Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape Route?

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But on what I have postulated it cannot be conclusively accepted that the killer had time to do all that he is alleged to have done. So where does the truth lie, It lies with all the connecting evidence and connecting facts that have been put forward for researchers to consider in an unbiased fashion if that can ever be achieved.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    So it hasn’t been shown that the killer couldn’t have removed organs. And to follow on from that we have no evidence that they were stolen from the mortuary. The fact that there was a trade in body parts isn’t evidence of this. Therefore there is no evidence to suggest that the killer didn’t remove organs. It’s as simple as that.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • It was not solely the timings but could only be what corner a police beat ends.
      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
      M. Pacana

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        So it hasn’t been shown that the killer couldn’t have removed organs. And to follow on from that we have no evidence that they were stolen from the mortuary. The fact that there was a trade in body parts isn’t evidence of this. Therefore there is no evidence to suggest that the killer didn’t remove organs. It’s as simple as that.
        It doesn't have to be conclusively shown that the killer could not have removed the organs, all that there needs to be is to show the original facts relied upon are unsafe together with the reasons and therefore cannot be relied upon, and then other alternatives have to be considered which you seem to want to foolishly dismiss outright

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • To GbinOz

          Re: Jack as risk taker

          Chapman: If we believe that bump the neighbour heard was when Jack laid the dead woman down, then he was at the height of his sexual frenzy. No one is around as Jack sees it, so he continues.

          Eddowes: Jack can be considered near the end of his frenzy, so his senses come back to him. He will escape then. And, this kill had to be finished, the way Jack sees it, as the Stine kill had to be aborted.

          Jack takes risks but calculated ones. He would not freeze in place once the act was done.
          "We do not remember days, we remember moments." ~ Cesare Pavese

          Cheers!

          Books by BJ Thompson
          Author - www.booksbybjthompson.com
          Email - barbara@booksbybjthompson.com

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BooksbyBJThompson View Post
            To GbinOz

            Re: Jack as risk taker

            Chapman: If we believe that bump the neighbour heard was when Jack laid the dead woman down, then he was at the height of his sexual frenzy. No one is around as Jack sees it, so he continues.

            Eddowes: Jack can be considered near the end of his frenzy, so his senses come back to him. He will escape then. And, this kill had to be finished, the way Jack sees it, as the Stine kill had to be aborted.

            Jack takes risks but calculated ones. He would not freeze in place once the act was done.
            Stine? you mean Stride?
            "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

              Stine? you mean Stride?
              Stride, yes, sorry. An obvious Zodiac victim Freudian slip. :-)
              "We do not remember days, we remember moments." ~ Cesare Pavese

              Cheers!

              Books by BJ Thompson
              Author - www.booksbybjthompson.com
              Email - barbara@booksbybjthompson.com

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                I previoulsy posted a re creation of Chutch passage and the lightiing. I came across another image of the actual murder location in Mitre Square and if it was as dark as this in this corner then I have to ask yet again could the killer not had enough time but sufficent light for him to remove the organs.

                Now before I get swamped with the statement made by Dr Sequeira who stated there was sufficient light I will clarify that in as much as he made that statement only in relation to the murder and the mutilation when he says it all could have been done in three minutes which is an impossible time.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Click image for larger version

Name:	Mitre Square new 4.png
Views:	181
Size:	45.6 KB
ID:	798670



                I am pleased to see that you agree with me that the murderer left the Square via Mitre Street, which is what I wrote in one of my earliest posts here.

                My reasoning was that not only would it have been too risky to go back down Church Passage because of Harvey's presence there or nearby it, but the route to Goulston Street via Mitre Street, Aldgate High Street and Whitechapel High Street was the most logical, and turning left into Aldgate High Street would have meant he would not have encountered Watkins on his beat because Watkins would have been coming from behind him.

                Would you agree with me that he must have left the Square at about 1.42 in order to have avoided being noticed by Watkins, and how much time do you think the murderer would have needed to do what he did?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                  I was reacting to the faith Trevor has in the police because they seem to have believed the couple were Catherine & her murderer and, Trevor says, since there's no evidence against this notion, we have to accept that the couple was, in fact, Catherine & her murderer.

                  And that is why Lawende's description of the man is such an important piece of evidence.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    Hi Trevor,

                    I agree that PC Harvey would be an unknown, and given PC Harvey may have interrupted JtR, that even appears to have been the case. But, if (and of course I don't know this was the case) the Church Passage Couple were Eddowes and JtR, then given Lawende and company got up to leave the club at 1:30, and the CPC were seen by them as they waited for the rain, that would suggest the CPC were there at the time PC Watkins did his patrol. So the CPC were in a position where they could have seen PC Watkins pass at the other end, but Lawende and company, being on Duke street, were not. So Lawende and company would not have seen Watkins while the CPC could have.

                    I agree with you, though, that Eddowes is probably the one who chose Mitre Square (I think all the victims chose the locations), but that doesn't mean JtR doesn't have to evaluate them as well. Knowing that a beat takes about 15 minutes (which, in this case, would have been wrong because PC Watkins normally took between 12 and 14 minutes for this beat; so it's possible that PC Harvey's arrival, or Morris' door opening, prevented JtR from being spotted by PC Watkins as JtR leaves earlier than he might otherwise have done; but I digress).

                    I don't think it unreasonable to presume that JtR would be familiar with the habits of the police, but that isn't to say I think he had all the specific beats memorized. I just think he had a general knowledge of how long they were, and in the Eddowes case specifically, I think it is possible he spotted PC Watkins at 1:30. And the only reason they delayed going in after PC Watkins passed by was because of the rain. Otherwise, they may have gone in right on the tails of PC Watkins and Lawende and company might never have seen them.

                    Of course, it's possible that PC Watkins wasn't spotted by them, and if one wishes to argue that JtR knew nothing of the police habits, I can't say they must be wrong because of course I don't know what JtR saw or knew. It just seems likely to me that he was aware of the police because, well, he had to be given his activities.

                    - Jeff

                    It is indeed possible that the murderer left the Square when he did because he saw Harvey coming down Church Passage.

                    Had Harvey been delayed, then the murderer might have remained in the Square and been forced to leave via Church Passage as he heard Watkins approaching.

                    In that case, he might have been caught by Harvey.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                      I am pleased to see that you agree with me that the murderer left the Square via Mitre Street, which is what I wrote in one of my earliest posts here.

                      My reasoning was that not only would it have been too risky to go back down Church Passage because of Harvey's presence there or nearby it, but the route to Goulston Street via Mitre Street, Aldgate High Street and Whitechapel High Street was the most logical, and turning left into Aldgate High Street would have meant he would not have encountered Watkins on his beat because Watkins would have been coming from behind him.

                      Would you agree with me that he must have left the Square at about 1.42 in order to have avoided being noticed by Watkins, and how much time do you think the murderer would have needed to do what he did?
                      I would say he left the square when he saw and heard Harvey coming down Church passage towards him which would have been about the time you quoted

                      But its not just a question of how much time he would have needed, but how much time he actually had with the victim, based on the couple seen standing at the entrance to the square by Lawende at approx 1.35am and them being the killer and Eddowes, but there is no evidence to show what time they moved off into the square. the later they moved off the less time the killer had with Eddowes to do all that he is purported to have done.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        I would say he left the square when he saw and heard Harvey coming down Church passage towards him which would have been about the time you quoted

                        But its not just a question of how much time he would have needed, but how much time he actually had with the victim, based on the couple seen standing at the entrance to the square by Lawende at approx 1.35am and them being the killer and Eddowes, but there is no evidence to show what time they moved off into the square. the later they moved off the less time the killer had with Eddowes to do all that he is purported to have done.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        I agree with what you write, but, as I pointed out some time ago, Lawende said the woman had her hand on the man's chest, which suggests she was more than willing to go with him, and it is therefore likely that they set off for the Square not long after.

                        I agree that that would have left him very little time to do what was done, but would you not agree that if the woman was Eddowes, the lack of time means the man must have been the murderer?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                          I agree with what you write, but, as I pointed out some time ago, Lawende said the woman had her hand on the man's chest, which suggests she was more than willing to go with him, and it is therefore likely that they set off for the Square not long after.

                          I agree that that would have left him very little time to do what was done, but would you not agree that if the woman was Eddowes, the lack of time means the man must have been the murderer?
                          How long would it take to do nothing more than simply murder and mutilate?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            How long would it take to do nothing more than simply murder and mutilate?

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            I am surprised by your answer because I thought you were questioning Sequeira's estimate of three minutes on the ground that longer would have been required.

                            My point, though, was that bearing in mind the extra time that would have been required by the woman - assuming she was Eddowes - to meet and negotiate with another man, she could hardly have been murdered by anyone other than the man seen with her by Lawende.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                              I am surprised by your answer because I thought you were questioning Sequeira's estimate of three minutes on the ground that longer would have been required.

                              My point, though, was that bearing in mind the extra time that would have been required by the woman - assuming she was Eddowes - to meet and negotiate with another man, she could hardly have been murdered by anyone other than the man seen with her by Lawende.
                              Wrong . Clearly you dont know what your talking about if you believe this .
                              '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 PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                                I am surprised by your answer because I thought you were questioning Sequeira's estimate of three minutes on the ground that longer would have been required.

                                My point, though, was that bearing in mind the extra time that would have been required by the woman - assuming she was Eddowes - to meet and negotiate with another man, she could hardly have been murdered by anyone other than the man seen with her by Lawende.
                                The whole question of times is an important factor in the Eddowes murder, especially for those who believe the killer had the time to do all that he is alleged to have done, and the introduction of the scenario that the couple seen by Lawende were not Eddowes and the killer, and that Eddowes and the killer entered the square from another entrance. That scenario is reliant on Pc Watkins's inquest testimony being unsafe by reason of him not being where he said he was. or what he did at the times he stated and not checking Mitre Square as he said he did on his first pass. Unfortunately, we cannot prove or disprove his testimony.

                                If of course, Eddowes decided to prostitute herself she would likely as not go to a location where she knew men would be and the area around Mitre Sq was a known haunt of prostitutes i.e The Drinking Club opposite Mitre Square or the area around St Botolphs church which was a known location for prostitutes, so the likelihood of them entering from another entrance other than Church passage is highly unlikely.

                                As to the Doctor's timings, I believe they were spoken to by a Star reporter at the crime scene before the organs were found to be missing. Sequeira`s estimated time of 3 minutes would be an impossible time for the killer to have carried out the murder, mutilations and removing organs, but 3 minutes would have been an achievable time for the killer to simply murder and mutilate. Dr Brown stated at least 5 minutes but did the killer even have 5 mins or longer with the victim?

                                The deciding factor, in my opinion, is if it is accepted that the killer and Eddowes were the couple seen by Lawenede is what time did they enter the square researchers to date have wrongly calculated the time the killer had with Eddows at the crime scene based on a start time of 1.35 am and an end time of 1.44 am when Watkins came back into the square making 9 minutes, but not factoring in Pc Harveys time which cuts that 9 mins down.

                                1.35 am is the time they were seen standing talking, there is no evidence to show what time they walked off down Church Passage and into the square the longer they stood talking the less time the killer would have had with the victim at the crime scene.

                                In relation to the organ removals, it should be noted that the crime scene was described as being the darkest part of Mitre Square I have to ask how on earth was the killer able to see and locate organs inside a blood-filled abdomen to be able to remove these organs with breakneck speed?

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk





                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X