Elizabeth Prater

So according to AP's press reference, Elizabeth may well have had that archway window in her room....like I suggested a thousand posts ago, and was told that was impossible. At least Sam entertained it.

So Im off this thread too....she always had a courtyard facing window, regardless of any others that might have been in the room...and before someone says there couldnt be any other window, see point 1.

Cheers.

[Sam Flynn]

"Gateway in Miller's Court', not 'Gateway to Miller's court'.

There was no "gateway" in Miller's Court as such - unless Prater was into differential calculus and was talking about infinitely small slices of the passageway, Tom. Either that, or the reporter was on mescaline

[Sam Flynn]

Whatever mescaline you are on tonight, Tom.
Prater lived above a court entrance, Kelly under

It's all relative, and rather depends on the direction in which you're facing, AP, or whether you're going in or out

I'd be more inclined to think in terms of Kelly's room being near the exit from Miller's Court, as I'm sure would all the residents. Evidently Mrs Cox classified the outer part of the archway as the entrance to Miller's Court in her testimony, when she tells of her own journey from Commercial into Dorset Street and thence into Miller's Court itself ("as I entered the Court I saw deceased...", "They made no sound going up the Court [i.e. going up the passageway]...").

[Tom_Wescott]

AP

"Gateway in Miller's Court', not 'Gateway to Miller's court'. You said yourself that a reporter would know the difference.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Whatever mescaline you are on tonight, Tom.
Prater lived above a court entrance, Kelly under, but if you had screamed murder I would have detained the white rabbit immediately.
One makes you...

[Tom_Wescott]

Actually, upon re-reading the reporter is saying that Prater lived INSIDE the court and above the gateway, which would in fact put her right over Mary's room. As opposed to above the gateway OUTSIDE Miller's court. So this is yet another report supporter the inquest paper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

tut tut Stephen,"Who cares?'
get that anorak back on

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom, I would have thought that a court jester would have known what a 'court' was in the LVP.

[Tom_Wescott]

McCarthy made Mary sleep in a gateway? Man, no wonder she wouldn't pay her rent!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

From the 'Birmingham Daily Post', November 13th 1888:

'Elizabeth Prater stated that she lived in no. 20 room, just above the gateway in Miller's Court. The deceased lived below her.'

[Stephen Thomas]

Oh dear

Facts is facts. There are loads of statements from Mrs Prater herself that show she did NOT live DIRECTLY or EXACTLY above Mary Kelly. Prater states over and over again that she lives 'almost' over Kelly's room, or 'just' over and also that she lives in the room at the 'front' of the house and that she lives 'over the shed' which we know was at the front of #26 on Dorset Street. I've provided rough diagrams earlier on this thread to show the almost certain layout of #26 Millers Court in 1888. As I said earlier the point of these statements from Prater was to show that she lived in very close proximity to Kelly which is a fact, as she lived in a room the floor of which was only 9 feet away from Mary's ceiling, as opposed to a room in the attic of #26, for instance, or somewhere 10 doors down the road. And as Fisherman in his professional capacity has stated there would be an enormous incentive for Prater in the form of backhanders from 1888 hack journalists to state that she lived DIRECTLY above the 'orrible murder' scene which in my opinion she did not do. My opinion is that Prater lived at the front of #26 above 'the shed', but in the last analysis, who cares?

[Cap'n Jack]

And it always depends on what form you look at:

[Cap'n Jack]

Okay boys, I'm perplexed by this.
In August of 1881 the property we know as Miller's Court was advertised for rental as thus:
'Spitalfields - two freehold houses and shops, 26 and 27 Dorset Street, with six small houses forming Miller's Court, in rear. Let at £202. 15 s per annum'.
Just prior to the demolishment of Miller's Court in 1914 it was reported that:
'There are six little two-roomed cottages notorious as the scene of one of the Jack the Ripper murders'.
In 1909 it was reported that the cottages each formed a 'two roomed house in Miller's Court'.
But slip back to November of 1898 and we find this report:
'The room was only about 6' by 6', and was used as a living room, the bedroom, of smaller dimensions being partioned off'.
And perhaps more importantly this from the same:
'A two storied house immediately opposite that in which the mutilated body of the Ripper victim was found... is let in single tenements'.

Now that tells me the numbers shifted in those years, but the buildings did not, and that the view out of any of the windows in the court would have been a twin view.
You can split twins, but they don't like it.

[Fisherman]

Stewart Evans writes:

"Whilst I can see where Gareth is 'coming from' and that he has raised a valid point, it is far from a proven point as some here seem to indicate."

...which makes me wonder whether I belong to those described as "some" here. If so, I will point out that much as I believe strongly that Prater lived in the room fronting on Dorset Street, I would not go as far as to consider it a proven point. That it is not - and with the evidence existing, it will remain that way as far as I can see.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"A signed statement from someone is a primary source. A newspaper account is a secondary source. Do you disagree?"

No. But if the newspaper report is right and the signed statement is wrong, I tend to take an active interest in that matter.

"when comparing a signed statement to a newspaper blurb that internally proves itself to be wholly unreliable, the choice should be an extremely easy one to make"

Yes. But when numerous newspaper blurbs agree on the facts, and it is obvious that the one and only signed statement can be not only mistaken in it´s recording of the source it is trying to voice, but also interpreted in the same direction as the facts presented by these five blurbs, I tend to take just as active an interest in that matter too.

And if you think that is strange, you´re welcome to it.

Oh, and by thw way - on the point that you think that you have read more contemporary newspapers than I have:
Maybe you have.
Not that I think it matters much.
Anyhow, I have spent fourteen years as a researcher on my newspaper, that opened for business back in 1848.
So you could be wrong, you know!
Not that THAT matters much either.

The best,
Fisherman