Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

And, what is to be gained by a couple of dossers claiming to know the victim and subsequently offer examples of their meeting, if they really didn't?

If the reporter had been offering payment for information the whole place would have been lining up to tell some kind of story, but that was not the case.

The reporter said he had to pay 4d to enter the lodging house. I'm sure he wanted something in return for his money. And somehow he got it.

[Joshua Rogan]

I think Walter Dew makes mention in his memoir that the police referred to the area as FFF - fried fish and fights.

[David Orsam]

Hi, David,
This is very interesting.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on why they were laughing so much.

In turn, I'd like to hear Wickerman's thoughts.

[Wickerman]

It's more than likely that Mary Kelly partook of fried fish, and a baked potato during her night out with Blotch man.

"Charles Dickens mentions the trend in Oliver Twist, when he refers to a “fried fish warehouse" (Such fish was also sold by street vendors, who would carry huge trays of the stuff slung around their necks). Back then, this fishy fare was generally served with a jacket potato or bread.

Good point, yes I also looked through Mayhew's book on the "London Poor", yes there were fried fish stalls.
Also, something I must have missed earlier is this, a contemporary overview of Dorset St., here on Casebook....

"Now, gentlemen, I should like to explain, for the benefit of the Press, that there are twenty houses on each side of Dorset Street. ("There ought to be more," said a man in front, "considering how we want 'em.") There are five lodging-houses, two belong to Mr Crossingham - ("Good luck to him; he's a toff!") - one to Mr. Oyler, and I own two. (Half a dozen voices were heard together saying, "Wish it was twenty-two!") Now, if any one of Mr. Crossingham's lodgers has not got his money, does he chuck you out? ("No; he would let you stop a week and give you a bit of grub!" was shouted.) There are four shops - one fish-shop and three general shops and it is a remarkable coincidence that the three shops are all of that same historical name, "McCarthy."......

A fish shop in Dorset St.

[Joshua Rogan]

Not quite contemporary Jon, that is from 1901 isn't it? I'm not saying there wasn't a fish shop in 1888, but it could have sprung up in the intervening years.

[Wickerman]

In turn, I'd like to hear Wickerman's thoughts.

The way he was dressed?,..... or that he was asking stupid questions (did anyone know Mary, she was the local **** for goodness sakes) - dumbass!.....what with red hair, white apron, who couldn't know her, etc.
Or maybe they were just making fun among themselves, you know like idle drunks often do.

My serious response is simply, that I still wonder why anyone will ask a question that we cannot possibly answer.

[Observer]

As I don't believe that the cry of "oh murder" indicated an assault taking place, and never have done,

Then you're deluded.

[Observer]

As far as I can tell, you came into this thread (having, as you told me, not posted for some time) with the intention of annoying me. Or, I don't know, avenging Fisherman or something.

Avenging Fisherman? Haha I believe Fisherman can look after himself. As for annoying you it doesn't take much does it.

First thing you said was that I'm selective in my use of evidence and you've not supported this in anything you've subsequently posted.

I firmly believe the above. Ok, forget what I have posted. Do you believe the men who really mattered, the investigators at the time believed Maxwell? I don't believe thy did.

If you had wanted to discuss the subject of Maxwell's evidence, fine, but did it really need all the personal attacks?

Of course you're not guilty of personal attack are you?

If you want to "bugger off" great, go ahead, but I'm staying here thanks.

I don't believe I will.

[David Orsam]

My serious response is simply, that I still wonder why anyone will ask a question that we cannot possibly answer.

To the extent that is directed at me I can only repeat that I am not asking such a question. I think you have confused questioning a story with asking a question.

[David Orsam]

Then you're deluded.

Here's where the delusion is....

You seem to accept (reluctantly) that Prater's evidence is that a cry of "oh murder" was a common occurrence.

Yet you also seem to think that only in the early hours of 9 November did such a cry indicate that a murder was taking place.

Every other time that such a cry was heard (if I understand you correctly) it indicated that a common assault was occurring.

But what I don't understand is why the cry on 9 November was so special and different from all the other times that such a cry was heard. That is what you need to explain.

[David Orsam]

As for annoying you it doesn't take much does it.

Well you certainly never managed to do it.

[David Orsam]

I firmly believe the above. Ok, forget what I have posted. Do you believe the men who really mattered, the investigators at the time believed Maxwell? I don't believe thy did.

There isn't any evidence, as far as I am aware, to tell us what the police believed. As far as I know, we only have the account of Walter Dew which you have selectively ignored. For that reason I fail to see what your belief is based on other than that you personally don't accept Maxwell's account.

[Wickerman]

No, it's not a case of: if we can't dismiss it we accept it. We can doubt it can't we?

Doubting a story is not dismissing it.
The question then becomes, what is it you are assuming which is creating this doubt, and on what grounds are you making these assumptions?

Until or unless your assumptions are verified, which cannot be done in this case, only then will you dismiss the story.
Therefore, doubting a story is not dismissing it.

Remember, your personal doubts have no bearing on whether the story is true or not.

[David Orsam]

Of course you're not guilty of personal attack are you?

I try to concentrate on the evidence and the arguments. As I said at the start of this discussion, your comments about me were unfair and uncalled for. The fact that you have not withdrawn them or apologised only reveals the truth about you, not me.

[David Orsam]

Doubting a story is not dismissing it.
The question then becomes, what is it you are assuming which is creating this doubt, and on what grounds are you making these assumptions?

Until or unless your assumptions are verified, which cannot be done in this case, only then will you dismiss the story.
Therefore, doubting a story is not dismissing it.

Remember, your personal doubts have no bearing on whether the story is true or not.

I have already said that doubting a story is not dismissing it. But it is not accepting it either.

And of course my personal doubts have no bearing on whether a story is true or not but equally your personal conviction that it is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not either.

So unless you are saying we must believe everything we read in the newspapers without questioning or challenging it I don't quite know what you are saying.