Let there be light!

[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

[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]

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]

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".

[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]

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]

I have provided ample material to support my view.

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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!