Striking after being seen?

[Monty]

What was odd about the Morris and Watkins exchange?

Monty

[Garza]

K,

Dr Brown was certain that the earliest the murder could have taken place was 1.40. Dr Sequira felt it was probably no earlier than 1.40.

Two doctors, trained in this sort of thing, in agreement re 1.40 being the earliest time of the murder.

Estimation of time of death is not an exact science, even today and Victorian doctors estimated time of death by touch of skin alone. I would give all times of death in these murders a little leeway.

It is very possible they got it wrong by 5 mins.

[Fleetwood Mac]

He could have killed her at 1.36 - those extra minutes would make all the difference.

A minute to wait until the 3 witnesses were out of sight, close the deal, choose the corner, get into position and kill her? I'd say 1.37 earliest.

But:

What should we make of Dr's Brown and Sequiera - one said certainly no earlier than 1.40; the other said probably no earlier than 1.40. These were people in the know about these sorts of things.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Estimation of time of death is not an exact science, even today and Victorian doctors estimated time of death by touch of skin alone. I would give all times of death in these murders a little leeway.

It is very possible they got it wrong by 5 mins.

They did give a time range. Give or take 5 minutes, with the earliest being 1.40 when taking 5 minutes.

I think it helps that she was killed not long before the doctors arrived at the scene. Fewer variables; a recent killing made it easier to identify the time of death.

[ChrisGeorge]

I’m disinclined to take any of the witness testimony in this case very seriously as I am fairly sure that whoever they saw was usually not the victim and still less the victim with the Ripper, and then even if they did their minds would have muddled up and confused things to such an extent to make their testimony almost worthless.

They would have all been influenced by the mythology of the case. The first instances of witnesses claiming to have seen the victim with the culprit were associated with the Chapman murder, by which time ‘Whitechapel Murder’ hysteria was in full swing.

Basic human powers of observation and recall when confronted with either an unusual or unexpected situation or conversely recalling mundane situations a day after the event (and the witness sightings would have appeared mundane and unmemorable at the time) are notoriously poor.

Hello Lechmere

I agree with you about the virtual valueless-ness of the eyewitness testimony. This is a case in which there is too much information. Too many murder locations. Too many witnesses who thought they saw something but probably did not. The information is contradictory and self-cancelling much like, if you will, the assertions of certain police officials who claimed to have the answer to the case but most probably did not.

Best regards

Chris

[Wickerman]

Estimation of time of death is not an exact science, even today and Victorian doctors estimated time of death by touch of skin alone. I would give all times of death in these murders a little leeway.

It is very possible they got it wrong by 5 mins.

Garza.
Your conclusion is correct, they could have got the time of death wrong by 5 mins, at least.
Nineteenth century doctors used three principal means of estimating time of death. Body Temperature (Algor Mortis), Body Stiffening (Rigor Mortis), and Blood Settling (Livor Mortis), and they are still in use today.
Today we complement those with other methods but the doctors involved in these murders most certainly used the principal three above.

Body Temperature is still the most reliable method, Body Stiffening is subject to a number of variables both as to it's cause & duration. Blood Settling is only of use providing the body has not been moved.

Regards, Jon S.

[Supe]

Mr. Mac,

Dr Brown claimed it couldn't have been done in less than 5 minutes, and Watkins is on the scene at 1.44am.

Perhaps Dr. Brown was wrong and it was done more quickly. After all, in estimating the time to do what was done Brown was mindful of the cautious way a surgeon would proceed in order to protect a patient's life. Jack did not have that concern, as evidenced by the fact he was rather careless in extricating the womb.

Don.

[Raoul's Obsession]

Another weird detail is, PC Harvey went into Church Passage as far as Mitre Sq – but not into the square – at 1.40 and saw and heard nothing, although the murder site was opposite Church Passage, there was a street lamp in Mitre Square, and the square cannot be that big.

I realise that the square was poorly lit, and also that the corner in which the murder occured was the darkest in the square - but I agree that this has always bothered me. In patrolling his beat, he would have gone down Church Passage but not into the square - but by standing at the end (or near the end) of Church Pasage he would have been looking directly at the murder site, and at a time where he may very well have seen the murderer in action. If Jack was in there, I think it's unlikely he wouldn't have been seen.

I see two likely options:
1. the murderer had heard the approaching policeman and left - I think a dead motionless body would be less likely to have been found and was maybe overlooked in the gloom.
2. The policeman never went that far up Church Passage - I believe it had a kink in it such that you couldn't see into the square from Duke street? I think that while he perhaps should have gone that far up the passage, maybe he was running late, and didn't, and lied.

[Addy]

If Jack kept really still when he heard the policeman approach, he also would have been difficult to spot. And the policeman did not stop to take a hard look around the square, he probably glanced at it and walked on. To see someone in the darkest corner, while perhaps himself standing in the light of a streetlantern, would have been unlikely. And so far Jack had not murdered in this area, so he probably wasn't particularly on the lookout for him.

Personally I believe the scenario described in Scotland Yard Investigates, that Jack and Kate were in the square and the policeman did not spot them.

Greetings,

Addy

[Malcolm X]

I don't think the police would have phased him as they couldn't have pinned it on him, but the vigilance committee may have done. Rumour gets round and one night you're lynched on the streets.

the police cant nail JTR before he's committed murder can they, so there's nothing wrong with somebody walking right past you, stopping and then talking to you..... because all you are is an innocent guy talking to a woman, the knife you're carrying ? well that's for self defence isn't it!

the police have sod all on you, you're only vulnerable if you have evidence lieing at home

[Malcolm X]

I realise that the square was poorly lit, and also that the corner in which the murder occured was the darkest in the square - but I agree that this has always bothered me. In patrolling his beat, he would have gone down Church Passage but not into the square - but by standing at the end (or near the end) of Church Pasage he would have been looking directly at the murder site, and at a time where he may very well have seen the murderer in action. If Jack was in there, I think it's unlikely he wouldn't have been seen.

I see two likely options:
1. the murderer had heard the approaching policeman and left - I think a dead motionless body would be less likely to have been found and was maybe overlooked in the gloom.
2. The policeman never went that far up Church Passage - I believe it had a kink in it such that you couldn't see into the square from Duke street? I think that while he perhaps should have gone that far up the passage, maybe he was running late, and didn't, and lied.

the policeman would see nothing of JTR, maybe just a dark out of focus shadow moving away, but JTR would definitely see the policeman coming/ hear him too........it's a no brainer, JTR escapes easily !

the first thing you detect at night is movement, then the first thing you notice is the face, your eyes are drawn instantly to this, but it's so easy to miss something off to one side if it's dead still....you also hear very well at night, much better than during the day.

but remaining dead still is an extremely dodgy tactic, he's far better off legging it..... so JTR sees somebody coming and quickly cuts off part of the apron.

alternatively:- JTR is already finished and gone before the copper comes along, because there is no indication that JTR was ever intending to butcher Eddowes more than was seen !

[Phil H]

Timings

Wasn't it Conan Doyle who said (through the mouth of Sherlock Holmes) that once you had ruled out the impossible what you were left with was the truth? (Not an exact quote, but it will serve my purpose.)

Leaving aside whether or not the given timings are reliable or exact - two men in 1888 looking at their watches at the same moment, might have been out by minutes if not more - I think there are some facts that can be ascertained.

We know that Eddowes WAS murdered and mutilated.
We know that her killer got away unseen.
We know he took a piece of her apron for some reason (pace those who think Eddowes lost it herself).
We know he had time not only to kill her - silently - but also to mutilate her face and rip open her belly.
We know that he had to have time to get her, or go with her, to that dark corner.
We have to allow for the movements and stated perceptions of the PC and the nightwatchman.

So, if we do rule out the supernatural, there was time to do all that. If that seems impossible given things like the conventional timing of the Lawende sighting, then either the timing is incorrect, or Lawende & co saw someone else.

On balance, I do not feel confident that Lawende and his friends saw "Jack" either with Kate or not. It is entirely possible that "Jack" was already at his work at that very moment in the shadows nearby.

Further, and I know this will annoy some - if, for a moment, you disassociate "Jack" from the murder of Stride and allow that someone else could have done that, then "Jack" has much more time to stalk or meet, Eddowes; to walk with her by any route to the Square, and to kill and mutilate her.

Trying to cram everything into an artificial timeframe - and linking Stride/Eddowes is purely a conventional wisdom NOT proven fact -could be misleading us in various ways. Maybe we need to open our mental timeframes and consider other possibilities and be more flexible in our approach.

Phil

[Garza]

Further, and I know this will annoy some - if, for a moment, you disassociate "Jack" from the murder of Stride and allow that someone else could have done that, then "Jack" has much more time to stalk or meet, Eddowes; to walk with her by any route to the Square, and to kill and mutilate her.

You sound like Jack met Eddowes in Houndsditch and took her on a leisurely stroll to Mitre Square. Lets not forget that the victims chose the murder location. Eddowes was already late home and by her own words in trouble with the other half, she had spent all her money on booze. I would say she would have gone to the nearest dark spot to do the business, get it over with and get another client/go home.

We also don't know that Jack stalked/followed his victims. As you have states in another thread Jack is a very careful man, tries to limit blood on himself and his shoes, he is likely not want to be seen by anyone with the victim, I would be surprised if he spent more than 5 mins with the victim (alive).

Trying to cram everything into an artificial timeframe - and linking Stride/Eddowes is purely a conventional wisdom NOT proven fact -could be misleading us in various ways. Maybe we need to open our mental timeframes and consider other possibilities and be more flexible in our approach.

Phil

Phil, no-one is cramming.

Stride was murdered 12.45am-1am.
Eddowes was murdered 1.30am-1.45am (at latest 1.36am probably).
Less than a mile apart.

Was there time between those murders to get to the next location, meet and talk business for 5 minutes (even 10 mins) with a woman and kill her? Yes. And THAT is a fact.

And this is Victorian Whitechapel, you don't have to look very hard to see a woman selling her wares.

[Phil H]

Garza - it is your privelege to keep a closed mind. Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise.

I was careful in my choice of words as I recall. I wrote: "We know that he had to have time to get her, or go with her, to that dark corner." I was, indeed, careful to try not to rule anything in or out.

Much of the rest of what you say clearly reflects your own assumptions (fair enough):

Lets not forget that the victims chose the murder location. Eddowes was already late home and by her own words in trouble with the other half, she had spent all her money on booze. I would say she would have gone to the nearest dark spot to do the business, get it over with and get another client/go home. [My emphasis.]

We also don't know that Jack stalked/followed his victims. So surely we should rule nothing in and nothing out.

As you have states in another thread Jack is a very careful man, tries to limit blood on himself and his shoes, he is likely not want to be seen by anyone with the victim, I would be surprised if he spent more than 5 mins with the victim (alive).[ My emphasis.] YOU used the word likely.

Phil, no-one is cramming. I suggest you read earlier posts in the thread.

Stride was murdered 12.45am-1am.
Eddowes was murdered 1.30am-1.45am (at latest 1.36am probably).
Less than a mile apart.

YOUR timings and YOUR assumption of a link.

Was there time between those murders to get to the next location, meet and talk business for 5 minutes (even 10 mins) with a woman and kill her? Yes. And THAT is a fact.

But it is POSSIBLE, using different ASSUMPTIONS that a different scenario occured - open your eyes and your mind, please. There is NO PROOF that "Jack" killed Stride - ONLY assumptions and conventional thinking.

And this is Victorian Whitechapel, you don't have to look very hard to see a woman selling her wares. Assumption - however well-based. We know nothing of HOW "Jack" approached women, or when, and neither you nor I have ever been to Victorian Whitechapel, which is not NOW but THEN - so while I understand your use of the tense, present tense is not appropriate in this context!

I stick to my point.

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

I'm always shocked when someone says it's an individual opinion that Jack killed Stride, as though the entirety of the contemporary opinion of investigators didn't lean that way. By contrast, you have a police Supe (Arnold) and a couple of doctors calling Eddowes copycat. All this 'Stride out' nonsense as it's known today began with AP Wolf and was followed by Evans/Gainey, who also took Mary Kelly out of the mix, and now we have Andrew Cook, Simon Wood, and Trevor Marriott carrying that torch and striking all victims from the list. I've seen your reasons for counting out Stride and they're all based on mistakes and a misinterpretation of the evidence, same as AP Wolf, Evans, and every single author - without exception - who concluded Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

It appears that few researchers appreciate how difficult it would be for the average man to kill a woman with a single slice of the knife. Murder is not an easy thing, even for a criminal. But Stride's killer, operating in a very dark and public corner, subdued his victim, dispatched her in the SAME WAY as the Ripper (turning her away from him and cutting her carotid artery), and escaped without any sign of panic or struggle. That a copycat should be so lucky as to happen to strike in the same hour and within the same mile as the man he's copycatting would be, I believe, a complete anomaly in the annals of crime, particulary when you consider that Eddowes was killed at a far earlier hour than the other victims. The single fact upon which the theory that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim hangs, that she wasn't mutilated below the neck, is not enough in the face of all the other facts I've mentioned (and more) to conclude she wasn't a Ripper victim, especially as there are many other less radical explanations for the lack of mutilation.

If you're going to espouse the virtues of 'open-mindedness' then I suppose we'll soon see you taking Supt Arnold's point-of-view and reconsidering the various scenarios with Eddowes as the copycat and Stride the Ripper victim? Or, as some contemporary detectives felt, that they were each killed by different men working in tandem?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott