Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[JeffHamm]

It may help establish the fact that more than just the woman and Sailor man were near that square that night, which is enough to suspend belief that Lawende must have seen Kate. Thanks Wick.

Hi Michael,

I'm not saying the Church Passage pair had to be Eddowes and JtR, only that so far the weight of the evidence makes that most probable hypothesis. The fact that people were passing through St. James Place gives some weight to alternatives. The firemen in St. James Place don't spot anyone leaving Mitre Square through St. James Place, and while it seems likely they would have indicated they saw a couple go the other way earlier, they don't specifically state that, leaving a small possibility that Eddowes and JtR entered from there, and that the couple at the end of Church Passage were two other people, the woman wearing cothes similar enough to Kate's to be misidentified as hers, and the man of similar enough appearance to BS that we can't conclude they are different, and those two never come forward to identify themselves.

Given these kinds of things, it seems to me that the Church Passage pair has good probabilistic support of being Eddowes and JtR, but there is wiggle room for alternatives, so we should avoid the temptation to get tunnel vision.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Given these kinds of things, it seems to me that the Church Passage pair has good probabilistic support of being Eddowes and JtR

Agreed, and I'd make another small observation; a couple standing at the entrance of a passage are probably intending to enter it. Why stop at that specific spot otherwise?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Michael,

I'm not saying the Church Passage pair had to be Eddowes and JtR, only that so far the weight of the evidence makes that most probable hypothesis. The fact that people were passing through St. James Place gives some weight to alternatives. The firemen in St. James Place don't spot anyone leaving Mitre Square through St. James Place, and while it seems likely they would have indicated they saw a couple go the other way earlier, they don't specifically state that, leaving a small possibility that Eddowes and JtR entered from there, and that the couple at the end of Church Passage were two other people, the woman wearing cothes similar enough to Kate's to be misidentified as hers, and the man of similar enough appearance to BS that we can't conclude they are different, and those two never come forward to identify themselves.

Given these kinds of things, it seems to me that the Church Passage pair has good probabilistic support of being Eddowes and JtR, but there is wiggle room for alternatives, so we should avoid the temptation to get tunnel vision.

- Jeff

There could have been other evidence, which may or may not have been explored.

We have two police officers Watkins and Harvey all with beats adjoining the square. The question is were they ever asked if they saw any other persons,males females, or couples? There is no evidence to show that anyone came forward to identify themselves as being the couple seen at Church Passage, and neither officer, nor for that matter any pf the other officers who were in the location of the square. Can we therefore draw a proper inference that there was no one else in the location and that the couple were Eddowes and her killer?

Even if there were another couple who entered from another entrance it would not effect what we believe to be the approx time of the murder. The only way for that to change would be if Pc Watkins lied about being the square at 1.30am and seeing no one.

My money is on him being disturbed by Pc Harvey who he could have seen and heard advancing towards him down Church Passage and made good his escape via Mitre Street. Pc Harvey woud not have been able to see or hear anything until he was almost at the entrance to the square.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

There could have been other evidence, which may or may not have been explored.

Yes, of course, but we only have the evidence we have. The possible evidence is limitless, the actual evidence, sadly, is not.

We have two police officers Watkins and Harvey all with beats adjoining the square. The question is were they ever asked if they saw any other persons,males females, or couples?

Despite my statement above ( ) I think that was their job, given that there were standing orders to take note of couples at least.

There is no evidence to show that anyone came forward to identify themselves as being the couple seen at Church Passage, and neither officer, nor for that matter any pf the other officers who were in the location of the square. Can we therefore draw a proper inference that there was no one else in the location and that the couple were Eddowes and her killer?

While it is dangerous to make too much from "absence of evidence", I think, given the publicity at the time, it is reasonable to suggest that if it had been two other people, even if a prostitute and client (actually, especially in that case), that the woman would have come forward and said "I was in Church Passage at that time", etc. As with Pearly Poll, I think she would have come forward. If it were two people, in a normal romantic relationship as well, I think they would have come forward as well. I suppose, say an affair, there are situations where neither would come forward, I think we're getting into "special circumstances have to exist" territory enough to suggest that the fact nobody identified themselves as the people in Church Passage as worthy of noting, and as being consistent with the couple being Eddowes and JtR (as I'm sure it's obvious JtR is not going to come forward).

Even if there were another couple who entered from another entrance it would not effect what we believe to be the approx time of the murder. The only way for that to change would be if Pc Watkins lied about being the square at 1.30am and seeing no one.

If another couple is documented, I agree, they have to be documented at the appropriate time. We have nothing to base PC Watkin's lying about his patrol time other than "what if he lied?" If we're going to do that, then heck, let's just discard everything and make up whatever we want.

My money is on him being disturbed by Pc Harvey who he could have seen and heard advancing towards him down Church Passage and made good his escape via Mitre Street. Pc Harvey woud not have been able to see or hear anything until he was almost at the entrance to the square.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm actually not against that possibility. There was, apparently, a gas lamp at the Mitre Square end of Church Passage. So when PC Harvey reaches the end of Church Passage, the light there will make it all but impossible for him to see into Mitre Square (other than the lit up area). But of course, it makes him completely visible to anyone in Mitre Square. I think JtR could have still been in the corner when PC Harvey came up Church Passage, and yes, exiting out into Mitre Street at that time looks entirely "safe" for him at that time. But, we also know Morris opened the door somewhere around that time too, and if he did that before PC Harvey arrives, Jack may have been gone. Either of those events, though, would, reasonably, lead to JtR exiting the area. Either into St. James Place (though the firemen there say they didn't see anybody), or via Mitre Street and then north (as Watkins is coming from the south, so would have passed him, or seen him exit). Both work, but given the firemen's statement, I'm now tend to lean towards Mitre Street as well.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Agreed, and I'd make another small observation; a couple standing at the entrance of a passage are probably intending to enter it. Why stop at that specific spot otherwise?

Given the rain shortly before, there is the possibility it was a couple taking shelter (Church Passage was covered). But, at the same time, that could be how Eddowes and JtR both came to be there.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Given the rain shortly before, there is the possibility it was a couple taking shelter (Church Passage was covered).

Possibly, but I'd have expected Lawende etc to see them inside the passage or - as the rain had stopped - walking away, as opposed to chatting on the pavement outside.

[Michael W Richards]

Agreed, and I'd make another small observation; a couple standing at the entrance of a passage are probably intending to enter it. Why stop at that specific spot otherwise?

I don't think that's necessarily true Sam, anymore than the young couple seen outside the board school on Berner Street intended to go inside.

As for the police being charged to look out for couples, I believe they were charged in that manner Trevor at that time. I still don't know how that might translate into 3 plainclothed detectives looking in alleys though. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to have detectives searching alleys near Mitre after 1am.

[JeffHamm]

Possibly, but I'd have expected Lawende etc to see them inside the passage or - as the rain had stopped - walking away, as opposed to chatting on the pavement outside.

Maybe, but as the rain had just stopped, if it was another couple (and personally I think the odds are against it, but if it were a different couple ...) then if they were a bit amorous (not over the top, but two lovers enjoying an embrace while sheltering from the rain), they might linger a bit. However, I do think such explanations hinge on some pretty high levels of coincidence, but just pointing out nothing is ever 100% sure.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think that's necessarily true Sam, anymore than the young couple seen outside the board school on Berner Street intended to go inside.

As for the police being charged to look out for couples, I believe they were charged in that manner Trevor at that time. I still don't know how that might translate into 3 plainclothed detectives looking in alleys though. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to have detectives searching alleys near Mitre after 1am.

I thought I read somewhere that the police were urged to follow couples late at night.

With everything connected to these murders, we now 130 years later can only work with what we have been left from 1888 and what investigators over the years have managed to uncover as additional evidence, or evidence to challenge the facts and evidence from 1888, or disprove some of the original previously accepted facts and evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think that's necessarily true Sam, anymore than the young couple seen outside the board school on Berner Street intended to go inside.

A passageway is somewhat different from a school - the one major difference being that passageways lead to (or from) somewhere else.

[Wickerman]

Given the rain shortly before, there is the possibility it was a couple taking shelter (Church Passage was covered). But, at the same time, that could be how Eddowes and JtR both came to be there.

- Jeff

The 1887 Ordnance Survey Map does not show Church Passage as covered.

There's also an earlier map, I think from 1873?, that does not show Church Passage as covered either.

[Wickerman]

Agreed, and I'd make another small observation; a couple standing at the entrance of a passage are probably intending to enter it. Why stop at that specific spot otherwise?

A lamp?
Stopping to talk under a lamp is quite possible. I can't say about this entrance but a number of passage entrances had a wall lamp at that spot.

[Wickerman]

..... There is no evidence to show that anyone came forward to identify themselves as being the couple seen at Church Passage, and neither officer, nor for that matter any pf the other officers who were in the location of the square.

It isn't even reasonable to expect a prostitute or her client to come forward and admit to what they were doing.

[Wickerman]

I thought I read somewhere that the police were urged to follow couples late at night.

Wasn't this claimed by the City Police Commissioner, Smith?

[JeffHamm]

The 1887 Ordnance Survey Map does not show Church Passage as covered.

There's also an earlier map, I think from 1873?, that does not show Church Passage as covered either.

Hi Wickerman,

It's described in the A-Z as covered, and so is the passage from Mitre Square to St. James Place (in the "uniditified witness or suspects in Mitre Square" entry I believe). Not sure where A-Z got that information but that's where I got the information from.

- Jeff