Elizabeth Prater

[Stewart P Evans]

The Last Word

This appears to be one of those debates where more than one participant wants to have the last word. The evidence presented here is often ambiguous and a great deal of weight is being placed on what may be an erroneous press report. The Daily Telegraph report has patent errors in it, as do many of the press reports.

I do not wish to sway anybody to my opinions if they do not agree with me. I am no better than the next man and I have made errors (doesn't everyone?). This debate appears to have descended to a childish level and I have certainly been given cause to re-think my past assessment of certain posters. Having admitted that I am fallible and not wishing to participate in circular arguments I shall merely post the written statement of Elizabeth Prater taken on 9th November, three days before the inquest. And, yes, we are all well aware that it gives the address as 27 Dorset Street, not 26, but that is probably to be expected as McCarthy owned the joint address of 26/27 Dorset Street.

I am not going to make any comment on this statement and have no doubt that the various combatants will make their own interpretation of it. I shall not be posting on this thread again.

[Ally]

Me neither Dan. But I would imagine that a historian writing the history of your life in 120 years time faced with 10 pieces of evidence that you lived in Knoxville and one that you lived in Memphis would go with the former.

I may be nuts here, but so far I haven't seen ONE piece of evidence that points to Prater living anywhere but above Kelly. I've seen speculation, but not evidence.

[Sam Flynn]

If my judgment is at fault, so be it - although I reiterate that I don't think it is, in this context - but I hope I've conducted myself with even-handedness and decorum. That's all I have to say.

[Tom_Wescott]

If my judgment is at fault, so be it - although I reiterate that I don't think it is, in this context - but I hope I've conducted myself with even-handedness and decorum. That's all I have to say.

You threw a bit fo sexiness into the mix as well, which is always appreciated.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Ally writes:

"so far I haven't seen ONE piece of evidence that points to Prater living anywhere but above Kelly"

...and I think that those who post on the thread will all agree on that, for live above Kelly she did, no doubt. The question at hand, though, is whether she lived exactly above her or not, and since we are not speaking proof but evidence here, the various reports on Prater living "almost above" Kelly, living "above the shed" and in "the first floor front room" are useful.

One of the things that have perhaps not been discussed enough here is the very obvious possibility that at least some of the newspapers will have recognized the extra spice added to the story if they reported Prater as living "above" Kelly in a manner that lent itself to interpreting it as if Prater in fact lived exactly above her. Few papers would have had the self respect to look away from the possibility that offered itself, if I am correct. I am a newspaper man myself, and though heaps of water has passed under heaps of bridges since 1888, that would be a common trait between journalists of now and then.
In consequence with this, my feeling is that IF Prater had really lived exactly above Kelly, much more would have been elaborated on the thing; "She was killed right under my very feet", "her bed was exactly under mine" and that sort of thing. The fact that there are no such sensations mentioned bears silent witness to the fact that Praters room was NOT above Kellys, at least in my opinion.

The best!
Fisherman

PS. Stephen - thanks for your kind words! DS.

[Stephen Thomas]

what's your beef?

Illogicality, Tom. The weight of evidence shows Prater was not living DIRECTLY over Kelly full stop (or period to the woodens). While I'm here may I congratulate you on your Berner Street work. Excellent stuff.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"No, it takes at least three of the four of us to agree before your suggestion is officially deemed useless."

Yes, it is silly, is it not? The earth being flat and all that...

I have no problems at all to bow to great knowledge. Nor does it bother me that there are people around who are extremely good at combining such knowledge with the gift of drawing useful conclusions from it. Furthermore, it is a joy to recognize those who add values as honesty, a will to share and a friendly attitude to it all. I bow to them!

...and if they include a true will to stay openminded at all times, and never let themselves be deceived into believing that their superiority comes with a guarantee of being unfallable, I bow even deeper. They represent all that Casebook should be about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

Thank you for those kind words. They do indeed describe myself, Stewart, Dan, Rob, and Philip, aka The Infallible Four.

Stephen,

That was a quick turnaround! Thanks for bothering to read. I got the impression you weren't a Ripper Notes reader.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Michael and Sam,
You both mention the two window scenario, one in the Court, one in Dorset St. would either of you be able to post a rough drawing of how this would work out? I'm having trouble imagining it.

Hi Debra

The two window scenario isn't really viable as it would involve Prater occupying the entire first floor of #26 (USA second floor) which was comprised of three rooms like so....


And here's another dodgy sketch of mine from the lost boards...


A bit of precision here with a graphic by Sam Flynn from the lost boards, which I'm sure he won't mind me re-posting, showing (in red) Kelly's room and by extension Room #19 DIRECTLY above, where several Ripperological geniouses here claim Prater resided despite what the good lady said herself.

[Dan Norder]

Is this how the boards work; no matter how much value and weight a suggestion carries, if one of the presented "respected" researchers does not agree, your suggestion is rendered useless?

No, and that's not even what I was suggesting. None of those people I named all agree on everything in this field with any of the other people on that list. And, you are right, even if they/we did it wouldn't mean they/we were right. But certainly the position supported by that many respected people doesn't deserve to be slagged off by one aggressive message board poster as if it were crazy talk just because two people he doesn't like (thanks to some conflict he had years back and doesn't seem to want to get over) happen to agree with it.

I would have thought that since most of the presented evidence on the thread points in the direction of Praters room NOT being directly over Kellys, one ought perhaps lend an ear to that fact.

Boy, we don't seem to be reading the same thread at all. I'd say most of the evidence shows the opposite. Certainly the most reliable evidence (police statements, inquest testimony, building plans) point that way, and that should take precedence over the less reliable evidence (a suspicious word in a single news article that might not even have interviewed the correct person and speculation about the meaning of other news articles).

Frankly I've not even said that Prater's room was directly above Kelly's, just that it seems to be what the preponderance of the evidence points at right now. If enough compelling new evidence contrary to what I thought on this topic (or any other for that matter) ever comes along, I'd accept it and lean the other way. Coming to firm conclusions depends on stronger evidence still, but, if some appears, then it's no skin off my teeth. I'm more a supporter of how to come to fair and reasonable conclusions than any specific conclusion.

[perrymason]

Based on that last post from Mr Evans, it occurs to me that we may have an answer to what Elizabeth referred to as "the lodging house". If she gave her address as 27 Dorset, rather than it being a press error, she may well think of 26-27 as a lodging house.....both buildings. Her statement may refer to a light from 27 that is extinguished.

I think we all should calm down too...this is about where EP's room was, not who killed Mary...or who the Ripper was. Maybe save the venom for more important matters..cause this isnt one. The only value Liz has is with the light not seen from Marys room, and the cry of "oh-murder" she hears along with Sarah Lewis. And the only way she could have heard it "as from the court" is via an opening from the court to the upper floor.

Cheers.

[The Good Michael]

The Korean connection to noise from below or from the court: The Buddhist Temple 20 feet from my northernmost window, has recently purchased, stolen, or incarnated a couple of obnoxious dogs. I sleep with my windows open as it is hot here. I know where the noise is coming from. It is north of me and below me, as that is where the dogs are. The reality is, when I am awakened 6 or seven times a night by the dogs going wild at drunken Koreans passing by at all hours of the night, the sounds seem to come from all three open windows at once. If the wind is blowing from the west, the barking is louder on that side. Sometimes the noise comes across and not from below. Now I am an expert on this dog noise and am considering killing them in order that they might be reincarnated as crickets or something. This happens every single night without failure. Prater heard a noise once and she may have been drinking, yet her word is used to try and figure logistics? Not feasible.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

Thank you for those kind words. They do indeed describe myself, Stewart, Dan, Rob, and Philip, aka The Infallible Four.

Well, Tom - thatīs as interesting a combination of Freud and maths as we are ever going to see on the boards!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dan Norder writes:
"certainly the position supported by that many respected people doesn't deserve to be slagged off by one aggressive message board poster as if it were crazy talk"

Agreed. The reason somebody is respected in this field lies of course in the fact that he or she has proven him- or herself able. And as long as able researchers do not step into the trap of believing that their talents will somehow have a retroactive effect on the case, there is every reason to attach weight to their notions.

"Boy, we don't seem to be reading the same thread at all. I'd say most of the evidence shows the opposite."

We read the same thread, alright. But we donīt read it the same way. I have already given my view on why I think the traditional view of Praters room being situated directly above Kellys room needs to be seriously questioned, and I see no reason whatsoever to back away from it.
There is always an initial slowness in accepting that traditionally "established facts" may actually be wrong (ask Kopernikus ...), and combined with the fact that it challenges the views of people who had rather seen their views accepted unchallenged, it is not a strange thing. I am speaking generally here, and not referring to you specifically, since you have stated that you have no trouble with things like these.

The best!
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Elizabeth Praters actual written statement at least confirms that she left the court at 9am, and returned at 1am, which would then add credence to her account of meeting MJK at the court entrance, when she describes her as wearing a jacket, and HAT...
Yet at midnight Kellys clothing was described as being different?
Her police statement actual mentions 'she screamed two/three times, yet at the inquest that differed, was not 'Awaken ftom a nightmare' the description?
The argument 'Where was Praters room?' will proberly ramble on , but the main point is, she heard [ claimed] sounds, and she pointed them in the direction of the court.
Regards Richard.