Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape Route?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Patient 2 was Catherine C - Collins, Chapman, Caldwell, Campbell, Chandler, Carpenter, Capewell, Carter, Carson?

    Patient 7 was Mary Ann N - Norris, Naylor, Newman, Norman, Nelson, Norwood, Nicholas, Norton, Newton, Neil, Nolan?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

      Hebbert clearly says that the killer attempted to enter the thoracic cavity via the ribs, but failed.
      That left the only route to be via the diahram. As you say Ally, how else would he remove the heart

      Steve
      Hi Steve,

      Perhaps I phased my comment poorly. I was primarily pointing to the removal of the heart from the pericardium rather than the fact it was through the abdominal cavity. I would think that someone employing a slash and grab technique would have cut out the pericardium with the heart still in place.

      The experts in Trevor's movie commented on the fact that there were both amateurish jagged cuts and expert incisions present, which supported Trevor's after the fact theory.

      Cheers, George
      They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
      Out of a misty dream
      Our path emerges for a while, then closes
      Within a dream.
      Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

      Comment


      • Just curious. Am I the only one who thinks this thread has digressed considerably from the OP's original question? Namely the route Jack took to leave the square and how close he came to being detected.

        Not for the first time the spectre of whether Jack did or didn't have time to remove organs has infiltrated the discussion. And as usual the discussion goes in circles.
        Why a four-year-old child could understand this report! Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DJA View Post
          medcht00094-0102.pdf

          Patient 2 was Eddowes (Conway)

          Patient 7 was Nichols
          Even if your identifications are correct, that proves nothing against Sutton.

          Now if cases 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were also butchered by the Ripper, you'd have a case.

          "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

          "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            I say the killer did not have the time to do all that he did that is based on the fact that we do not know the precise time the killer and Edowes went into the square the longer they stood talking the less time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done. and even as late at 1.38 in my opiniio make it an impossibe task
            I know what you say, Trevor and I agree with the notion that, since the police believed the couple to be Eddowes & companion and there being no evidence to prove them wrong, the couple, very likely, was Eddowes & companion. That is a logical line of thinking.

            What would be the next step in this logical line of thinking is that Eddowes & companion went into the square, that the companion then killed & mutilated her, pulled out her intestines and placed them over her right shoulder, cut off a piece of colon and placed it between the body and the left arm and cut out and took away with him a piece of womb and a kidney. This is also something the police and the medical men of the day believed to be true and there’s no evidence against that either.

            However, you choose to not continue your original logical line of thinking but to, instead, rely on the notion that the timings are not exact, but – just as all the rest of us - without knowing when the couple actually did go into the square, you still claim the killer wouldn’t have had enough time to cut out & take the organs.

            So, what I say is that your line of thinking is not consistent and your reason for believing there wasn’t enough time flimsy to say the very least.
            "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
            Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
              I know what you say, Trevor and I agree with the notion that, since the police believed the couple to be Eddowes & companion and there being no evidence to prove them wrong, the couple, very likely, was Eddowes & companion. That is a logical line of thinking.

              What would be the next step in this logical line of thinking is that Eddowes & companion went into the square, that the companion then killed & mutilated her, pulled out her intestines and placed them over her right shoulder, cut off a piece of colon and placed it between the body and the left arm and cut out and took away with him a piece of womb and a kidney. This is also something the police and the medical men of the day believed to be true and there’s no evidence against that either.

              However, you choose to not continue your original logical line of thinking but to, instead, rely on the notion that the timings are not exact, but – just as all the rest of us - without knowing when the couple actually did go into the square, you still claim the killer wouldn’t have had enough time to cut out & take the organs.

              So, what I say is that your line of thinking is not consistent and your reason for believing there wasn’t enough time flimsy to say the very least.
              This is a very good point Franko.
              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                Most books on anatomy show a human kidney and where it is located, yet they hardly ever show what you really see.
                There is no kidney to touch or to see, the human kidney is encased in a fatty membrane called perirenal fat. Which means if it is too dark to see what he is doing then going by feel alone he would have to know the oblong ball of fat attached to the spine contained a kidney. The ordinary man on the street doesn't know that.
                Not sure if it was Brown or Phillips who wrote that the kidney had been removed "with care", so again consistent with the perpetrator having some medical training.
                Hi Jon,

                I'm not saying that the perpetrator didn't or couldn't have any medical training, although I don't believe he did or needed to, I just say that the couple seen was very likely Eddowes & her killer, that the killer did cut out & take away the organs with him and that, therefore, however much or little time they spent in the square, it must have been enough for the killer to to do all that was done to Eddowes.

                Then, with what you've written about the location, etc. of the kidney, I see no reason to believe why the killer, curiously feeling his way inside the abdominal cavity, may not have felt the oblong ball of fat attached to the spine (without knowing or really caring what it was), felt it interesting enough to try and cut it, found a kidney inside, cut it out and took it with him. Would that be impossibe?

                Furthermore, I think the doctors were just trying to make sense of what was done to the victims and, in so doing, perhaps saw care were there actually hadn't been any. Or perhaps there was, but not for medical reasons.

                All the best,
                Frank
                Last edited by FrankO; 10-27-2022, 09:54 AM.
                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BooksbyBJThompson View Post
                  I'm still having a difficult time getting the cops' beat routes down and their times arriving/leaving in and around Mitre Square, in relationship to Jack's possible route of escape after the Eddowes attack.

                  Which way do you think he fled???
                  • Mitre Passage
                  • Church Passage
                  • Mitre Street
                  And how close do you think he cut that escape?Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20221013-204206.jpg
Views:	1603
Size:	104.5 KB
ID:	797275
                  I have long thought Mitre Street - because he then went to Goulston Street and the route there would have been the most straight forward via Mitre Street, Aldgate High Street, and then the beginning of Whitechapel High Street, but there was certainly a danger of bumping into Pc Watkins on his way in.

                  If he left via Mitre Street, then it is unlikely that he left later than 1.42 a.m.

                  He probably heard Pc Harvey enter Church Passage at 1.40 a.m.

                  If he left via Church Passage, then it must have been at 1.42 or 1.43 a.m.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

                    Since the police believed the couple to be Eddowes & companion and there being no evidence to prove them wrong, the couple, very likely, was Eddowes & companion. That is a logical line of thinking.
                    The police didn't know any more than we do. They knew the medical opinion that Catherine was murdered 1.40 to 1.45am. It certainly does count for something.

                    But then, they knew that supposedly Catherine and her murderer were stood at Church Passage around 1.35am, Catherine was murdered and mutilated, and the murderer left unseen before PC Watkins entered the square at 1.44am. That really is cutting it fine, and you'd have to assume that the murderer knew Watkins would be back at 1.44am, is that really a given?

                    In the event the police deduced that it was Catherine and her murderer then it is not logical nor illogical to follow that, you could argue it either way and the argument against has merit.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Yes, based upon Lawende's testimony I agree. But his time is "clock based" for 1:30, and how long they waited is an estimate. Research shows that people are more prone to overestimate short time periods, and also, Leve estimates the same time period as being 3-4 minutes. Combined, I think that means we have to consider the sighting as being in the range of 1:33-1:35 inclusive. I'm not willing to pick one myself, and so tend to think in ranges of time.

                      If they moved off at 1:38, and require roughly 30 seconds to get from the end of Church Passage to the crime scene, then there's about 2 minutes 30 seconds for the murder and mutilations. While that seems awfully short, I don't think it is outside the range of possibilities.

                      It then boils down to how much more time would be required to cut out the uterus (damaging it in the process as only 3/4's was taken) and the kidney? If, let's say for the sake of argument, that doubles the time (2 minutes 30 seconds for just those two actions), then we're back at the 5 minute estimate. And if he did that, then that would mean they had to move off about the same time Lawende and company also moved off. Of course, if he didn't, as you suggest, then that extra time isn't required.

                      - Jeff
                      I would point out that, according to Lawende, Eddowes already had her hand on the man's chest, which suggests they were already about to clinch the deal.
                      I think that is consistent with their arriving at what became the murder scene in time for the murder to take place at about 1:38 and the murderer to leave at about 1:42.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        hi wick
                        is that druitt? because as i mentioned hes a viable suspect imho and medical/ surgical knowledge he would probably have through his father.
                        Are you aware that Druitt was in Dorset at the time of the murder of Nichols?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Which points to nothing more than murder and mutilation

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          That was my impression too, when reading the post mortem report on Nichols' murder, that she was stabbed, because the pathologist described the cuts as having been made by downward thrusts of a knife.

                          That doesn't sound like a surgeon.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                            Are you aware that Druitt was in Dorset at the time of the murder of Nichols?
                            no im not. im aware he was in dorset the day of the murder but not the actual night of her murder. if you have proof he was in dorset the night of her murder, please share.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                              no im not. im aware he was in dorset the day of the murder but not the actual night of her murder. if you have proof he was in dorset the night of her murder, please share.
                              Harry D has kindly provided the link in the section on Druitt:

                              Ever since Irving Rosenwater published his research into Druitt's cricket career in 1973 we have been aware that he played cricket in Canford, Dorset on 1 September 1888, one day after the murder of Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols. Researching the British Newspaper Archive I have found that Druitt was also playing cricket in


                              It proves that Druitt was in Dorset on the day before and after the first murder, which means that rather like the Duke of Clarence, who was in Yorkshire or Scotland, and Walter Sickert, who was in France, he couldn't have committed the murder unless he had the use of a helicopter or aeroplane.

                              Comment


                              • 2 out of 3 aint bad .
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X