Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

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

  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Do we have the official inquest reports or PMs for all the murders?
    Only for Eddowes and Kelly. We have to rely on newspaper reports of the inquests for the others, with Nichols somewhat poorly served.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

      Only for Eddowes and Kelly. We have to rely on newspaper reports of the inquests for the others, with Nichols somewhat poorly served.
      That's going to make things tricky....
      perhaps we could pretend that the other murders never really happened.
      ​​​​​​

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
        Hi packers stem,



        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
        Afraid not .
        His estimated light was down to him walking through on other nights ,that he makes clear in his testimony ......
        I've explained how this is nonsense as ,unlike today , nights then we're completely dependent upon moonlight ,of which there was none that night .
        His statement was the equivalent of saying moonlight doesn't vary
        You can lead a horse to water.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
          Hi packers stem,



          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
          Had he been there earlier that night he would have said so .
          The lighting when he arrived bears no comparison to the lighting at the suspected TOD
          Not sure why you're struggling with this Jeff
          You can lead a horse to water.....

          Comment


          • Hi Trevor,

            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            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.
            Yes, I understand that. But Dr. Brown's opinion is just one medical man's opinion, he stated 5, with the possibility it might be longer but doesn't specify. However, at the same time, we also had Dr. Sequeira, who estimated things at 3. And we have modern medical opinion showing similar ranges, suggesting that somewhere between 3-5 minutes, and that, surprisingly, seems to fit very well inside the independently determined time window of opportunity between the end of the rain and PC Harris' patrol (a 6-9 minute window).


            I cannot say how long it would have taken him because I don't believe the killer took the organs.
            You have said he did not take the organs because he did not have the time to take the organs. It's because you believe there wasn't time that you conclude he didn't take the organs, hence, given that we know the window of opportunity is 6-9 minutes, you must think that is insufficient time for him to have taken the organs. Which means you do have a minimum time by which to make that judgement. You say he didn't have time to do all he was reported to have done - so how long do you think it would take to do all he was reported to have done. It's a very simple question Trevor, and it's one for which you must have some sort of answer because you need to have that minimum time in mind in order to evaluate whether or not the time available is sufficient.

            I just want to know how long you think it would have taken JtR to have done what he was reported to have done, even if you don't think he actually did it. If you don't have a minimum time, then why do you think 5 minutes isn't enough? Is 9 minutes enough? How about 12? Stop me when you think "yah, he could have done it in that amount of time", and just keep adding 3 until you get there.

            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.
            Well, yah, he obviously did.


            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.
            That's an odd way to phrase things, and to be frank, incorrect. I do very much want to hear what you think. I don't care if you agree with me or not, I'm interested in what you think and why. Which is why I keep asking you what is the minimum amount of time you think JtR would have needed to do what he did, plus remove the organs?


            We only have two victims who had organs removed,
            Three - Mary Kelly's heart was missing, the heart is an organ.

            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.
            don't know, but it's irrelavent, since the uteri weren't removed by a medical procedure - Annie Chapman's was removed "by one sweep of the knife", that's a slaughterman's method, not a doctor's. Eddowes's appears to have been done the same way, but botched, as part of it was left behind, and the bowel was split, neither of which is a medical procedure, but a "one sweep technique" could very easily go badly, as it did both times (Chapman's bladder, Eddowes' bowel).
            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.
            Those facts point to a butcher / slaughterer, they are not medical techniques.

            For the record the killer of Kelly did not take away her heart !
            Sigh, yes he did. The below excerpt from many years later does not compare with the medical notes made at the time. Obviously, not what you want to hear, but, again, all of this is for another thread. Please start one if you want to continue this line of discussion. All that matters for this thread is your opinion about the minimum time required to do what JtR is supposed to have done in Mitre Square. This is about his escape, and the timing of the events. You think the murder, with organ removal, would take some minimum amount of time. If it's less than 9 minutes, though, it is consistent with an objective reading of the evidence and testimonies, as those give us a range of time windows between 6 and 9 minutes. A 5 minute estimate, as per pretty much all the medical opinions I've seen include (i.e. Brown says that or possibily more; others say less than that, so 5 is fine; and others say "5 if JtR had anatomical knowledge", which most seem to think he did), and that fits in even the tighest reading of the evidence.

            See, I think the problem you're having with stating your minimum time is that you know nobody is going to believe it took 10 minutes or more. And 9 minutes or less, well, that is within the range that the evidence we have indicates JtR had. The evidence tells us, JtR had enough time, so claiming the organs were not taken is just throwing away facts for no valid reason. But I may be wrong on that, and maybe you do think it would take 20 minutes. I just want to know what you think, otherwise, I'm left to interpret why you refuse to state your belief.


            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
            - Jeff
            Last edited by JeffHamm; 06-08-2019, 09:14 AM.

            Comment


            • Hi packers stem,

              Originally posted by packers stem View Post

              Had he been there earlier that night he would have said so .
              The lighting when he arrived bears no comparison to the lighting at the suspected TOD
              Not sure why you're struggling with this Jeff
              Actually, I was thinking the same in return. They had some lanterns with them, not flood lights. They carry them. It's easy to move them to check the available light. You make it sound like the variability in lighting was somehow unique in that corner, it was a dark area, just like other dark areas as he walked to the crime scene. He would know the general conditions of the area. No, he didn't take a light reading, but for you to suggest that you know what the light was like better than someone actually present, well, that's what I can't comprehend.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                the uteri weren't removed by a medical procedure - Annie Chapman's was removed "by one sweep of the knife"
                Beware of that quote, Jeff. It was quite probably a bit of editorial licence in The Lancet, although it has since been mistakenly attributed to Dr Phillips, who is not on record as having said any such thing. What Phillips' testimony does make clear, though, is that - whatever else he might have said about "anatomical skill" - the removal of Annie Chapman's uterus was hardly the slickest of exercises, injuring as it did her bladder and her large intestine.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Hi Sam,

                  Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  Beware of that quote, Jeff. It was quite probably a bit of editorial licence in The Lancet, although it has since been mistakenly attributed to Dr Phillips, who is not on record as having said any such thing. What Phillips' testimony does make clear, though, is that - whatever else he might have said about "anatomical skill" - the removal of Annie Chapman's uterus was hardly the slickest of exercises, injuring as it did her bladder and her large intestine.
                  Oh, I have not heard that before, and I got the impression that was one of the ways in which the size of the knife was determined (as it has to extend far enough, etc). And, after watching the field dressing videos, I could see how cutting it out could be "grab, lift, cut" and be quite easy (provided you're not concerned about, as you say, collateral damage).

                  It's that lack of concern for the surrounding tissue that I think many forget, Doctor's care about the bits around the target of operation - JtR doesn't give a damn, and so he can do things a lot faster then most can imagine.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                    Hi Trevor,



                    Yes, I understand that. But Dr. Brown's opinion is just one medical man's opinion, he stated 5, with the possibility it might be longer but doesn't specify. However, at the same time, we also had Dr. Sequeira, who estimated things at 3. And we have modern medical opinion showing similar ranges, suggesting that somewhere between 3-5 minutes, and that, surprisingly, seems to fit very well inside the independently determined time window of opportunity between the end of the rain and PC Harris' patrol (a 6-9 minute window).

                    But you cant rely on the 5 minutes as being truly accurate it is an estimate it may be right or it may be wrong, the same with Sequira. I still refer back to when they gave their press interviews was it before the post mortems or after, we again simply do not know, If it is before then it proves me right, if after then it still brings into question this mythical 5 minutes

                    You have said he did not take the organs because he did not have the time to take the organs. It's because you believe there wasn't time that you conclude he didn't take the organs, hence, given that we know the window of opportunity is 6-9 minutes, you must think that is insufficient time for him to have taken the organs. Which means you do have a minimum time by which to make that judgement. You say he didn't have time to do all he was reported to have done - so how long do you think it would take to do all he was reported to have done. It's a very simple question Trevor, and it's one for which you must have some sort of answer because you need to have that minimum time in mind in order to evaluate whether or not the time available is sufficient.

                    This 6 -9 mins is a time window you have invented based on what you personally believe, its not based on factual timings, because we dont know the exact timings we can only ourselves estimate based on what we know, not what we dont know.

                    I just want to know how long you think it would have taken JtR to have done what he was reported to have done, even if you don't think he actually did it. If you don't have a minimum time, then why do you think 5 minutes isn't enough? Is 9 minutes enough? How about 12? Stop me when you think "yah, he could have done it in that amount of time", and just keep adding 3 until you get there.

                    You keep asking me this question I do not know because you have to accept that even medical experts when push comes to shove might take different times to remove these organs, most accept that they could do it within a 5 min window but they are modern day highly trained experts and no one in 1888 would have been up to those standards of expertise. Based on the witness timings he could not have had no more than 5 mins with the victim and in that time he had to walk into the square, carry out the murder and the mutilation, rifle her pockets, and then remove these organs in almost total darkness. How can you realistically believe all of that happened in that way, in that short space of time, give all that I have presented to you?

                    Three - Mary Kelly's heart was missing, the heart is an organ.

                    So Insp Reid head of Whitechapel CID and who attended the crime scene is lying ?

                    don't know, but it's irrelavent, since the uteri weren't removed by a medical procedure - Annie Chapman's was removed "by one sweep of the knife", that's a slaughterman's method, not a doctor's. Eddowes's appears to have been done the same way, but botched, as part of it was left behind, and the bowel was split, neither of which is a medical procedure, but a "one sweep technique" could very easily go badly, as it did both times (Chapman's bladder, Eddowes' bowel).

                    Those facts point to a butcher / slaughterer, they are not medical techniques. - Jeff
                    The doctors both Victorian and modern day clearly don't agree with you, because they refer to anatomical knowledge, and I refer to the fact that two different methods of extraction used on two different victims, would a butcher have that knowledge or expertise, no he wouldn't so stop trying to flog that dead horse, sheep, or pig.

                    And I do not have the time, or the inclination to keep going over the same points when you clearly have your own agenda and are not perpared to listen


                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                      Hi packers stem,



                      Actually, I was thinking the same in return. They had some lanterns with them, not flood lights. They carry them. It's easy to move them to check the available light. You make it sound like the variability in lighting was somehow unique in that corner, it was a dark area, just like other dark areas as he walked to the crime scene. He would know the general conditions of the area. No, he didn't take a light reading, but for you to suggest that you know what the light was like better than someone actually present, well, that's what I can't comprehend.

                      - Jeff
                      Really ?
                      you're suggesting that people carried lanterns with them as a matter of course ?
                      some I'm sure , police certainly , general public ,I think not .
                      and I can't stress this highly enough .
                      He was not present ! Not until after the body was discovered
                      You can lead a horse to water.....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        The doctors both Victorian and modern day clearly don't agree with you, because they refer to anatomical knowledge
                        Do you know roughly where a kidney is? Do you know roughly where a uterus is? If so, then you have sufficient anatomical knowledge to do what happened in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square.

                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • But if Sequeira was someone who carried a lantern then how could he judge sufficient light on ANY night ..... unless your killer carried one
                          You can lead a horse to water.....

                          Comment


                          • . Eddowes: from the "Daily Telegraph" of October 12:

                            "Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate Station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. The inspector, being out visiting, I was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see if any of the prisoners were fit to be discharged. I found the deceased sober, and after she had given her name and address, she was allowed to leave. I pushed open the swing-door leading to the passage and said, "This way, missus." She passed along the passage to the outer door. I said to her, "Please pull it to." She replied, "All right. Good night, old ****." (Laughter). She pulled the door to within a foot of being close, and I saw her turn towards the left.

                            The Coroner: That was leading towards Houndsditch? - Yes.

                            The Foreman: Is it left to you to decide when a prisoner is sober enough to be released or not? - Not to me, but to the inspector or acting inspector on duty. ... interesting i found this post here from Oct 2000 . As i said i dont put to much faith in newspaper articles but only in inquest testimony or post postmortems, but this is very close to the inquest notes except for something that stood out to me . The mention of p.c Hutt saying she turned left and the coroner said towards houndiditch - yes . so if this is correct then eddows is heading AWAY from mitre square on her way home , but as we know she was found dead at 1.44 in the square . strange indeed.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Do you know roughly where a kidney is? Do you know roughly where a uterus is? If so, then you have sufficient anatomical knowledge to do what happened in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square.
                              Sam to be honest with all the years I have been on this and all the medical experts I have come across. I still dont know the exact position of the kidney to be able to open someone up and be able to find it, and then figure out how to remove it especially in the dark. I am told it is the most difficult of all the organs to locate and remove. It is an organ that you cannot locate by feel alone because of how it sits within the renal fat. So that alone would be a problem, working at speed with a long knife in a blood filled abdomen.

                              Mr Neal states that it is not the time that would be taken to remove it. It is the time taken to locate it, and to figure out how to remove it.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-08-2019, 11:12 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                I still dont know the exact position of the kidney to be able to open someone up and be able to find it
                                You don't to know the exact position, only the approximate position. Once there, pull the intestines out of the way, fish around for and grab the kidney, pull it up a little, make a cut in the membrane and pass your knife through the "strings" holding the organ to the body, and - voilà! - you've removed it. It would only take seconds; certainly much less than half a minute.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X