Let there be light!

[Garry Wroe]

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?

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.

In the case of the murder on Kelly, Prater lived upstairs and therefore she was one of the neighbours living closest to Kelly.

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.

[harry]

It is doubtful a cry of murder made in Dorset Street would be heard in the court.It is doubtful a cry made in Kelly's room would have the same effect,to Cox,as a cry made in the court itself.I believe a cry of murder was heard by Prater.The question to her should have been how often had she heard the cry made,in the court in the early hours of the morning,and when had been the last occasion prior to the Kelly killing.
It is another occasion where belief seems a more productive method of achieving a starting point.

[Wickerman]

The problem, Pierre, is that Cox said that she would have heard a cry had there been one. That was her evidence. She told the coroner "I should have heard any cry of murder I heard nothing".

But isn't that speculation Dave, a witness is only supposed to state facts.

Cox does insists that she laid on the bed but did not fall asleep, and also that she had not slept all day.
Now, how feasible is that, stay awake all day and at night lay on a bed but not drift off at all through the night?

I think it is very possible that Cox did not hear a scream because she kept nodding off while laid on the bed at least periodically. She did after all live in the last house at the top end of the court, furthest away from the action.

It is possible, so here should be an element of doubt.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi Caligo,

Well, they did find people murdered. And they found people kicked or beaten half to death.

They might also have found people spilling a cup of milk on the floor. The problem with the cup-of-milk-example is that such examples wasnīt recorded, as you say.

So in the first type of case, there is:

A: Murder!
B: Murder

and in the second type of case, there is:

A: Murder!
B: Maltreatment/Assault/Battery

And in the third type of case there is:

A: Murder!
B: No report of murder.

Which type of case was it 9 November 1888 in Millerīs Court?

Regards, Pierre

Hello, Pierre.

The manner in which your question has been phrased appears to offer only three options or 'types of cases' to those interested in answering it.
That a murder took place sometime that morning is not in question.
That there was a cry of 'Murder!' does not seem to be in dispute, although whether it was one cry or more is a matter of contention.
However, it is in the matter of linking the cry 'Murder!' to the time of the murder that there is an issue. The manner in which you have set out the 'types of cases' seems to indicate that one event is necessarily followed by the other. I think it is unsafe to assume such.
Simply because a cry of 'Murder!' was heard and then later a body was discovered, does not positively indicate that the two occurrences are linked. If we hear an aircraft fly overhead and find out later that one has crashed, it need not be the same ‘plane.
On the evidence regarding the time of death, there is a lack of certainty.
The time of the cry or cries can be better discerned. The testimonies and statements indicate a half hour window, between 3:30 and 4:00 A.M. and seemingly closer to 4:00 A.M.
Based upon all the available evidence, I should be reluctant to assert that the cry of 'Oh,Murder!' was positively related to the actual murder that took place.

May I ask, are you suggesting in your narrative, that Prater was reluctant to investigate the cause behind the cry that she heard because of a general fear or are you suggesting that she was aware of a more specific threat towards herself?

Yours, Caligo.

[David Orsam]

So when she testifies at the murder inquest, she is not a tape recorder from 9 November. She is a processor, processing knowledge, trying to remember what happened and trying to protect herself. Therefore, the court does not press a button and out comes a recording.

The same goes for the testimony of Lewis. On 9 November she did not know Kelly. But on 12 November she told the court that the sound of the cry seemed to come from the direction of the deceaseds room. If she was a tape recorder, when do you think the last sentence was recorded?

I don't understand all this stuff about tape recorders.

Both women were human beings. Neither of them took any notice of the cry of murder. Prater was so untroubled by the cry that she went back to sleep then went to the pub for a few drinks then went back to sleep again. Neither of them appear to have had any intention of reporting to the police what they heard.

When they learnt that there had been a murder in 9 Millers Court, however, suddenly that cry of murder took on a new meaning for both women and indicated that perhaps they heard an actual murder in process. But there is a danger of them making a false assumption based on what they had discovered isn't there? In fact, the cry might have had nothing to do with Kelly's murder.

As for Lewis saying that the sound seemed to come from deceased's room, I've already pointed out that she was a human not a bat and did not have the power of echo location detection. How could she possibly have known where a single cry of murder came from? After she learns that someone has been murdered, then she says "oh yes I think it came from where that person was murdered". How reliable is THAT?

[David Orsam]

OK. The point is that when Prater testified, it was no longer the night of 9 November. Kelly was no longer alive. She had been murdered in the room beneath Prater.

When Prater heard "Oh, murder!" it was the night of 9 November. Prater did not know that Jack the Ripper was in the room beneath her. Prater did not know that Kelly was not alive.

As you see, the knowledge that Prater had on the night of the 9th is totally different to the knowledge she had 12 November.

Up to a point Pierre. As at 12 November, Prater still did not know whether Kelly was alive or not when she heard the cry of murder on 9 November. This issue was not resolved at the inquest and remains unresolved to this day.

[Pierre]

I don't understand your response Pierre. It doesn't seem to make any sense or have any bearing on the post of mine that you are, apparently, responding to.

My point was that Prater never identified the cry as having been uttered by Kelly. As a result, the fact that Lewis did not know Kelly is irrelevant when comparing her response to the cry with that of Prater's.

OK. The point is that when Prater testified, it was no longer the night of 9 November. Kelly was no longer alive. She had been murdered in the room beneath Prater.

When Prater heard "Oh, murder!" it was the night of 9 November. Prater did not know that Jack the Ripper was in the room beneath her. Prater did not know that Kelly was not alive.

As you see, the knowledge that Prater had on the night of the 9th is totally different to the knowledge she had 12 November.

So when she testifies at the murder inquest, she is not a tape recorder from 9 November. She is a processor, processing knowledge, trying to remember what happened and trying to protect herself. Therefore, the court does not press a button and out comes a recording.

The same goes for the testimony of Lewis. On 9 November she did not know Kelly. But on 12 November she told the court that the sound of the cry seemed to come from the direction of the deceaseds room. If she was a tape recorder, when do you think the last sentence was recorded?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

The sources, David. When are they produced?

I don't understand your response Pierre. It doesn't seem to make any sense or have any bearing on the post of mine that you are, apparently, responding to.

My point was that Prater never identified the cry as having been uttered by Kelly. As a result, the fact that Lewis did not know Kelly is irrelevant when comparing her response to the cry with that of Prater's.

[Pierre]

What does knowing Kelly have to do with anything?

Prater never identified the cry of murder as having come from Kelly.

The sources, David. When are they produced?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

She was a visitor. She did not know Kelly and therefore did not have the same option as Prater, who knew her. "I did not look out at the window. I did not know the deceased."

What does knowing Kelly have to do with anything?

Prater never identified the cry of murder as having come from Kelly.

[David Orsam]

I found a source for another case where a witness was called "coward" in court, since he did not go and see what caused the cry of murder.

Well that witness was a male, which is a different gender entirely.

No-one was going to call a woman a "coward" for being fearful after hearing a cry of murder.

[David Orsam]

Yes, it is meaningless to you, David. Therefore you can see no meaning in the sources. You can only take their contents at face value.

Well I asked you on more than one occasion to provide some examples (even a single example) of a published historian using the expression "Tendency of the sources" and you couldn't do it. So it seems to be something unique to you and thus has no real meaning.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;386986

The phrase, "The tendency in the sources", is meaningless I'm afraid.

Yes, it is meaningless to you, David. Therefore you can see no meaning in the sources. You can only take their contents at face value.

If the reason Prater took no action when she heard the cry of murder was that she was afraid, why did she simply not tell the police and the coroner that?

I found a source for another case where a witness was called "coward" in court, since he did not go and see what caused the cry of murder.

In the case of the murder on Kelly, Prater lived upstairs and therefore she was one of the neighbours living closest to Kelly.

The case was not a usual case, but it was a murder case involving the Whitechapel killer.

A lot of expectancy could be directed towards people who heard a scream of murder in a location and on a night when the Whitechapel killer committed a murder. Prater understood that herself and that is the background to why she explained away the cry of murder.

And what about Sarah Lewis. Why did she take "no notice" of it?

She was a visitor. She did not know Kelly and therefore did not have the same option as Prater, who knew her. "I did not look out at the window. I did not know the deceased."

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

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.

Prater's evidence was, in her own words, "It is nothing uncommon to hear cries of murder so I took no notice".

She also said: "I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging house where the windows look into Millers Court".

So she is clearly saying that the cry of "oh murder" that she heard on 9 November was like all the other cries she had previously heard.

But Observer is trying to say that she never heard anything like the cry of "oh murder" that she said she heard on 9 November and that all the other cries she heard were different. So Observer is changing Prater's evidence.

[David Orsam]

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.

Give me some examples please Pierre.