Elizabeth Prater

Would Prater have construed Miller's Court as a "lodging-house" - a term which, after all, meant something pretty specific in the Late Victorian East End? For what it's worth, it should be noted that Prater refers to "the court" and "the lodging-house" separately. On that basis, I'd tend to lean towards Prater meaning a "lodging-house" pure and simple. Which lodging-house, of course, is unclear.

I think thats the crux Sam, what were Elizabeths intentions when she used that term, was she referring specifically to a "Lodging House"...or as quoted, a "lodging house". Because Mary may be considered as a tenant of the courtyard...having the room in her name, but Elizabeth is technically a boarder in 26 Dorset..or lodger, she rents a room in a house that lets rooms out. As does the dwelling attached to it by the archway. I think lodging house could address the main buildings fronting Dorset, not the courtyard dwellings.

I think if one example of Elizabeth could be found that has her referring to her own location as a lodging house, this could be answered.

Cheers Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

...could the light be cast from the gas lamp mounted opposite Marys door...or effectively on the "Lodging House" next door to 26, but within the same court?

Would Prater have construed Miller's Court as a "lodging-house" - a term which, after all, meant something pretty specific in the Late Victorian East End? For what it's worth, it should be noted that Prater refers to "the court" and "the lodging-house" separately. On that basis, I'd tend to lean towards Prater meaning a "lodging-house" pure and simple. Which lodging-house, of course, is unclear.

Dan,

Interesting post...that wall opposite Marys windows is a 2 story wall, whitewashed I believe...could the light be cast from the gas lamp mounted opposite Marys door...or effectively on the "Lodging House" next door to 26, but within the same court?

Best regards.

[Dan Norder]

I'm actually very glad Stewart started this thread, because last time around when Sam was making the argument that Prater's room faced Dorset Street and not Miller's Court there didn't seem to be much attempt to question him on his conclusions. Without such questioning it's all too easy for one person's opinions to be presented as if it were a definitely ascertained fact that then gets picked up by other people. Last time around I didn't try to sort it out because building plans, street maps and so forth are definitely not my forté.

As I see it, and please correct me if I am wrong, but the two sides seem to hinge upon the meaning of "above" in various reports and also the lights from the back of a lodging house.

On the first point, Sam mentions that one paper says Prater said she lived above the shed, while multiple reports have Prater as being above Mary Kelly's room. Sam argues that "above" the shed must mean directly above the front room McCarthy used for storage, which faced Dorset Street and thus Prater's room did also. He then argued that "above" in the other references could mean generically "vertically higher than" and not "directly on top of"... which, it seems to me, would also apply then in being "above" the shed, so that his arguments about positioning cancel each other out. Stewart argues that above means directly above, and that the shed comment is just one report contrary to many others and can be ignored as either someone talking to the wrong witness, getting facts wrong or any of the other reasons why a news article could be incorrect. I am perfectly open to "above" being used somewhat generically, but in that case I don't think that alone makes the room face Dorset Street instead of the Court by any means, so we need more information, which brings us to the light.

I admit this is the one that had me confused for a while. Prater said she could see the light from the back of a lodging house from her room. Before Sam brought this up I thought the light she was referring to was the one in Miller's Court itself next to McCarthy's shop. Sam argues that it was the one across Dorset Street. Stewart argues that it was at a different lodging house on Dorset but on the same side as Miller's Court but a few doors down and tall enough to shine down into the court. So, I guess I have to ask just what kind of light we are talking about here... lights from inside a building shining through windows, a light mounted to an outside wall, the light on the sign for a lodging house, or what. Do we know whether Prater is talking about seeing the source of the light itself from her window, or whether she means that she could see the things that the light cast onto and would know that the light was off when she couldn't see those things anymore? So, say, outside her window is the wall of another Miller's Court room on the other side of the water pump, and if she can see the wall the lodging house light next door is on, and if she doesn't it's off? Seems to me that would be a pretty good way of knowing whether it is before or after a certain time, assuming that that light was turned off at a predictable time of the night.

[Natalie Severn]

Hey Tom, are not these two items related?

'that it was Stewart who put his name on a new suspect, was the first major author to propose that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim'

Cap"n Jack,
Can you not give this green eyed parrot of yours a whack now and then and let us concentrate on the subject matter of the thread?
Its constant pugnacity is tiresome.

I think that Elizabeths intentions when she says "Lodging House" are unclear...particularly if she has ever referred to her own digs as being in a "Lodging House" before. It is clear that she is referring to courtyard facing windows, and the back of a Lodging House.

When coupled with her comment that she heard the faintish cry "as from the court", it would certainly make sense if her Lodging House back window faced into that same court.

I think the fact that Sarah seemed to think the call was louder than Elizabeth did, might be explained by "down the court" accoustics.

Best regards.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Somebody remind me never to start a thread like this again.

That would be a damn shame, because frankly at least the first four pages on this thread have been among the most interesting and informative ones on Casebook for a long time.

The issue is indeed confusng due to strange information about the numbering of the rooms over the years and conflicting statements. However, as far as I am concerned, most indications seem to support the idea that Prater did live in the room above Kelly's, and the sources her provided by Stewart and and the posts by some others further convinces me on the matter.
No doubt we will never know for sure, but personally I see no reason to doubt the general idea that Prater lived above Kelly and that her room faced the court, not Dorset Street.

All the best

[Simon Wood]

Hi Don,

Quite right. Which is why I offered it as a possibility rather than a definitive solution.

Regards,

Simon

[Supe]

Simon,

Alter her words slightly to "I frequently hear such cries from the back of [my] lodging house where [my] windows look into Millers Court", and we may have our answer.

Ah, but alter the words slightly in almost any document and pretty soon we have black being white. Fine with fiction, but you simply can't do it with anything that even pretends to be scholaly research. You may freely dismiss what Liz Prater said if you so choose, but you can't alter what are reported to be her remarks and hope to be taken seriously.

Don.

Hi All,

This has been an informative thread. I've certainly learned a lot about the layout of Millers Court and its relative position to Crossingham's.

Here's my two-bob's worth.

Here is part of Prater's statement taken on 9 November.

"I did not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Millers Court. From 1 a.m. to 1.30 am, no one passed up the court if they did I should have seen them."

Alter her words slightly to "I frequently hear such cries from the back of [my] lodging house where [my] windows look into Millers Court", and we may have our answer.

Regards,

Simon

I could care less who said that first Simon, but that was my take on it too.....back of the "lodging house"...she lived in.

Great minds and all that....

Cheers Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

This has been an informative thread. I've certainly learned a lot about the layout of Millers Court and its relative position to Crossingham's.

Here's my two-bob's worth.

Here is part of Prater's statement taken on 9 November.

"I did not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Millers Court. From 1 a.m. to 1.30 am, no one passed up the court if they did I should have seen them."

Alter her words slightly to "I frequently hear such cries from the back of [my] lodging house where [my] windows look into Millers Court", and we may have our answer.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Here We Go Again

Hey Tom, are not these two items related?

'that it was Stewart who put his name on a new suspect, was the first major author to propose that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim'

Here we go again. No, I can assure you, and I AM NOT LYING, I had first thought that Kelly might not be a Ripper victim around the time of the centenary, when I gave the subject up for a while, and long before I ever heard of Tumblety. I simply didn't, and do not, know if she was. I have a completely open mind on the matter. However, I am not alone and Bernard Davies, whose grandfather was a retired police inspector, was told by his grandfather that whilst attached to the Kelly murder enquiry some of the investigating detectives told him that they didn't think she was a Ripper victim.

There's a good argument for her inclusion and, perhaps, the argument that she wasn't is weaker. But no one knows for certain. Now I don't know what it is with you A.P., you say it's drink, it sounds like jealousy, it may be pique because you haven't had your book re-published commercially. Who knows what the hell it is. But I didn't think that it would take long for you to zero in on me again. I personally think that you talk a lot of crap much of the time, but that's just my opinion and I'm sure that you'll disagree. I have been reading your Vagabond book and think that you are a talented and entertaining writer. Certainly better than I am. But what has that got to do with anything? You are very eaten up by something. If I 'fluff my petticoats' then I am doing no more than most do around here. And I think that I was doing no more or less than Gareth.

Anyway I'd better let you get back to your captive audience and your weird ideas.

[Cap'n Jack]

Hey Tom, are not these two items related?

'that it was Stewart who put his name on a new suspect, was the first major author to propose that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim'

Michael,

You've never needed my help stirring things up. And as for 'firm conclusions', I'd say we have one here. I'm not even sure why there's a debate in the first place. Prater was pretty clear in stating where she lived. I think us Ripperheads more often than not like to see controversy where there is none just to have something to debate. And what I got from your post to Stewart was that he's afraid to take risks whereas you're not, obviously forgetting (or not appreciating) that it was Stewart who put his name on a new suspect, was the first major author to propose that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim, and endorsed the then-unpopular theory that Stride was not a Ripper victim. And he did this in the 'real world' of literature, not on a message board like us anoraks.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Just so you can see how badly you read my comments, or how badly I conveyed my thoughts,... the comment was actually to affirm Sams right as a serious member of this study to assert his belief despite the evidence that Stewart and others, I among them, read a certain way. Because there are "contrary" quotes...over the shed is not over Marys room...and as long as we have one quote like that even the best in the field often have difficulty dismissing it entirely. Its a lament that there is little hope that we could all talk on the same page about these cases...everyone can interpret much of the data we have..as it is inconclusive. Or as in this case, contradictory.

But when nobodies like me say ...Marys door was open when she uttered "oh-murder"... all sorts of information becomes available from experts...and maybe someone will see something that others dont. But at least someone will learn something. More than just me.

Clear? Its part of my role here....push the envelope and get corrected by experts....win/win...because most of the experts are teachers by virtue of their knowledge..teachers teach, and I throw chalk from the back row....or rather get chalk hurled at me.

Cheers.

[Cap'n Jack]

Michael, I found your discussion very sound, polite and to the point.
I can't see any possible danger of the manner of things that Tom mentions at all, and am at a loss to explain the comments directed against you, or Sam.
I think we come to a place where folks have lengthy and protracted points of view, usually fuelled by the fact that they have published works in this direction, which they either wish to protect or disseminate in a wider fashion.
But that has nothing to do with the fact of the matter.
I must say that I have found all the discussion here, apart from Stewart and Tom, to have been based entirely around the facts of the matter... and then ego has broken through. The 'I am right and you are wrong' just because posters have some kind of vested and selfish interest in the matter.
It is a discussion board, and I can find no fault in your discussion, or Sam's.
In fact I was enjoying it, until the petticoats started fluffing.
Ah well.
Keep it up, my good chap, you have much to say, and you must say it.