Let there be light!

[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.

[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]

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]

Two independent sources is enough.

Two sources who don't corroborate each other though.

[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".

[Wickerman]

Yes, I have seen this discussion about the location of Prater´s 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.

[Garry Wroe]

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

That’s how she was quoted in the press, David, but journalists often made minor errors in their reportage. As Jon has already pointed out, at least one newspaper stated that Mrs Prater lived at the front of the property. Critically, she could not have seen the lamp outside the Commercial Chambers lodging house if her room had been directly above Kelly’s at the rear of the property.

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".

It makes perfect sense if you refer to the scenario I have already detailed.

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

Mrs Prater had been sleeping immediately prior to hearing the distress call, David. Sarah was attempting to get some sleep. Given their tiredness and possible alcohol consumption it may be the case that one or both women either missed part of the call for help or simply misremembered it.

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.

And I would disagree, David. Unless there was collusion between Prater and Lewis we have an example of two independent witnesses hearing a female cry out in distress at approximately the same time, each stating that she heard the word ‘murder.’ As far as evidence goes that’s pretty compelling to my way of thinking.

[John G]

But on what basis where Pratter and Lewis able to estimate the time they thought they heard the cry? This is no trivial point considering that, throughout the Ripper inquiry, some witnesses time estimates may have been way off, i.e. Edward Spooner.

[David Orsam]

That’s how she was quoted in the press, David

No, it wasn't, it was a direct quote from her sworn deposition.

[David Orsam]

Critically, she could not have seen the lamp outside the Commercial Chambers lodging house if her room had been directly above Kelly’s at the rear of the property.

Where does she say anything about a "lamp outside the Commercial Chambers lodging house"?

[David Orsam]

Mrs Prater had been sleeping immediately prior to hearing the distress call, David. Sarah was attempting to get some sleep. Given their tiredness and possible alcohol consumption it may be the case that one or both women either missed part of the call for help or simply misremembered it.

Or imagined it?

[David Orsam]

And I would disagree, David. Unless there was collusion between Prater and Lewis

How do we know there wasn't collusion between Prater and Lewis?

[David Orsam]

hearing a female cry out in distress at approximately the same time

Well that's another interesting thing. Lewis says she heard the cry "a little before 4". Don't ask me how she knows but that's what she says.

Prater tells us that she noticed the lodging house was out so concludes it was after 4am.

So one hears the cry before 4am the other hears it after 4am.

They are both different cries - one hears "oh" the other doesn't - one hears a loud scream or shout, the other hears a faint voice.

On the face of it, we are talking about two different events. The only way they become the same event is by changing the evidence of the witnesses.

[Pierre]

No, it wasn't, it was a direct quote from her sworn deposition.

The press also had tape recorders. And everyone in those days was totally honest and trained in using tape recorders so they were able to obtain recordings which were 100 percent reliable.

[Pierre]

Well that's another interesting thing. Lewis says she heard the cry "a little before 4". Don't ask me how she knows but that's what she says.

Prater tells us that she noticed the lodging house was out so concludes it was after 4am.

So one hears the cry before 4am the other hears it after 4am.

They are both different cries - one hears "oh" the other doesn't - one hears a loud scream or shout, the other hears a faint voice.

On the face of it, we are talking about two different events. The only way they become the same event is by changing the evidence of the witnesses.

You do not "change" "evidence". "Evidence" is sources and what you do with sources is that you interpret the sources.