Elizabeth Prater

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

The Times

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

[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.'

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Many thanks for that.

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[Cap'n Jack]

And it always depends on what form you look at:

[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]

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.'