Jack's Escape Route?

[DJA]

Could be resting.

[mpriestnall]

The duck is dead Trevor and it can’t be resuscitated.

It's not dead, it's pining!

[Varqm]

I think it's fair to say that Harvey would have felt no obligation to go beyond the passage given it wasn't his beat.

Having said that, I think the idea that the WM would have stayed put as Harvey walked down Church Passage, is over-estimated.

You would have to believe the WM felt it was safer to stay put when a policeman was inching closer to catching him red-handed in a square 75ft by 75ft. And it follows the closer Harvey was before the WM decided to flee, the risk of Harvey keeping up with him, and eventually apprehending him, during a chase, increased.

There is always the possibility, however, that the WM didn't hear him (due to his own preoccupation) until Harvey was nearly at the end of the passage and the distance involved may have made staying put in the dark and hoping for the best at least as good an option as running.

But what if he knew Harveys constant beat at least as far as Church passage is concerned.
This was his second murder,police could have already been looking for him,seen by the club trio,he could have thrown it into the wind so to speak or he knew the area.

[Curious Cat]

As you wish.

I have been told I've been talking nonsense for having said that Lawende could not have identified Kosminski as the murderer.

Now you're implying I'm wrong to think that Lawende DID see the murderer.

In that case, can I take it you don't think Lawende identified Kosminski?

I don't know if Lawende identified Kosminski.

I don't happen to think Kosminski was the killer. I think he was the ideal person to promote as being the killer. He may have been violent but I do not believe he had the level of calculation the killer displayed with the victims.

You implied Lawende's evidence proved that the murder took place after 1:35am. It has never been proof of that.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Harvey came to Church passage at around 1:38-9 am.,he probably did not look much about the square as that was Watkins's duty

I think it's fair to say that Harvey would have felt no obligation to go beyond the passage given it wasn't his beat.

Having said that, I think the idea that the WM would have stayed put as Harvey walked down Church Passage, is over-estimated.

You would have to believe the WM felt it was safer to stay put when a policeman was inching closer to catching him red-handed in a square 75ft by 75ft. And it follows the closer Harvey was before the WM decided to flee, the risk of Harvey keeping up with him, and eventually apprehending him, during a chase, increased.

There is always the possibility, however, that the WM didn't hear him (due to his own preoccupation) until Harvey was nearly at the end of the passage and the distance involved may have made staying put in the dark and hoping for the best at least as good an option as running.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s only ‘open to interpretation’ if the facts don’t suit. Why would Dr. Brown assume that the Coroner only wanted to know how long the wounds would have taken? It makes no sense. He was clearly looking for an estimate on how long the killer would have required in Mitre Square, which obviously included the temoval of organs. With the very next question we get:

Thats your interpretaion.

Its a fact. Why else would the Coroner ask how long the killer would have required?

“Mr. Crawford. – Can you as a professional man assign any reason for the removal of certain organs from the body? Witness. – I cannot.”

A specific mention of the removal of organs. Dr. Brown’s 5 minutes undoubtedly included the removal of organs. No one at the time disputed this point. And whatever your opinion of how much light there would have been Dr. Sequiera, who was actually there, said that there would have been sufficient.

Those times were given to the press by Brown and Sequeira before the post mortem had taken place.

That’s just a convenient invention on your part. By the time the Inquest came around they knew that organs had been removed therefore they had to have included them in their estimation. That’s all that matters. Brown said 5 minutes at the Inquest (therefore after the PM)

Brown said ‘at least 5 minutes,’ and Sequiera agreed. Add this to the fact that a modern day surgeon like Nick Warren believed that the killer took organs and your Dr. Biggs has no issues (others too but of course some have doubts) and if we add the very real possibility that the killer might have had up to twice that time available to him then we have no grounds for doubting that the killer took organs with him.

Well seeing as no organs were found missing before the post mortem the inference was that the killer had taken them, but I make reference again to 2 issues the first we see Brown instructing an expert to test how long it would take to remove the organs, now that raises a red flag as to why if Brown was happy with his at least 5 minutes estimate? why did he ask fo this test to be conducted, and the second the question he was asked which you referred to as to how long it would have taken the killer to inflict the wounds-no mention with that question about organs being removed.

You just can’t help yourself can you Trevor? When the Coroner asked about a time he was including the organ removal. This must have been the case. What benefit could have been gained from knowing how long it took to make the wounds alone? Absolutely none. He was trying to find out how long the killer would have required in total in Mitre Square to do what he’d done. It never ceases to amaze me Trevor how far you will go to defend one of your theories. This particular point is so glaringly obvious that I’m stunned that even you will dispute it.

And on the issue of the test. Unbelievable! You will question why he ordered the test but you won’t question what must have been the result of the test. That it showed that Brown’s original estimation was good. Unless you are suggesting that Brown hid an unfavourable test result?

Then we can consider Nichols with Lechmere probably disturbing the killer so no organ removal. When the killer had the opportunity he took organs.

There is no evidence to support that, and there was no evidence that any attempts were made to take organs. The only organs taken were from the two victims Eddowes and Chapman whose abdomens were ripped open for organs to be removed un-noticed.

The CCCTV was broken u fortunately. Apart from that though we have Neil passing at 3.30 and a freshly killed woman discovered just before 3.40. Within that 10 minute or so gap it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that the killer might have been disturbed by Lechmere’s arrival.

Yes, Stride might not have been a victim but still, of the 5 the only 2 that didn’t have organs removed just happen to have been the 2 where the killer could have been disturbed.

And if the organ thieves usually took organs at or after the PM then they would have had no shortage of bodies to plunder so why would they have taken the huge risk of stealing from a corpse that Doctors and the Police were still interested in. The opportunity of an already opened abdomen would have been irrelevant to them. Why take the pointless risk, which could have closed of any opportunity of further business from that mortuary, when at any time a Doctor or Police Officers might have turned up to look at the body?

There was no risk becasue a corrupt mortuary attendant would know that a post mortem had not been carried out and would have known that no organs had been found missing prior to that taking place.

Because a Doctor always discussed his findings with someone like Robert Mann. He kept him at his side during the proceedings in case he needed a bit of anatomical advice.

Why didn’t this mythical Burke or Hare simply wait until the PM had been completed like he did for every single other bit of body part stealing that he did? Why change his method for these 2 particular cases? And please don’t say because the abdomen was already opened because it would have been opened at the PM requiring about an extra 10 seconds of cutting open stitches. So that point falls flat.

There was absolutely no benefit for a thief in stealing the organs pre-PM but there were risks. How could he know, and I mean know that when the Doctors looked at the body in the mortuary (with Phillips being brought in) that they didn’t find organs missing? There was absolutely no reason why the killer would take organs before the PM when he could just as easily and with less risk have done it after.

This is a completely dead duck Trevor. You should let it go but you won’t of course.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The duck is dead Trevor and it can’t be resuscitated.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Lawende's evidence does nothing of the sort. It only gives us that he saw a woman with a man close to the crime scene and that he thought the clothes he was shown appeared to be similar to Catherine's. It gives nothing in terms of the time of the murder.

If Lawende had been shown Elizabeth Stride's clothes from the same night he may well have concluded they were the same as the woman's he saw as they were very similar. Catherine and Elizabeth were both wearing dark dresses and coats quite independent of each other on the same night. How many other women were wearing dark dresses and coats that night? Lawende only identified the clothes, not the woman.

As you wish.

I have been told I've been talking nonsense for having said that Lawende could not have identified Kosminski as the murderer.

Now you're implying I'm wrong to think that Lawende DID see the murderer.

In that case, can I take it you don't think Lawende identified Kosminski?

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s only ‘open to interpretation’ if the facts don’t suit. Why would Dr. Brown assume that the Coroner only wanted to know how long the wounds would have taken? It makes no sense. He was clearly looking for an estimate on how long the killer would have required in Mitre Square, which obviously included the temoval of organs. With the very next question we get:

Thats your interpretaion

“Mr. Crawford. – Can you as a professional man assign any reason for the removal of certain organs from the body? Witness. – I cannot.”

A specific mention of the removal of organs. Dr. Brown’s 5 minutes undoubtedly included the removal of organs. No one at the time disputed this point. And whatever your opinion of how much light there would have been Dr. Sequiera, who was actually there, said that there would have been sufficient.

Those times were given to the press by Brown and Sequeira before the post mortem had taken place

Brown said ‘at least 5 minutes,’ and Sequiera agreed. Add this to the fact that a modern day surgeon like Nick Warren believed that the killer took organs and your Dr. Biggs has no issues (others too but of course some have doubts) and if we add the very real possibility that the killer might have had up to twice that time available to him then we have no grounds for doubting that the killer took organs with him.

Well seeing as no organs were found missing before the post mortem the inference was that the killer had taken them, but I make reference again to 2 issues the first we see Brown instructing an expert to test how long it would take to remove the organs, now that raises a red flag as to why if Brown was happy with his at least 5 minutes estimate? why did he ask fo this test to be conducted, and the second the question he was asked which you referred to as to how long it would have taken the killer to inflict the wounds-no mention with that question about organs being removed

Then we can consider Nichols with Lechmere probably disturbing the killer so no organ removal. When the killer had the opportunity he took organs.

There is no evidence to support that, and there was no evidence that any attempts were made to take organs. The only organs taken were from the two victims Eddowes and Chapman whose abdomens were ripped open for organs to be removed un-noticed

And if the organ thieves usually took organs at or after the PM then they would have had no shortage of bodies to plunder so why would they have taken the huge risk of stealing from a corpse that Doctors and the Police were still interested in. The opportunity of an already opened abdomen would have been irrelevant to them. Why take the pointless risk, which could have closed of any opportunity of further business from that mortuary, when at any time a Doctor or Police Officers might have turned up to look at the body?

There was no risk becasue a corrupt mortuary attendant would know that a post mortem had not been carried out and would have known that no organs had been found missing prior to that taking place

This is a completely dead duck Trevor. You should let it go but you won’t of course.

There is only one dead duck I can see on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Curious Cat]

I think Lawende's evidence places the murder at some time after 1.35 a.m.

Lawende's evidence does nothing of the sort. It only gives us that he saw a woman with a man close to the crime scene and that he thought the clothes he was shown appeared to be similar to Catherine's. It gives nothing in terms of the time of the murder.

If Lawende had been shown Elizabeth Stride's clothes from the same night he may well have concluded they were the same as the woman's he saw as they were very similar. Catherine and Elizabeth were both wearing dark dresses and coats quite independent of each other on the same night. How many other women were wearing dark dresses and coats that night? Lawende only identified the clothes, not the woman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Deed is open to interpretation, based on all the facts and the evidence I interpret it as nothing more than murder and mutilation, there was very little light the lamp in Mitre Square was not working correctly, leaving the only other light closet being the lamp at the entrance to the square in Mitre Street see post #232

No one could carry out the murder and the mutilations and the removal of the organs in the 3 minute time frame he gave to the Star Newspaper

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s only ‘open to interpretation’ if the facts don’t suit. Why would Dr. Brown assume that the Coroner only wanted to know how long the wounds would have taken? It makes no sense. He was clearly looking for an estimate on how long the killer would have required in Mitre Square, which obviously included the temoval of organs. With the very next question we get:

“Mr. Crawford. – Can you as a professional man assign any reason for the removal of certain organs from the body? Witness. – I cannot.”

A specific mention of the removal of organs. Dr. Brown’s 5 minutes undoubtedly included the removal of organs. No one at the time disputed this point. And whatever your opinion of how much light there would have been Dr. Sequiera, who was actually there, said that there would have been sufficient.

Brown said ‘at least 5 minutes,’ and Sequiera agreed. Add this to the fact that a modern day surgeon like Nick Warren believed that the killer took organs and your Dr. Biggs has no issues (others too but of course some have doubts) and if we add the very real possibility that the killer might have had up to twice that time available to him then we have no grounds for doubting that the killer took organs with him.

Then we can consider Nichols with Lechmere probably disturbing the killer so no organ removal. When the killer had the opportunity he took organs.

And if the organ thieves usually took organs at or after the PM then they would have had no shortage of bodies to plunder so why would they have taken the huge risk of stealing from a corpse that Doctors and the Police were still interested in. The opportunity of an already opened abdomen would have been irrelevant to them. Why take the pointless risk, which could have closed of any opportunity of further business from that mortuary, when at any time a Doctor or Police Officers might have turned up to look at the body?

This is a completely dead duck Trevor. You should let it go but you won’t of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

So they would invent inquest testimony?

Brown certainly did say at least 5 minutes at the inquest though and Sequiera agreed with him. And as you place more store in the signed testimony I’ll repeat that this was part of Sequeira’s signed testimony:

“I know the locality. This is the darkest portion of the Square. There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light.

And he was there….we weren’t.

Deed is open to interpretation, based on all the facts and the evidence I interpret it as nothing more than murder and mutilation, there was very little light the lamp in Mitre Square was not working correctly, leaving the only other light closet being the lamp at the entrance to the square in Mitre Street see post #232

No one could carry out the murder and the mutilations and the removal of the organs in the 3 minute time frame he gave to the Star Newspaper

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who cannot be relied upon as being an accurate account !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So they would invent inquest testimony?

Brown certainly did say at least 5 minutes at the inquest though and Sequiera agreed with him. And as you place more store in the signed testimony I’ll repeat that this was part of Sequeira’s signed testimony:

“I know the locality. This is the darkest portion of the Square. There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light.

And he was there….we weren’t.

[Trevor Marriott]

And what does the Sourcebook tell us?



And that to get a fuller report of what was said they go to the newspapers.

Who cannot be relied upon as being an accurate account !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its documented in the sourcebook

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And what does the Sourcebook tell us?

Despite the fairly detailed statements of the various witnesses contained in the preceding inquest papers, they would appear to be the initial evidence of these witnesses and the reports to be found in the newspapers do contain additional information.

And that to get a fuller report of what was said they go to the newspapers.

[Varqm]

In this situation, Frank, i.e. the 1.35 am to 1.44am timeframe, I don't think there's much use in placing faith in what the police did or didn't believe. They didn't know which way to turn for answers and whatever they concluded relating to that timeframe, your guess is as good as theirs.

When you consider the following:

1) The couple had to leave Church Passage immediately after Lawende and associates passed which is not a given judging by their demeanour, and in the event that was the murderer then why are they standing talking at the passage corner?

2) In the event he left just before Watkins arrived, then you have to believe he went unseen in the immediate area as Morris blew his whistle and policemen were arriving.

3) He cut and took a piece of the apron with him. That suggests it wasn't someone who left in a hurry.

4) You would have to believe he wasn't perturbed by Morris opening his door across a square 75ft by 75ft.

5) You would have to believe that he wasn't perturbed by PC Harvey walking down Church Passage.

6) You would have to believe he was able to rush Catherine in terms of time taken to get into the corner of the square and into the right position for him, and you have to believe he deemed it necessary to go to work with the utmost urgency when really there was no reason for him to believe that, i.e. to believe that PC Watkins would enter the square at 1.44am.

When you take each one as an isolated event, then of course they are all possible. When you consider the entire scenario, however, it seems a stretch.

I lay no claim to knowing what the answer is, but I do feel there's a rabbit away with the official version and perceived wisdom. The simplest solution may be that the couple weren't Catherine and her murderer.

I've always believed it was Morris opening the door that spooked JTR at around 1:42 am as he might come out.Harvey came to Church passage at around 1:38-9 am.,he probably did not look much about the square as that was Watkins's duty,he might not have reach the edge as there was nothing to inspect,there was a lamp in the passage in the Square side.
JTR knew the square/area I think,it was possible to do what he did.