Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

All this , assuming Eddows was if fact [and its not a fact] the women Lawende identified . Eddows more likely entered Mitre street at 1.33am 7 min till Harvey stood at the end of church passage 10 mins before Watkins discovered her body . Simple as that .

And that is in the larger (Levey based time makes it 4 minutes wide) of the "non-controversial" time windows. I focused on the Lawende based 2 minute window because so many people have a preference for Lawende's estimate of waiting 5 minutes over Levey's 3-4. I don't know why people trust Lawende's estimate of time over Levey's, but I went with it to minimize that debate. Basically, though, what you suggest still fits the evidence since 1:33 for the start is Levey's time; while it doesn't include the 30 seconds walking time so if that is your basis of dismissing it then you have to start dismissing at least some of the evidence that we have to work with, which is generally viewed as weakening a case when that's done unnecessarily. What I'm showing here, is that it is unnecessary to dismiss any of the evidence because when taken at face value, we have at least 3 locations where Eddowes and JtR could have been and arrive at the crime scene, in the most conservative 2 minute window that the evidence we have indicates is the critical time.

None of time information depends upon the Church Passage Couple. As I said, that also demarks the end of the rain, and it appears the murder happened after the rain stopped. The time limits apply to Eddowes and JtR even if the Church Passage Couple isn't them.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Wickerman,

Hi Jeff.

So you have two scenario's involving two hypothetical couples who wait in a covered passage, because it is raining.
Yet, the traditional suspected couple have no shelter at the Duke St. end of Church Passage with which to avoid the rain. If Eddowes was the female, she had to be soaking wet.
In your opinion, does the evidence suggest the victim when found was soaking wet?

I don't know how much shelter their position would afford them (it's a narrow passage, so it may have afforded some protection from the rain after all). From the description of how close they were standing to each other, her with her hand on his chest, etc, it appears the man was, or had been, sheltering the woman, who ever they were, so again, any of the 3 locations are possible based upon what we know. The Church Passage Couple's appearance after PC Harvey's first patrol, and their absence during his second, is also consistent with, but not definitive proof of, it being a genuine sighting.

Again, I'm only stressing that we cannot dismiss the Church Passage Couple. I will admit, though, that it seems like an awful lot of coincidences are required for it to be anybody else, but they're not highly improbable either (i.e. some other couple who get caught in the rain, take shelter in the passage, and move on when it ends - that's not entirely out of this world).

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,



I don't know how much shelter their position would afford them (it's a narrow passage, so it may have afforded some protection from the rain after all). From the description of how close they were standing to each other, her with her hand on his chest, etc, it appears the man was, or had been, sheltering the woman, who ever they were, so again, any of the 3 locations are possible based upon what we know. The Church Passage Couple's appearance after PC Harvey's first patrol, and their absence during his second, is also consistent with, but not definitive proof of, it being a genuine sighting.

Again, I'm only stressing that we cannot dismiss the Church Passage Couple. I will admit, though, that it seems like an awful lot of coincidences are required for it to be anybody else, but they're not highly improbable either (i.e. some other couple who get caught in the rain, take shelter in the passage, and move on when it ends - that's not entirely out of this world).

- Jeff

I agree, we can't dismiss the Lawende couple. My position is that there is another scenario worthy of consideration, and, the police were not wholly convinced Eddowes was the woman seen by Lawende.
Blenkingsop was asked by a plainclothes man - very likely a policeman, if a man & woman had passed through. So, unless we somehow find a way of suggesting this was the Lawende couple (highly improbable, given the timing), then there is another couple in the vicinity.

[FISHY1118]

So wick , do you think it was the Eddows couple Lawende saw based on whats been discussed.yes/no ?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Wickerman,

I agree, we can't dismiss the Lawende couple. My position is that there is another scenario worthy of consideration, and, the police were not wholly convinced Eddowes was the woman seen by Lawende.
Blenkingsop was asked by a plainclothes man - very likely a policeman, if a man & woman had passed through. So, unless we somehow find a way of suggesting this was the Lawende couple (highly improbable, given the timing), then there is another couple in the vicinity.

Indeed. The Blenkisop report has been questioned as to when that questioning occurred. If it was after the murder, when the police fanned out looking for witnesses, then it sounds like one of the plain-clothes detectives. So if Blenkinsop's time is out as to when he was asked, and it's post event, then that means they're trying to work out when and from where Eddowes entered Mitre Square and hopefully get a description of the man she's with.

Now, if as you've suggested before, that did happen at 1:30, Blenkinsop's reply was that he didn't notice (so there's no verified sighting of a couple), but he does mention there were some people about. While that does not confirm that there was a couple among "those people", it does leave open the possibility there was. Had he said there was no couple, we would have to rule out the St. James Passage I think. He didn't close that door, though, so yes, I agree, it remains possible. It does, however, rely on assuming that his time was correct about when he was questioned, and that there was a couple among the "people" that he didn't recall (because if he did recall a couple, he would have said so after all, even if he couldn't recall what they looked like). So he had to remember the time, and that there were some people about, but not remember if there was a couple among those people. This is why I consider the St. James couple hypothetical (his statement means there might have been a couple, but his statement also means there might not have - so we don't know for sure), but better supported than the Mitre Street hypothetical couple, for which we have nothing at all other than "it's possible for people to be in Mitre Street".

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Where murder is concerned , its Just as important to work out what didn't happen ,more often than not your left with what did . i see no reason why this shouldn't be the case with the Eddows murder at Mitre square

[FISHY1118]

What didn't happen was Eddeows stood on the spot she was murdered at 1.37am, and in 1 min 30 secs , had her kidney and her uterus removed in the dark . Thats according to the timeline ive posted .

[FISHY1118]

I know Trevor Marrriot doesn't agree with that time line either, thats for sure.

[Trevor Marriott]

All this , assuming Eddows was if fact [and its not a fact] the women Lawende identified . Eddows more likely entered Mitre street at 1.33am 7 min till Harvey stood at the end of church passage 10 mins before Watkins discovered her body . Simple as that .

But on that basis Watkins would either have had to see them, or even passed them in Mitre Sreeet either before he entered the square the first time, or when he left.

I dont buy this waiting for a policeman to pass before entering the square theory if the killer knew a policeman was close by would he risk an attack whereby the victim might scream and alert that officer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Fishy,



And that is in the larger (Levey based time makes it 4 minutes wide) of the "non-controversial" time windows. I focused on the Lawende based 2 minute window because so many people have a preference for Lawende's estimate of waiting 5 minutes over Levey's 3-4. I don't know why people trust Lawende's estimate of time over Levey's, but I went with it to minimize that debate. Basically, though, what you suggest still fits the evidence since 1:33 for the start is Levey's time; while it doesn't include the 30 seconds walking time so if that is your basis of dismissing it then you have to start dismissing at least some of the evidence that we have to work with, which is generally viewed as weakening a case when that's done unnecessarily. What I'm showing here, is that it is unnecessary to dismiss any of the evidence because when taken at face value, we have at least 3 locations where Eddowes and JtR could have been and arrive at the crime scene, in the most conservative 2 minute window that the evidence we have indicates is the critical time.

None of time information depends upon the Church Passage Couple. As I said, that also demarks the end of the rain, and it appears the murder happened after the rain stopped. The time limits apply to Eddowes and JtR even if the Church Passage Couple isn't them.

- Jeff

Jeff
Whatever time you work with whether it be 1.33 or 1.35 as a start time, we do not know how long the couple stood at the entrance to the square before entering, and that is the determining factor as to whether the killer had the time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree, we can't dismiss the Lawende couple. My position is that there is another scenario worthy of consideration, and, the police were not wholly convinced Eddowes was the woman seen by Lawende.
Blenkingsop was asked by a plainclothes man - very likely a policeman, if a man & woman had passed through. So, unless we somehow find a way of suggesting this was the Lawende couple (highly improbable, given the timing), then there is another couple in the vicinity.

As to the value evidential wise of what Blenkinsop stated, it was noticeable that he was not called to give evidence at the inquest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Jeff
Whatever time you work with whether it be 1.33 or 1.35 as a start time, we do not know how long the couple stood at the entrance to the square before entering, and that is the determining factor as to whether the killer had the time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, we don't know that, which is why we don't know if that couple was Eddowes and JtR. What we do know is that they are in a location that would allow them to get to the crime scene during the critical 2 minute window, even if we go with the latest time for the sighting.

What we also know is that the time of the sighting corresponds to the time the rain stopped, and the evidence points to the murder happening after the rain stopped. So, regardless of whether or not the Church Passage Couple was Eddowes and JtR, the rain stopped at the same time. In other words, the 2 minute (or 4 if you choose Levey's estimate) window is the window that Eddowes and JtR have - the Church Passage Couple could make it. But, if they're not Eddowes and JtR, then Eddowes and JtR could possibly be in the passage between St. James Place and Mitre Square (that would also place them close enough to get there in the critical period), as would the proposed sheltered location on Mitre Street (which, noting Trevor's point, means they had to have entered it after PC Watkins patrolled that section, whereas the Church Passage Couple could have arrived there and seen him, and waited for him to pass, take your pick). Also, if they are in the St. James Place passage, they must not have been there when Watkins patrolled at 1:30ish, as he would have spotted them as he did his patrol since the cover is right at the Mitre Square end).

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

If we need to include Blenkinsop's possible sighting (I don't), what's wrong with;
couple enter Mitre Square from St James' Square around 1:30 for a bit of alone time, but immediately hear the approaching footsteps of Watkins and so head out again up Church Passage to wait for him to clear off.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, we don't know that, which is why we don't know if that couple was Eddowes and JtR. What we do know is that they are in a location that would allow them to get to the crime scene during the critical 2 minute window, even if we go with the latest time for the sighting.

What we also know is that the time of the sighting corresponds to the time the rain stopped, and the evidence points to the murder happening after the rain stopped. So, regardless of whether or not the Church Passage Couple was Eddowes and JtR, the rain stopped at the same time. In other words, the 2 minute (or 4 if you choose Levey's estimate) window is the window that Eddowes and JtR have - the Church Passage Couple could make it. But, if they're not Eddowes and JtR, then Eddowes and JtR could possibly be in the passage between St. James Place and Mitre Square (that would also place them close enough to get there in the critical period), as would the proposed sheltered location on Mitre Street (which, noting Trevor's point, means they had to have entered it after PC Watkins patrolled that section, whereas the Church Passage Couple could have arrived there and seen him, and waited for him to pass, take your pick). Also, if they are in the St. James Place passage, they must not have been there when Watkins patrolled at 1:30ish, as he would have spotted them as he did his patrol since the cover is right at the Mitre Square end).

- Jeff

I thin we sould not get to carried away with this rain stopping issue. We all have been faced with situations where we have encountered heavy rain showrs and have taken shelter. But do we wait for the rain to completely stop before moving on, or do we move on when it has almost stopped. Me I do the latter and dont get clothes wet to the point where it would be noticeable to anyone.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

If it had been raining hard, then Kate's clothing would be wet from lying on the damp ground, at least.