Elizabeth Prater - Key Witness for time of death

[IchabodCrane]

Elizabeth Prater went down from her room at 5 am, passing the wall to MJK's room. She stated at the inquest 'From where I was I could see if a light was in the room of the deceased' when she went to her room at 1.30 am.

Why was she not asked at the inquest whether the room was lit at 5 am or not? On November 9 London latitude, 5am is well before sunrise. Since she didn't mention any light, we have to assume it was not lit, meaning the Ripper had finished his work by that time.

This could tally with a time of death shortly before 4am.

[Sam Flynn]

That, Ichabod, is a very good point. The stairwell leading up to Prater's room would have been very dark at that time of morning, I'd imagine, and - as you say - it was certainly still dark outside. It needn't follow that Prater would definitely have mentioned seeing a chink of light on her way down or, being bleary eyed and bent on gin, that she'd have noticed it in the first place. Nonetheless, all things being equal, that's a great observation you've made there - it's certainly never occurred to me before.

[perrymason]

That, Ichabod, is a very good point. The stairwell leading up to Prater's room would have been very dark at that time of morning, I'd imagine, and - as you say - it was certainly still dark outside. It needn't follow that Prater would definitely have mentioned seeing a chink of light on her way down or, being bleary eyed and bent on gin, that she'd have noticed it in the first place. Nonetheless, all things being equal, that's a great observation you've made there - it's certainly never occurred to me before.

That shocks me a bit Gareth, since we have had many discussions about the light in that room being seen or not, I would think you would have considered all the relevant data. I did and do, when I mention that we have reason to believe no light was on in that room by 1:30am until at least 3am.

And as pointed out, we dont have reason to suspect that there was light on at 5am when Prater heads out for some hair of the dog.

Seems like 2 things are likely here......one is that when Mary met her attacker it was in between 3am and 5am, likely when she yelled "oh-murder" in a dark room, perhaps with the door ajar,... and there was never any large fire going on in that room after midnight.

All the best.

[IchabodCrane]

It is also another example of coroner's/police carelessness and/or lost records on crucial points, why they didn't ask her whether the room was lit when they knew a great fire had been burning while the ripper was in the room?

[Sam Flynn]

That shocks me a bit Gareth, since we have had many discussions about the light in that room being seen or not, I would think you would have considered all the relevant data.

I have, Mike, which is why I qualified my response to Ichabod with precisely those caveats I've discussed with you in the past.

I do try to be consistent, as I believe I was in this instance.

[perrymason]

I have, Mike, which is why I qualified my response to Ichabod with precisely those caveats I've discussed with you in the past.

I do try to be consistent, as I believe I was in this instance.

Hi again Sam,

The point I was getting at is that you have consistently stated that no-one seeing any light doesnt mean there wasnt any, and yet you liked the idea that Liz didnt notice any light coming downstairs for her hair of the dog run. Even though she had no reason to check for light specifically.

There were in fact 3 witnesses that could have seen light cast from Marys room after 1:30, one with multiple opportunities as she had to pass the door and the alcove again, multiple times.... until 3am. Sarah could have seen light cast on the whitewashed 2 storey wall opposite Marys windows. And Liz didnt see any coming downstairs at 5am.

Mary Ann however heard footsteps until almost 6am...so the killer may well have been in the room when Liz came downstairs.....and no large fire.

I do try as well Sam.

All the best.

[The Good Michael]

Intense heat doesn't necessarily mean high flames or a lot of light emitted. Look at a blacksmith's forge, for example. It glows fairly dimly when compared to a conflagration. There may have been very little light emitted from the fire in Kelly's fireplace. If the items burned were highly flammable, such as paper is, the fire would have been intense for only a minute or two and then things would have settled down to a smolder. This would especially be the case if we are dealing with a meticulously controlled fire.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Hi again Sam,

The point I was getting at is that you have consistently stated that no-one seeing any light doesnt mean there wasnt any, and yet you liked the idea that Liz didnt notice any light coming downstairs for her hair of the dog run. Even though she had no reason to check for light specifically.

I liked the observation, which I'd never made previously myself, so I thanked Ichabod for it. I also quite clearly qualified that response with the caveats that you have just - rather redundantly - repeated. Those caveats are just as relevant to Ichabod's observations as they were to yours. That doesn't make the observation any less interesting.

I am taking a balanced view, as I try to do always, and I don't like the faint hint of hypocrisy that you seem to be aiming at me.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

Im suggesting nothing of the sort Gareth. Intended only as an observation, not a criticism or accusation.

The idea that the fire could be hot and not emit much light is a valid one Mike, what that implies is that the fire would have been hot enough in its smoldering state when Mary first went out Thursday evening to be prodded back into a hotter fire when she returned. I say that because no-one saw a bright light when she was in the room singing, which the fire would have been at that point if she just started one.

My contention is that the fire was stoked all Thursday afternoon, and that the kettle may have had the solder melted at that point, or at some earlier time. Hot and low enough to leave for a few hours then re-ignite easily with some fuel source.

That would suggest that at best the killer probably had light from the candle stub that no-one noticed glowing on the wall opposite Marys windows, or only a small light emitted by a low fire. And perhaps virtually no light when he arrives at the room.

Id be interested to know if that Thursday afternoon whether it was very cold or near freezing outside. Whether or not a large hot fire that afternoon would be for warmth. Mary and Maria spent the afternoon in her room. Without suggesting impropriety, they had to be doing something. Maria has laundry in Marys room. Mary has a tin bath visible under the bed, and a pump outside her door. Maria gives Mary a few coins that day.

Just sayin.

All the best.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Mike,
are you suggesting Maria and Mary burned Maria's clothes on Thursday afternoon? Doesn't seem to make too much sense to me,
IchabodCrane

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,
are you suggesting Maria and Mary burned Maria's clothes on Thursday afternoon? Doesn't seem to make too much sense to me,
IchabodCrane

Hi Icabod,

Im suggesting that the reason the clothing that was set on the fire sometime that morning and did not burn to complete ash is because the fire itself was waning when the items were placed on it....therefore the fire didnt get large or hot enough that morning to be categorized as a "large fire" as Abberline suggested, melting the spout solder on the kettle and offering the killer light from the flames.

I suggest the fire itself is the remnants of a large fire Thursday afternoon, which was used by Mary and Maria to boil water in the kettle with water that they got from the pump and they washed clothes in the tin bath. Mary was given a few coins from Maria.....for helping her wash the clothes or to get the spout re-soldered maybe?

Best regards