Elizabeth Prater

[Fisherman]

Bolo writes:
"In other words, being sloshed may prevent a really deep sleep but if Prater only was half as drunk as me when I crawled back home from my father-in-law's birthday last year, even ten Rippers river-dancing around in the shed wouldn't have been enough to wake her up... "

Well, Bolo, as I was not crawling next to you, I have no empirical experiences to draw on in this particular case. The reason I mentioned it all from the beginning is that most people tend to believe that getting drunk and falling asleep ensures a very deep sleep. That is the way thi9ngs are presented to us on the movies. Then again, every time we see a submarine on the movies, it is accopanied by these strange metallic beeps, travelling through the water. In real life, they are of course never there - they are an invention from Hollywood. And so, to a large extent is the drunken, deep sleep, according to the scientists.

Admittedly, though, my experience from parties that I have arrived home from, travelling extremely close to the ground, seems to point in another direction. Actually, as oxygen is sparser in higher layers of the atmosphere, maybe it is the crawling close to the ground, providing a very oxygenrich environment, that sends you into such a sound sleep...?

The best!
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I was under the impression that Prater knew kelly very well, according to her she was given the nickname 'My pretty] by Mary, but the report Chris Scott found in the 'Scotsman' indicates she [ Prater] only spoke to her once or twice....
one of those times, allegedly was on the thursday evening [ 8th][ around 9pm at the corner of the court as they were both 'going out'... which another account contridicts that ie.. 'I left the court around 5pm and returned at 1am.
It does therefore appear that life was so short in those days , that even after just a couple of meetings people were well aquainted, take Maxwells account for instance.'I have only spoken to her a couple of times, but she knew my name and who I was.'
A more likely explanation is the press and inaccurate reporting.
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

Its quite possible, as offered by a few people including myself, that Elizabeth had fore and aft windows. The floor plans are not de facto, and if anyone believes that Elizabeth could hear a voice she said "as from the court", without having any direct access to it through a court facing window, youre probably wrong. Any voice from Dorset below would sound just as that...from Dorset below.

But that doesnt automatically mean the visual component of her testimony pertains to a court view.

There was one press report I read in which Elizabeth said she had gone down to Marys room before seeking likely some hair of the dog that morning, knocked, and left without peeking in through the side windows. Mary and Elizabeth might have been friendly.

For me personally, Im satisfied that Elizabeth had access to a courtyard window in her room, there is really no logical explanation for a voice "from" the court that didnt come to Elizabeth from the rear of the house. Her visual testimony is not where her importance lies anyway. And Sarah is all the coroberation I need to proceed based on that courtyard window assumption.

The questions are, could Elizabeth have heard that voice "as from the court" if Marys door was closed...could her voice have carried out only via her broken window panes, and was she inside her room answering the door, or outside her room entering at the time.

Diddles skittishness likely is due to sounds below, or through that same window,...and not footsteps, they would be common sounds...... so its either from someone opening the door or knocking on the door or window...or whispering through a broken pane. It cannot signal the discovery by Mary of someone she didnt know who broke in...no noise at all follows the cry.

Best regards.

[anna]

If I remember correctly,didn't one of them say of the sound of the door closing,that it didn't sound as it usually did for Kelly's room.
This raises an interesting point.That is that this woman,who I think was Julia,Kelly's friend,and probably the others living in No26,knew exactly where to listen in relation to the "internal" noises in the house.Probably so that if they needed someone or something they didn't have to go trotting up and down the stairs...so what she is really saying is that she DID know how to listen for Kelly.
Prater was just above Kelly's room,literally,so she must have been fully aware of how close the sound of "Oh murder!" was and if it came from just below,inside the house,from where the usual everyday sounds of Kelly's room came from.

[bolo]

Just an (inspired?) guess - Diddles could have been on a night stroll, she probably went in and out by the (or one of the) window(s). When the cat came home that night, she jumped on the bed to wake Lizzy because she was hungry. This was when she walked over Liz's neck and woke her up. Liz heard the "murder!" cries from the court so this would mean that a) she had a court-side window and b) it was at least half open.

[Dan Norder]

Very touching is your 'love in' with Desperate Dan here. Cow Pies all round. Hopefully Doubting Thomas (Wescott) will be roped in shortly for similar treatment. You're on very very sold ground on this one.

Let's see... Stewart Evans, Rob Clack, Philip Hutchinson, Tom Wescott, myself and most every respected researcher who has ever weighed in on the topic agrees, but because Sam and you don't agree with us you think you're justified in making juvenile insults...?

I honestly don't know what's wrong with some people.

[Stephen Thomas]

Oh dear

What on earth is going on here?

ALL of the information known today points to the fact that Prater indeed lived above Kelly, but not DIRECTLY above. So she is in her room and hears things 'from the direction of the court', does she? If she lived DIRECTLY above Kelly she would have said that she heard things DIRECTLY below her, through the floorboards as it were. She quite obviously lived in Room#20 at the front of the house overlooking Dorset Street' as she states that she lived in Room#20 which was at the front of the house overlooking Dorset Street and she also states that she lived at the front of the house (as opposed to the back of the house) the front of which overlooked Dorset Street. She also states that she lived above 'the shed' which we know was the gated (thanks Chris) storage area which was the ground floor FRONT room of #26 Dorset Street. Here's the only the only picture showing the gates of the 'shed' that I know of....


And ooh look, you can see one of Prater's windows over the gates.

[Tom_Wescott]

Very touching is your 'love in' with Desperate Dan here. Cow Pies all round. Hopefully Doubting Thomas (Wescott) will be roped in shortly for similar treatment.

If you think you're man enough, bring it on. I'll be your huckleberry. Who the hell are you, anway, and what's your beef?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

"Stewart Evans, Rob Clack, Philip Hutchinson, Tom Wescott, myself and most every respected researcher..."

...as opposed to the unrespected ones?

Is this how the boards work; no matter how much value and weight a suggestion carries, if one of the presented "respected" researchers does not agree, your suggestion is rendered useless?
If so, what happens if two of the esteemed high judges at the lofty top should disagree? Is there a hierarchy that functions up there too? And how does it look? Wescott over Evans? Evans over Clack? Hutchinson over Wescott?

I would have thought that since most of the presented evidence on the thread points in the direction of Praters room NOT being directly over Kellys, one ought perhaps lend an ear to that fact. Like I said before, there seems to be every option to semantically question the former established truth when examining the texts at hand, whereas no such possibility readily offers itself when it comes to the bits pointing to Prater living over, but not EXACTLY over Kelly.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Hi Michael and Sam,
You both mention the two window scenario, one in the Court, one in Dorset St. would either of you be able to post a rough drawing of how this would work out? I'm having trouble imagining it.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Michael and Sam,
You both mention the two window scenario, one in the Court, one in Dorset St. would either of you be able to post a rough drawing of how this would work out? I'm having trouble imagining it.

Personally, Debs, I'm happy to say that I now chime with your observation that such an arrangement would have been too long - almost outrageously so - for a doss of 4/6 per week (or whatever Prater paid).

[Tom_Wescott]

Is this how the boards work; no matter how much value and weight a suggestion carries, if one of the presented "respected" researchers does not agree, your suggestion is rendered useless?

No, it takes at least three of the four of us to agree before your suggestion is officially deemed useless.

f so, what happens if two of the esteemed high judges at the lofty top should disagree? Is there a hierarchy that functions up there too? And how does it look? Wescott over Evans? Evans over Clack? Hutchinson over Wescott?

Real simple. We ask Perry Mason what he thinks and bet the opposite way.

Seriously, Fish. I think what Dan means is that, if you wore a new tie, and everyone you saw commented on how awesome your tie was, you'd probably wear it more often, right? Well, if the same people said another tie sucked and just wasn't working for you, you'd probably drawer it. Therefore, since Sam has married himself to an idea that so many others think is not the right answer, it should at least give him cause to doubt his veracity. I hope that makes sense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Debra Arif is a "respected researcher", I'm just a bottom-feeding hack.

[Stephen Thomas]

I honestly don't know what's wrong with some people.

Me neither Dan. But I would imagine that a historian writing the history of your life in 120 years time faced with 10 pieces of evidence that you lived in Knoxville and one that you lived in Memphis would go with the former.

[Sam Flynn]

Therefore, since Sam has married himself to an idea that so many others think is not the right answer, it should at least give him cause to doubt his veracity.

It gives me cause, right enough, Tom - and the same should apply in reverse, which I'm sure it does.

PS: I've not married myself to this idea, it's more like it reached up and hit me between the eyes. It stung a bit to start with, but the more I pondered it, the more I came to conclude that it had knocked some sense into me

(I mean that)

[Stephen Thomas]

I would have thought that since most of the presented evidence on the thread points in the direction of Praters room NOT being directly over Kellys, one ought perhaps lend an ear to that fact. Like I said before, there seems to be every option to semantically question the former established truth when examining the texts at hand, whereas no such possibility readily offers itself when it comes to the bits pointing to Prater living over, but not EXACTLY over Kelly.

Thanks Fisherman for that most graceful exposition of my thoughts on this.