why do you keep saying that Prater lied when she said cries of murder were a common occurrence?

Either Prater's statement was truthful or it was not. Which is it?

David, the world is not black and white. A witness does not either lie to 100 percent or tell the truth to 100 percent. So it is no use to give me a binary option there.

But what are the lies you are postulating?

[David Orsam]

Yes, I do assume that the scream came from the room of Kelly. So if you dismiss two independent sources, you do ignore the evidence.

That, Pierre, is what is known as a non sequitur.

Your assumption that the scream came from the room of Kelly is most certainly not evidence that it did.

[John G]

There is evidence that Kelly was taken completely by surprise by her murderer, which would be consistent with JtR's MO, and may well have been asleep when attacked. Dr Bond, for instance, concluded there was no evidence of a struggle and that her face may have been covered with the sheet when attacked.

In such circumstances, Kelly would clearly have been afforded no opportunity to scream "oh murder!", or anything else for that matter.

[Pierre]

Those two supposedly independent sources do not corroborate each other as to the volume of the scream nor as to what was actually screamed.

How do we know that Kelly and Prater did not have a discussion during the morning or early afternoon of 9 November before they spoke to the police?

That is easy to explain, as I have shown you. And another problem is that witnesses do not even say the exact same thing themselves from one investigation to another, but they differ. Look at the statements of anyone in the Kelly police investigation and compare them to their inquest statements.

We do not know that Prater had any discussion, since there are no sources for such a discussion. If there are, please find them.

[Pierre]

There is evidence that Kelly was taken completely by surprise by her murderer, which would be consistent with JtR's MO, and may well have been asleep when attacked. Dr Bond, for instance, concluded there was no evidence of a struggle and that her face may have been covered with the sheet when attacked.

In such circumstances, Kelly would clearly have been afforded no opportunity to scream "oh murder!", or anything else for that matter.

I agree with you, John.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

That, Pierre, is what is known as a non sequitur.

Your assumption that the scream came from the room of Kelly is most certainly not evidence that it did.

Two independent sources is enough.

[David Orsam]

It is easy. Two different locations. Two different witnesses. Two different types of perception. Two different ways of describing the experience.

People are not tape recorders, David.

People are not tape recorders, that is true Pierre, but I suggest they know the difference between a loud scream and something said in a faint voice.

And are you able to tell me why Prater's immediate reaction was that she heard two or three screams but then three days later her memory dramatically improved and it was only one cry in a faint voice. Is that because she was not a tape recorder?

Or is it because she was not telling the truth?

[Wickerman]

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

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".

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

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.

Garry Wroe was alluding to this from the Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov.:
"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room,..."

All the second floor rooms were in essence "above where Mary lived", this is the only account that specifies the actual room.

The Daily News wrote:
"Mrs. Prater, who occupies a room in 26 Dorset street, above that of the deceased..."

She did occupy "a" room above the deceased, not "thee" room above the deceased.

The Star wrote:
" She lived in No. 13 room, and mine is No. 20, which is almost over hers."

"Almost", not "directly".

Inquest Record:
"I live at No 20 room in Millers Court up stairs I lived in the room over where deceased lived."

Interpreted as meaning "directly over", whereas the press accounts are more accurate.

[David Orsam]

On 9th November Prater knew what had happened to Kelly. She knew that at the time of the police investigation on the same day. So we have NO SOURCES where Prater does NOT know what happened to Kelly.

Interesting, isnīt it?

It's not interesting at all Pierre because it doesn't respond in any way to my post which was that Prater did not know at any time in her life if Kelly was alive or not when she heard the cry of "oh murder".

[David Orsam]

It is much easier to interpret her "location detection" from the later knowledge she got about the location of the murder then to say she was not a bat.

That happens to be my exact point Pierre.

[David Orsam]

And since the material we discuss here is not space, but sources from the past, we need a good historical method.

You'd better try and find one then Pierre because the one you are using led you believe the GOGMAGOG letter predicted Kelly's murder.

[Wickerman]

Please see above, Pierre. I would also encourage you to read Mrs Prater's various press accounts. Should you do so you'll find that Prater could hear Kelly moving about her room when ascending the staircase, not from within her own room. Again, this makes all of the difference when attempting to reconcile the statements made by Prater and Lewis.

Interesting that you place so much faith in the "various press accounts", and that they contain helpful information, and that trusting in press account "makes all the difference".

So you do fully appreciate why I make the very same arguement for Sarah Lewis, and her "various press accounts" from the inquest.

I knew it was obvious, but some people are so reluctant to admit it.