Have Ripperologists Been Polled As To Who They Think Jack Really Was?

[Monty]

Believe me Trevor,

No one is more hilarious than you.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Believe me Trevor,

No one is more hilarious than you.

Monty

another claim to fame then.

All these accolades that keep being bestowed upon me wil have to build a bigger cabinet

[DVV]

Hi Lynn

2. The deeper of the two notching the bone.
3. An attempt to decapitate.

Personally I don't see any attempt to decapitate. If there was, 2 & 3 make only one point.

2. Annie with uterus removed.
Why 2? JI himself admitted to thinking that he was harvesting heads and entrails of animals.

Which is very different from removing a human uterus - and this only.

[Phil Carter]

additional edit to my previous post

Dr Brown's stated start of attack would be 1.48 not 1.43 as written. Add 5 mins mutilating after death and end time is 1.53.
My apologies to all

Phil

[lynn cates]

sed contra

Hello David. The story about decapitation was from inquest.

Yes, for you or me the two are quite different--perhaps not, however, for a psychotic person.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Lynn,

If more people payed heed to what 'Tom Wescott says', this case would have been in the bag two years ago.

Phil,

I'm not sure what Brown in Mitre Square has to do with Dr. Phillips' estimation of time of death in Hanbury Street? Such an estimation only has evidentiary(sp?) value when more solid evidence is lacking that would give us a time of death. In the case of Eddowes, when based on the police evidence we can place her death accurately within minutes, whatever the doctor says means nothing.

Trevor,

The torso victims, in general, were not botched abortions, if that's what you're thinking.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

The evidence of the medical experts means 'nothing' ??
And police evidence outweighs expert medical opinion on specific medical matters now!

These comments are ridiculous and you know it. You simply cannot argue with expert evidence we have been given. Ask Monty. He insists on it, but when presented with facts that goes against personal views on certain opiners, silence reigns. Your method is mockery.

Policemen know time of death better than doctors now. Good grief.

And the reason I wrote it was your statement about fluidity of time estimation re time of death as given by doctors. 15mins since death is pretty precise.
Or are you telling me that both medical experts are totally wrong?
In whìch case this example of how serious your long awaited book shows it will not be taken seriously at all.
You cannot avoid expert evidence. No matter how much you try and belittle it with mockery.

Best wishes

Phil

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Just quickly back to the subject of Dr. Phillips (this thread is far too fast paced for me), I don't mean to belittle his abilities as a doctor at all, he was obviously very competent to achieve the position and reputation he carried. However, it is obvious that he made some errors within his reports - one would be willing to allow him some leeway as to Chapman's time of death, but we're talking about hours here. I know some people will say Chapman was killed earlier, etc etc etc, but what it comes down to is that Dr. Phillips erred in a major way. As to his comments on Eddowes' candidacy as a victim, they are quite perplexing. Eddowes in many ways is agreed upon as the quintessential Ripper victim.

So it isn't reasonable, then, to say that everything Phillips stated must be accurate, when it is evident that certain portions were not. His testimony is invaluable, but that doesn't make them completely factual.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

The evidence of the medical experts means 'nothing' ??
And police evidence outweighs expert medical opinion on specific medical matters now! {...} Policemen know time of death better than doctors now. Good grief.

Phil, time of death is EXTREMELY hard to fix, even with today's forensic medicine. This is a well-known fact. A police investigation does not really depend on expert medical opinion for time of death in a case when death was witnessed or in a case where time of death can be estimated within a very short time-frame thanks to evidence.

Just quickly back to the subject of Dr. Phillips {...} As to his comments on Eddowes' candidacy as a victim, they are quite perplexing.

Agree with you Adam.

[Monty]

Hello Tom,

The evidence of the medical experts means 'nothing' ??
And police evidence outweighs expert medical opinion on specific medical matters now!

These comments are ridiculous and you know it. You simply cannot argue with expert evidence we have been given. Ask Monty. He insists on it, but when presented with facts that goes against personal views on certain opiners, silence reigns. Your method is mockery.

Policemen know time of death better than doctors now. Good grief.

And the reason I wrote it was your statement about fluidity of time estimation re time of death as given by doctors. 15mins since death is pretty precise.
Or are you telling me that both medical experts are totally wrong?
In whìch case this example of how serious your long awaited book shows it will not be taken seriously at all.
You cannot avoid expert evidence. No matter how much you try and belittle it with mockery.

Best wishes

Phil

Silence reigns?

Didn't realise to be honest.

Do you wish me to address something?

Monty

[Monty]

I assume it is this post, No 48.....

....that you want me to address Phil.

Hello Tom,

Fluidity?How fluid is the following?

1) inspector (sic) Collard, a policeman, says HE arrived at Mitre Square at 2 or 3 mins past 2. He states that Dr. Sequiera was already there.

According to the Times dated 5th October 1888, Collard does indeed state that.

2) Dr. Sequiera states he was called upon at 5 mins to 2. He lived locally and it would not have taken more than 3 or 4mins to get to Mitre Square.

This estimation of travelling time is yours alone Phil. One suspects the man had to get dressed and gather his equipment.

3) He (Sequira) (sic) stated that the body would not have been dead more than 15 mins.

This from his point of arrival.

4) Dr Brown stated that he arrived at 18mins past 2.

Brown states he arrive "at about 18 minutes past 2....". You omitted the word 'about', indicating he was estimating.

5) He (Brown) states that she (Eddowes) must have been dead most likelx (sic) withhn (sic) the half hour.

Brown stated that the body had been there (in situ) "Certainly within 30 to 40 minutes".

I put it to you that these two experienced Doctors would know a fresh death when they saw one.
I also put it to you than fluidity of time of death estimation only increases when death has occured hours previousjy (sic), not 30mins or lesr (sic),

As Maria has pointed out, establishing an exact time of death is extremely difficult. Still is. There are many variables such as atmospheric condictions, conditions regarding the victim, etc. Brown based his conclusion, which was really an estimate as he doesnt pinpoint an exact time, on the warmth of the body and lack of 'death stiffening'.

6) 2.00am minus 15mins is 1.45am.(Sequiera)

7) 2.18am minus 30mins is 1.48am (Brown)

The working out is correct, the figures used not. Therefore conclusion not entirely honest.

8) Brown states the cause of death was immediate ( haemorrage from the left common carotid artery).

He does.

9) Brown states that the mutilations were inflicted after death.(after 1.48am)

He does. However the time of 1.48am is your time, not Browns.

10) Brown states that all injuries (inckuding (sic) No.8, above) wovld (sic) take at least 5 mins. (start 1.43am)

if Brown is correct, the attack started at 1.43 and ended at at least 1.48am
if Sequiera is coßect, the attack started at 1,45.
(if the attack therefore took 5mins then it endde (sic) at 1.50)

Brown stated the mutilations would take 5 mins.

He arrived at the scene at around 18 minutes past 2am.

Brown estimates time of death between 30 to 40 minutes, Sequiria with 15 minutes of his arrival (for arguements sake say 1.45am as you state) . Therefore, going by these estimates, the attack took place between 1.42am and 1.52am.

11) PC Watkins stated he arrived at the scene at 1.44am

No, Watkins estimated his arrival time at Eddowes as 1.44am. This based on the fact that whilst he was waiting for Morris he checked his pocket watch which read 1.45am. I do not think it would have taken him 1 minute to run the yards to Morris.

12) He(Watkins) states he ran across the square and alerted the nightwatchman at Kearly and Tonge.

See above.

All of the above times are WRITTEN, SWORN statements and are from the Inquest reports filed at the Corporation of London Records Office, ( ref. Coroners inquest (L) 1888, No,135, Catherine Eddowes inquest)

13) George Morris ( nightwatchman) states that Watkins knocked at his door at a quarter to two (1.45am) .



PC Watkins states he fixed the time by reference to ìs watch after he had called the nightwatcman. (Morris)

Morris refers to his timekeeping previous to Watkins arrival at his door, thereby having his own time reference piece.

(from witness statements quoted in The Times.)

So we have 4 different timepieces(5 including Collard) telling us that according to 2 doctors Watkins and Morris BOTH must be wrong, or BOTH doctors are wrong in their time of death statements.

How fluid do you want it? All 4 timepieces being wrong?
Evidence and facts should tell you that someone(more than one of the 4) is either badly chronologically mistaken or worse, lying. You choose which and who.

All references can be found in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, By Evans and Skinner.

Best wishes,

Phil

Lying? Are you suggesting conspiracy or cover up? And you say I keep getting you wrong.

Brown and Sequeria do not provide an exact time of death, they estimate. Watkins estimates his time of arrival after referring to his watch at a later stage. Morris timing supports this. Collard timing support Sequeria.

To expect all the times to tally is very unrealistic. There will be discrepancies, however in this case they are not major. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding or a drive to highlight the 'C' word.

If the latter you must ask why?

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

it was post 105 I referred to actually.
Will post reply later as I am at work atm
(To your sevious post)
you didnt see the follow up edit addition a few posts later re Brown? Also, re Sequiera- he must have been there LATEST 2.02 (re Collard) if so 15mins earlier makes est time of death 1.47. Add 5mins mutilation- 1.52

Phil

[Monty]

Apologies Phil,

I assume this you wish answering?

I would like to ask Monty a direct question. Which two of the C5 are NOT, in his opinion- if his "at least 3 by the same hand- would he separate form the rest? I presume Stride and Kelly? If so- what reasons does he have for these two being of a different hand?

Yes, you are correct. I have my doubts over Stride and Kelly. However I must stress doubt, Im not stating certainly.

The reasons have been discussed many times, especially regarding Stride, who I feel has a connection more with the Coles murder than those of 88.


No, I missed your later post re Brown.

The point is that times, especially regarding the death of someone without witness, and times of those under stress and executing procedure, rarely tally exactly.

We are talking minutes here, were are talking interpretation. Take and historic incident of recent times, JFK murder for example, and you will get differing versions of what happened and when.

Its a nigh on impossible task.

Monty

[Malcolm X]

Hello Tom. Finis.

Cheers.
LC

this is very interesting Lynn,

it is a very violent attack, the attacker seems to be stronger and far more clumsy than JTR, he's in a rage too; well it definitely looks like it.

this is the end of Sept? but i couldn't see the exact date, so i'm guessing that it's the week before Stride was killed, unfortunately this murder has been committed a wee bit out of the way, it's too far off the main train route from London, but it could be JTR i suppose....Durham uum, the location sais it all i suppose.

it's like a one man version of the Tabram murder, but if this is JTR, why has he killed in this hard to get to location, rather than another Whitechapel murder, which is so easy!

is JTR up here working, because you have to ask yourself this.... why is there a large gap between 8th sept and the 30th sept, plus a larger gap from Eddowes to MJK.

plus, why dont we have any other hideous murders up north around Durham, during this time frame...... 6 months either side, and also this bloke was never caught.

is this JTR ?..... could easily be, but he hasn't gutted her and this is a quiet area compared to London....... yes, but Coles and Mackenzie weren't gutted either, Stride wasn't for other reasons so this doesn't count.... but does show you that JTR doesn't always mutilate!

the knife looks long and sharp, the neck has been cut with huge force, but also from an experienced hand, now dont confuse clumsy rage with inexperience, because this killer is upset about something, but he's also planned his attack in advance, what upset him ?...... no idea, but she wasn't a prostitute, so she probably told the total stranger to clear off etc, or she screamed too loud... no idea.

1.....no other similar murders in this area
2.....killer never caught
3.....killed on the weekend and in the same time line as JTR
4.....Similar almost severed head to MJK and Eddowes

so could this still be JTR ?...... yes easily, but i dont know what happened to her boyfriend Waddle, so i'm not sure about this, because it could have been him instead, especially if he showed interest in JTR

[John Bennett]

One of the problems with Doctors vs. Police timing accuracy, is that they both have a duty to be as accurate as possible and yet are both using the same implement to do so - a watch.

So whose watch is going to be the more reliable?