Jack's Escape Route?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no proof that Druitt was in Dorset at the time of Nichols murder so I really can’t see why you keep repeating it. For him to have gone to London by train after the cricket match ended would have been the simplest of things and not even remotely difficult. Unless you, or anyone else can show that he couldn’t have made it back in time the attempt to eliminate Druitt on these grounds clearly fails. The cricket matches only show with 100% certainty that Druitt no longer has an alibi for Tabram.

Abberline didn’t think Druitt was a plausible suspect but MacNaghten and others clearly did.

As this subject is completely off-topic, I can only suggest that any further Druitt-related points should be made here.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...328#post798328

It may have been possible for Druitt to have committed the murder, but I suggest that it's not reasonable seriously to consider such a possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It may have been possible for Druitt to have committed the murder, but I suggest that it's not reasonable seriously to consider such a possibility.

And I disagree. No problem.

[FISHY1118]

I think I do know what I'm talking about.

I've come across this kind of argument before: Patricia Cornwell and some of her supporters have argued that Walter Sickert, who was on holiday in France at the time of the first two - and almost certainly at the time of the first four - murders, travelled back and forth between France and England during his holiday there, without his mother or brother, who were there on holiday with him, noticing his absence.

That is not a reasonable argument.

Similarly, it is not a reasonable argument to say that Druitt may have travelled between London and Dorset DURING his trip to Dorset.

The evidence is that when the first murder took place, Sickert was on holiday in France and Druitt was on a cricket trip in Dorset.

I've never heard of any other murder case in which such an idea has been proposed.

People have been alleging for years that Druitt committed the murders, even though he lived 8 miles away in Blackheath - when there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields - and even though he had a full-time public school teaching job, was practising as a barrister during the period in which the murders occured, and spent his spare time - such as he had - playing cricket and hockey.

There never has been any case against him, but the fact that he was in Dorset when the first murder took place should eliminate him as a suspect.

It's not a matter of my being thin-skinned; it's just a matter of your being condescending when you could have presented your argument without being so.

As suggested this topic should be on a related thread, where you can then point out "exactly" what evidence there is to show Walter Sickert was in France at the time of the first murder, or any of the murders.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

i may be mistaken but didn't someone find an example of druitt's borther, also a cricketer i think, going by the same initials, and so there is no proof it was monty in dorset?

The only brother I have heard of was William.

[GBinOz]

It's certainly not a given that the murderer knew Watkins would be back at 1.44 am, as I think he simply couldn’t know where any PC was at any given time. So, if it was Watkins who caused the murderer to leave unseen, then he must have heard him coming and he must have got away through Church Passage or St. James Place. But I don’t see how this being a given or not is of any influence on anything. The murderer wasn’t there anymore when Watkins arrived.

Hi Frank,

Not quite. Jack knew exactly where Harvey was when he came down Church Passage, presuming that he hadn't already left before Harvey entered the Passage. He may have scarpered when Harvey entered the Passage, or he may have stayed by freezing in place or hiding around the corner near Mitre St, and continued his mutilations after Harvey left, or he may have followed Harvey at a discreet distance rather than risking running into Watkins, whose location was unknown to him. My choice would be the latter.

Best regards, George

[FrankO]

Not quite. Jack knew exactly where Harvey was when he came down Church Passage, presuming that he hadn't already left before Harvey entered the Passage. He may have scarpered when Harvey entered the Passage, or he may have stayed by freezing in place or hiding around the corner near Mitre St, and continued his mutilations after Harvey left, or he may have followed Harvey at a discreet distance rather than risking running into Watkins, whose location was unknown to him. My choice would be the latter.

Hi George,

You're qiute right, I should have added to the text you quoted in bold: "until he could hear them." Which, as you write, would have been the case with Harvey entering Church Passage if he was still there at that time. Although I don't have any firms ideas about it, I think the murderer rather left on hearing Harvey enter the Passage or Morris opening the door (or hearing him move inside just before opening) than that he froze and continued after Harvey had left or followed Harvey at a discreet distance. But then again, every angle has its merits.

All the best,
Frank

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Frank,

Not quite. Jack knew exactly where Harvey was when he came down Church Passage, presuming that he hadn't already left before Harvey entered the Passage. He may have scarpered when Harvey entered the Passage, or he may have stayed by freezing in place or hiding around the corner near Mitre St, and continued his mutilations after Harvey left, or he may have followed Harvey at a discreet distance rather than risking running into Watkins, whose location was unknown to him. My choice would be the latter.

Best regards, George

Hi George
Just to clarify the killer would have been able to see Harvey coming down the passage twoards him.

There was a street lamp at the entrance to the passage where the couple were standing and there was a lamp outside Kearley and Tonges. that being said becasue of those lights harvey would not have been able to see into the square giving the killer the advantage and the oportuntity to make good his escape via Mitre Street which is in my opinon the only exit he could have used unseen.

The picture below is one of a number created by Jane Coram which paints a better picture of the Church Passage location and shows the lamp outside Kearley and Tonges

[GBinOz]

Hi George
Just to clarify the killer would have been able to see Harvey coming down the passage twoards him.

There was a street lamp at the entrance to the passage where the couple were standing and there was a lamp outside Kearley and Tonges. that being said becasue of those lights harvey would not have been able to see into the square giving the killer the advantage and the oportuntity to make good his escape via Mitre Street which is in my opinon the only exit he could have used unseen.

The picture below is one of a number created by Jane Coram which paints a better picture of the Church Passage location and shows the lamp outside Kearley and Tonges

Hi Trevor,

You may have seen this recreation, but just in case you haven't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUIo...b_channel=Huux

As you say, the light at the end of the passage would have limited Harvey's view of the square, but I wonder why, having walked down to the entrance of the square, he didn't use his bullseye lantern to light the dark corners.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

You may have seen this recreation, but just in case you haven't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUIo...b_channel=Huux

As you say, the light at the end of the passage would have limited Harvey's view of the square, but I wonder why, having walked down to the entrance of the square, he didn't use his bullseye lantern to light the dark corners.

Cheers, George

I doubt there would not have been enough beam on his lantern to be able to shine that far, and besides having walked down the passage with the light in his eyes even if he stood looking into the square it would take a few moment for his eyes to re-adjust from the light to the darkness.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

The evidence I seek to rely on has been posted on these boards many times over the past few years so i dont propose to go over it again, and it is good hard evidence and not one of the many "what if`s" "maybes`s" or "I think" you are accustomed to posting which have no evidential value.

Well, then it must be that you haven't posted anything of that good hard evidence on this thread. Because saying that there is no definitive evidence to show what time the couple left the location where they were seen talking and that there are medical men who believe that there was too little time isn't hard evidence.

Furthermore, I'm not ashamed of using "I think"'s, "perhaps"'s or "probably"'s (I'm don't think I've ever used any, "what if"'s, though), seeing that there are so few facts in an old case like this.

And maybe you should find the conclusive evidence that the killer had sufficient time to remove the organs from Eddowes, and while you are at it Chapman as well, and then explain why Chapman and Eddowes were the only two victims out of all the murders where organs were found missing at the postmortems, answers please without using the terms "what if`s" "maybes`s"

I think that would be fruitless, Trevor, because there's no conclusive evidence either way. However, there is, of course, what poster Prosector has witten about it, which, among others, is that cutting off a 2 feet piece of colon is exactly what a surgeon would do if he wanted to get to the kidney. If Prosector's to be believed, there's no need for finding conclusive evidence to show the murderer had time enough or not.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, then it must be that you haven't posted anything of that good hard evidence on this thread. Because saying that there is no definitive evidence to show what time the couple left the location where they were seen talking and that there are medical men who believe that there was too little time isn't hard evidence.

Furthermore, I'm not ashamed of using "I think"'s, "perhaps"'s or "probably"'s (I'm don't think I've ever used any, "what if"'s, though), seeing that there are so few facts in an old case like this.


I think that would be fruitless, Trevor, because there's no conclusive evidence either way. However, there is, of course, what poster Prosector has witten about it, which, among others, is that cutting off a 2 feet piece of colon is exactly what a surgeon would do if he wanted to get to the kidney. If Prosector's to be believed, there's no need for finding conclusive evidence to show the murderer had time enough or not.

I have also documented what other medical experts have opined on the topic maybe you should take a look at what they say

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Confident that Wynne Weston Davies would run rings around your experts,Trevor.

[Scott Nelson]

Dave, can you briefly elaborate on your 6 Mitre Street/bolthole theory? Specifically, where was Eddowes murdered or first (?) strangled and how did Dr. Sutton get her body to the corner of the square? Did he have an accomplice? Did the corner gate only open and lock from the inside? When Sutton completed the mutilations, did he go back through the gate and into the back window of #6, or did he leave through one of the three exits in the square? Thanks in advance.

[DJA]

Dave, can you briefly elaborate on your 6 Mitre Street/bolthole theory? Specifically, where was Eddowes murdered or first (?) strangled and how did Dr. Sutton get her body to the corner of the square? Did he have an accomplice? Did the corner gate only open and lock from the inside? When Sutton completed the mutilations, did he go back through the gate and into the back window of #6, or did he leave through one of the three exits in the square? Thanks in advance.

Eddowes would have entered through the front door and explained why she was not at Berner Street with Stride.Also that she told the police "Nothing".Kate had no idea Liz was dead.

To cut a long story short ,Sutton decided it best to get rid of her by strangulation.

While he was waiting for Watkin to pass,he cut the cholesterol deposits from her eyelids.That required light and a small scalpel.
Incidentally the ground floor room of number 6 was very small.Had the floor plan.Would have heard Watkin coming up Mitre Street,despite being deaf in his left ear.

No accomplice.He was used to moving cadavers around during the night at the London Hospital.

Gate would have had a lock on the accommodation side,probably both sides.

He would have returned inside letting the kidney dry before placing it in ethanol.

When the coast was clear,he took off with the apron piece toward Millers Court.
He just could not help himself in Goulston Street.

Goulstonian Lecture - Wikipedia

Thanks again for your interest Scott

[Mark J D]

Eddowes would have entered through the front door and explained why she was not at Berner Street with Stride.Also that she told the police "Nothing".Kate had no idea Liz was dead... [etc]

-- I have to say, I'm staggered that a medical paper should report upon two women whose names and ages align with those of JtR victims...

Bests,

M.