Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Joshua Rogan]

jeff just keep it simple buddy 1.36 or 1.37 start, its not rocket science . 1.41 till Harvey stands at mitre square the murders just not happening that way. your just not excepting the general medical experts of today, and until someone does what jack was supposed to do in 5 mins no one should believe it can be done . simple .

Daily News 5th Oct;
"Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed the operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half."

[Michael W Richards]

Daily News 5th Oct;
"Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed the operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half."

Had actually performed what operation...just the the kidney extraction, or with the the double slit to the throat, the severing of a colon section to place by her body...the facial mutilating, the tracing of the navel? How about the cutting and tearing of the apron section? All those acts took some time. In near darkness.

[Sam Flynn]

Had actually performed what operation...just the the kidney extraction, or with the the double slit to the throat, the severing of a colon section to place by her body...the facial mutilating, the tracing of the navel? How about the cutting and tearing of the apron section? All those acts took some time. In near darkness.

I reckon I could do all that in three-and-a-half mintues, certainly five. It's surprising how much can be done in a comparatively short time, and we have a tendency to underestimate.

And whilst it was very dark, Dr Sequeira confirmed that there would have been enough light for the killer to work by.

[Trevor Marriott]

Daily News 5th Oct;
"Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed the operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half."

Dr Brown and Dr Sequeira both gave interviews to the star before the post mortems had been carried out. Dr Brown stated it would take at least 5 mins to do to the body as it was found. Dr Sequeira states 3 mins. This before they found the organs missing at the post mortem. so add time to add and it doesnt equate

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Dr Brown and Dr Sequeira both gave interviews to the star before the post mortems had been carried out. Dr Brown stated it would take at least 5 mins to do to the body as it was found. Dr Sequeira states 3 mins. This before they found the organs missing at the post mortem. so add time to add and it doesnt equate

It wouldn't take anywhere near 3-5 minutes to cut a throat, slash a face, cut open a belly and pull the intestines out.

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Brown and Dr Sequeira both gave interviews to the star before the post mortems had been carried out. Dr Brown stated it would take at least 5 mins to do to the body as it was found. Dr Sequeira states 3 mins. This before they found the organs missing at the post mortem. so add time to add and it doesnt equate

Since the Star report containing the two doctors' comments was published at least 24 hours after the PM took place, what makes you think the interviews were earlier?

[Trevor Marriott]

Since the Star report containing the two doctors' comments was published at least 24 hours after the PM took place, what makes you think the interviews were earlier?

Firstly Dr Sequeria stating 3 minutes, the killer could not have done all that he is supposed to have done in three minutes, so that interview was clearly only based on the murder and the mutilations I would suggest becaue we no it was and is impossible to do all of that in three mins

The Star newspaper interviewed some of the material witnesses. It is not clear as to whether some or all of those interviews took place early that same morning, or later during the day.

These interviews appeared in various editions of that newspaper during the following day October 1st, and in fact the Star newspaper published no less than 5 different editions that day. The last being and evening edition, which I would suggest would have been published between four and five pm. For anything to be included in that edition it would need to be ready to go to press for about 3pm for 4pm publishing, and 4pm for the 5pm edition. In that last edition there is no mention of the post mortem, or any organs being found missing. In fact in the last edition it is clearly stated that “no organs” were missing. In this final edition can be found a complete summary of both the murder of Eddowes and Stride, which would appear to be a repeat of some of what had already appeared in the earlier editions.

In the final edition there are the two interesting quotes, from Dr Brown, and Sequeira. Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter “How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”. This question and answers from both doctors are somewhat ambiguous, because the term “As you found it” could refer to the crime scene, equally it could refer to the body as it was found at the mortuary prior to the post mortem being conducted, or equally when the post mortem was carried out, as both the doctors were also present at the post mortem. Both Doctors gave the same statements at the inquest, but were never asked to clarify their statements having regard to the fact that Dr Brown was then disclosing evidence about the missing organs.

The burning question is, when were these questions asked of the doctors, both doctors were at the crime scene for some considerable time, both doctors were present at the post mortems. Was the Star reporter present at the crime scene? It is not known if any reporters were waiting at the mortuary for the post mortem to be concluded.

If the questions were asked by the Star reporter at the crime scene, and before the post mortem then, more time has to be added to the times stated by the doctors to account for the removal of the organs, because if those interviews had been given at the crime scene we know the organs had not been found to be missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

It boils down to this: could Eddowes have been killed and eviscerated within a 3-5 minute window? The answer is a simple "yes".

[JeffHamm]

It wouldn't take anywhere near 3-5 minutes to cut a throat, slash a face, cut open a belly and pull the intestines out.

I agree Sam.

it would be, what, 15 seconds to strangle to unconsciousness. 2 seconds to cut the throat, 15 seconds to slash up the face, and maybe 5 seconds to pull up the dress and do one big long cut up the centre. That's only 37 seconds, add another 10 seconds for good measure, and we're still under a minute into things, with over 4 minutes to go, and the doctors at the time showing they could do it in 3.5 minutes, we've got over 30 seconds for removal of intestines and clean up and go. And, I rather suspect when the doctor's performed their test, they would continue to show respect for the corpse and so would be hindered by that necessity. Their 3.5 minutes would, therefore, be on the long side.

Entirely consistent with roughly 5 minutes. Possibly even a bit less, but 5 minutes appears a decent, if conservative, estimate.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

it also boils down to this .could Eddowes have been killed and eviscerated within a 3-5 minute window? The answer is a simple "NO".

[FISHY1118]

And of course the good Dr Brown didn't name the expert practitioner did he ?. and both Dr Brown and Dr Sequeira never put their good names forward saying they themselves could do it in 5 and 3 minutes either . Unsubstantiated newspaper reports are only good for fish and chip paper as far a jtr goes.

[FISHY1118]

Furthermore id doubt very much any medical practitioner went anywhere near a body and conducted such as to replicate what happen to Eddows , in the 4 days after her death they would have been only interested in catching her killer not conducting experiments to see if the killer had time to inflict such injuries in 5 minutes, in my opinion its a bogus statement by brown and or the newspaper .

[JeffHamm]

it also boils down to this .could Eddowes have been killed and eviscerated within a 3-5 minute window? The answer is a simple "NO".

Yes, it is simple to give incorrect answers The answer is that there are those with medical expertise and specialized knowledge who believe that was indeed possible, aand there are others similarly qualified who do not think so. We do not have a large enough sample of experts to really determine what the majority believe, so we're left with "it's within the realm of possibilities and there does not appear to be a consensus of experts against it, so we cannot say it was impossible". Even Dr. Sequera's (sp?) estimate of 3 minutes, which is 2 minutes shorter than the 5 I was working with, has support from a modern medical expert (who gave a 2-3 minute range). No doubt, there will be some experts who will say it took 6 or 7 or 8 or more minutes. But the evidence points to the murder happening after the rain stopped (sometime between 1;33 and 1:35) and in all probability JtR flees the scene when PC Harvey arrives (1:41-1:42), so if you really want more time, you've got up to 9 minutes to work with (from 1:33 to 1:42). And when you consider the Church Passage Couple, Let's say they wait 30 seconds for Lawende and company to go past, then walk 30 seconds to the crime scene and the murder starts at 1:34 and you've got 8 minutes for the murder and mutilations before PC Havey arrives, and you could even justify adding a few more minutes if you want to argue that PC Harvey didn't see JtR, who sticks it out, until PC Watkins is heard approaching (so you can add another say 1 minute 30 seconds if you think JtR needs 9 minutes 30 seconds. The 6 minutes of opportunity that I presented earlier, remember, is based upon the most conservative reading of the evidence, and even that does not rule out the Church Passage Couple. Use the above more liberal reading of the times, and you can rule in a lot more alternatives along with the Church Passage Couple (who of course, would still not be ruled out).

Anyway, in my view, when the experts say 3-5 minutes in 1888, and one modern experts says 2-3 minutes and another modern expert implies more than 5, then you know, 5 sounds about right to me.

But the evidence doesn't force one to deal with the very tight and conservative reading of the data I presented earlier and the most liberal reading above isn't the only other option either. One would be justified (and in fact this would be the most typical approach) in taking the average of Levy's 3 and Lawende's 5 minutes estimate, and put the rain stopping at 1:34, and one would be justified in splitting the difference for PC Harvey's estimated patrol time and set that at 1:41:30, making the window of opportunity 7 minutes 30 seconds wide rather than only 6 minutes. So you could take what I presented above and just put that extra minute on the murder time if that's how much time you think they needed.

Remember, the times I presented are what comes out of the evidence under the most conservative reading - under a more liberal reading of the times (either of the above two readings, for example), there's a lot more "wiggle room" and you can say "more than 5 minutes were required" and still show it's possible. If you didn't want to take the most liberal reading of the murder duration (3 minutes, Dr. S), then you could be entirely justified in spitting the difference between Dr. S. and Dr. B's 3 and 5 minutes for the murder, and given that a 4 minute duration (but I know you already don't like 5, so you'll like 4 even less, so ignore the evidence and testimony we have and choose whatever time you think it takes. But when you present that, you'll have to justify why, and upon what basis of knowledge, you chose that time duration. And be aware that when people call you out on that, they will be the one with the evidence on their side and you will not be arguing from a position of strength, particularly if people get the impression that you chose a particular time in order to make a "solution" work. Be wary of letting your solution drive the data, it's the data that does the driving, the solution is just the destination after the ride.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, it is simple to give incorrect answers The answer is that there are those with medical expertise and specialized knowledge who believe that was indeed possible, aand there are others similarly qualified who do not think so. We do not have a large enough sample of experts to really determine what the majority believe, so we're left with "it's within the realm of possibilities and there does not appear to be a consensus of experts against it, so we cannot say it was impossible". Even Dr. Sequera's (sp?) estimate of 3 minutes, which is 2 minutes shorter than the 5 I was working with, has support from a modern medical expert (who gave a 2-3 minute range). No doubt, there will be some experts who will say it took 6 or 7 or 8 or more minutes. But the evidence points to the murder happening after the rain stopped (sometime between 1;33 and 1:35) and in all probability JtR flees the scene when PC Harvey arrives (1:41-1:42), so if you really want more time, you've got up to 9 minutes to work with (from 1:33 to 1:42). And when you consider the Church Passage Couple, Let's say they wait 30 seconds for Lawende and company to go past, then walk 30 seconds to the crime scene and the murder starts at 1:34 and you've got 8 minutes for the murder and mutilations before PC Havey arrives, and you could even justify adding a few more minutes if you want to argue that PC Harvey didn't see JtR, who sticks it out, until PC Watkins is heard approaching (so you can add another say 1 minute 30 seconds if you think JtR needs 9 minutes 30 seconds. The 6 minutes of opportunity that I presented earlier, remember, is based upon the most conservative reading of the evidence, and even that does not rule out the Church Passage Couple. Use the above more liberal reading of the times, and you can rule in a lot more alternatives along with the Church Passage Couple (who of course, would still not be ruled out).

Anyway, in my view, when the experts say 3-5 minutes in 1888, and one modern experts says 2-3 minutes and another modern expert implies more than 5, then you know, 5 sounds about right to me.

But the evidence doesn't force one to deal with the very tight and conservative reading of the data I presented earlier and the most liberal reading above isn't the only other option either. One would be justified (and in fact this would be the most typical approach) in taking the average of Levy's 3 and Lawende's 5 minutes estimate, and put the rain stopping at 1:34, and one would be justified in splitting the difference for PC Harvey's estimated patrol time and set that at 1:41:30, making the window of opportunity 7 minutes 30 seconds wide rather than only 6 minutes. So you could take what I presented above and just put that extra minute on the murder time if that's how much time you think they needed.

Remember, the times I presented are what comes out of the evidence under the most conservative reading - under a more liberal reading of the times (either of the above two readings, for example), there's a lot more "wiggle room" and you can say "more than 5 minutes were required" and still show it's possible. If you didn't want to take the most liberal reading of the murder duration (3 minutes, Dr. S), then you could be entirely justified in spitting the difference between Dr. S. and Dr. B's 3 and 5 minutes for the murder, and given that a 4 minute duration (but I know you already don't like 5, so you'll like 4 even less, so ignore the evidence and testimony we have and choose whatever time you think it takes. But when you present that, you'll have to justify why, and upon what basis of knowledge, you chose that time duration. And be aware that when people call you out on that, they will be the one with the evidence on their side and you will not be arguing from a position of strength, particularly if people get the impression that you chose a particular time in order to make a "solution" work. Be wary of letting your solution drive the data, it's the data that does the driving, the solution is just the destination after the ride.

- Jeff

Its all very well using 5 mins as a yardstick but the killer may not even have had that 5 mins, Brown says that's the least time it would have taken, and depending on what time the killer and Eddowes entered the square is also a determining factor as to whether he had the time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

The earliest starting off time must be arriving at the murder scene at 1.37am because they had not left Church Passage at 1.35am if Harvey arrives at 1.41 am thats just 4 mins, not enough time to murder mutilate,and remove those organs. On top of that he is also alleged to have rifled her pockets and supposedly cut of a piece of her apron.

Browns expert took 3+ mins just to remove the uterus, and he still managed to damage the bladder, something the killer did not do. So for the killer to have done what he is alleged to have done, I would suggest his skill and anatomical knowledge would have to have been on a par with Browns expert. He would have to have know where the organs were located in the abdomen. There was no cut and slash as some have suggested.

As I have been saying for several years now the killer did not remove the organs. He didnt have the knowledge or the skill to have been able to in such a short period of time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

The earliest starting off time must be arriving at the murder scene at 1.37am because they had not left Church Passage at 1.35am if Harvey arrives at 1.41 am thats just 4 mins, not enough time to murder mutilate,and remove those organs.

Yes it is.

On top of that he is also alleged to have rifled her pockets and supposedly cut of a piece of her apron.

I'm so sure that much rifling of pockets happened - not to the extent of Annie Chapman, at any rate - but, even if so, it would have taken mere seconds to do those things.