Elizabeth Prater

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Don,

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

Regards,

Simon

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[Jake L]

IDo 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.

Good point - especially as the plan shows that there was a window at the end of the building opposite (i.e. the West side block of MC tenements) on the 1st floor, above the "dustbin area". These would reflect the light well.

Indirect light from the tall nr 30 seems to be the most feasible option (unless Prater pressed her cheek against the wall & intentionally looked at no 30.)

I think "Lodging House" did not refer to these rented rooms, but rather specifically to the "dosshouses". I have yet to come across any confusion in this regard as far as contemporary material goes.

/Jake

[Cap'n Jack]

Natalie, I shot that parrot twenty years ago.
And Stewart, I have no ambitions or designs left in the publishing world.
As you know I have other fish to fry, and am very happy doing that.
My freshly caught Caribbean red-snapper fillet in a Reggae sauce is as close to heaven as anyone is going to get.
For over three years now certain elements in my personal and family life have been attempting to convince me to publish a revised copy of the 'Myth' as a limited, numbered and signed edition to be released on E-Bay a copy a month. I do have the funds to do that.
But I resist the urge to make money out of a subject I am basically in love with, however this is only because I have the privilege to be able to do so.
My point of view, and comments, are purely dictated by the fact that Sam or Michael, or you, or Tom, could be right in what you say and claim.
I'm happy in the galley when things get hot.

[Ally]

So do it and donate the money to a woman's shelter or a children's charity. Or the SPCA. Make an actual statement with action.

[Natalie Severn]

Well you might be happy in the galley when things get hot,but some people might need to be able to discuss things here without being told they are "less than"[ while you are" greater than"] or that they are producing "rags" while you are producing rare and cherished "special editions" or, worse still, when you are accusing them of "forgery" when they have not ever forged anything----and never would!
Thats not OK, Cap"n Jack.Its called " playing dirty " and its not nice.

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

Hello Dan

Prater says she lives in 'the room' above Kelly one time and 'just above' another time. The question here is whether she lived DIRECTLY above and the words 'the room' would seem to indicate that this was the case. But the reports that she lived 'ABOVE THE SHED' and she was 'the occupant of THE FIRST FLOOR FRONT ROOM and that there was a couple who lived in the room OVERHEAD #13 who had 'slept soundly without being awakened by scuffling in the ROOM BENEATH THEM' would seem to contradict this. Did not Prater live in Room 20 Millers Court which was at the FRONT OF #26 overlooking Dorset Street according to later information, as opposed to #19 which was DIRECTLY above #13. I may be mis-remembering but I seem to think that there was a quote from Prater to the effect that she heard a cry that came not from the STREET BELOW but from THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT. Why should she say that if she lived in it (ie the Court)? What are your 'multiple reports' that show that Prater lived directly above Kelly in Room#19? The Lodging House Light that went off at 3am would presumably be above the front entrance of Crossinghams. And Prater refers to NOISE at the back of a lodging house, not a LIGHT.

[Dan Norder]

What are your 'multiple reports' that show that Prater lived directly above Kelly in Room#19?

Read the thread.