Jack's Escape Route?

[mpriestnall]

Hi Varqm.

From the retirement of PC Langdon of the City Police. The article posted by Howard is here. * City PC E.T. Langdon Retires ( With Article) - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

"It was night and the policeman passed through the square once, everything then being apparently alright. He walked on, coming to a court leading out of a street out of Mitre Square. Halfway up the court he stood sideways to allow a man to pass him. The man came from the direction of the square."

Thanks for posting the link regarding PC Langdon. I hadn't seen this before.

[JeffHamm]

Lawende states in his signed inquest testimony

"we left there to go out at 1.30" how did he know it was 1.30 he had a watch, and there was a clock in the club both were in synch with each other

"and we left the house about 5 mins later" so he and the others left together

"I walked a liitle further than the others" so he walked a liitle further than the others before he saw the couple

So I think based on that testimony the earliest he could have seen the couple was 1.35am ruling out an earlier time

As to the question of whether or not this couple were Eddowes and the killer, he goes onto say he was shown clothing by the police which he belived the victim was wearing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Yes, Lawende estimates they left about 5 minutes later, but Leve, who was with him at the time, estimates they waited 3 or 4 minutes. As such, the earlies Lawende could have seen the couple was at 1:33 (if, of course, we don't allow for the possibility that even Leve's shortest estimate to be longer than it really was). Based, though, on the estimates entered into testimony, we are left with a 3-5 minutes span of time, all of which is considered equally testified to. In the simulations I've put together I went with Lawende's 5 minutes to err on the conservative side (basically, to minimize the window of opportunity), but one is completely justified in adding on up to 2 minutes to the time window the simulation produces.

While Lawende does testify he believes the clothes he was shown were similar to those worn by the woman he saw, given your arguments against Kate wearing an apron, I think you must agree that there is the very real possibility that the Church Passage Couple might not have been Kate and JtR, but some unidentified couple who never came forward (for whatever reason). If that is the case, then given the Church Passage access route to Mitre Square appears occupied, and so unlikely to be the route by which Kate and JtR enter, they must either have entered from St. James or from Mitre Street.

Some would argue that means that the earliest Eddowes and JtR could now enter is just after PC Waitkin's 1:30 patrol. Given it takes him about 1 minute 30 seconds, we're looking at a potential entry around 1:31:30 ish. In my view, and this is only my opinion, I think it unlikely that Eddowes and JtR would enter until the rain stopped, and they would be more likely to be sheltering somewhere (which could be considered consistent with the Church Passage Couple's reason for standing against the wall). So in my opinion, it seems unlikely that Eddowes and JtR enter Mitre Square until the time Lawende and company also move on (even if the CPC isn't them). I take the rain stopping as something that probably informs us as to the likely time they head towards the square. Hence, in the simulation, I have them move on about the same time Lawende et al move on (but slightly later, which is why Lawende and co don't see them move off; we do know the CPC are not there by the time PC Harvey comes by, but that doesn't prove the CPC are Eddowes and JtR either of course).

Anyway, my point is that I think that we have to consider Lawende et al's sighting (and so the end of the rain) occurred somewhere around 1:33 - 1:35. And given the importance of time, that 2 minutes of uncertainty means whatever window of opportunity one calculates based upon 1:35 only is potentially 2 minutes longer. And in this case, that's a significant amount of time.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

God forbid that I should ever defend ‘Lawnmower’ Trevor, but surely the point he is making is that in his opinion there were no ‘extraneous’ cuts.

[Ally]

He clearly did not cut slash other than in the process of murder and mutilation

Wha... wuh.. WHAT? "Other than when he murdered and mutilated the women, there was no cutting. Uh... okay..

Wuhh...ut?

an

d as to grabbing organs, If harvesting organs was part of his motive and if he was the same killer as Chapman then that was his sole motive, and why did he mutilate the abdomen in such a way as to damage any organs he was seeking to harvest if that had been the case?

I'm sorry. You were a cop, right? You have studied criminals, right? You do understand how criminals PROGRESS in the expression of their crimes, right?. How serial killers who start out with mild experimentation end up eventually beheading corpses, right? You're essentially saying that serial killers don't evolve in MO by this statement, which is ... not a statement supported by facts, evidence or any other known case of serial killing where they ended exactly as they began. Are you saying the killer didn't take Mary Kelly's organs too? But also, there are a lot of organs, a pristine organ isn't necessary for "harvesting" unless you intend to transplant, which as organ transplants weren't invented yet, was likely not his goal. I think everyone can agree on that.

In modern day medical facilities when surgeons operate to the abdominal area they use retractors to hold the abdomen open, how did the killer manage to do all of this single handed and without the use of any from of retarction to hold the abdomen open for him to see what he was doing and take hold of these organs which would have been slippery, and then remove them unaided in double quick time in almost total darkness

The literal exact way that a deer hunter would do it. This isn't modern day surgery, where again, you have to be worried about collateral damage and keeping the patient alive.

On a secondary note the kidney is one of the hardest organ to locate and remove, and medical experts do not agree with you and state that medical knowledge would be needed to locate the organs

No, maybe the doctor you paid to say that says that. And maybe doctors who believed the killer was seeking a specific organ would need to know where it was, but again, he doesn't need to know where anything was, if he was just grabbing what came to hand. Once again for the people in the back: He wouldn't have needed to know where anything was, if he was just grabbing whatever came to hand. And once again, if Bubba the deer hunter can find and remove organs, pretty much anyone can. There isn't really a skill to gutting something, if you aren't worried about the survival of the patient, or contamination.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why can’t you understand this very simple premise Trevor. You cannot take 3 unknowns and come up with a ‘definite’ which is exactly what you’re trying to do.

Lawende states in his signed inquest testimony

"we left there to go out at 1.30" how did he know it was 1.30 he had a watch, and there was a clock in the club both were in synch with each other

"and we left the house about 5 mins later" so he and the others left together

"I walked a liitle further than the others" so he walked a liitle further than the others before he saw the couple

So I think based on that testimony the earliest he could have seen the couple was 1.35am ruling out an earlier time

As to the question of whether or not this couple were Eddowes and the killer, he goes onto say he was shown clothing by the police which he belived the victim was wearing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, you're quite right. It is different .For one, would take far longer to remove all the viscera from a large deer, than it would to snatch and grab two organs from a small woman. Not that I am equating a woman with a hunting animal in anyway other than to point out it would not, under any circumstances require anything but a matter of moments to disembowel a person, and grab some trophies. One does not need to have medical knowledge to locate organs. They're right there, in the abdomen. And a slice provides the location. You presume, without evidence that he was looking for specific organs, instead of grabbing what looked or felt interesting in an experimental fashion.

He clearly did not cut slash other than in the process of murder and mutilation and as to grabbing organs, If harvesting organs was part of his motive and if he was the same killer as Chapman then that was his sole motive, and why did he mutilate the abdomen in such a way as to damage any organs he was seeking to harvest if that had been the case?

In modern day medical facilities when surgeons operate to the abdominal area they use retractors to hold the abdomen open, how did the killer manage to do all of this single handed and without the use of any from of retarction to hold the abdomen open for him to see what he was doing and take hold of these organs which would have been slippery, and then remove them unaided in double quick time in almost total darkness

On a secondary note the kidney is one of the hardest organ to locate and remove, and medical experts do not agree with you and state that medical knowledge would be needed to locate the organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Why can’t you understand this very simple premise Trevor. You cannot take 3 unknowns and come up with a ‘definite’ which is exactly what you’re trying to do.

I am not taking any unknowns for the last time I am highlighting the flaws in the witness times and their movement and what they did.

Do you accept that the couple seen at the entrance to the square were Eddowes and her killer?

If you do not where is the evidence to show that they were not Eddowes and her killer?

Do you also accept that there is no evidence from the police at the time or thereafter to show that this couple were not the killer and Eddowes? or that they ever suspected anything to the contrary,

Do you accept that the 1.35am start time used by researchers could be wrong, and that they could have left that location much later than 1.35am?

Do you accept that if they were the killer and Eddowes there is no evidence to show what time they moved off and that the 1.35am start time is flawed?

Do you accept that if that had have been the case then that would drastically restrict the time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done?

Do you accept that if the couple were Eddowes and her killer the later they moved off the less time the killer would have had with the victim?

Do you accept that if Eddowes was prostituting herself she would be in an area where likley punters would be found, that would be in the area of the club not in Mitre Street

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

Yes, you're quite right. It is different .For one, would take far longer to remove all the viscera from a large deer, than it would to snatch and grab two organs from a small woman. Not that I am equating a woman with a hunting animal in anyway other than to point out it would not, under any circumstances require anything but a matter of moments to disembowel a person, and grab some trophies. One does not need to have medical knowledge to locate organs. They're right there, in the abdomen. And a slice provides the location. You presume, without evidence that he was looking for specific organs, instead of grabbing what looked or felt interesting in an experimental fashion.

[Trevor Marriott]

And has been pointed out to you time, and time, and time again, your ludicrous assertion that it would take whopping great amounts of time to remove an organ is fully poppycock. One can field dress an entire deer in under 15 minutes which involves removing ALL the viscera. It would absolutely not require any great amount of time to remove a single organ. Your "calculations" are based on a doctor, attempting to give a determination of how long it would take to remove an organ from a living patient, where they have to be concerned with things like... keeping the patient alive. Not a consideration in terms of "we must proceed slowly so as not to nick an artery" in the Eddowes case.

As opposed to a desperate attempt to prop up an old, discredited theory such as the one you offer?

We are not talking about dressing a deer, which incidently has absolutley no bearing on the topic in question, we are talking about someone being able to anatomically remove a kidney and and a uterus from a blood filled abdomen in almost total darknesss in very quick time, thats very different to removing the whole viscera from a dead animal.

As a modern day medical expert has stated its not just about the removal, its having the medical knowledge to be able to locate the organs in the first instance and then to have the medical knowledge to be able to remove them

They are not my calculations I am simply showing the flaws in the times reserachers are seeking to rely on to show the killer did remove the organs and offer up an alternative explantion as how the organs were taken

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well someone removed the organs which were only found missing at the post mortem many hours later!

This in itself proves nothing. The details of anything internal were always bound to come out at a post mortem. Also, you can’t prove that the doctors, looking at an open abdomen with Phillips present to check for similarities to Chapman, didn’t notice the missing organs before the PM. You’re indulging in ‘what if’s again’ which I thought were against the rules?

The start time has always relied upon as being 1.35am but that cannot be proven, in fact it could have been as late as 1.38 or even later. the later the time the less time the killer had with the victim.

Or the time could have been earlier. Why does your margin for error only go one way?

Lets make my position quiet clear to you, my position is the same as it has always been and that is the killer in Edowes case did not remove any organs from the victim and take them away because he did not have the time.

This is an untenable position based on speculation. A) you don’t know how long the killer required, B) you don’t know how long the killer had available to him, and C) you don’t know the exact timings due to possible clock errors and poor synchronisation. So your position is based on 3 unknowns. Therefore it isn’t valid.

That position has been firmly supported by the flaws in the timings which have been previoulsy accepted seemingly and without question until now, and all of a sudden when those timings researchers have relied upon to support the belief that the killer took the organs are brought into question there appears out of the woodwork other scenarios in what I see are desparate attempts to prop up the old accepted theory in the light of a big question mark hanging over the witness timings, and what the witnesses saw and did.

There are no provable ‘flaws’ in the timings because we have no way of assessing them. We can’t assume that any given time or timing was right or wrong or, if inaccurate, then how inaccurate. Or inaccurate in which direction.

The question of whether or not the couple were Eddowes and her killer is a valid question, but the police seemed to accept that they were,and in the absence of any evidence to prove them wrong, or they supported that belief we have to accpet that the couple were Eddowes and the killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why can’t you understand this very simple premise Trevor. You cannot take 3 unknowns and come up with a ‘definite’ which is exactly what you’re trying to do.

[Ally]

Lets make my position quiet clear to you, my position is the same as it has always been and that is the killer in Edowes case did not remove any organs from the victim and take them away because he did not have the time.

And has been pointed out to you time, and time, and time again, your ludicrous assertion that it would take whopping great amounts of time to remove an organ is fully poppycock. One can field dress an entire deer in under 15 minutes which involves removing ALL the viscera. It would absolutely not require any great amount of time to remove a single organ. Your "calculations" are based on a doctor, attempting to give a determination of how long it would take to remove an organ from a living patient, where they have to be concerned with things like... keeping the patient alive. Not a consideration in terms of "we must proceed slowly so as not to nick an artery" in the Eddowes case.

scenarios in what I see are desparate attempts to prop up the old accepted theory in the light of a big question mark hanging over the witness timings, and what the witnesses saw and did.

As opposed to a desperate attempt to prop up an old, discredited theory such as the one you offer?

[Trevor Marriott]

But these unknowns apply to your position too Trevor. Why are you immune? You’re saying “what if” the killer didn’t have enough time when we can’t know for certain either way. You’re saying ‘maybe’ the organ’s were removed at the mortuary ‘if’ they weren’t removed at the scene. You’re also conjecturing ‘what if’ Eddowes and her killer stood around talking before entering Mitre Square. Yes of course we can’t prove that they proceeded directly to Mitre Square but equally you can’t prove that they didn’t. So the possibility remains that they could have.

The only ‘facts’ that we have are that the victims were killed and that organs were discovered to have been missing. You are conjecturing and speculating every bit as much as anyone else about the rest.

Well someone removed the organs which were only found missing at the post mortem many hours later!

The start time has always relied upon as being 1.35am but that cannot be proven, in fact it could have been as late as 1.38 or even later. the later the time the less time the killer had with the victim.

Lets make my position quiet clear to you, my position is the same as it has always been and that is the killer in Edowes case did not remove any organs from the victim and take them away because he did not have the time. That position has been firmly supported by the flaws in the timings which have been previoulsy accepted seemingly and without question until now, and all of a sudden when those timings researchers have relied upon to support the belief that the killer took the organs are brought into question there appears out of the woodwork other scenarios in what I see are desparate attempts to prop up the old accepted theory in the light of a big question mark hanging over the witness timings, and what the witnesses saw and did.

The question of whether or not the couple were Eddowes and her killer is a valid question, but the police seemed to accept that they were,and in the absence of any evidence to prove them wrong, or they supported that belief we have to accpet that the couple were Eddowes and the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no definitive evidence, which can conclusively prove the killer had the time to remove the organs from Eddowes, and the basis for that is that there is no definitive evidence to show what time the couple left the location where they were seen talking. Alll other scenarios which have been put forward are pure speculation and with out foundation. We have to consider the evidence and the surrounding facts and not rely on the terms regulary used in Ripperology these being "What if`s" "maybe`s" and "I think"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But these unknowns apply to your position too Trevor. Why are you immune? You’re saying “what if” the killer didn’t have enough time when we can’t know for certain either way. You’re saying ‘maybe’ the organ’s were removed at the mortuary ‘if’ they weren’t removed at the scene. You’re also conjecturing ‘what if’ Eddowes and her killer stood around talking before entering Mitre Square. Yes of course we can’t prove that they proceeded directly to Mitre Square but equally you can’t prove that they didn’t. So the possibility remains that they could have.

The only ‘facts’ that we have are that the victims were killed and that organs were discovered to have been missing. You are conjecturing and speculating every bit as much as anyone else about the rest.

[Varqm]

There was a longer article I remember (and can't locate now) describing the encounter with the man emerging from St. James Passage. Langdon's reminiscences confuse the situation. Seven minutes was the elapsed time from Watkins leaving the square to the encounter with the man exiting the passage in the Orange Market, which leaves another seven minutes to complete the beat back to Mitre Square. This information was likely from the city police files (now missing) that was the source for Macnaghten's city P.C. witness who was on a beat near Mitre Square. It was said that the police calculated the timing carefully.

It seems like a long time for Watkins to reach the Orange Market from the square, but we don't know if he went down Sugar Bakers Lane or if he stopped and talked to the firemen in St. James Place before resuming his beat. Then, of course, why didn't the two firemen see this man, or Watkins for that matter, and why weren't they called to the inquest, assuming they were present that night? And was Watkins telling the truth about not encountering anyone suspicious after leaving the square before discovering the body?

Thanks.I have no problem with the timing issues since all this timings were just rough best effort estimates.Blenkingsop and the firemen were probably inside a structure when Watkin passed the Orange Market,this was after Blenkingsop was asked by a man if a couple went through there at 1:30 am while Watkin was still in/near Mitre Square.
The only thing that matters is if Watkin met a man in the Orange Market after his first round at 1:30 am of Mitre Square.Henry Smith did not know this sighting or did not mention.
It's hard to believe Watkins and the City police would have suppressed this info from the inquest as Watkin said he did not see anybody.Although it's possible.

[Trevor Marriott]

You do yourself no favours Trevor, there is no definitive evidence to show that the couple were jack and Eddowes!!! So the organs could have in fact been removed from 1.30am to 1.44am if they had entered the square via mitre street right after Watkins had left it.. Now because I know you or anyone else can't prove this didn't happen, your theory is just that, a theory not fact .But your welcome to it by all means but I wouldn't be yelling from the rooftops any time soon that you've solved any great mystery of the JTR murders just yet with so much still open to the unknown .

I am sure by now you know my take on the organs removal I am mereley trying to explain why the theory that the killer took the organs is flawed by reason of the times researchers are using to show that the kiler did have that time available to him.

See my previous post

www.trevormarriott.co.uk