Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[JeffHamm]

Again for what its worth I discount the suggestions that police beats were being watched and timed. There were many out of the way places women could take punters too without worrying about being disturbed by the police.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Oh, I don't mean to suggest PC Watkin's beat and timings were known in advance, only pointing out that if so disposed, the Church Passage Couple could have seen him pass from their vantage point (which is what the quoted portion describes). The beats were, I believe, changed at least semi-regularly, even if only to change the direction of the patrol.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Cutting up animals is a bit different to surgically removing organs from a human body in almost darkness. If you have a copy of my book you will see I used a modern day butcher who learned his trade in a slaughterhouse who gives his opininion on Browns statement which casts a major doubt on Browns comments.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Given medical opinion at the time was all over the place, it would be surprising if that wasn't still the situation now given we have less to work with then they did.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

This has been posted before, including on this thread:

It's a sizeable thread but apologies for missing the previous mention. Thanks for posting them again

Hmmm. I can't see any mention of Mitre Street there, though. As I think Jeff says, the couple could easily have watched Watkins leave the square from where they stood at the end of Church Passage.

Again, this was a theory the City of London Police had. In time they came to discredit the witness sighting at the top of Church Passage. Henry Smith, in the Ripper chapter of his book, "From Constable to Commissioner..." discounted Lawende's worth as a witness when he interviewed him.

I seem to have a different reading of Smith's opinion of Lawende. Doesn't he say that the couple seen by Lawende as he left the club "was, without doubt, the murderer and his victim."?

[JeffHamm]

...
I seem to have a different reading of Smith's opinion of Lawende. Doesn't he say that the couple seen by Lawende as he left the club "was, without doubt, the murderer and his victim."?

Hi Joshua,

I've not read Smith's book, but considering Lawende of "low worth as a witness" could be in reference to his utility. Lawende doesn't have confidence in his ability to recognize the man again, so in that sense he's not much worth, even if Smith believes Lawende saw Eddowes and her killer. So, while he may believe the Church Passage Couple was Eddowes and her killer, and that Lawende saw them, that doesn't mean Lawende would make a great witness because what he recalls and could testify to would be of little help identification-wise (i.e. she was killed by an average looking man isn't all that helpful to an investigation, other than, I suppose, ruling out the uncommon individuals).

Anyway, as I say, having not read the book, the exact phrasing, and the context in which it is presented, would be important to understand Smith's beliefs. Now, whether or not Smith's beliefs are accurate is another story (i.e. he may believe Lawende would be a poor witness, but had JtR been located, who knows, maybe Lawende would say "Wow! yes, that's definitely him! I didn't think I would recognize him again, but clearly I was wrong!" - that would make both Smith and Lawende's beliefs incorrect, even though they would have believed them to be true when stated).

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Joshua,

I've not read Smith's book, but considering Lawende of "low worth as a witness" could be in reference to his utility. Lawende doesn't have confidence in his ability to recognize the man again, so in that sense he's not much worth, even if Smith believes Lawende saw Eddowes and her killer. So, while he may believe the Church Passage Couple was Eddowes and her killer, and that Lawende saw them, that doesn't mean Lawende would make a great witness because what he recalls and could testify to would be of little help identification-wise (i.e. she was killed by an average looking man isn't all that helpful to an investigation, other than, I suppose, ruling out the uncommon individuals).

Anyway, as I say, having not read the book, the exact phrasing, and the context in which it is presented, would be important to understand Smith's beliefs. Now, whether or not Smith's beliefs are accurate is another story (i.e. he may believe Lawende would be a poor witness, but had JtR been located, who knows, maybe Lawende would say "Wow! yes, that's definitely him! I didn't think I would recognize him again, but clearly I was wrong!" - that would make both Smith and Lawende's beliefs incorrect, even though they would have believed them to be true when stated).

- Jeff

A fair assessment Jeff, as ever. I think Smith was frustrated by Lawende's inability to recognise the man, and his apparent indifference to the murders. However, Lawende's subsequent utility as a witness to identify the killer is irrelevant to the question at hand (my hand, anyway), which was: is there any evidence to support Scott's claim that the City police believed the couple entered the square via the Mitre Street entrance, rather than the passage from Duke Street. To which, on the strength of the evidence so far presented, the answer appears to be "no".

Smith himself (writing a couple of decades later) appears to absolutely believe the pair seen by Lawende and co as they left the club were indeed Kate and her killer. Although his own utility as a witness is somewhat questionable - he seems to imply that this was in Goulston Street, for instance.

The relevant chaper of Smith's memoirs is available on this site;

From Constable to Commissioner, Chapter 16:
https://www.casebook.org/ripper_medi...constable.html

[JeffHamm]

A fair assessment Jeff, as ever. I think Smith was frustrated by Lawende's inability to recognise the man, and his apparent indifference to the murders. However, Lawende's subsequent utility as a witness to identify the killer is irrelevant to the question at hand (my hand, anyway), which was: is there any evidence to support Scott's claim that the City police believed the couple entered the square via the Mitre Street entrance, rather than the passage from Duke Street. To which, on the strength of the evidence so far presented, the answer appears to be "no".

Smith himself (writing a couple of decades later) appears to absolutely believe the pair seen by Lawende and co as they left the club were indeed Kate and her killer. Although his own utility as a witness is somewhat questionable - he seems to imply that this was in Goulston Street, for instance.

The relevant chaper of Smith's memoirs is available on this site;

From Constable to Commissioner, Chapter 16:
https://www.casebook.org/ripper_medi...constable.html

Thanks for the link! I'll leave it to Scott to answer as he may have some other bits of information that more clearly state the "entered via Mitre Street" idea. I woudln't be surprised to find out that the police entertained all 3 possible entry ways, so finding something specific on one of them wouldn't mean that's the only one they considered.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

This has been posted before, including on this thread:

The Derby Daily Telegraph (Oct. 1st): "indeed one of the policemen who saw the body (Eddowes) in the mortuary expressed his confident opinion that he had seen the woman walking several times in the neighborhood of Aldgate-High Street."[and,] "The police theory is that the man and woman, who had met in Aldgate, watched the policeman (Watkins) pass round the square, and they then entered it for an immoral purpose."

A similar story written on October 2, 1888 by a London correspondent for The New York Times: "The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watchboy who saw a man and a woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good description of him.”

Again, this was a theory the City of London Police had. In time they came to discredit the witness sighting at the top of Church Passage. Henry Smith, in the Ripper chapter of his book, "From Constable to Commissioner..." discounted Lawende's worth as a witness when he interviewed him.

I wonder why they were not in the inquest,it was a policeman after all in the 1st story and in the 2nd the watchboy contacted with and gave a "good description" to the police.Their testimonies were important enough.Even George Clapp made it to the inquest.It seems like the stories were gossip.

[Juniper4576]

On the whole, I think that Jack was an opportunistic killer who let his victims take him to a secluded spot. It is difficult to tell why he ended up on Mitre Square on that fateful early morning but it may have had something to do with the upheaval caused by Liz Stride's death who may or may not have been killed by his hand, he may have bolted westwards and acted out his anger on Kate instead who happened to be on the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Hi Bole, All,

Do you think you think Jack, not just with Kate, made was lucky with regards to some things or did he make his own luck?

I think a bit of both.

Jim

[Joshua Rogan]

I wonder why they were not in the inquest,it was a policeman after all in the 1st story and in the 2nd the watchboy contacted with and gave a "good description" to the police.Their testimonies were important enough.Even George Clapp made it to the inquest.It seems like the stories were gossip.

I think, perhaps, that the policeman was PC Robinson, who was at the inquest.

[Varqm]

I think, perhaps, that the policeman was PC Robinson, who was at the inquest.

Robinson saw her drunk at 8:30 PM.He did not say he saw her walking about in Aldgate,even asking the crowd who she was.So I think not.

[bolo]

Hi Jim,

Hi Bole, All,

Do you think you think Jack, not just with Kate, made was lucky with regards to some things or did he make his own luck?

I think a bit of both.

Jim

I think the killer used the local knowledge of his victims to his advantage, most streetwalkers had their favourite secluded spot where they took their clients to so all he had to do was to follow them and strike them down. He still had some level of control here since he also could have refused to go to a certain spot he might have deemed unsafe and steered his victim to another place instead.

Still, he also had the Devil's luck on his side as Martin Fido so aptly put it, especially in Mitre Square. The fact that he got away with killing and mutilating Eddowes right under the nose of two PCs on their beats in near darkness and within a very short space of time is remarkeable to say the least, alter the variables just a little bit and he would have been caught red-handed.

Maybe that is why the killer kept his head down for more than a month after the double event but eventually got overpowered by the urge to kill again which culminated in the Miller's Court butchery.

Grüße,

Boris

[JeffHamm]

Hi Bole, All,

Do you think you think Jack, not just with Kate, made was lucky with regards to some things or did he make his own luck?

I think a bit of both.

Jim

I think he was more lucky than made his own luck. With Nicoles it is quite likely he was interrupted when Cross and Paul came along, with Chapman I can't think of a riskier time or place to commit murder (enclosed backyard, people moving about next door, and close enough to morning that the residence will be getting up shortly), Eddowes we have two police beats involved, with very little time available, and Stride (if she's a JtR victim), right outside a crowded club with people singing and coming and going and also on a police beat. Kelly, while the only indoors crime scene, also means if he's discovered he can't escape, and the police patrolled the courtyard. Other then Nicoles, all victims were seen (that's over stating it actually, there are reports for all crimes of couples, with at least one person testifying the woman was, or might have been the victim) shortly before their murders in the company of a man who could be JtR. If any of those sightings are valid then committing murder after potentially being seen is not "creating your own luck" it's relying on luck.

On the other hand, his choice of victims does reduce the probability of linking him to the murder given there is likely no known association between them. I suspect, though, his choice reflects more the ease of finding a victim, given that they will go with him, and he can rely on them to know of a secluded location where they won't be disturbed at least for a little while. But given the frequency with which it appears he was pretty close to being spotted at the crime scene (Nicoles, Chapman, and Eddowes in particular, possibly Stride), that reliance would be considered ill founded. It does, however, suggest he maintained situational awareness, and did flee if anyone approached and that he was aware of when people were approaching.

Finally, there are lots of points above that are, of course, based upon some assumptions that are not proven. For example, Cross (Lechmere) is considered a suspect by Fisherman and others, and in that case one would argue he didn't actually flee when Paul approached, etc. Some will argue that Annie was murdered much earlier, and so the activity in the neighboring yard was well after her murder, etc. My summary, therefore, is based upon my own particular biases concerning which of the options seem more probable or plausible to me.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I think he was more lucky than made his own luck. With Nicoles it is quite likely he was interrupted when Cross and Paul came along, with Chapman I can't think of a riskier time or place to commit murder (enclosed backyard, people moving about next door, and close enough to morning that the residence will be getting up shortly), Eddowes we have two police beats involved, with very little time available, and Stride (if she's a JtR victim), right outside a crowded club with people singing and coming and going and also on a police beat. Kelly, while the only indoors crime scene, also means if he's discovered he can't escape, and the police patrolled the courtyard. Other then Nicoles, all victims were seen (that's over stating it actually, there are reports for all crimes of couples, with at least one person testifying the woman was, or might have been the victim) shortly before their murders in the company of a man who could be JtR. If any of those sightings are valid then committing murder after potentially being seen is not "creating your own luck" it's relying on luck.

On the other hand, his choice of victims does reduce the probability of linking him to the murder given there is likely no known association between them. I suspect, though, his choice reflects more the ease of finding a victim, given that they will go with him, and he can rely on them to know of a secluded location where they won't be disturbed at least for a little while. But given the frequency with which it appears he was pretty close to being spotted at the crime scene (Nicoles, Chapman, and Eddowes in particular, possibly Stride), that reliance would be considered ill founded. It does, however, suggest he maintained situational awareness, and did flee if anyone approached and that he was aware of when people were approaching.

Finally, there are lots of points above that are, of course, based upon some assumptions that are not proven. For example, Cross (Lechmere) is considered a suspect by Fisherman and others, and in that case one would argue he didn't actually flee when Paul approached, etc. Some will argue that Annie was murdered much earlier, and so the activity in the neighboring yard was well after her murder, etc. My summary, therefore, is based upon my own particular biases concerning which of the options seem more probable or plausible to me.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
As previoulsy stated I dont subscribe to the police beats suggestion.

With regards to the murders just sticking with the five, out of those my view is that only Nicholls,Chapman and Eddowes were by the same hand. The jury is out on Kelly but having regards to the mutilation to her face and body she cnnot be discounted, especially as my view is that the killer only killed and mutilated his victims and did not take away the organs.Everhting about the Stride murder points to a different killer.

As to the profile of the killer, Some will say he was an opportunist, which in my opinion he was but having regards for the times of the murder, all in the early hours that shows a propensity for the killer to not seek out a victim until that time to allow for the lack of people on the street who might subsequently identify him, and for him to be able to find a victim on the streets and seek out a secluded location.

So perhaps he was not as totally mad as has been suggested

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hi Bole, All,

Do you think you think Jack, not just with Kate, made was lucky with regards to some things or did he make his own luck?

I think a bit of both.

Jim

hi jun
alot of both. but if i had to pick one, more "good" than lucky.

[Juniper4576]

Thank you all for your replies.

I am looking at the how did he do and get away with it angle.

It seems that when factors are against him, time, more constables on the streets, some in plain clothes, etc he still manages to do his dirty work.

That is why I posed the question of luck; this with ultimately an intimate knowledge of all to do with the environment and pattern of life allowed him to be one step ahead.

Jim