Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Start, Oct 2:

The reported BLOODSTAINS ON THE WINDOW SILL of No. 36, Mitre-street, turned out to be nothing but candle-grease, and if it had been blood it would have indicated nothing but what was already made plain by the finding of the apron in [Goulston]-street. The police are well satisfied that the murderer, having finished the mutilation of the body in Mitre-square, heard footsteps approaching, and had to make an exit before he could remove any of the personal evidences of his crime. He tore a piece off his victim's apron, wiped his hands and his knife on it as he went along, and dropped the bloodstained rag when he was sure he would not be observed. That he did this in [Goulston]-street does not occasion any surprise. The police have never doubted that this midnight murderer lived in the midst of the community he has been terrorising.

That would seem to reduce the number of possible escape routes, from three to two.

East London Observer, Oct 6:

Similarly [to the Berner street situation], Morris, the night watchman of the warehouses in Mitre-square; Pearce, the constable who was sleeping in the house just opposite the scene of the murder; Mr. Levy, the caretaker of the Great Synagogue just by the square; Mr. Klapp, the caretaker of some other premises whose windows look on the scene of the crime; Mr. Carle, the manager of the club in St. James'-place; Mr. Ayres and Mr. W. Isaacs, also of St. James'-place; or Mr. S. Goldberg, of Duke-street, who were all awake at the time, heard no suspicious sound - no cry for help whatever.

But Mrs. Lindsay, of Duke-street, who is also corroborated by her husband, and Miss Solomon, of the same street, gives an account of an extraordinary incident, stating, as she does, that she was awakened during the night by hearing voices in the street below, and on looking out of the window heard the words distinctly uttered by a man who carried an umbrella and a parcel, and who was rapidly hurrying away "I am not the murderer."

That would seem to reduce the remaining possibilities from two to one.

So why did the man who said 'I am not the murderer', seem to think that the man he said it to, supposed that to be the case?
Was it because the man spoken to, recognized the man who exited Church Passage wiping his hands and a knife, as the man he had not long before seen talking to a woman at the same location?

[Scott Nelson]

I forgot to remember that I forgot.

[Wickerman]

I wonder how far Watkins went into the square on this pass prior to discovering the body. Could he have just walked up near the edge of the building without peering around the corner?

I'm sure a lot bobbies cut corners, or took liberties on their beat, not looking everywhere they were supposed to look. It could be a boring job for some.
We both know they are unlikely to admit it, and even if they could have that possibility doesn't make a firm basis for a theory.

[Scott Nelson]

Right, so Watkins was exiting through the wide access into Mitre street about 1:25-1:30.

I wonder how far Watkins went into the square on this pass prior to discovering the body. Could he have just walked up near the edge of the building without peering around the corner?

[Wickerman]

Am I only one who thinks this thread has gone off topic and the discussion about who saw what, when, where or was an unreliable witness in respect of the wrong murder and wrong place should be discussed under a more appropriate heading? Just a suggestion because this is supposed to be about how Jack avoided detection in the Mitre Square murder.

A suggestion for a topic may be more productive than a complaint.