Elizabeth Prater

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,

Apples and oranges, my friend.

Not at all, Tom. This may have been a mere "pro-forma", but at least it shows that just because it's an official document doesn't mean that its accuracy was guaranteed. In this case, in line with Stewart's suggestion, it was most probably a case of "more haste, less speed".

Bearing that in mind, I have little doubt that time pressure applied during the inquest itself, and perhaps it's not surprising if a practised journalist with more portable writing materials at his disposal (usually a pencil) might have captured a bit more detail than the scribes with their desk-mounted inkwells. I note Macdonald seemingly using a feather quill in one of the illustrations, but that's by the by.

She chose the words, she read the words, she signed the document assuring its accuracy.

No - she apparently signed the document, but there's no guarantee that she read the document, that she scanned it in minute detail, or that she felt compelled to correct any errors if she'd noticed any.

If Macdonald and thirteen or fourteen other officals (by which I include jurors) didn't spot, or couldn't be bothered to point out fundamental errors on an official fronting sheet, then I'd suggest we need to think very carefullly about setting too much store by the proof-reading skills of the raddled Elizabeth Prater. And I'm not ducking and diving here, either. It's a point we should seriously bear in mind, in my honest and considered opinion.

To this extent, the question of accuracy is one whose remit goes much wider than the topic of this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Stewart,

Whilst I can see where Gareth is 'coming from', and that he has raised a valid point, though it is far from a proven point

I agree with you there - although you'll have gathered that I incline more to one side than another. I always had a bad posture

Thanks, as ever, for posting those snippets of the originals.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Many thanks for that.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Inserted

Hi Stewart,
Thanks for posting the coroner's form.
Can you tell me what has been appended after Kelly's name [above the up arrow]. I can't make it out.
Many thanks.
Regards,
Simon

Hi Simon, inserted after her surname 'Kelly' is 'Otherwise Davies.'

[Stewart P Evans]

The Times

Merely as a point of interest here is the report of Prater's inquest evidence as it appeared in The Times -

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Thanks for posting the coroner's form.

Can you tell me what has been appended after Kelly's name [above the up arrow]. I can't make it out.

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Prater's Statement

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. Prater's written statement made on the 9th November 1888, however, is a totally different 'piece of paper'. The interesting thing, of course, is that Prater clearly refers to the lodging house from whence she "frequently heard such cries" and those cries came from "the back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Millers Court." And that simply cannot be the lodging house on the opposite side of Dorset Street to No. 26.

[Stewart P Evans]

Inquest Form

Agreed 100%, Tom. However, good provenance is not the same as accuracy, and neither does the one automatically guarantee the other. From what I can tell, Macdonald (and the jurors) signed that very piece of paper which reported that Kelly was murdered in "Room 1, Miller's-court, Shoreditch". If so, then even the signature of a learned man wouldn't appear to guarantee the accuracy of the preceding text.

Much against my better judgement I am making a further post to clarify the nature of Gareth's 'piece of paper' with the incorrect address on it. This 'piece of paper' is not a sworn statement nor is it an official police document. It is the standard coroner's form filled in at the end of an inquest giving the result of that inquest, i.e. the cause of death, and signed by the coroner and the jurors. Undoubtedly the form has been carelessly filled in by, presumably, the coroner's clerk and even the parish, Shoreditch, is incorrect for the place of death (Spitalfields). It appears to have been hurriedly completed at the end of the inquest, but as it was not evidence the errors would seem to be unimportant.

[Tom_Wescott]

Costermonger Flynn's Fruit Cart

Sam,

Apples and oranges, my friend. Mary Kelly herself did not sign anything saying she lived at 1 Millers Court. Nor did Joe Barnett or John McCarthy. Why? Because they would have corrected the mistake. In other words, the '1 Millers Court' error you keep bringing up was made by people not familiar witht he residence itself. It's quite the opposite in Liz Prater's case though, wouldn't you say? She chose the words, she read the words, she signed the document assuring its accuracy. And if you can provide a source better than Prater as to where she lived, I'd love to see it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed 100%, Tom. However, good provenance is not the same as accuracy, and neither does the one automatically guarantee the other. From what I can tell, Macdonald (and the jurors) signed that very piece of paper which reported that Kelly was murdered in "Room 1, Miller's-court, Shoreditch". If so, then even the signature of a learned man wouldn't appear to guarantee the accuracy of the preceding text.

Snippets from Simons quoted statement.....

THE STAR—November 10 1888

Elizabeth Prater, a married woman, who has been deserted by her husband, knew Kelly well, she told a Star reporter, "She lived in No. 13 room, and mine is No. 20, which IS ALMOST OVER HERS."

Seems clear enough, she is saying that her room is in effect "adjacent" to Marys, but on the second floor.

..."She was about 23 years old".

Probably inaccurate

... "She was tall and pretty, and as fair as a lily".

Somewhat of a contrast to accounts that has her as average height and stout.

....... Mrs. Prater adds with frankness, "She had got her hat and jacket on, but I had not."

What Hat? Where is this hat? Mary Ann didnt mention a hat when she saw Mary with Blotchy. And since we have other witnesses that claim Mary hardly ever wore one, one wonders.

..... "I'm a woman myself," she says, "and I've got to sleep in that place to-night right over where it happened."

So...within the same statement, 2 variations on her rooms location...."almost" and "right over".

Regards,

Simon

With such inconsistency, in the records and the statements, a logical conclusion is that her room only partly was over Marys, but perhaps that part was roughly over the area where Marys bed was...."right over".

The window on the archway may have been an alcove in the hallway that allowed the voice to get to Mrs Prater.."as from the court".

Best regards all.

[Tom_Wescott]

Iīm telling you, Tom, at that time, journalists could have been kicked out from a paper for less, if they were truly dealing with a witness who had slept through the night in a room EXACTLY above the victims!

I'm beginning to get the impression I've read more contemporary newspaper reports than you have.

Regarding ANY material - inquest or not - where a person is relaying information, it should never been naively viewed as gospel. On this we agree. But 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. If we're writing history, we really can't just pick and choose all our sources. Some we have to accept, for better or for worse, because of their provenance. A signed statement from someone is a primary source. A newspaper account is a secondary source. Do you disagree?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Sorry Simon; the wording "even if Kellys room had been at the top floor above McCarthys shop" should of course be changed to "even if PRATERS room had been at the top floor above McCarthys shop".

My slip, Iīm afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Simon!

Please note that Praters room tended to move that night, from "almost above" Kellys room, to "right over" it.

Quite strange, is it not ...?

My guess, though, given that Prater had seen Kellys mutilated corpse, something that gave her a terrible scare, is that even if Kellys room had been at the top floor above McCarthys shop, Prater would have felt that she was subsequentially staying in a room "right above" where Mary was killed.

Strong emotional experiences can make you feel that things draw closer to you, and if room 13 drew closer to Prater after that nightmare of an experience (which it seemingly did, given the discrepance between her own two descriptions of itīs lay in the same paper report), there is nothing strange about it. Just my take on it.

The best, Simon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"What's your take on Elizabeth Prater's own words at the inquest? Sorry, but I'm gonna have to put a lot more stock in a signed legal statement made by the woman herself. Am I wrong for doing so, Fish?"

It isnīt as if we have her taped, is it, Tom? "I lived in the room over the deceased" are the written words, signed by Prater, but - as has been stated before - "a" and "the" are very easily misheard for each other.
Moreover, if we offer the possibility that there were two rooms at the first floor, numbers 19 and 20, and if only Praters room was occupied at the time of the murder, then it would of course also make sense to say that she lived in the room over the deceased, no matter if she stayed in the front or the back room.

Once again I will also point you to the fact that each and every one of the papers that were present at the murder place would have thanked their lucky stars if Prater HAD been living exactly above Kelly, and subsequentially would have used it to elaborate on in every possible and impossible way.
But no, they instead start writing about "over the shed", "in the first floor front room" "almost above the room of the deceased", all of them pointing very clearly AWAY from their own favourite scenario.

Iīm telling you, Tom, at that time, journalists could have been kicked out from a paper for less, if they were truly dealing with a witness who had slept through the night in a room EXACTLY above the victims!

Which is why I have not one but two answers for you on your question whether you are wrong or not for relying on the signed inquest papers:

Methodologically you are right. Feel free to indulge in it.

Practically, though, you are in all probability utterly and totally wrong.

Samīs snippet on why you may want to be careful even with inquest material is very elucidating, by the way. Once you realize that though inquest material as a general rule is the best we have to go with, it should not be regarded as gospel, you must also accept that the newspaper material FROM DIFFERING SOURCES delivers a picture that shows us that Mrs Prater in all probability had a nice view of Dorset Street outside her window.

The best,
Fisherman