Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • As to whether Eddowes was murdered elsewhere, let me refer to Santa Clause " I do not think that there is any foundation to the theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think the deceased moved the least bit after that.... ...If its not quoted from the official post mortem or the official inquest then im afraid i dont buy it, especially if it source was from fish and chip paper.

    Comment


    • So no witnesses heard the attack take place or so much as a pin drop but now you want us to believe that a cart rolled into Mitre Square unheard to dump the body? ..... in case you haven't heard.... nobody heard or saw anything. And you totally misunderstood the writing of my post , so toddle on back and give it another read, then if you like come back and answer the question it raises and id be happy to discuss it with you HARRY D.

      Comment


      • Hi packers stem,

        Originally posted by packers stem View Post

        Where do you get the idea he had walked through that particular night .
        Do you not think that would have been pertinent to mention had he done so ?
        had he not been through that night then your comments make no sense .He couldn't possibly judge the light in the square on every particular night through the lunar cycle abd take the weather conditions into consideration
        You're the one saying his estimate of the light was from some other night, so I got it from you. I guess you're now admitting his comment about there being sufficient light was based upon the night of the murder, so at least we agree on that point.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Hi packers stem,

          Originally posted by packers stem View Post
          This doctor has now become a lighting genius and meteorologist to boot ...... ripperology for ya lol
          The doctor was actually there. It doesn't take a genius to know what the light levels are when you're actually in the place.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Hi John G,

            Originally posted by John G View Post
            Dr Biggs' comments on the Eddowes murder: " I am of the opinion that 5 minutes is plenty of time to walk 50 yards, cut the throat (with or without the period of initial strangulation), stab five times to the abdomen (including a wide opening), lift up the clothes and then remove some tissue (such as the uterus and kidney)" (Marriott, 2016)

            Of course, we don't know that the killer had only 5 minutes to accomplish all of these components..he could have had considerably longer. For instance, the time of the Lawende sighting, at 1:35, is probably reasobably accurate, as he had checked the clock. However, the time PC Watkins discovered the body is open to question. He stated at the inquest, initially, that it was at 1:40. However, he then told Crawford that it was 1:44! His evidence is clearly all over the place, and his timings can therefore only be regarded as guesswork at best. And he wouldn't be the first PC during this inquiry to be significantly out with his timings: as I've argued before, PC Smith claimed that he'd returned to Berner Street at 1:00am, but he must have been out by about 10 minutes.

            As to whether Eddowes was murdered elsewhere, let me refer to Dr Brown: " I do not think that there is any foundation to the theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think the deceased moved the least bit after that."
            And remember, Lawende checked the clock/watch at 1:30. He estimated they waited another 5 minutes, while Levy estimated they waited 3 or 4, so not only is PC Harvey's patrol time a bit flexible, so is the time of the sighting. The narrowest time window is 1:35-1:41, so 6 minutes (still more than the estimated 5 for the murder), but it is as wide as 1:33-:142, so 9 minutes. Trevor believes JtR did not have enough time, so Trevor must believe it took more than 9 minutes, otherwise it's within the range of the evidence.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Jeff
              I am not a medical expert, and I guess neither are you so we have to go by what the medical experts tell us both from 1888 and modern day experts.
              No, I'm not, so I agree with you on that.


              Dr Brown gives a "minimum" time of 5 mins, but states it could have been longer, so with that in mind we cannot readily accept 5 mins as being set in stone and an accurate time to work with, simply because he was not an expert in the female anatomy, and so he called on an expert, as a result of I would suggest his concerns over the same time issues as we are discussing.
              And Dr. Sequeira estimated 3 minutes. And that agrees with some of the modern estimates as well. Now, you've admonished me for suggesting ranges, and for suggesting that Levy could be the more accurate time of the sighting (1:33), so no, you don't get to "could have" with the evidence since you've removed that card. We'll play by the same rules with regards to the evidence as stated, and that's 5 minutes (which,given Dr. Sequeira's agreement with some modern statements suggests we're over-estimating that time, but I won't could have since you're not allowed to could have either).

              But if you want to say it could have taken longer, then we have to consider that the time available could have been between 1:33 (Levey) and 1:42 (the later patrol time), so that's 9 minutes.

              Again, how long do you think, at a minimum, would it take for JtR to do what he is reported to have done? You only had to go beyond 6 minutes, now because of the "could haves" you've introduced, you have to go beyond 9 minutes to get outside what the time available "could have been".


              Now that expert took a minimum of 3 mins to mirror the work of the killer. Of course we dont know under what conditions he worked but it took him 3 mins, some reports say 3.30mins. Now again we dont know if that was to remove both organs or just the uterus, but this expert removed the uterus and damaged the bladder. Something the killer did not do. Now this is important because all those on here who keep saying the killer was a slaughter man,and keep citing removing organs from dead animals in haste. If the killer was in haste he didnt damage the bladder of Eddowes, and therefore if the killer did remove the organs he was either an expert in female anatomy and his practical medical skills were on a par with Browns female anatomy expert to be able to remove them at speed without damaging the bladder.

              Here are some quotes from Edmond Neale-Consultant gynecologist

              Eddowes murder

              "I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish, and a longer time frame needed"

              There are four sets of ligaments attached to a normal uterus. The round ligament arises from the top, the broad ligament from the side (and has the fallopian tube at its top and the ovary right behind) and the cardinal and uterosacral ligaments which are attached in the region of the cervix. Victorian anatomists were usually quite precise, so I am surprised that there is not greater detail of which of these ligaments were removed and which were not, however suffice to say that the round and broad ligaments would have to be cut or removed in part even to perform a subtotal hysterectomy.

              It should also be noted that an anatomist would know that there would be no need to take out the intestines in order to remove a uterus.

              The kidneys lay either side of the spine protected by fat and the peritoneal membrane. Again they have a particular feel and consistency unique for their position, which someone with specific anatomical knowledge would only know.

              It would require more specific medical knowledge to understand the need to sever the mesentery of the gut in order to identify the kidney and remove it. If the killer knew of the position of the kidney they would also be aware that the only “attachment” is the vessels and ureter which lie between the kidney and the spine. If one was not concerned with preserving life a simple longitudinal cut parallel to the spine would create an opening in the peritoneum into which a finger and then a hand could be placed and the kidney “shelled out”.


              Dr Browns inquest testimony

              “The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery. About two feet of the colon was cut away.

              Chapman Murder- Mr Neale

              The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However I note that in this case it seems to have been important for the perpetrator to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation.

              Conclusions from Mr Neale

              I would say that Dr Browns total estimate of “at least five minutes” was based on the fact that for the killer to have been able to remove them in that time frame, he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge to be able to locate the organs and to be able to remove them, which Dr Brown confirms in his inquest testimony. I would suggest that someone without that knowledge would not be able to accomplish those removals within that time frame, given the crime scene conditions, and the anatomical knowledge required.

              As to whether there are any identifying traits which might point to the organs being removed by two different people, with only two removals to compare I don’t think I am able to say whether it was one, or a different person, but I do note that the two hysterectomies were performed differently. One is a clear cut below the cervix finding the natural gap we use to perform a hysterectomy, and one has damaged the bladder. One included the ovaries and fallopian tubes, and one has not. But one might suggest that if the same person had been responsible for removing the organs from both victims he might have adopted the same procedure for both. Although the removal of the uterus from Chapman looks to have been done in haste, whereas the removal of the organs from Eddowes looks to have been done in less haste.


              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              True, JtR did not damage the bladder, he damaged the bowel instead. And, no matter how many ligaments there are, he removed Chapman's with one sweep of the knife (when he did damage the bladder). And anyone who cleans animals will also know about membranes and such. JtR was not performing surgery. He was effectively field dressing a human. And field dressing doesn't take very long.

              So come on Trevor, how much longer than 9 minutes do you think was required, at a minimum?

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Heres the thing about the 1.33 to 1.43 scenario , thats assuming Eddows was no where near duke st church passage and that somehow she entered via Mitre street , for a whole 33 mins after leaving b,gate police there wasn't one person that came forward at the inquest or any police report or newspaper article or anywhere else for that matter, to say they saw a women during that time on her way to mitre square . Now im not saying its not possible, just thats its unlikely that if she was spotted no one thought to or bothered to report it. Just an observation where 1.33 to 1.43 is concerned.

                Comment


                • Hi Fishy,

                  Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                  Heres the thing about the 1.33 to 1.43 scenario , thats assuming Eddows was no where near duke st church passage and that somehow she entered via Mitre street , for a whole 33 mins after leaving b,gate police there wasn't one person that came forward at the inquest or any police report or newspaper article or anywhere else for that matter, to say they saw a women during that time on her way to mitre square . Now im not saying its not possible, just thats its unlikely that if she was spotted no one thought to or bothered to report it. Just an observation where 1.33 to 1.43 is concerned.
                  It's 1:33 to 1:42 actually. And why do you think it assumes Eddowes wasn't the women at Duke Street? The 1:33 is Levy's reported time of the sighting rather than Lawende's reported time, but it's the same event. For some reason everyone has decided that Lawende estimated the time they waited for the rain to stop better than Levey, but there's no foundation for that assumption (other than 1:35 works better for some people's favorite theory, but it's based upon a hidden "might have" - Lawende might have been more accurate then Levy, which of course is possible, but no more supported than Levy might have been more accurate than Lawende. Lawende only checked the time at 1:30, when they got up to leave the club, found it raining, and from that point on the time is an estimate of how long they waited, and we have 2 extremes for that estimate wait time, 3 or 5 minutes.

                  Also, she could have entered from St. James Place, which was covered and afforded shelter from the rain. While we don't have a sighting of a couple there, we do have some testimony saying there were people about in St. James Place, which isn't much, but at least there are people. We've nothing from Mitre Street, other than it's possible for people to come up Mitre Street.

                  But I agree, the Church Passage Couple, last sighted at either 1:33 or 1:34 or 1:35, are at least verified to be a man and woman, in a location and at a time that allows them to reach the crime scene with enough time before PC Harris patrols Church Passage (at which point the couple is not there anymore too) at 1:41 or 1:42. And they remain "in a location with sufficient time to get to the crime scene" even at the narrowest reading of those start and end times (1:35-1:41 = 6 minutes, and the murder required 5 of them, and the journey only requires 30 seconds of the 1 minute remaining).

                  Trevor thinks the murder and mutilation would require more than 10 minutes though, since the evidence supports a window of opportunity of up to 9 minutes (and he works in 1 minute time chunks), but I'm curious to hear how much longer than 10 minutes he thinks would be required.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • See for me im not as concerned with he time it took to commit the act 5, 7 ,9, 15 mins its more the act itself that puzzles me . On one hand we Dr brown saying Eddows throat was cut while she lay on the ground . But nowhere do we have any doctor saying at the Post Mortem or inquest she was strangled and rendered unconscious to get on the ground . Its simply implied by marks and abrasions on the body behind her ear that could also have been cause during the cutting of her throat , there were no ligature marks to speak of [dont even go there]. But no conclusive evidence that states from a medical person that she was 100% strangled and rendered unconscious before the official cause of death by throat cut. This poses two questions 1 Why no struggle? .2 Why no scream ?

                    Comment


                    • Just saying Jeff, as we have no positive i.d either from church or st James passage ive used Mitre st as an alternative to the other entrances . And 133. to 1.43 is the times we know we can work with. there doesn't need to be a witness at Mitre st except she arrive there unseen is possible.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        Hi John G,



                        And remember, Lawende checked the clock/watch at 1:30. He estimated they waited another 5 minutes, while Levy estimated they waited 3 or 4, so not only is PC Harvey's patrol time a bit flexible, so is the time of the sighting. The narrowest time window is 1:35-1:41, so 6 minutes (still more than the estimated 5 for the murder), but it is as wide as 1:33-:142, so 9 minutes. Trevor believes JtR did not have enough time, so Trevor must believe it took more than 9 minutes, otherwise it's within the range of the evidence.

                        - Jeff
                        I dont believe he had enough time by reason of the debatable 5 min window as mentioned by Dr Brown. As stated he says it could have taken longer, and 5 mins is the least time it could have taken, and that taking into account all the timings I belive he did not have enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done from start to finish with the time available.

                        I cannot say how long it would have taken him because I don't believe the killer took the organs. I do believe he had time to walk into the square and carry out the murder and mutilations,and was disturbed by Harvey, but not to additionally remove the organs.

                        It is clearly not what you and others want to hear or what you all believe, and it is based on assessing impartially, and the evaluation of all the facts and evidence from 1888, along with evidence from modern day medical experts especially gynecologist Mr Neale who is the real expert in relation to the removal of the uteri from both Chapman and Eddowes.

                        We only have two victims who had organs removed, both victims were taken to two different mortuaries, both were found to have organs missing, and both had those organs removed in two different ways. Now what is the likelihood that anyone medical or otherwise in 1888, would have sufficient anatomical knowledge to be able to remove those organs using two different medical procedures. Those facts alone in my opinion rule out a butcher/slaughterer. Those facts suggests to me that two different people removed those organs. But not two different killers.

                        For the record the killer of Kelly did not take away her heart !

                        Detective Insp Reid. News of the World 1896

                        "I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation"

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-08-2019, 06:59 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                          See for me im not as concerned with he time it took to commit the act 5, 7 ,9, 15 mins its more the act itself that puzzles me . On one hand we Dr brown saying Eddows throat was cut while she lay on the ground . But nowhere do we have any doctor saying at the Post Mortem or inquest she was strangled and rendered unconscious to get on the ground . Its simply implied by marks and abrasions on the body behind her ear that could also have been cause during the cutting of her throat , there were no ligature marks to speak of [dont even go there]. But no conclusive evidence that states from a medical person that she was 100% strangled and rendered unconscious before the official cause of death by throat cut. This poses two questions 1 Why no struggle? .2 Why no scream ?
                          Dr Biggs

                          Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would of course be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation / suffocation.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Simply by failing to mention or not giving any opinion at the inquest and or post motem to any suggestion of the victim being strangled or rendered unconscious first before the official cause of death tells me the Dr brown didn't give it a second thought .

                            Comment


                            • Just for the record, these two words strangled and unconscious do not appear at the official postmortem or the official inquest. Fish and chip paper quotes dont count.
                              Last edited by FISHY1118; 06-08-2019, 07:48 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                                Just for the record, these two words strangled and unconscious do not appear at the official postmortem or the official inquest. Fish and chip paper quotes dont count.
                                Do we have the official inquest reports or PMs for all the murders?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X