|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:17 pm: |       |
Sarah wrote:
"That wasn't a theory, it was a fact. Grapes were expensive fruit, I'm not getting into this again as I've looked it up in the past and already know it was."
Then look it up in a reliable reference relating specifically to the time in place in question. Grapes were sold there, at prices normal people could afford from time to time. All the people claiming otherwise pretty much would have us believe that Packard sold grapes to the royal palace or something.
If you choose to continue to harp on the grapes theory that's your own affair, but it doesn't count as a fact. |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Hi all; I live on Cape Breton Island. Back in the old days, the island was populated by many poor and hard working Scottish immigrants. When people were very poor and hungry, they used to go to the ocean and scrounge up lobsters to sustain themselves. This was considered to be like scraping the bottom of the barrel for food.
The other staple was salty cod, a meal that is still popular today.
Now look how expensive and extravagant it is considered to have a lobster dinner!
I would say the same applied to fish. For goodness sake, Britain would have perished from hunger if they were not an island surrounded by the sea to supply plentiful amounts of fish, mussels and other seafoods.
Now, some people like to eat a meal after an evening of drinking, and may have no appetite for food the next morning at all. Others wake up hungry for a big scoff. Lets have a poll of our own, which do you prefer?
If Mary's well dressed man is for real, then perhaps he had the fish and chip dinner in that parcel he was seen carrying. In the morning, he could have sent Mary out for the milk for their tea,(or a bad stomach), and perhaps they polished off the remains of the meal in the morning and burned the newspaper that it came in.
"You will be comfortable" sounds like something you would say to a visitor who is planning to stay for a little while.
Blotchy face man with the carrotty mustache sounds to me like a relative of Mary's, with whom she shared a pail of beer and a few Irish songs.
Could he not have been one of her brothers visiting? "Sing us a song like Mother used to Mary".
If she was seen in the morning, then it was after her guest was gone, and she was looking for some more action at the pub. This would be when she brought home the killer.
What a mystery our Mary was!
Joan |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 781
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 7:42 am: | |
Dan,
It is a fact. I'm not saying only royalty or the upper classes could afford it as that's not what a 'luxury item' means.
It means that from time to time people can buy it. We can call Hagen Daz ice cream a luxury compared to normal ice cream but it doesn't mean we can't afford it because we can if we don't mind paying a bit more than regular ice cream.
Sarah |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
By the way, I can remember in the late sixties when fish and chips were only two bob a lot (portion).
Thats ten new pence! And this in the nineteen sixties.
The fish and chip shops did a roaring trade, one always had to queue in order to buy them.
Fish and chips were always a cheap and filling meal for the British working class.
It was no different in late Victorian Britain.
there were numerous outlets for the humble fish supper.
Some enterprising householders would even cook them on their kitchen stoves and sell them out of their front windows!
So Mary kelly would most certainly have been able to afford this most English of meals. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 426
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:05 pm: | |
As to the cost of a meal of fish and potatoes, I will concede that I have no expertise so I will drop that feature from my premise. It is not integral.
We have a corpse on Mary's bed that probably died sometime around 4AM [Yes, I know this is an inexact estimate of TOD but it is the best we have and is probably reasonably accurate].
We have in the corpse's stomach contents the remnants of a meal of fish and potatoes that was eaten a few hours before death, i.e. probably around midnight.
We have Mary seen drinking in a pub at around 11PM.
There is no proof, but these puzzle pieces suggest that Mary ate a meal of fish and potatoes, perhaps in that pub, around midnight and was then killed and left in her room around 4AM.
As to Maxwell, I admit that her testimony is a problem. But let me give another illustration on how easy it is to get days mistaken. You've all had the experience of having a Monday holiday off work (or been home sick on Monday). Aren't you confused the rest of the week as to what day it is? You might well remember something that happened on Wednesday as having happened on Tuesday! This occurs when our normal routine is disrupted so that our usual memory "triggers" are rendered inaccurate. Perhaps something happened in Maxwell's life to disrupt her schedule that week. It's not that implausible.
Andy S.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 786
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Andy,
I agree that it is possible to mix up days but I disagree that Maxwell could possibly have got the same day that she saw Mary and heard about her death mixed up. By the time she knew about Mary's murder (which was the 9th) she would instantly think to herself "Oh my, I only saw a few hours ago".
For example, last year a woman I knew quite well died last year. I saw her in the morning and heard about her death later that same day. I instantly knew that I had seen her that morning.
If there had been a few days between Mary's death and Mrs Maxwell hearing about it then ok, maybe she did get her days mixed up but not on the same day. I don't accept that.
Sarah |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 428
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
Sarah,
I guess the key factor is when Maxwell first heard of Mary's death. I will agree that if she heard about it at, say noon, then it is unlikely she would be mistaken about having seen someone she thought was Mary only a couple of hours beforehand. If, however, it was later in the day, I could see where she might have been confused -- especially if she might have indulged in a drink or two throughout the day.
Andy S. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 727
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
Hi,
We are really making excuses here, a mistake on the day is unexceptable, the returning of plates, which Maxwell had in her poccession, was confirmed by the owner of said items, she was so confinced that she was prepeared to swear on oath, when every chance was given to have retracted her statement, with ' I might have been mistaken'.
The fact that she was prepeared to swear, under oath, warrants respect, that she was convinced, that she saw the woman known as mary jane, on the morning of the 9th november at 815, also 845am.
Why should we doubt her honesty?.
Richard.
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 430
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
I agree that she was either convinced that she saw Mary Friday morning or she was lying. But that's not the same as saying that she in fact did see Mary then.
1. She could have been mistaken.
2. She could have been lying.
Why lie (and I'm not saying she did)? Perhaps she was an accomplice. Perhaps she just enjoyed the notoriety.
The reason we question her honesty or accuracy is that her testimony is so out of line with the rest of what we know.
Andy S. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 793
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
Andy,
Well I doubt we'll ever know when Maxwell heard of Mary's death but as far as I remember the news spread pretty fast as a large crowd had gathered within a few hours.
I also doubt she lied, especially for the fame, mainly because I think that if that was her plan then she would probably have made up something about seeing Mary with the killer at the appropriate time. Why make up that she had seen her "after" her death?
I still believe that she did see her that morning, whether that means Mary wasn't the body on the bed or whether Mary was killed later that morning I don't know for certain but I do believe that Mrs Maxwell did see Mary that morning.
Sarah |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:20 am: | |
Richard, lots of people are convinced of lots of things that turn out to be wrong. Saying that she may be mistaken is not the same thing as calling her a liar. Based upon the description I think she was nattering off to some other person completely that she only thought was MJK. I think it's also conceivable that thse may have had memory problems brought on by drink or some more naturally ocurring problem. But her testimony, if true, could have been easily verified by talking to people in the pub that morning, and it wasn't... not to mention the loner she described doesn't match what we know of Mary's life.
But this is going around in circles. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 11:11 am: | |
Alex.
Where can the source for the 9th November police statement of Mrs Prater be found? i.e. the one where she said that she had heard two or three cries of murder.
I’ve had a look around, and can only find the inquest report, but cannot find the statement she gave to police on 9 November.
I'm also sure I’ve read somewhere that the method she used to determine the time of the cry, lay in the fact that the Lamp above the lodging house across the road from her, was extinguished.
Apparently they extinguished the lamp at a set time, 3:30 I believe (but don't quote me). And she set the time of the cry by this fact.
People who don't have timepieces tend to use this method of determining the time.
This has a ring of truth about it, and I would say that this statement tips the balance in favour of Mrs Prater.
Of course the above is just a memory with me, something I think I have read (these things happen all the time), so don't quote me.
Prater apparently lived above Kelly, and said that she could hear Kelly move around in her room below.
Isn't it possible that with her being closer to Kelly than Mr Lewis, she heard more than Mrs Lewis (that’s if she did hear three cries)?
One final fact comes to me regarding Mrs Prater. If it is true, that she did state that she determined the time of the cry by the extinguished lamp, then she could not, as has been stated, live in the room directly above Mary Kelly.
If Mrs Prater could see the lamp above the lodging house from her room window, then she must of occupied the front upper room that looked out onto Crossinghams lodging house across the street. Mary Kelly lived in the rear of the two rooms on the ground floor of the building.
The only other alternative is that the upper room in the building the one immediately above Kelly,( Mrs Praters) stretched from the front of the building, right to the rear of the building.
See map in, " Is this the last known photo of Millers Court", thread.
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 432
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Dan makes a good point. If Mary had indeed been in Ringer's Friday morning -- a place she apparently frequented -- it should have been easy to confirm by asking the bartender who served her the beer which she later vomited up. I must admit I'd never thought of that.
Also, it is plausible that Maxwell was lying to bring notoriety on herself (though I believe this is less likely). Why say she saw Mary after the supposed time of her death? Perhaps because making such a controversial statement would invite more notoriety. Why not say she saw Mary with the killer? I don't know. Maybe it didn't occur to her. Maybe making up a description was too difficult for her. Awfully hard to explain why a person didn't do something.
Andy S. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 165
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Cludgy,
The Ultimate JtR Companion compiled by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner has the statements witnesses gave to the police.
Don. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 209
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Hi Cludgy,
Elizabeth Prater’s inquest testimony in The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner says:
“I went to sleep at once I had something to drink I slept soundly till a kitten disturbed me about 3.30 to 4. I noticed the lodging house light was out, so it was after 4 probably – I heard a cry of oh! Murder!”
I think the lodging house (which I assume to have been situated in Brushfield Street) she was speaking of was the same one that she mentioned in the police statement, in which she said:
“I did not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Miller’s Court.”
Hope this clears things up for you.
Take care,
Frank
|
Simon Owen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
A very important question : why are there no transcripts of interviews with the Ringers in the case files , why did they not attend the inquest and why did the police apparently not interview any customers in the Britannia on that morning ? |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
Sorry Cludgy, I’m obviously getting sloppy in my old age.
The reference for Prater’s statement to police on 9 Nov. 1888 is MJ/SPC, NE1888, Box 3, Case Paper 19, pages 26 & 27 (London Metropolitan Archives).
As Don and Frank confirmed, this statement can also be found in Evans & Skinner’s “Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook” page 365. The part of Prater’s inquest testimony quoted above by Frank can be found on page 372 of the Sourcebook.
Below is a copy of the relevant extract from Prater’s actual police statement.
Best wishes
alex
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 166
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 9:07 pm: | |
Simon's question is similar to one asked recently about why other residents of Miller's Court were not questioned and did not appear at the inquest. Again, from those few police investigations at the time of which we have records the police seem to have been assiduous in checking out leads and I would presume they did the same with the Kelly murder.
If you look at the statements given the police as well as those at the inquest, all the people involved seem to have had information to impart and that is why their statements were taken and they were called to the inquest. The police would hardly bother with a formal statement, far less an inquest appearance, if all someone had to say is "I dunno" "I didn't see nobody" "Nope, don't remember nothing" and the like.
It is quite likely the police did question other Miller's Court residents or Ringers patrons, but got nothing worthwhile from any of them.
Don.
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Thanks Alex for the reference, pertaining to Mrs Praters police statement.
It does mean of course that she did indeed change her statement for the inquest.
But are we to ignore her statement on these grounds? Personally I do not.
The sighting of the extinguished lodging house light(to determine the time), swings it in her favour,for me, that she was telling the truth. This statement, as i have said, has a ring of truth about it.
Thanks also to Frank for locating the light in question. I had assumed that the light she meant was the one in Crossinghans in Dorset street, thus requiring her to have slept, to the front of the building, her window looking out into Dorset Street.
I wasn't aware that a lodging house in Brushfield Street, backed onto Dorset Street, and was visible from Millers Court. Thus Mrs Prater could have occupied a room directly above Mary Kelly.
The reason for her altered statement?
I believe that she had a little time to think between the police statement, and the Inquest, and exagerated a little, initially to the police. She then realised that she had heard only one scream, and said so at the inquest. Remember she was corroborated by Mrs Lewis.
Also Prater and Lewis could not have conferred before their respective interviews by the police, because we are told by Mrs Lewis that she was confined to her room in Millers court until 5:00 P.M. on the night of the ninth. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 7:36 am: | |
Alex.
Have been up to the City Library to have a look at the JTR Sourcebook (must get one).
I read Mrs Praters statement to the inquest and am now of the opinion that she may not necessarily have contradicted herself, regarding the number of cries of "murder".
If you look at her statement carefully she said,
“A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four.
As I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice.
It seemed to proceed from the court.
Do you often hear cries of "Murder?" -
It is nothing unusual in the street. I did not take particular notice.
Did you hear it a second time? - No.
I think what she was implying at the inquest was that she didn’t hear the shout again, i.e. 10seconds, 15seconds, a minute, after the initial double, or triple, cry of murder.
Do you see what I mean? She heard someone cry twice or three times, and then she heard nothing more, hence it could be that when she said she didn’t hear the cry a second time she may have actually told the truth.
Is that clear, I suspect it is not!
All the best
Cludgy.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 835
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:38 am: | |
Does anyone else think that is is odd that the cry of "Murder" was common in that area? I do, but mostly because, as I said on another thread, murder was actually not that common in that district as there were no recorded murders for that area in 1887 at all. It was a criminal area but the crimes were more robbery, etc.
Maybe the cry of murder is like the cry of rape today. Some women often say that, if a man is bothering them that they will cry out "Rape!!". Maybe "Murder!!" was something like that as murder was taken more seriously than rape was back then. I know Mrs Prater said she paid it no heed but we have to wonder why the cry of "Murder" was so common if the actual act was not.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 7:39 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
Such was the Ripper scare! By that time, everyone was suspected, and panicked at the slightest thing! The police had to sort through what was just 'normal' behaviour for the area, and what incidents needed to be taken seriously.
LEANNE |
Edgar Hadley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:52 am: | |
Hi Cludgy,
I agree entirely with your interpretation of Mrs.Praters statement.
She heard two or three consecutive cries but the outburst was not repeated.
I think it is a mistake to treat a witness as unreliable just because there are subtle inconsistancies in detail between two statements.
Often when the second statement is made the witness will elaborate for the sake of clarity and sometimes as a result, small descrepancies between the two statements inevitably arise.
Best regards,
Edgar |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
Hi Cludgy, Edgar
As I see it, carefully reading the sources so far cited clearly points to Prater at the inquest claiming to have heard only one cry. “I heard a cry of oh! Murder! ... ... ... I did not hear it a second time.” (Official inquest notes, Sourcebook p.372) “I heard a suppressed cry of ‘Oh – murder!’ in a faint voice. ... ... Did you hear it a second time? – No.” (Daily Telegraph 13 Nov. 1888) Both pretty straightforward references to a single cry, as I see it.
However, the Star, 12 Nov., coverage of Prater’s inquest testimony included the following:
“My kitten disturbed me by putting its cold nose on my mouth, and as I turned over I heard a cry, “Oh, murder!” the first ejaculation being one of surprise, and the second a rather faint cry. Being used to cries of alarm in that neighbourhood, I did not take much notice, but dropped off to sleep.”
While I have to question the reliability of an isolated Star report, this does appear, at first sight, to contradict other newspaper and official reports. That said, however, I think even the Star report has Prater referring to a single cry of “Oh, murder!” The first ejaculation being one of a surprised “Oh!” and the second a rather faint cry of “Murder.”
So, as I see it, Prater’s inquest testimony refers to a single cry, which is at odds with the 'two or three screams' she claimed in her 9 Nov. statement to police. And, while I agree that minor discrepancies in different statements should not automatically be seen to detract from a witness’s overall reliability, I think varying claims as to the number of cries heard is rather more than a subtle inconsistency.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 220
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
For what it’s worth, although today it's not used as much as it used to, here in Holland it’s actually an expression to scream ‘murder and fire’.
Frank
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
