Jack's Escape Route?

[Iconoclast]

The argument was he could get out of Mitre Square or Street well dressed so nobody will bother him and I'm saying this did not happen.

How was he dressed then?

[Scott Nelson]

Probably escaped the same way he entered.

Dave, do you mean through the corner gate, or is it a wooden partition?

[DJA]

Dave, do you mean through the corner gate, or is it a wooden partition?

This illustration shows the gate at the time.

[Trevor Marriott]

How did the thread get away from the original topic?

You joined in !!!!!!!!!!!

In one breath you are inventing scenarios, and in the next breath you are sugesting you are following the evidence

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You joined in !!!!!!!!!!!

In one breath you are inventing scenarios, and in the next breath you are sugesting you are following the evidence

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Scenarios are always invented Trevor. It doesn’t mean that I’m promoting any with confidence it just means that because there is much that isn’t known then none of us can know exactly what happened. When we don’t know precisely what happened it’s reasonable to suggest the alternatives. Either that or we just say “we don’t know and we can’t know,” and move on.

We know that Eddowes was in Mitre Square. We know that the killer was in Mitre Square. And we know that the three witnesses passed and saw a man talking to a woman. And we know that Watkins discovered the body. Those are pretty much the only certainties. We don’t know how long the killer would have needed to have done what he did. We don’t know how long he actually had available to him. We can’t be certain that the couple were Eddowes and the ripper. And can’t hold the times to be exact and synchronised.

You’re the one claiming to know something based on these unknowns Trevor. It’s pretty straightforward stuff really. You can claim a definite from a bunch of unknowns.

[Varqm]

How was he dressed then?

Lawende's description.

[Varqm]

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."

Why would PC Langdon lie though and it was not glorifying himself .The only possibility this was not in the inquest was the info was suppressed.

[Scott Nelson]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

Scenarios are always invented Trevor. It doesn’t mean that I’m promoting any with confidence it just means that because there is much that isn’t known then none of us can know exactly what happened. When we don’t know precisely what happened it’s reasonable to suggest the alternatives. Either that or we just say “we don’t know and we can’t know,” and move on.

We know that Eddowes was in Mitre Square. We know that the killer was in Mitre Square. And we know that the three witnesses passed and saw a man talking to a woman. And we know that Watkins discovered the body. Those are pretty much the only certainties. We don’t know how long the killer would have needed to have done what he did. We don’t know how long he actually had available to him. We can’t be certain that the couple were Eddowes and the ripper. And can’t hold the times to be exact and synchronised.

You’re the one claiming to know something based on these unknowns Trevor. It’s pretty straightforward stuff really. You can claim a definite from a bunch of unknowns.

I am not claiming to know anything specific all I am doing is showing that whichever scenario you or any other researcher chooses to explore is flawed, because the times the witnesses have stated are only estimated times, all I have done is to higlight these issues, and I say again it would seem by the police reports that they were happy that the couple seen were Eddowes and the killer they raise no concerns that they were not, and for an investigitive perspective I am sure all the officers involved would have been asked if they saw or came in contact with a couple or a lone male or female prior to body the being discovered, thats basic police work.

So to you and other researchers who still belive the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and had the time to do so and all that he is alleged to have done at the crime scene to reconsider their positions on this.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not claiming to know anything specific all I am doing is showing that whichever scenario you or any other researcher chooses to explore is flawed, because the times the witnesses have stated are only estimated times, all I have done is to higlight these issues, and I say again it would seem by the police reports that they were happy that the couple seen were Eddowes and the killer they raise no concerns that they were not, and for an investigitive perspective I am sure all the officers involved would have been asked if they saw or came in contact with a couple or a lone male or female prior to body the being discovered, thats basic police work.

So to you and other researchers who still belive the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and had the time to do so and all that he is alleged to have done at the crime scene to reconsider their positions on this.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence shows that we have no need to reconsider positions. We’re not going to agree on this so there’s no real point continuing.

[DJA]

[Trevor Marriott]

The evidence shows that we have no need to reconsider positions. We’re not going to agree on this so there’s no real point continuing.

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"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

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

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 .

[FrankO]

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"

I don't want to derail the thread, but isn't what's written in bold exactly what you're doing yourself, Trevor, when you suggest that it wasn't the killer who cut out & took the organs, but that it was actaully some other person, who did it at the mortuary before the post-mortems were performed? Or am I misrepresenting your stance?

The best,
Frank

[Abby Normal]

while its impossible to know for sure if Lawende and company saw the ripper with eddowes, its a pretty safe bet. Its in line with her leaving the police station, the ripper leaving dutfield yard, the fact they are the only couple there-no other couples seen in the mitre square around that time, Lawende IDed her clothes, and most importantly the man fits the description of wearing a peaked cap as the other witnesses who saw the ripper described that night.

But its all a moot point though isnt it? the ripper clearly had enough time to mutilate her and remove her organs in between the sighting and when her body was found.
and peoples timings could be off a few minutes so it could also have been a longer time interval. as I mentioned before-this isnt some normal medical procedure and if the ripper had extensive knife skills, surgical/medical and or anatomical experience it would hasten his time. and thats the real question-given the quickness in which this was done-does it point to any of this kind of experience? I would say it probably does-at the least extensive experience with a knife.