Let there be light!

[Wickerman]

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

We do posses a photo of Dorest St. which shows the huge Lodging-house lamps hanging from the walls in Dorset St. - the same lamp Prater makes reference to in her statement:

"I noticed the lodging-house light was out, so it was after 4 probably"

Such a lamp would be outside her window which overlooks Dorset St.

[David Orsam]

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

"Almost", not "directly".

Yet, according to the Star, Prater's inquest testimony was "My room is just over that of the deceased".

Her statement in her deposition that she lived in "the room over where deceased lived" is clear and means it was over Kelly's room. If the Telegraph has got it wrong then your analysis is wrong.

Are you saying that Prater was attempting to mislead the inquest?

The coroner must have thought Prater would have heard what was going on in Kelly's room otherwise his questioning of her as to whether she heard furniture being moved wouldn't have made much sense. She didn't say "no I didn't hear any furniture but the partitioning was so solid I wouldn't have heard a thing".

[David Orsam]

Two independent sources is enough.

Two sources who don't corroborate each other though.

[David Orsam]

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

Give me a source that shows that Prater and Lewis were "independent".

Give me a source that shows that Prater and Lewis had never spoken to each other.

Good luck.

[David Orsam]

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.

Give me some other examples of such a difference then.

[David Orsam]

David, the world is not black and white. A witness does not either lie to 100 percent or tell the truth to 100 percent.

I haven't said they do Pierre but I was responding to your claim that "there is no reason to think that the statements were lies". As I understand your case, it's that Prater did tell a lie in both her written statement and her oral testimony.

If she is discovered to have told a lie in one part of her evidence then, while it does not automatically mean that everything else she says is a lie, it does mean that we do have reason to think that she might be lying about other things too.

Then we add the fact that her recollection of the scream in her written statement is completely different to what she said in her oral testimony, both of which are different to what Lewis said in her evidence.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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".

[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]

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?

[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.

[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]

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.