Elizabeth Prater

[George Hutchinson]

Can we have a new collective term for Ripperologists? Can we call it a bitch of Ripperologists, because that's what I keep seeing?

Year in, year out, people whom I generally respect just taking out their dislike of other people with childish, vicious little digs. God, I hate it. The worst thing is that some of the posters here mix their slanging matches in with the intelligent reasoning of their posts, so you have to read it. It's like having to walk through lush green grass peppered with masses of dog turds sometimes.

Stewart - fret not. These cases always end with you being right. Remarkable, really, for someone without an original Tom Robinson.

*expects abusive phone call of the type Don Rumbelow gives*

Stan - thankfully, I can say for sure that the anaglyphs on the crashed forum were a RE-POST from one of the earlier extant closed forums and they are still accessible. I know whoever did them not only posted the standard green and red anaglyphs but also did stereoviews of the same (I guess that would be easy to do by just overlaying the two stereoview images and saturating the colours to red and green to make the anaglyph). I only saw the anaglyphs as I had 3D glasses then, but didn't own stereoscopic glasses at the time, so I'd love to see them as they SHOULD be done.

Sorry, everyone else, for the digression.

Prater lived at the back.

There.

PHILIP

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Tom,

And as for 'firm conclusions', I'd say we have one here.

I reckon we have two. Bargain!

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Seeing Perry Mason giving Stewart Evans advice on how to research the Ripper case may just be the most Twilight Zoney thing I've ever seen on the Casebook, and that's really saying something. It's akin to Ernest Borgnine giving Johnny Depp advice on how to attract women.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

How you read me as giving Mr Evans advice is beyond me Tom...if anything it was expressing angst at the fact that even the best in the field dont have enough evidence or facts to make firm conclusions with...and validating the role of the lesser uninformed people like me who take risky chances with ideas...because it draws out the education from people like Mr Evans.

You must have missed the many times Ive referred to him as a mentor and leader I guess...or like trying to stir up things....I think its #2 actually.

Regards Tom.


Sorry...I neglected to mention the value of information like Jake and Sam and others provided as well.
...

[Tom_Wescott]

Seeing Perry Mason giving Stewart Evans advice on how to research the Ripper case may just be the most Twilight Zoney thing I've ever seen on the Casebook, and that's really saying something. It's akin to Ernest Borgnine giving Johnny Depp advice on how to attract women.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Stewart if I may say that I think its one of the shortcomings of this study, in that truly knowledgable people on the subject cannot in good conscience eliminate some possibilities, and in many cases, there is insufficient or contradictory evidence to weight one opinion over another.

I feel thats what I can provide here,.. I can take the risk, and actually choose which account I personally believe. And if I ask one of my theoretical scenario questions, the resulting discussion should only add to someones knowledge.

I think this is one case where Im willing to choose... a courtyard window, because it better fits the events and statements over all.

Now before I add that I believe Marys door was open at the time, she was inside, and she willingly let her killer in after an annoyed awakening....Ill shut up.

My best regards.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Stewart,
I have never addressed you personally on this case , although I have posted on Casebook for many years and known amongst .
Simply one question If I may.
In your opinion, was the cry witnessed by several court dwellers on the morning of the 9th November 88, that of Mary Jane Kellys demise, or could there be alternative explanations?.
I appreciate you response.
Regards Richard.

[sdreid]

Hi Philip,

I've forgotten who did them but I also remember those anaglyph 3D enhanced pictures on here. I'm afraid they were lost in the crash.

At least I still have 3D Hondo on Beta.

[Stewart P Evans]

Conjecture

Stewart do press on, this is a great thread so far. Having you conclude what Ive surmised is frankly pleasing, but I see Sam and Jakes contention, and I understand the gap that exists there.
I would be delighted though if a consensus agreed that Elizabeth referred to sounds that she heard from a courtyard facing window...because Marys proximity to her door or window, or the state of them at that moment are I think very important to the volume her voice would have in that court. And from what side of the door it was likely uttered.
If as has been pointed out to me, that Mary was on her bed for example, somewhere approx 6 feet inside the main structure, then the acoustics might be affected. Thicker walls?...Im guessing.
If the voice was heard through a window that faced the courtyard, which it appears to me it was, then it probably was Mary...for no woman that we know of in that court was out of their room, or stated that they made the sound themselves.
Best regards.

However, much will remain conjecture, but some like it that way, I believe.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm sure he'll come around here as well.

I will, of course do so, Tom, provided I find evidence sufficient to refute the bald statement made by Prater that "I live in 20 room Miller's-court above the shed" (Telegraph, 13th November). I'll only say that the underlined bit clinches it for me, and it is not a semantic argument. It may only have been reported in one newspaper, but that strikes me as a detail that cannot be explained away by a mis-hearing, and I can't see why anyone would wish to invent it.

This is purely my perception, of course. Other esteemed colleagues are, of course, of course, of course, free to politely dissent or make up their own minds. That's what we're here for.

[Jake L]

Stewart,

Still, I think it was worth it.

/Jake

Stewart do press on, this is a great thread so far. Having you conclude what Ive surmised is frankly pleasing, but I see Sam and Jakes contention, and I understand the gap that exists there.

I would be delighted though if a consensus agreed that Elizabeth referred to sounds that she heard from a courtyard facing window...because Marys proximity to her door or window, or the state of them at that moment are I think very important to the volume her voice would have in that court. And from what side of the door it was likely uttered.

If as has been pointed out to me, that Mary was on her bed for example, somewhere approx 6 feet inside the main structure, then the acoustics might be affected. Thicker walls?...Im guessing.

If the voice was heard through a window that faced the courtyard, which it appears to me it was, then it probably was Mary...for no woman that we know of in that court was out of their room, or stated that they made the sound themselves.

Best regards.

[Stewart P Evans]

Remind Me

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

[Jake L]

Ahem,
Lest I'm accused of "believing" something, I want to point out I tried look at it from from both sides - considering the general vagueness of MRS P's statement.

In fact, the Ronan trial transcripts make a very good case for the room overlooking the court being the "front room".

/jake

[Sam Flynn]

If anyone can elucidate on the internal layout of number 26 Dorset Street, I'd be eternally grateful as I just can't work out how the building was divided up in 1888.

Hello Fiona,

We don't really know, but from the dreaded Telegraph report of 10th November there were 7 rooms above Kelly's - which, on the surface, is quite neat if we consider that Kelly lived in #13 and Prater in #20 (13 + 7 = 20). The site of the Kate Marshall murder, as we've seen, was in room #19, was also located (somewhere) above where Kelly used to live.

Whilst these were tough times, it's unlikely that rooms 14-20 were all crammed onto the first floor, which strongly suggests that rooms 14-?? (where "??" equals any number less than 19) were located on floors further up. Rob Clack earlier suggested a sensible distribution of rooms.

I tried a while back to offer a tentative reconstruction based, which was lost during the Casebook "crash". I've just found an earlier version on my hard drive, which ought to help us visualise roughly what the ground and first floors may have looked like at least:



The first floor front need not necessarily have been a single room - it may have been split down the middle to give the tenants one window each, so to speak. If so, and the first floor contained rooms 18-20, then it may well have been the case that rooms 14-17 were split between the floors above.

I should clarify that my labelling the first floor front as #20 is purely in line with my contention (call it conjecture, whatever) that this may have been Prater's room, and is in no way to be seen as an assertion on my part that this was how it really was.