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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

But based on his testimony and how his watch and the clock in the club were in synch with each other, and his about 5 mins thereafter. He could not have seen the couple before 1.35am and that couple were not on the move they were standing talking, and again I have to say this is where the timing therafter is flawed because using a 1.35am as a start time when the couple were first seen there is no evidence to show what time they moved off, it could have been any time after 1.35am and as you point out minutes in this issue are crucial in the grand scheme of things.

That being said even if they moved off as late as 1.38am it would have still given the killer time to murder and mutilate but not time enough to remove the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Wuhh...ut?

an

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.



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.



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.

With the greatest respect you do not know what you are talking about

And I resent the sugestion that I paid any doctor in the course of my investigation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

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.

But how do you know he did not have the time, Trevor? Have you re-enacted the whole killing & cutting yourself? How long did it take to cut out the kidney and part of the womb? What do you know that we don’t? Furthermore, if we cannot be sure of the timings, why is it that you can?

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

Didn’t the police and all the medical men also seem to accept that it was one and the same man who’d done the killing, mutilating and the cutting out of the organs? So, in the absence of any evidence to prove them wrong, why is it that we don’t have to accept that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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,

I believe that it is likeliest that the couple were Eddowes and her killer. It can’t be proven but I believe that it was them.

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?

The 1.35 could certainly have been wrong. It could have been 1.30 for all that we know but yes, it could have been later.

Trevor, please stop asking me if I accept that the later the couple moved to Mitre Square the less time that the killer would have had. Can we just take this as obvious? I’ve never disputed this fact. It can’t be disputed.

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Prostitutes didn’t clock on and off Trevor. If she was on her way somewhere and a man saw her he might have assumed that she was soliciting given the time that she was out and about. Would she have turned down the chance of earning money just because she wasn’t in a known red light area?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Its interesting that you accept Lawende’s ID which was done via clothing, outside in the dark, over a very short time and at a distance and yet you dismiss Hutt and Robinson, who spent extended time in Eddowes company and who saw her up close in a lit police station?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, there would have been ‘god knows how many’ watches and clocks in London at that time. Surely you can’t be claiming that just because one watch agreed with one clock then they both must have been right? How do you know that he didn’t set his watch by the clock? How do you know that the clock was correct?

[Trevor Marriott]

But how do you know he did not have the time, Trevor? Have you re-enacted the whole killing & cutting yourself? How long did it take to cut out the kidney and part of the womb? What do you know that we don’t? Furthermore, if we cannot be sure of the timings, why is it that you can?


Didn’t the police and all the medical men also seem to accept that it was one and the same man who’d done the killing, mutilating and the cutting out of the organs? So, in the absence of any evidence to prove them wrong, why is it that we don’t have to accept that?

I say the killer did not have the time to do all that he did that is based on the fact that we do not know the precise time the killer and Edowes went into the square the longer they stood talking the less time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done. and even as late at 1.38 in my opiniio make it an impossibe task

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, there would have been ‘god knows how many’ watches and clocks in London at that time. Surely you can’t be claiming that just because one watch agreed with one clock then they both must have been right? How do you know that he didn’t set his watch by the clock? How do you know that the clock was correct?

well would both clock and watch be that far out of sync? if you are going to argue about these time pieces you can argue all the times which form part of this murder, there has to be some stability otherwise no explantion is feasable and there has to be a plausible explantion as to how Eddowes was murdered

and when are you going to answer my questions?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I say the killer did not have the time to do all that he did that is based on the fact that we do not know the precise time the killer and Edowes went into the square the longer they stood talking the less time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done. and even as late at 1.38 in my opiniio make it an impossibe task

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, please re-read the post that you’ve made here. I’m sorry but I refuse to believe that you are simply misunderstanding.

You are saying this….

The killer couldn’t have had time to remove the organs because we don’t know how long it would have taken or how long he had available.

There can’t be a poster on this forum that would accept that point as making even a modicum of sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

well would both clock and watch be that far out of sync? if you are going to argue about these time pieces you can argue all the times which form part of this murder, there has to be some stability otherwise no explantion is feasable and there has to be a plausible explantion as to how Eddowes was murdered

and when are you going to answer my questions?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

“There has to be stability?!!!”

So we have to accept exact times just for stability? Come on, this is desperate even for you.

Ive answered your questions.

[Trevor Marriott]

“There has to be stability?!!!”

So we have to accept exact times just for stability? Come on, this is desperate even for you.

Ive answered your questions.

You are missing the point a point, which I have emphasied many times, and that is the times stated by the witnesses are only estimated times but with Lawende the two timepieces he refers to according to him show the exact same time now how likley is is that both were wrong? so he looks at the time before he leaves and that shows 1.30am about 5 mins later according to my time is about 1.35am he then sees the couple standing talking but does not see them walk off into the square so again I keep saying this but it seen no one is able to comprehend, or doesnt want to comprehend. We have no evidence as to what time they moved off it could have been any time between 135am-1.40am

and even if both clock and watch were wrong we still have no evidence to show what time they entered the square

The later the time reduces the time he had with the victim and therefore reduces the time he had to carry out the murder and the mutilation and remove the organs and we can only calculate this based on the estimated timings given by Watkins and Harvey.

Even as late as 1.40am he would have had sufficient time to murder and mutilate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are missing the point a point, which I have emphasied many times, and that is the times stated by the witnesses are only estimated times but with Lawende the two timepieces he refers to according to him show the exact same time now how likley is is that both were wrong? so he looks at the time before he leaves and that shows 1.30am about 5 mins later according to my time is about 1.35am he then sees the couple standing talking but does not see them walk off into the square so again I keep saying this but it seen no one is able to comprehend, or doesnt want to comprehend. We have no evidence as to what time they moved off it could have been any time between 135am-1.40am

The later the time reduces the time he had with the victim and therefore reduces the time he had to carry out the murder and the mutilation and remove the organs and we can only calculate this based on the estimated timings given by Watkins and Harvey.

Even as late as 1.40am he would have had sufficient time to murder and mutilate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Im not missing the point Trevor. Just because a clock and a watch are in synch this doesn’t mean that they were both correct. It’s not even close to a certainty. But apart from that point, it’s you that’s missing the whole point. This is what you are saying Trevor:

- We don’t know how soon the couple moved to Mitre Square, it might have been later, so this PROVES that the killer wouldn’t have had time. -

You must see how this makes no sense? You must. Yes a later time reduces the time available BUT, and this is the point Trevor, BUT we can’t assume a later time (or an earlier one for that matter)

Yes they could have moved on later but they could have moved on as soon as the witnesses passed. It’s an unknown Trevor. So you can’t make a definite point using it. And, before you say it, yes I can’t make the point that the killer definitely had time either.

This is like knitting fog.

[Ally]

With the greatest respect you do not know what you are talking about

I love it when people make ridiculous claims without support, and then refuse to sustain them. Just start going YOU WRONG!! Yep, convincing argument there.

And I resent the sugestion that I paid any doctor in the course of my investigation

Well the "experts" you drum up for free tend to be pants. Remember that handwriting fortune teller you got to opine on the Swanson Marginalia whose own website said she didn't do handwriting analysis, and yet you insisted was perfectly capable of it, even though, again, her own website said she wasn't. Good times.

I mean there's experts and then there's "experts". And any "expert" who says it would be the work of more than minutes to snatch a random organ from a body that has been carved up, is lacking. But I mean considering you make statements like "other than the murdering and the mutilations" there weren't any cuts, I'm not sure you're one to level a charge about my lack of knowledge.

I'm still waiting for you to explain that one. And if your "mystery" organ harvester was so concerned about "pristine" organs, why'd he botch the harvest on the uterus? I mean you're banging on about his vast medical knowledge required and he completely flubs getting the whole of the uterus? There goes that argument.

[Wickerman]

But how do you know he did not have the time, Trevor? Have you re-enacted the whole killing & cutting yourself? How long did it take to cut out the kidney and part of the womb? What do you know that we don’t?

Most books on anatomy show a human kidney and where it is located, yet they hardly ever show what you really see.
There is no kidney to touch or to see, the human kidney is encased in a fatty membrane called perirenal fat. Which means if it is too dark to see what he is doing then going by feel alone he would have to know the oblong ball of fat attached to the spine contained a kidney. The ordinary man on the street doesn't know that.
Not sure if it was Brown or Phillips who wrote that the kidney had been removed "with care", so again consistent with the perpetrator having some medical training.

[Ally]

Most books on anatomy show a human kidney and where it is located, yet they hardly ever show what you really see.
There is no kidney to touch or to see, the human kidney is encased in a fatty membrane called perirenal fat. Which means if it is too dark to see what he is doing then going by feel alone he would have to know the oblong ball of fat attached to the spine contained a kidney. The ordinary man on the street doesn't know that.
Not sure if it was Brown or Phillips who wrote that the kidney had been removed "with care", so again consistent with the perpetrator having some medical training.

Then maybe you will answer what I am sure Trevor won't, if we are going by the "care" standard as being indicative of medical training, how is it explained that he botched the removal of the uterus? One organ is sloppily cut, missing a portion of it. One is removed "with care" meaning, I presume in its entirety, since I don't see how "care" can be established in a body where the majority of the organs had cuts to some degree or the other. Especially the ones easily accessed. I believe the remaining kidney was untouched, and therefore was likely not excavated in the frenzy.

Why do we decide that...given the majority of organs were cut/stabbed and definitely not treated "with care", the one time he manages to excavate an organ in it's entirety, he's clearly got medical knowledge? The liver was stabbed repeatedly, is that indicative of care and medical knowledge?