Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[JeffHamm]

But you’re asking everyone to believe something that just doesn’t makes sense Trevor. There can be absolutely no doubt at all that Brown at the Inquest meant that the killer required a minimum of 5 minutes to do what he did (which must have included removing the organs because Brown found that they were missing at the PM and so naturally factored their removal into his timing or else he’d have mentioned any extra time required at the Inquest)

This isn’t disputable because it’s there in black and white. Brown and Sequeira (who were both there at the time) believed that the killer had enough time to have done what he did (including removing the organs). Whereas you weren’t there, so on what grounds do you base your assumption that your opinion outweighs theirs?

The idea that the killer didn’t have enough time is dead unless we can categorically show that Brown and Sequeira we’re both wrong. And we can’t.

Very good point, Herlock. Indeed, both Brown and Sequeria's estimates would include their belief the organs were taken at the crime scene. Trevor is arguing that their belief was incorrect. That means, we should subtract Trevor's estimates of 5-6 minutes from those times to work out what they would have said if the organs were in place (so just the amount of time for the murder and mutilations), which would be something like Brown saying "It would take between -1 and 0 minutes if the organs were in place" while Sequeria would suggest between "-3 and -2 minutes".

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What did your last slave die from?

Look for it yourself.

Lux would have been .0001 at best, unfortunately lux meters prolly hadn't been invented let alone sitting around in Mitre Square.

Meh, waning crescent moon ,30% illumination at best.
Cloud cover 50% at best.
Darkest corner of Mitre Square.

In other words, 'argued in forums'.

So I asked Slave, who told me that at that illumination, the task would have been impossible.

[DJA]

Those were best scenario.

In fact the rain had just stopped. Cloud cover was ~ 100%.

There is another 'weather report" on the general "Whitechapel" area ,possibly on a Stride thread.

[Trevor Marriott]

Right, so Dr. Brown opened the body, etc, and removed the uterus in 3 minutes. We need to take off time from his 3 minutes since we both agree JtR also opened the abdominal cavity, etc. Brown damaged the bladder, JtR the bowel, and JtR didn't get the whole thing (suggesting JtR may have been in more haste). And your 2 minutes to get the kidney includes getting into the body, so yes, you're double dipping. In fact, you're now tripple dipping, and counting the time to open up the body twice (once for Dr. Brown's uterus removal, and then again for the kidney excersis) and you're not discounting JtR for that time, so JtR opens the abdomen, then you're adding in the time for opening the abdomen and removing the uterus, then adding on again the time to open the abodmen and get the kidney, etc. You're not evaluating the evidence appropriately, you have to take those 2 and 3 minute total times, and remove all of the time except the cut to remove the organ, because we all know JtR did all the rest. Apparently your blinkers prevent you from acknowledging that.

And no, I don't want to believe the killer took the organs, although I recognize you want to believe they did not. Rather, I'm saying the evidence leads to that conclusion, and your arguments to the contrary do not stand up to scrutiny.

And there are, as presented many times on the boards, modern day medical opinions that have no problem with JtR doing all he did in the space of time available. Collect enough opinions and you'll eventually find one to your liking.

You're allowing your desire to overturn things cloud your judgement of the evidence, and triple dipping in times, erroneous claims about the Anatomy Act, and a refusal to accept clear statements like Kelly's heart was taken away and Eddowes was wearing an apron, don't lend themselves to being viewed as strong counter-arguments.

It's a fun idea, would make a great screen play even, but it's not supported by anything that could be viewed as actual evidence.

- Jeff

Dr Brown did not open the body he engaged another medical expert of the day who was aversed in female anatomy to carry out the timed experiment. Why was that if he was happy with his and Dr Sequeira`s original estimates? and that three minutes the expert took I would suggest does not include the time it took to walk into the square and the time it took to carry out all other aspects of this murder which were attributable to the killer.

You have to look at the whole time scenario right from the time the couple could have left the spot where they were standing right to the time the killer left the victim, and we cant do that because we dont know exactly. Everybody seems to have been working with 1.35am as the start time this is according to Levy, but another witness with Levy says it could have been 1.33 or 1.34. but those times simply relate to the couple being seen, they do not relate to the times the couple could have left that spot and these times can only be used in varying time windows based on different times

For the killer to have had at least 5 minutes, and this time is the least time he would have needed according to Brown with the victim the couple would have had to leave that spot at 1.36 allowing for approx 1 minute to walk to the murder spot that takes the time to 1.37. Harvey comes along at either 1.41.42.

You cannot ignore the evidence of Dr Browns expert, but of course I accept we do not fully know the extent of this experiment only the time it took to remove a uterus. sand the fact that the expert damaged the bladder something the remover of Eddowes organs managed to avoid.

So would it be possible for the killer to do what would seem to be the impossible? and do you really want some of the old accepted theories to be rebutted? If the times do not allow for the killer to have removed the organs, then there has to be another plausible explanation.

I fail to see how you and others keeping saying Kelly`s heart was missing based on one ambiguous statement from Bond who only states it was missing from the pericardium, he doesn't say it was missing from the room, and thereafter there is not one person police or otherwise mentions the missing heart being taken away, or the suggestion that the killer took it away. In fact its the opposite with many reports stating no organs were missing, and one important statement from Insp Reid head of Whitechapel CID who attended the crime scene who states all organs were accounted for.

Now out of the two of you, who am I going to believe is right ? Its a no brainer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

In other words, 'argued in forums'.

So I asked Slave, who told me that at that illumination, the task would have been impossible.

Of course it would have been impossible in trying to locate organs in a blood filled abdomen in the dark, and using a long bladed knife, working with slippery wet organs. Not to mention the killers mental status, He kills Eddowes in a frenzied attack, are we expected to believe that he suddenly regains his composure sufficient enough to carry out a highly skilled and complex removal of a kidney in record time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

The only person who could reasonably estimate the time the killer took is the medical expert who examined the body while still in place. Reviewing the injuries during a pm or autopsy does not allow for factors like the available light, or the imminent threat the killer exposed himself to...suggesting he likely worked fast, without a need for clean cuts or great accuracy. I think the only cuts he actually may have done with any care are the nose/face cuts.

He could have slashed her face, if disfigurement was the goal, quick and easy, but he sliced into the nose and face, requiring use of the tip of the knife. or the end of the blade.. The rest seem like pretty broad strokes...maybe the tracing around the navel required some finesse.

The estimated time it took to do ALL the injuries, by Brown,...the first physician actually examining the body while still on the site, (as per Collard.."The body was not touched until the arrival shortly afterwards of Dr. Brown"...even though Sequiera is there first), is 5 minutes.

"Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed?
Brown: Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

Then....after first having said some organs were missing...

"[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed?
Brown: I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes.
Brown: It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned?
Brown: I cannot give any reason whatever. "

I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that Brown indicated in the above that the time needed to remove and take both the organs and do all the collateral damage was around 5 minutes. And its clear he says he knew the items were missing while Kate still lay in the square.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Brown did not open the body he engaged another medical expert of the day who was aversed in female anatomy to carry out the timed experiment. Why was that if he was happy with his and Dr Sequeira`s original estimates? and that three minutes the expert took I would suggest does not include the time it took to walk into the square and the time it took to carry out all other aspects of this murder which were attributable to the killer.

You have to look at the whole time scenario right from the time the couple could have left the spot where they were standing right to the time the killer left the victim, and we cant do that because we dont know exactly. Everybody seems to have been working with 1.35am as the start time this is according to Levy, but another witness with Levy says it could have been 1.33 or 1.34. but those times simply relate to the couple being seen, they do not relate to the times the couple could have left that spot and these times can only be used in varying time windows based on different times

For the killer to have had at least 5 minutes, and this time is the least time he would have needed according to Brown with the victim the couple would have had to leave that spot at 1.36 allowing for approx 1 minute to walk to the murder spot that takes the time to 1.37. Harvey comes along at either 1.41.42.

You cannot ignore the evidence of Dr Browns expert, but of course I accept we do not fully know the extent of this experiment only the time it took to remove a uterus. sand the fact that the expert damaged the bladder something the remover of Eddowes organs managed to avoid.

So would it be possible for the killer to do what would seem to be the impossible? and do you really want some of the old accepted theories to be rebutted? If the times do not allow for the killer to have removed the organs, then there has to be another plausible explanation.

I fail to see how you and others keeping saying Kelly`s heart was missing based on one ambiguous statement from Bond who only states it was missing from the pericardium, he doesn't say it was missing from the room, and thereafter there is not one person police or otherwise mentions the missing heart being taken away, or the suggestion that the killer took it away. In fact its the opposite with many reports stating no organs were missing, and one important statement from Insp Reid head of Whitechapel CID who attended the crime scene who states all organs were accounted for.

Now out of the two of you, who am I going to believe is right ? Its a no brainer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are floundering and obfuscating because you know that your suggestion that your idea is a non-starter. It’s impossible that you can’t understand this but you keep responding as if you don’t.

To suggest that the killer didn’t have time to do what he did in the time allowed you have to show one of three things.

1. That we know for certain, within a minute or so, how long the removal of organs would have taken.

2. That we know for certain (or even likelihood) through witness testimony that the killer would only have had say 5 minutes available.

3. Positive evidence that someone might have stolen the organs from the mortuary.

This is nothing to do we sticking to the ‘old accepted theories.’ It’s about assessing what we know and not what might a have been.

So on point 1. The answer is that we can’t know this for certain but we have Brown’s expert who gave a time of three minutes. I can’t and won’t try and dispute that (although I’m unsure if anyone else has disputed it?) but when someone is timed doing anything another person might do the same thing quicker or slower. That said we have this as reasonable guideline (it’s as unlikely to have been 1 minute as it would have been unlikely to have been double the time at 6 minutes)

On point 2. Of course the answer is no. We have parameters of course, set by the possible witnesses (who may have seen another couple of course) and the police. You can no more legitimately narrow it down to the narrowest time frame than Jeff could legitimately widen it to the broadest time frame. We can’t know for certain.

And point 3. Apart from Brown saying that there would have been no medical value in the body parts we have nothing to go on. The stealing of body parts is not an impossibility of course but we just have no evidence to show that those particular organs were stolen (for example, if you had found a newspaper article stating that the mortuary had been broken into but there was no evidence of theft, then you would have had a bit of evidence.)

I see nothing above the smacks of poor logic or bias. I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve said anything factually incorrect. So what you are saying Trevor is that if we only had the narrowest window of time and if we go on the longest timing estimates and if we ignore the possibility of a slightly shorter time for the organ removal and if we go with the evidence-tree assertion of the stealing of body parts then we can jump up and down and say that we’ve rebutted one of those dreaded “old accepted theories?”

As I’ve said before, and I’m sure (for the first time ever) everyone would agree with me, that we are right to challenge everything and to look for new ideas. If we stick to certain suggestions it’s because we don’t have the evidence to refute them. I for one have no vested interest in whether the organs were removed in situ or not. I don’t have any vested interest in whether the killer had enough time to have done what he did. I’ve always believed that he had but if it turned out that I was wrong, so what? I’m just as likely or unlikely to be wrong or right as anyone. I’ve certainly been wrong before.

You and I disagree on many things and we’ve argued forcefully but i still say that you are perusing this point for no other reason than you refuse to admit that you have no point. I think that everyone can see that your argument is a lost cause unless you can come up with more than ‘what if’s’ to make your point.

[Trevor Marriott]

The only person who could reasonably estimate the time the killer took is the medical expert who examined the body while still in place. Reviewing the injuries during a pm or autopsy does not allow for factors like the available light, or the imminent threat the killer exposed himself to...suggesting he likely worked fast, without a need for clean cuts or great accuracy. I think the only cuts he actually may have done with any care are the nose/face cuts.

He could have slashed her face, if disfigurement was the goal, quick and easy, but he sliced into the nose and face, requiring use of the tip of the knife. or the end of the blade.. The rest seem like pretty broad strokes...maybe the tracing around the navel required some finesse.

The estimated time it took to do ALL the injuries, by Brown,...the first physician actually examining the body while still on the site, (as per Collard.."The body was not touched until the arrival shortly afterwards of Dr. Brown"...even though Sequiera is there first), is 5 minutes.

"Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed?
Brown: Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

Then....after first having said some organs were missing...

"[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed?
Brown: I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes.
Brown: It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned?
Brown: I cannot give any reason whatever. "

I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that Brown indicated in the above that the time needed to remove and take both the organs and do all the collateral damage was around 5 minutes. And its clear he says he knew the items were missing while Kate still lay in the square.

There is no evidence to show the organs were discovered missing while the body was in Mitre Square, and there is no evidence to show Brown knew they were missing at the time he examined the body in Mitre Square. Your statement is based on nothing more than conjecture !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Trevor, in the post I used direct under examination quotes by Brown from the Inquest, and even highlighted the places where he does in fact say that. Did you read the post?

Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed?

Brown: Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent

As Crawford questioned him he mentions Phillips having seen the body when later taken to the mortuary, but then he returns to the scene of the crime with Brown, and continues his questioning...about what was discovered about the injuries, while she lay in place in the square. He then summarizes how long all that would take.

I know what you believe, but that is contrary to Browns direct answers while at the Inquest. Your only grey area in any Canonical Murder exists with Mary Kelly, because there is some room for wondering whether the missing heart was determined while she was still in the her room.

There is not in this case however, the items were taken, as per Brown, at the crime scene.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are floundering and obfuscating because you know that your suggestion that your idea is a non-starter. It’s impossible that you can’t understand this but you keep responding as if you don’t.

To suggest that the killer didn’t have time to do what he did in the time allowed you have to show one of three things.

1. That we know for certain, within a minute or so, how long the removal of organs would have taken.

No we dont this is a point you seem to contest.If you are going to argue this point you also have to prove the time it did take and that cant be done based on the evidence from 1888. Dr Browns time was pure guesswork. We have an expert engaged by Dr Brown to carry out an experiment, and that is still unsafe because we dont know what he actually did to come up with three minutes.

Was that three minutes just to take out the uterus, or did it include the time taken to open up the abdomen and then locate the uterus before removing it, did he do it in the dark? Whatever he did extra time has to then be added to that three minutes to locate and remove the kidney, and given the level of expertise compared used to remove the kidney compared to modern day medical expert who under controlled conditions in a mortuary from opening up and abdomen to removing a kidney took two minutes I would say at least another 3 mins for the killer to have effected the removal of the kidney, that gives around six minutes and for that time to be so, the killer would have to have had a high degree of anatomical knowledge to be able to remove that kidney in double quick time then we have to add to that the time for the killer to walk down Church passage with the victim carry out the murder, and the mutilations, rifle her pockets, cut a piece of apron, wrap the organs up and them make good his escape.

2. That we know for certain (or even likelihood) through witness testimony that the killer would only have had say 5 minutes available.

Dr Browns statement is unsafe it was an estimated guess and he states it could have taken longer than 5 minutes. Dr Brown was making a guess, so that time he states is unsafe. Sequeira`s time of 3 minutes testifies to that, because we know all of this could not have been done in 3 mins.

3. Positive evidence that someone might have stolen the organs from the mortuary.

There is no positive evidence if there was we would not be arguing this point, but you cannot conclusively prove that this did not happen because if you accept that the killer did not, or could not have removed them there has to be another plausible explanation

This is nothing to do we sticking to the ‘old accepted theories.’ It’s about assessing what we know and not what might a have been.

Yes but what we know from the questionable witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on. Dr Brown states at least 5 minutes, at least being the crucial word, because that infers it could have taken longer, so if the killer did take them did he have that time to do so?

If I had no point to argue I would not be arguing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, in the post I used direct under examination quotes by Brown from the Inquest, and even highlighted the places where he does in fact say that. Did you read the post?

Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed?

Brown: Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent

As Crawford questioned him he mentions Phillips having seen the body when later taken to the mortuary, but then he returns to the scene of the crime with Brown, and continues his questioning...about what was discovered about the injuries, while she lay in place in the square. He then summarizes how long all that would take.

I know what you believe, but that is contrary to Browns direct answers while at the Inquest. Your only grey area in any Canonical Murder exists with Mary Kelly, because there is some room for wondering whether the missing heart was determined while she was still in the her room.

There is not in this case however, the items were taken, as per Brown, at the crime scene.

That doesnt refer to the square it refers to the post mortem.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

That doesnt refer to the square it refers to the post mortem.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, but we know.....absolutely, categorically know for a fact that, at the Inquest, both Brown and Sequeira knew that the organs were missing at the pm. Therefore they were working under the assumption that these organs had been taken in Mitre Square (and not at the Mortuary)

Therefore, when giving their estimates of the time required for the murder and mutilations they had to have been including the time required for the removal of the organs. No one could dispute this point Trevor. It’s as indisputable as night follows day. So why are you questioning it if it’s not down to defending your theory at all costs?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I had no point to argue I would not be arguing

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m afraid that you would.

You are right that there are uncertainties on times. But for you to conclude that the organs weren’t taken in Mitre Square ‘what if’s’ are nowhere near enough. You need to be able to show, at the very least, that it was very likely they the killer wouldn’t have had enough time and not that he might not have had enough time. The fact that you won’t acknowledge this very obvious fact speaks volumes.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m afraid that you would.

You are right that there are uncertainties on times. But for you to conclude that the organs weren’t taken in Mitre Square ‘what if’s’ are nowhere near enough. You need to be able to show, at the very least, that it was very likely they the killer wouldn’t have had enough time and not that he might not have had enough time. The fact that you won’t acknowledge this very obvious fact speaks volumes.

There are no what ifs its a simple case or closely assessing and evaluating the facts and not as you see to want to do and that is readily accept what was said back then which as can be seen is clearly unsafe. The was almost no cross examaning of the witnesse sane for the odd question her and there

I believe I have provided enough details and information to cast a major doubt about what happened in Miter Square, and you have to show that the evidence shows that he did have and that evidence you seek to rely on is unsafe.

Lets let the people in the big wide world make their own minds up !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

That doesnt refer to the square it refers to the post mortem.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I don't believe that was the case Trevor. The sidebar about the pm was by Crawford, it was not part of what they had been discussing up until that point. Then he returned to the questioning about what Brown found when he examined the body, in place in the square. What was the condition of the woman, and what did you find when you examined the woman?

"I am surgeon to the City of London Police. I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two. (AT THE CRIME SCENE) My attention was directed to the body of the deceased. It was lying in the position described by Watkins, on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder, the arms by the side of the body, as if they had fallen there. Both palms were upwards, the fingers slightly bent. A thimble was lying near. The clothes were thrown up. The bonnet was at the back of the head. There was great disfigurement of the face. The throat was cut across. Below the cut was a neckerchief. The upper part of the dress had been torn open. The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body. There were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around.
By Mr. Crawford: There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There was not a speck of blood on the front of the jacket.
By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon. There was a bruise on the back of the left hand, and one on the right shin, but this had nothing to do with the crime. There were no bruises on the elbows or the back of the head. The face was very much mutilated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore cuts. There were abrasions under the left ear. The throat was cut across to the extent of six or seven inches.
[Coroner] Can you tell us what was the cause of death? - The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat. Death must have been immediate.
[Coroner] There were other wounds on the lower part of the body? - Yes; deep wounds, which were inflicted after death.
(Witness here described in detail the terrible mutilation of the deceased's body.)
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
[Coroner] Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the "wounds" (PLURAL) were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.
[Coroner] Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.
[Coroner] Have you any doubt in your own mind whether there was a struggle? - I feel sure there was no struggle. I see no reason to doubt that it was the work of one man.
[Coroner] Would any noise be heard, do you think? - I presume the throat was instantly severed, in which case there would not be time to emit any sound.
[Coroner] Does it surprise you that no sound was heard? - No.
[Coroner] Would you expect to find much blood on the person inflicting these wounds? - No, I should not. I should say that the abdominal wounds were inflicted by a person kneeling at the right side of the body. The wounds could not possibly have been self-inflicted.
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
[Coroner] Have you formed any opinion as to the motive for the mutilation of the face? - It was to disfigure the corpse, I should imagine.
A Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used? - I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis.