Jack's Escape Route?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As far as the timings are concerned the only thing we can be sure of is that if the couple seen standing talking were the killer and Eddowes then we have no time to show what time they moved off into the square, so all the timings that you and others keep juggling with are irrelevant in the attempt to prove the old accepted theory that the killer had the time to do all that he is alleged to have done, becasue the later they moved of the less time for the killer to do all that he is alleged to have done

I don’t know why you persist with this point Trevor? Unless you can prove that they stood around for any length of time it gets you nowhere. Can it be proven that the couple went immediately into Mitre Square as soon as the three witnesses passed? Of course it can’t. Neither an earlier nor a later move can be proven, so the point doesn’t favour either side of the debate. All that we are left with is an estimation of how long the killer might have had in Mitre Square. Add this to the obvious point that we can’t be certain of the exact time that Lawende and co moved on and we have have a fairly wide range of possible time periods. And so from this we can say that the killer might have had 10 minutes or so in Mitre Square and unless this can be challenged with solid facts we can get no further.

[FISHY1118]

It has to be borne in mind that all the times given by all the witnesses are purely estimates and should not be relied on as being accurate

As far as the timings are concerned the only thing we can be sure of is that if the couple seen standing talking were the killer and Eddowes then we have no time to show what time they moved off into the square, so all the timings that you and others keep juggling with are irrelevant in the attempt to prove the old accepted theory that the killer had the time to do all that he is alleged to have done, becasue the later they moved of the less time for the killer to do all that he is alleged to have done

As to Harvey if the killer was still with Eddowes when Harvey started his walk down Church Passage he would have been visible to the killer by reason of the two lights in Church passage one at the entrance, and one oustide Kearley and Tonges, But Harvey would not have at any point been able to see the killer by reason of the light in his eyes from the lamps and even when he got to the square it would have taken time for his eyes to have ajusted to the darkness.

Now if you were the killer in that same situation and you saw and heard a policeman coming down the path in your direction a persons natural instict and the fear of being detected would kick in and you would make good your escape hastily which is clearly what the killer must have done

If as is being suggested the Eddowes was not the woman seen then I have to ask how come she was not seen by any of the police officers who were on duty in and around the square, Harvey,Watkins and the Detectives who were also in the immediate area.

If she was prostituting herself then a drinking club would be the ideal spot to look for a punter, we saw that with the Stride murder and the dar corner of Mitre Square and ideal spot to take a punter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I really dont know why you keep making this assumption Trevor ,''we have no time to show what time they moved off into the square'' just as we have no time or evidence to say they didnt move off straight away ,dont you see, its a complete non issue , a stalemate, a useless point of view to use to try convince someone of a theory . Its just a waste of time to even go down that path, it proves nothing . A theory with no Proof is just a theory . No one can say what time they moved off from that spot, just as no one knows if they didnt move off immediately . Lets end this silly notion .

As for Harvey,s entrance down church passage, i agree in part that he might not have been able to see the killer with Eddowes . It could also be argued although Harvey did reach the end of the passage about 1:41/2, he could not see across the square. The killer simply stopped what he was doing and did not move while Harvey stood momentarily at the end of the passage.[wickerman post]



''Now if you were the killer in that same situation and you saw and heard a policeman coming down the path in your direction a persons natural instict and the fear of being detected would kick in and you would make good your escape hastily which is clearly what the killer must have done''


One should Never ,Ever, Ever presume to know or think to know what the Killer might or might not do , that is casebook JtR suicide 101 in my opininon.

''which is clearly what the killer must have done'' Speculate: making assumptions without reference to facts

[FISHY1118]

It seems post 76 came in while i was responding .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now if you were the killer in that same situation and you saw and heard a policeman coming down the path in your direction a persons natural instict and the fear of being detected would kick in and you would make good your escape hastily which is clearly what the killer must have done

Do you discount the possibility that Harvey might not have bothered going to the end of Church Passage Trevor? I’m not suggesting that this definitely happened but when we remember that Harvey was dismissed from the Force around 10 months later this might imply that he wasn’t the most diligent or trustworthy of officers.

Isn’t it also possible that the killer might have known that he couldn’t be seen in the shadows from the end of Church Passage? This point presumes that the killer would have known that the officer only came to the end of Church Passage of course as he’d have been unlikely to have stayed put if the officer had entered the square.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t discount anything as far as this murder is concerned but you seem to want to dismiss the main issue surrounding my initial post and again at the risk of keep repeating myself I refer to the time the couple if eddowes and the killer left the location where they were seen. Even you must accept that the later they moved off the less time the killer had with the victim to do what you and others believe he did for example even 3 mins will cut the time down and eat into the time you and others believe he had with the victim

if you want to suggest as others do that the couple were not eddowes and the killer the you might as well tear up all the police statements and in your inimitable fashion dream up another plausible scenario based on evidence to support it
on a final note there is no evidence to suggest the police did not believe the couple wereEddowes and the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

What is the point you are seeking to make here? You sound as though you are saying:

1) Jack did not walk out of Mitre Square with PC Harvey. We don't know that for certain, but I think we'd all agree he did not walk out of Mitre Square with PC Harvey (or indeed with anyone else). My 'hypothetical' is, of course, on the surface contradicted by the fact that PC Harvey did not report strolling out of the square with the guy who was almost certainly the killer. We can't say this definitely didn't happen, of course, because it is unlikely that a policeman would have admitted to it if they had strolled away from the crime scene with the madman himself, however reasonable that may have been at the time.

2) Jack did not leave Mitre Square at all because no-one reported seeing anyone leave Mitre Square. This alternative conclusion would be bizarre, so I'll assume you were meaning 1), above?

Just to iterate, I was not suggesting for a moment that Jack the Ripper did stroll along Church Passage with PC Harvey. It was a mere whimsy on my part and not one I thought for a moment anyone would pursue, and certainly not pursue twice. It was a whimsy. We all know it didn't happen, Get over it. Move on. Let it go.

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.

[Varqm]

You need to look up "Blenkingsop".

A Couple Asked After.

James Blenkingsop, who was on duty as a watchman in St. James's-place (leading to the square), where some street improvements are taking place, states that about half-past one a respectably-dressed man came up to him and said, "Have you seen a man and a woman go through here?" "I didn't take any notice," returned Blenkingsop. "I have seen some people pass."
Star, 1 Oct. 1888.

I know about Blenkingsop,but he said the man asked him about 1:30 am,before the Lawende/co's sighting.
The also interesting report from the same paper and date is Mrs. Lindsay who heard a man said in anger "I'm not the murderer",but it did not specify a time but early Sunday morning.

[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."

Thanks for the article.PC Langdon said 7 minutes he came to the square after previously going there,Watkins said his beat was 12-14 minutes,so 7 minutes was wrong.
He encountered a man in a court in a street out of Mitre Square,there is no such thing,so St James place,Church passage or the main entrance from Mitre Street.There was an entrance to a court yard in Mitre Street near the Aldgate side,there was a school,I think where the Aldgate School now stands,and a hall for the Aldgate ward officials there I think,but not connected to Mitre Square.
Faulty memory but maybe the encounter was not,but it's not in the inquest

[Varqm]

St James passage/place is the only one with a court.

[Curious Cat]

Has anyone else considered the possibility that the killer strangled Catherine in Church Passage and then carried her to the spot in Mitre Square where they mutilated her? This would explain why nothing was heard from within the square. No-one would have been able to hear much if anything from the passage.

There is also the question of where PC Watkins was between 1am an 1:30am. He says his patrol was continuous from 10pm UNTIL 1am and that he passed through Mitre Square at 1:30am, seeing nothing of consequence. He returned at 1:44am. This is 14 minutes later which is the longer estimated time he gives himself for completing his patrol, the shortest being 12 minutes. He gives no time for being in the square between 1am and 1:30am, but his patrol time would suggest he would have been in the square around 1:04am and 1:17am. But as he says his patrol went up to 1am. A couple of 12 minute walks before would bring his stop time at 1am bang on being in Mitre Square. How does he conveniently break his patrol at the very location the body is found? He says he saw nothing at 1:30am but 14 minutes later he raises the alarm when he does. It's perfectly within his patrol time.

I am not suggesting PC Watkins is the killer and I do believe he discovered the body at 1:44am. What I wonder though is if he a) said he was in Mitre Square at 1:30am to cover when he should have been there when he was actually on a break and/or b) said he saw nothing at 1:30am to cover that he could not be sure if he missed seeing Catherine's body at that point.

A break?
Not looking properly?
Covering up dereliction of duty?
The killer really was that quick?

[Trevor Marriott]

Has anyone else considered the possibility that the killer strangled Catherine in Church Passage and then carried her to the spot in Mitre Square where they mutilated her? This would explain why nothing was heard from within the square. No-one would have been able to hear much if anything from the passage.

There is also the question of where PC Watkins was between 1am an 1:30am. He says his patrol was continuous from 10pm UNTIL 1am and that he passed through Mitre Square at 1:30am, seeing nothing of consequence. He returned at 1:44am. This is 14 minutes later which is the longer estimated time he gives himself for completing his patrol, the shortest being 12 minutes. He gives no time for being in the square between 1am and 1:30am, but his patrol time would suggest he would have been in the square around 1:04am and 1:17am. But as he says his patrol went up to 1am. A couple of 12 minute walks before would bring his stop time at 1am bang on being in Mitre Square. How does he conveniently break his patrol at the very location the body is found? He says he saw nothing at 1:30am but 14 minutes later he raises the alarm when he does. It's perfectly within his patrol time.

I am not suggesting PC Watkins is the killer and I do believe he discovered the body at 1:44am. What I wonder though is if he a) said he was in Mitre Square at 1:30am to cover when he should have been there when he was actually on a break and/or b) said he saw nothing at 1:30am to cover that he could not be sure if he missed seeing Catherine's body at that point.

A break?
Not looking properly?
Covering up dereliction of duty?
The killer really was that quick?

This 14 minute beat time is not written in stone, the officer could have stopped and spoke to someone on his beat or he could have taken more time to check his property on his beat, both could have effected his beat time. Again resechers are getting carried away with trying to work with precise timings when they are only estimated times.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t discount anything as far as this murder is concerned but you seem to want to dismiss the main issue surrounding my initial post and again at the risk of keep repeating myself I refer to the time the couple if eddowes and the killer left the location where they were seen. Even you must accept that the later they moved off the less time the killer had with the victim to do what you and others believe he did for example even 3 mins will cut the time down and eat into the time you and others believe he had with the victim

Im not dismissing anything Trevor and of course I accept that the later they left the less time the killer would have had. Why would I deny a fact? But saying if they left later is pointless because you can’t show that they did. All that we have to show is that it’s entirely possible that they entered the yard immediately or almost immediately after the witnesses moved on and it’s end of debate. Or at least it should be.

if you want to suggest as others do that the couple were not eddowes and the killer the you might as well tear up all the police statements and in your inimitable fashion dream up another plausible scenario based on evidence to support it
on a final note there is no evidence to suggest the police did not believe the couple wereEddowes and the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why is this an issue when you tear up the statements of Hutt and Robinson? We cannot prove that the couple were Eddowes and her killer. I think that they were but we can’t prove it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why is this an issue when you tear up the statements of Hutt and Robinson? We cannot prove that the couple were Eddowes and her killer. I think that they were but we can’t prove it.

Then you have to look at other alternatives that fits in with the estimated times being referred to, but that is always going to be a problem without anything to corrborate all these permutations you and others keep coming up with.

Hutt and Robinson were put leading questions to them in the testimony, which as I have said time and time again when closely scrutinized makes them unsafe to rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then you have to look at other alternatives that fits in with the estimated times being referred to, but that is always going to be a problem without anything to corrborate all these permutations you and others keep coming up with.

Hutt and Robinson were put leading questions to them in the testimony, which as I have said time and time again when closely scrutinized makes them unsafe to rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why do you keep saying ‘you and others’ as if there’s some kind of conspiracy going on? ‘Me and others’ are the ones that are following the evidence. Plus, I didn’t think that you had an issue with ‘estimated times,’ as you’ve been using them too? We have no alternative but to employ estimated times as we have no exact ones. You’re trying to prove something that’s 100% unprovable.

Your comment about Hutt and Robinson is self-serving of course but the subject of your cherry picking of witnesses is not worth pursuing here.

How did the thread get away from the original topic?

[DJA]

Probably escaped the same way he entered.