Jack's Escape Route?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... sure as shooting the other side (the Jews) fired back and and there was pro Jewish sentiment expressed as well in the graffiti in Whitechapel. That is just human nature.

c.d.

Is there any evidence to support what you have written or is supposition or an assumption?

[Abby Normal]

Eddowes !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

good grief. is this your Eddowes cut off her own apron piece to use as a sanitary napkin theory? lol

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

GSG was written by someone of the same height as the man Elizabeth Long saw at Hanbury Street.

At the time that Elizabeth Long saw that man, Annie Chapman was already dead.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

At the time that Elizabeth Long saw that man, Annie Chapman was already dead.

[c.d.]

Is there any evidence to support what you have written or is supposition or an assumption?

You know, right after I posted that I thought...hmmm...I hope some smart ass doesn't call me on that. But hey you got me. It is an assumption but I thought that was pretty much understood. But now watch closely and see what I do here so you can learn how to do it as well. I admit it was an assumption. See how easy that is to do?

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You know, right after I posted that I thought...hmmm...I hope some smart ass doesn't call me on that. But hey you got me. It is an assumption but I thought that was pretty much understood. But now watch closely and see what I do here so you can learn how to do it as well. I admit it was an assumption. See how easy that is to do?

c.d.

The thing is: I have never heard of pro-Jewish graffiti ever having been chalked anywhere in London at that time.

[Elamarna]

At the time that Elizabeth Long saw that man, Annie Chapman was already dead.

In your opinion, almost certainly one based on the mistaken belief of doctors at the time that TOD could be fixed to within a few minutes by Touch and by RM.
This is a view No modern Forensic Pathologist would ascribe to.

You may well argue that she was dead, but again you are stating this belief as FACT.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Eddowes !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If I understand you correctly, Trevor, you are suggesting that the murderer did not remove organs from Chapman, did not remove organs from Eddowes,
did not cut Eddowes' apron in two, did not deposit Eddowes' apron in Goulston Street, and did not carry away Kelly's heart.

I would suggest that is rather farfetched.

[c.d.]

The thing is: I have never heard of pro-Jewish graffiti ever having been chalked anywhere in London at that time.

Well let's think this through and see if we can make some reasonable deductions. Here in the U.S. we have two political parties Democrats and Republicans. As soon as one party writes or speaks a cheap shot at the other party the other party fires back in kind. We have sports teams and they have rivals. One fan disses the other team's fans and they fire back. I see it where I live (Washington, D.C.) and other places I have traveled as well. If you see graffiti that says X is a jerk you can pretty much expect to see graffiti nearby that says oh yeah well Y is a jerk.

So now we move on to London and Whitechapel. Are we in agreement that there was anti-Semitic graffiti around? If so, do you think Jewish people simply read it and said damn that is insulting and demeaning but hey what can I do about it? Or is it reasonable to expect that they defended themselves when all that took was a piece of chalk, a minute of their time with no risk of being punched because they were anonymous?

And finally, just look at these boards, do most posters accept what they think are cheap shots and snotty remarks without firing back in kind. It's human nature, buddy.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In your opinion, almost certainly one based on the mistaken belief of doctors at the time that TOD could be fixed to within a few minutes by Touch and by RM.
This is a view No modern Forensic Pathologist would ascribe to.

You may well argue that she was dead, but again you are stating this belief as FACT.

I don't know why you use the words almost certainly.

My opinion is not based on what you suggest it is based.

Even if you accept the eyewitness evidence of the residents of Hanbury Street and agree with the coroner, then the time of death is, as noted by Macnaghten, about
5.28 a.m., which is earlier than Long's sighting of the man she said was with Chapman.

There is eyewitness evidence that Chapman was eating a potato at about 1.30 a.m. in a lodging house in Dorset Street and left the house at about 1.50 a.m.

One can reasonably deduce that she had finished eating it by 1.40 a.m.

It takes about an hour for potato to be digested.

In order for Long to have seen Chapman, the potato would have had to remain partly-digested for about four hours.

That is farfetched.

Your comment that my opinion is based on the mistaken belief of doctors at the time that TOD could be fixed to within a few minutes is incorrect.

In addition to my point above, that it could hardly have taken more than four hours for a potato to have been digested, there is the fact that rigor mortis had set in.

That means that Chapman had been dead for at least an hour before Chapman's supposed sighting of her alive.

[Trevor Marriott]

If I understand you correctly, Trevor, you are suggesting that the murderer did not remove organs from Chapman, did not remove organs from Eddowes,
did not cut Eddowes' apron in two, did not deposit Eddowes' apron in Goulston Street, and did not carry away Kelly's heart.

I would suggest that is rather farfetched.

I would suggest you take time to consider in detail all the facts surrounding the series of murders and you will see that the old accepted theories surrounding these murders do not stand up to close scrutiny.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would suggest you take time to consider in detail all the facts surrounding the series of murders and you will see that the old accepted theories surrounding these murders do not stand up to close scrutiny.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for your reply, but I do not know which facts I would need to consider that I have not considered already!

Eddowes was released from Bishopsgate police station about half an hour before she met her murderer.

The police did not note that her apron had been cut in two nor that it had bloodstains or faeces on it.

It is obvious that Eddowes walked directly from Bishopsgate southwards in the direction of Mitre Square and did not go there via Goulston Street.

No sharp knife was found on her person.

The conclusion that the murderer cut the apron in two and deposited one half of it in Goulston Street is, in my submission, inescapable.

[Elamarna]

I don't know why you use the words almost certainly.

My opinion is not based on what you suggest it is based.

Even if you accept the eyewitness evidence of the residents of Hanbury Street and agree with the coroner, then the time of death is, as noted by Macnaghten, about
5.28 a.m., which is earlier than Long's sighting of the man she said was with Chapman.

There is eyewitness evidence that Chapman was eating a potato at about 1.30 a.m. in a lodging house in Dorset Street and left the house at about 1.50 a.m.

One can reasonably deduce that she had finished eating it by 1.40 a.m.

It takes about an hour for potato to be digested.

In order for Long to have seen Chapman, the potato would have had to remain partly-digested for about four hours.

That is farfetched.

Your comment that my opinion is based on the mistaken belief of doctors at the time that TOD could be fixed to within a few minutes is incorrect.

In addition to my point above, that it could hardly have taken more than four hours for a potato to have been digested, there is the fact that rigor mortis had set in.

That means that Chapman had been dead for at least an hour before Chapman's supposed sighting of her alive.

I see you are trying to use absolute times such as 5.28, which is a totally pointless exercise. Such times, based on witness statements are not reliable, certainly not to the degree you attempt to suggest here.

The timings given by both Cadosch and Long, are at best rough estimates, which in all probability cannot even be compared to each other, due to the lack of syncronizied time, and human nature with regards to estimating time.
Quoting Macnaghten, who was not even in the police at the time, as if his view carries great weight is also pointless.
Clearly he can only base his estimate on the witness statements which are intrinsically imprecise and unreliable.
Or he uses the opinion of the doctor's, he has nothing else to work with.

On digestion
digestion rates are not set in stone. they vary and can be affected by many things. More importantly we have no idea of the last time Chapman ate!
We know the last time she is reported as eating as you quote, but we have no idea, if she took food with her from the lodging house, or if she gained more food afterwards.
You may think it's obvious that she did not eat after that time, but that is simply speculation on your part.
Indeed you can use it to support your view, but it is not in itself proof.

The same applies with the state of digestion in the Kelly case, again we know the last time is is seen to eat, but we Don't know, if she ate afterwards, yet people continue to quote such as proof of TOD.


With regards to RM, the idea that it always progresses at the same rate and that it can be used to pinpoint TOD is I am afraid a fantasy fuelled by tv cop shows.
In reality it's much more variable.

To say you are not basing your opinion on the views of Phillips is odd, you clearly rely to a degree on his assesment of the degree of RM present, and how long that would take to occur.

It's not a coincidence that the two murders where TOD is disputed are the two, which the police did not patrol the site of the murder.

It seems probable that the doctors used the police beat reports to help establish rough TODs for Nichols, Stride and Eddowes. Indeed it may be argued that those reports were more reliable than the use of touch and RM or digestion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well let's think this through and see if we can make some reasonable deductions. Here in the U.S. we have two political parties Democrats and Republicans. As soon as one party writes or speaks a cheap shot at the other party the other party fires back in kind. We have sports teams and they have rivals. One fan disses the other team's fans and they fire back. I see it where I live (Washington, D.C.) and other places I have traveled as well. If you see graffiti that says X is a jerk you can pretty much expect to see graffiti nearby that says oh yeah well Y is a jerk.

So now we move on to London and Whitechapel. Are we in agreement that there was anti-Semitic graffiti around? If so, do you think Jewish people simply read it and said damn that is insulting and demeaning but hey what can I do about it? Or is it reasonable to expect that they defended themselves when all that took was a piece of chalk, a minute of their time with no risk of being punched because they were anonymous?

And finally, just look at these boards, do most posters accept what they think are cheap shots and snotty remarks without firing back in kind. It's human nature, buddy.

c.d.

Your analogy is not a valid one.

What was happening in Whitechapel was not a case of two rival groups.

It was a case of anti-Semitism - of prejudice on the part of many local people against Jews.

There were reports of anti-Jewish graffiti but not of anti-Christian graffiti.

Men marched down Hanbury Street, chanting 'Down with the Jews!'

Jews did not march down Petticoat Lane, chanting 'Down with the gentiles!'

In the cases of Chapman and Kelly, witnesses described Jewish supposed-suspects.

In the case of the assault on Stride, a well-known anti-Jewish insult was shouted at the witness, who was of Jewish appearance.

Neither of the two Jewish witnesses, Schwartz and Lawende, stated that the suspect was of gentile appearance, although both suspects obviously were gentiles.

There were graffiti accusing the Jews of involvement in the murders.

There were no graffiti accusing the gentiles of involvement in the murders.

Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren were worried that there would be an anti-Jewish pogrom.

The police were not worried that there would be an anti-gentile pogrom.

You are making an invalid comparison and there is no evidence to back up what you are suggesting happened.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for your reply, but I do not know which facts I would need to consider that I have not considered already!

Maybe take the blinkers off and not rely on the old accepted theory because it is unsafe

Eddowes was released from Bishopsgate police station about half an hour before she met her murderer.

The police did not note that her apron had been cut in two nor that it had bloodstains or faeces on it.

What reason would they have had to make note of this while she was in custody? The issue of the apron only came into play after her murder and then officers miraculously remembered that while in custody she was wearing an apron despite the fact that almost every Victorian woman wore a white apron

It is obvious that Eddowes walked directly from Bishopsgate southwards in the direction of Mitre Square and did not go there via Goulston Street.

It is not obvious no one saw her after she left the police station Eddowes had ample time when leaving the police station to make her way in the direction of Flower and dean Street where she was lodging and in doing so would have passed close to Goulston Street archway

No sharp knife was found on her person.

She had a knife in her possessions

The conclusion that the murderer cut the apron in two and deposited one half of it in Goulston Street is, in my submission, inescapable.

I would suggest you read my earlier post on the topic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk