| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 249
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 11:58 am: |       |
Just a thought but I'm not entirely sure that "a cry of oh! murder!" isn't just a colloquial expression used for any vague scream of distress. The reason I say this is because otherwise it seems that an awful lot of people liked going around crying "oh! murder!" |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 57
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:21 pm: | |
Alan,
I think you are on to something with that suggestion; there seems to have been a lot of folks reporting such cries. Indeed, it may have been more than just an expression of vague distress. It might well have been a catch-phrase of the moment indicating anything from distress to disbelief to even mild excitement. Just part of the problems faced by social historians when trying to recapture even the relatively recent past. Slang expressions come and go rapidly and when encountered in isolation can confuse, especially if we take them too literally.
I am reminded of a story by a friend who worked in a big city hospital. A patient came into the emergency room and complained of "butterflies in his stomach." The examining physician was foreign born and while he spoke reasonable formal English was unfamiliar with the slang phrase and thus diagnosed the patient as hallucinatory.
Don. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 272
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:29 pm: | |
Alan,
You may be right. Sort of how we would use "Screaming bloody murder". It doesn't mean someone actually screamed out the words "bloody murder".
Sarah |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 279
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:49 pm: | |
Re: Melted Teapot
I tend to agree that this is unusual enough to suggest connection with the murder. However, a fire resulting from the partial burning of some clothing would certainly not produce enough heat. On the other hand, a hot fire would have more completely consumed the clothing. So there is no really good answer. The melted teapot does suggest that there was a recent hot fire in Mary's fireplace. This in itself is problematic since I don't see how Mary could afford firewood or coal. Perhaps it was being supplied by McCarthy, but this seems unlikely since she was so far behind in her rent. Also, no mention is made of firewood or coal in the description of the room contents.
Re: Screams
We have to remember that in a era before telephones one had to communicate what was happening in time of distress in order to get aid. If someone breaks into my house I don't pick up the telephone and scream, I pick up the telephone and dial 911 (999) and say "There is someone braking into my house." So, a cry of "Oh! Murder" is not so much a cry of surprise, but is more equivalent to calling police to communicate the need for assistance.
Andy S.
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 5:17 pm: | |
Wasn't one of the things burned in Mary's fireplace a hat? Would hatter's glue have acted as an accelerant? I know that in Victorian times it was neurotoxic and eventually could cause brain damage, thus the expression "mad as a hatter", but I really don't know anything about what kind of chemical it was and whether it would burn. I would think that a straw hat would burn rather well too. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
Something just clicked while I was posting that. Nichols had just gotten a "jolly bonnet" and hatters were made insane by exposure to hatting glue in droves before someone figured out the connection. I vaguely recall that one of the non canonicals had just gotten a new hat too. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 5:28 pm: | |
Something just clicked while I was posting that. Nichols had just gotten a "jolly bonnet" and hatters were made insane by exposure to hatting glue in droves before someone figured out the connection. I vaguely recall that one of the non canonicals had just gotten a new hat too. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 5:30 pm: | |
Sorry for the double post. Check out www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmadhatter.html |
Brad McGinnis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 70
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
Hi All,
Slight correction here...the tea pot didnt melt, rather the solder around the spout melted allowing the spout to fall off. This stuff is either lead or a lead/tin combo. In any case the temp of the tea pot as long as it contained water or tea would never exceed approx 212 F or 100 C.
Im not sure of the melting temp for lead or lead/tin. I think it less than 700 F. The spout would drop off an empty kettle at a relative low temp. A wood fire can easily hit 2000 F in the coals. In any event the tea kettle Mary had was a cheap, poor quality implement. A good one would have been cast or braised.
Regards, Brad.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1538
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 7:59 am: | |
Hi Brad
Re the kettle, assuming any water inside had boiled away, I'm puzzled why it didn't implode.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 275
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 9:31 am: | |
Andrew,
You said:-
one had to communicate what was happening in time of distress in order to get aid
But how would she know that she was about to be murdered. I still don't see it being a plausible thing to cry out if you were being murdered. Even today we can't always be around a phone and even if you were you couldn't just pick up the phone to call for help if someone was approaching you with a knife, they wouldn't let you but you still wouldn't call out the words "Oh Murder!".
Maybe what I'm having problems with is the "Oh" bit. Maybe I could understand if it was a cry of just "Murder", but I don't understand the "Oh". Even at that I still see it as unlikely and I believe she would have screamed not bothered trying to communicate what was happening.
Also, (blimey I do go on) it was supposed to be a common cry heard in Whitechapel so if it actually meant that the person was being murdered then surely people would pay attention to it. If some man was bothering a woman today it is common for the woman to shout "Rape!" or to threaten to shout it, maybe this was the same for the "Oh Murder" cry.
Ok done for now.
Sarah |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 58
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
Granted, there is a paucity of documentary evidence to work with, but we can't get too wrought up with the meaning of words. For one thing, we don't really know what Prater heard in the night -- and she may not have known herself.
At the inquest, she said it was a cry of "oh! Murder!" but in her statement to the police it was "I heard screams of murder about two or three times in a female voice."
Which version did she actually hear or was it something else entirely? She did say she heard it right after being wakened by a kitten, so she was probably a bit groggy anyway.
The point to consider is that her statement to the police and inquest testimony were at variance slightly, yet there would seem no reason for her to change her testimony. It was likely that her recollection of the incident was just a bit hazy throughout. So, to get hung up on the word "Oh!" is a fruitless exercise. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 277
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:45 am: | |
Donald,
The only reason I question it is because if she did hear "oh! Murder!", then I don't think it came from Mary Jane, yet if it was just screams she heard then I would lean towards Mary Jane making that sound. Screams and "oh! Murder!" are two very different things. I didn't mean for anyone to get hung up on the word "oh!", I was just saying that most people would just say "Murder" and not say "oh" before it.
Anyway I I said to Andrew, if the cry of "Murder" was supposed to draw attention then why was it so common? Why did no-one care if they heard it? She must have known how common it was so why would she call that out.
It's all very well to say not to get too wrought up with the meaning of words but people are always saying things like that about parts of the case, but I think that every single tiny detail is important here and must be looked at otherwise important things could be easily overlooked. I'm not saying this is very important just that I don't agree that it necessarily came from Mary Jane's room, which could mean that she wasn't definitely killed at 4.00 am.
Sarah |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 59
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:21 am: | |
Sarah,
I don't want to belabor the point (and I have work to do), but several things must be considered.
1) We have no way of knowing what Prater actually heard (if, indeed, she heard anything) and because of the slight discrepancies between her two documented recollections she probably didn't know herself.
2) We have no way of knowing when the cries occurred and neither did she. She thought sometime between 3:30 and 4 a.m. and then amended it to probably after 4 because the lodging house lights were out. In any case, she clearly didn't have a clock at hand.
3) She did not state the sounds came from Kelly's room. Perhaps they did and perhaps they did not -- we don't know because she didn't know.
4) Finally, we don't even know what the frequently heard cries of "murder" meant in that area. They could be cries of distress, but they could have been just a contemporary catch-phrase meaning all sorts of things.
With so many unknowable factors about one simple thing -- the cries in the night Elizabeth Prater (probably but not assuredly) heard -- it just seems hard to formulate anything substantive about the event.
Don. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 280
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Before I get into a reply, I just wanted to put something on this thread as I can't remember where it was mentioned before. Someone said once that the Ripper couldn't have been gay as he killed women and serial killers tend to kill people of the same sex as the one they desire. This is completely wrong. I came across the case of Christopher Worrell and James Miller who were gay lovers but killed many young women.
Ok, that's over with.
Don,
You said:-
She did not state the sounds came from Kelly's room
She actually did the next morning when the police questioned her.
You also said:-
We have no way of knowing what Prater actually heard (if, indeed, she heard anything)
I think we can say that she heard something as Sarah Lewis also heard the same thing.
Sarah |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
If I am a nervous witness in 1888 and I am trying to explain and demonstrate to the court that I heard an indeterminate scream followed by an articulated scream of "murder!" it might come out something like "aaaaaaagh murder!" and could easily be transcribed, "oh, murder!" |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 51
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:39 pm: | |
This is interesting Sarah.There is a discussion on another thread about whether two people could have been involved and Monty convinced me after reading his post that this was unlikely.
However it has been suggested that JK Stephen and Montague Druitt may have been involved in something like this on the basis that they may have both been gay, knew each other and had a dislike of women-----I think what you say is worth following up.Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 283
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 1:01 pm: | |
Sarah,
Your points are well made and well taken! I think the "Oh!" was likely a journalistic embellishment. A cry of "Murder!" is easily understood as a call for help indicating the specific need. The question remain why no one responded. I suspect there are two reasons. (1) People screaming "false alarm" cries of "murder" was probably a common occurrence. (2) People generally don't want to get involved. Every American who grew up in the 1960s knows the case of Kitty Genovese who was murdered in New York -- her screams heard by many neighbors with no one coming to her aid or so much as calling for help.
Brd,
I know it was the solder holding the spout that melted. I was just trying to be brief. Still, solder on a teapot would have to resist the temperature of an ordinary fire in order for the teapot to be functional. If the water were allowed to boil away, however, it could melt in over a relatively cool fire, I suppose. Assuming that it was melted the night of Mary's murder (by a cool fire), why was it left over the fire or placed over the fire to begin with? Also, a fire fueled only by burning garments would not produce enough heat to even melt the solder.
Andy S.
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 2:03 pm: | |
Earlier I was debating whether Mary was dressing or undressing when attacked but I think the teakettle answers it. Why was the kettle on the fire in the first place? Because just before she was attacked, Mary put it there apparently to heat water. Mary was killed and the water boiled away causing the kettle to become superheated and lose it's spout. Mary did not have running water in that room. She would have had to go out to the courtyard to fill the teakettle. So she carries the kettle out to the sink, fills it, and goes back to the room and puts it on the fire. Then she undresses down to her chemise before being attacked.
How did he get in and when did he get in? Well this opens up some new possibilities. If she left the door unlatched when she made her run to the sink he could have slunk in then. Or, she had time to go out hunting clients again in between Hutchinson's departure (2:45) and the scream of "Oh Murder" at or about 4:00. She meets Jack on the street and he says to run along home. He'll be along in a minute. That way he is not seen with her walking down the street. She gets to her room fills the kettle and puts it on the fire. She has undressed down to her chemise when there is a knock at the door and the rest is history. |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 60
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 2:20 pm: | |
Sarah,
What is your source for Prater telling the police the cry came from Kelly's room? It does not appear in her statement of November 9.
As for the other point, I did say that she "probably" heard something in the night, as did Lewis. There is, if you like, a strong probability -- but beyond that we truly cannot go. And, among the four statements by the two women there are three variations of what they heard. Take your pick.
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 284
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 2:38 pm: | |
Diana,
One problem with your theory: Why would Mary's killer leave the tea kettle to whistle away, possibly attracting attention, rather than to take it off the fire?
Andy S.
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
I don't know. Did the kettle have a whistle? Some kettles don't. Also if the lid is not on or not tight fitting the steam will escape through the opening at the top and the whistle will never make a sound. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 11:03 pm: | |
Saddam wrote:
"You can't just say "Oh, pooh! Witnesses are known to be mistaken!" unless you show why these particular witnesses were. "
Nonsense. That's assuming things to be true because you have no proof that they aren't, which is totally the opposite of how science, criminology, the legal system and common sense works. I'm not saying they are all wrong, I'm just saying that nobody should assume any of them are right.
Studies show that most witness statements are wrong in a great many details, so if you want to take these reports as accurate you would need to show that they should be accepted to a higher level of what normal witness statements can be counted on to be, not the other way around.
On top of that, you'll note that the ones referred to as Jack the Ripper witnesses report not being able to see the people clearly, not having a reason to take notice, time periods that do not necessarily match up with the time of death and so forth. Logically, even if we assume that these witnesses were much more accurate in their reports than most witnesses actually are, we can't even be guaranteed that they things they reported seeing are relevant to the case.
Examples: The guy seen accosting Stride may not be her killer. Stride may not even be a ripper victim. Lawende said he couldn't identify the man he saw, and there's no solid reason to believe that the person was Jack the Ripper either. Hutchinson gave a detailed description way beyond anything that makes sense for what he could be expected to see and note. The other witnesses are even more vague and more unlikely to have relevant information and occasionally provide information that has been proven to be wrong.
Now some of them MAY be right and relevant, but to assume that any specific one of them IS right AND provides helpful information for the case would be a huge mistake. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 11:25 pm: | |
Andrew wrote:
"The melted teapot does suggest that there was a recent hot fire in Mary's fireplace. "
I don't see how. It's not like a partially melted teapot goes back to being unmelted on a night when there isn't a hot fire. Unless you assume Mary had enough money and drive to replace anything that was partially damaged within 24 hours, I can't see how this proves a recent hot fire at all.
Just because some police investigator comes in and says, "My maid would never allow a melted teapot in my home, so this must have happened recently." (or, "Odd, there's writing on a wall, it must be new and important.") doesn't mean he has a firm grasp oh how things actually worked.
All too many people are grasping at straws here. The lack of easily-identifiable good evidence means weak evidence is being twisted and promoted as if it were of utmost importance to solving the case. |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 5:51 am: | |
Hi Dan
"What I am getting at is that the killer waited for her to lead him (or be led) to the backyard before attacking. That would mean that he could successfully hold off on attacking until he was in a situation or location that was more suited to the act of murder. This goes against the theory that he couldn't have made himself wait for MJK to undress before attacking and points more toward an organized killer than a disorganized one. "
The trouble is, we don't know what his 'trigger' was. We don't know if he deliberatly sought out prostitutes or was it just they were handy females to approach? What was his trigger? It might have been the actual request for money for example. One of the points that interests me is the absence of cash on the victims, meaning either he hadn't paid yet or he retrieved the money.
If it was the asking for cash, I can easily imagine that typically that might take place after getting off the street and before the service itself was provided. Perhaps whether the lady asked for payment on the street or after getting somewhere - relatively - private might depend on how drunk and reckless she was at the time, rather than JtR's planning.
Regards
Pete
|
