Cry of "Murder"

[Filby]

Elizabeth Prater and Sara Lewis heard "murder" coming from or near Miller's Court, likely at or just before MJK's death, and both responded (paraphrasing here) that they were not overly alarmed due to such shouts being such a commonality in Whitechapel. On the other hand, many of the books I've read have suggested that crime yes, but not murder, was not overly common in Whitechapel - there was a cultural "limit" as to crime and killings hence why part of the reason the JtR crimes were such a concern. Not that there aren't contradictions in these cases, but I think this is an important distinction. Perhaps murders happened more frequently, or perhaps people called out "murder" without it being actual murder? Just trying to get a true image of 1888 Whitechapel crowd and culture.

[kjab3112]

I would suggest that the cry of murder was a separate attack. But could be wrong.

It is often taught in self defence courses to cry “fire” when being attacked as that draws attention, and indeed I’ve been in major incident planning sessions where the use of fire alarms to evacuate an area was considered. If murder is rare but theft and low level sexual assault common, which would draw attention the most? Stop thief? Or stop murder?

I don’t think we can rule out that cry as MJK, but given the previous attacks were undertaken in likely total silence, would the only one with any defensive wound (to the thumb) have really had time to cry murder coherently enough for two individuals to (presumably) separately hear and comprehend? Or was this a slang phrase akin to she “cried blue murder” for a large noise with swearing?

You are right though that murder was rare in Whitechapel 1888 and murder with dismemberment/mutilation rarer still. At least from surviving coroner records


Paul

[Doctored Whatsit]

The fact that two people heard a cry of "murder", and admit that they ignored it, because they said it happened quite frequently, and they don't seem to have been criticised, would appear to confirm that this cry was a fairly common event at the time! A cry of "help" might have received a response, perhaps, despite it sounding less serious!

Murder itself clearly was not common.

[Kattrup]

Murder was uncommon but people cried out “murder” when attacked or when witnessing a violent attack.
It was essentially synonymous with “Help! Look over here, a violent crime is being committed!”

It did not specifically mean that a murder was being committed.

You can search the newspapers at the time or OldBaileyOnline for examples, “cry of murder” and similar phrases.

[c.d.]

I have always wondered about the timing surrounding the witness statements. If they were first told of the murder before saying what they heard it might have influenced them to where some sort of cry in the night became a cry of oh murder because of the circumstances.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What gives me pause for doubt is the fact that the killer would have slipped up and allowed Kelly to cry out. We have no witnesses hearing any cries at the other murders and they were all out in the open where I’d have thought it more difficult to subdue and silence a woman? Kelly was under the influence, in her own room and probably lying on bed oblivious of any danger. I can’t help thinking how easy it would have been for a man lying next to her to slip his hand over her mouth before killing her. After all he was, to a certain extent, trapped inside that room. If he had allowed her to scream I suspect that he’d have waited before proceeding in case a friend came to the door to see if Mary was ok. But would he have been so careless as to have allowed her to scream in the first place? It’s possible but it would have been surprisingly careless under the circumstances imo.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Would a woman who was being murdered cry "murder!", or would she just scream loudly? The call of "murder" seems to me to be more appropriate for a witness to an attack, than a murder victim herself. But then, I am not a Victorian East End woman being attacked with a knife ...

[Filby]

Murder was uncommon but people cried out “murder” when attacked or when witnessing a violent attack.
It was essentially synonymous with “Help! Look over here, a violent crime is being committed!”

It did not specifically mean that a murder was being committed.

You can search the newspapers at the time or OldBaileyOnline for examples, “cry of murder” and similar phrases.

Thanks, that does make a very sensible argument for the broad use of "murder" in the day.

[Filby]

What gives me pause for doubt is the fact that the killer would have slipped up and allowed Kelly to cry out. We have no witnesses hearing any cries at the other murders and they were all out in the open where I’d have thought it more difficult to subdue and silence a woman? Kelly was under the influence, in her own room and probably lying on bed oblivious of any danger. I can’t help thinking how easy it would have been for a man lying next to her to slip his hand over her mouth before killing her. After all he was, to a certain extent, trapped inside that room. If he had allowed her to scream I suspect that he’d have waited before proceeding in case a friend came to the door to see if Mary was ok. But would he have been so careless as to have allowed her to scream in the first place? It’s possible but it would have been surprisingly careless under the circumstances imo.

Thanks Herlock for your input however I'm not so sure that he could have easily controlled a much younger Kelly in a lying position, and assuming this was likely his first murder in a small bed and enclosed room. The argument can also be made it would have been much more difficult for JtR to have leverage and the same deftness as the other crimes. I'm not sure at all and I'm in no way qualified by other than my own opinion, is that it would be more difficult to work with a knife from behind lying down. I'm not sure if the sheet was constraining her face at the time she was murdered. In fact I wonder if he was even in bed with her at the time?

[Filby]

I have always wondered about the timing surrounding the witness statements. If they were first told of the murder before saying what they heard it might have influenced them to where some sort of cry in the night became a cry of oh murder because of the circumstances.

c.d.

Great point c.d., witnesses being influenced by the all the stimuli. etc.. is something I have not really considered in this instance. it's unfortunate and a bit curious they both testified with basically the same excuse for taking no action too.

[The Rookie Detective]

Great point c.d., witnesses being influenced by the all the stimuli. etc.. is something I have not really considered in this instance. it's unfortunate and a bit curious they both testified with basically the same excuse for taking no action too.

Broadly speaking, in most murder cases, alleged witnesses and their respective accounts are often contrived and contradictory, for the reason that nobody would expect a murder to occur and therefore the mind is trying to recall events retrospectively.

This can prove inadvertently inaccurate.

I can speak first hand of an experience that happened to me many years ago; I was sitting on my upstairs balcony of the flat I was renting at the time and observed several individuals get out of a car that had pulled up. I noticed they were behaving unusually and it made me take notice. One of them glanced up and saw me and my instinct told me something was off about this guy. A few moments later another guy arrived on a bicycle and approached the group. I then went inside and closed the blinds and watched the television.
Around 45 minutes later the street outside was full of emergency vehicles.
It turned out that a few minutes after I had observed the strange looking guy glance up at me, he had then gone on to stab the guy on the bicycle.

A drug deal gone wrong.

The victim was left to die on the road and was found around half an hour later clinging to life.

His wounds were unsurvivable.

The following morning the police called at my address and I gave a statement detailing what I saw; in particular the guy who looked up at me who I gave a general description of.

What I found though was just how uncertain I was.

I kept saying to the officer that I could give the colour of the alleged murderers clothing and general appearance, but couldn't recall specific details about him, as I had only looked at him for a few seconds before going back inside my flat.

I kept questioning myself in my head.

In the end I wasn't sure, as I'd talked myself out of what I thought i believed I'd seen. The reason for this being that I'd never anticipated the man I saw was going to end up murdering the man on the bicycle.

The one thing I did recall with certainly was the colour of the vehicle that the man got out of.

Over the next few days I'd anticipated the police following up on my statement. But it never happened and I assumed my statement was seen as unreliable and inadmissible due to the level of uncertainty I'd expressed.

interestingly, the killer was eventually found guilty of murder and sentenced accordingly.

In the newspaper the car was pictured, and the colour matched what I'd said.

I was relieved that I had at least got the colour of the car correct.

My point is that as a witness to the prelude of a real life murder case, I simply couldn't be certain of what I thought I'd witnessed.
I could describe colours of clothing and the car, but outside of that I just couldn't be sure.

On that basis I would urge caution with EVERY alleged Ripper witness.

There will always be a degree of uncertainty when it comes to witnesses. That's just a fact.

What is certain however, is the literal body of evidence of the wounds inflicted by the murderer.
The bodies of the respective victims offer us the best evidence at opening up what and who the Ripper was.

Forget about physical descriptions and timings; they're all open to scrutiny as every witness has their flaws because we are all human, and humans make genuine mistakes even with the best and most sincere of intentions.

I always think its better to look at the Ripper murders as having no witnesses whatsoever.
Imagine looking at each murder but omitting every witness, and then seeing what's left.

The bodies of the victims are the most reliable indication as to unravelling the identity of the real killer or killers.

[richardnunweek]

Hi I Have an alternative explanation Mrs Prater said at the inquest, the cry was like someone awakening from a nightmare..this becomes interesting as Lottie [ court resident ] told Kit Watlins three years later , that MJK had told her she had a nightmare that she was being murdered shortly before she was. So could not, the wording 'oh murder' fit nicely that Kelly awoke having a reoccurrence of that dream.?
Regards Richardl.

[Sam Flynn]

Would a woman who was being murdered cry "murder!", or would she just scream loudly?

BROTHER MAYNARD: It reads "He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the Holy Grail in the Castle of aaarrrrggh"

ARTHUR: What?

BROTHER MAYNARD: "The Castle of aaarrrrggh"

BEDEVERE: What is that?

BROTHER MAYNARD: He must have died while carving it

LANCELOT: Oh, come on!

BROTHER MAYNARD: Well, that's what it says

ARTHUR: Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't bother to carve "aaarrrggh"; he'd just say it!

BROTHER MAYNARD: Well, that's what's carved in the rock!

GALAHAD: Perhaps he was dictating

[Darryl Kenyon]

Regarding cries at the other killings, yes we don't have "Murder" but Albert Cadosch heard a voice say "No" and he said he couldn't be certain from which side it came from IE 29 or 25 Hanbury street. Yet not many of us doubt he didn't hear Annie . Only this time we have two witnesses.

Just food for thought Darryl