Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Its all very well using 5 mins as a yardstick but the killer may not even have had that 5 mins, Brown says that's the least time it would have taken, and depending on what time the killer and Eddowes entered the square is also a determining factor as to whether he had the time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

The earliest starting off time must be arriving at the murder scene at 1.37am because they had not left Church Passage at 1.35am if Harvey arrives at 1.41 am thats just 4 mins, not enough time to murder mutilate,and remove those organs. On top of that he is also alleged to have rifled her pockets and supposedly cut of a piece of her apron.

Browns expert took 3+ mins just to remove the uterus, and he still managed to damage the bladder, something the killer did not do. So for the killer to have done what he is alleged to have done, I would suggest his skill and anatomical knowledge would have to have been on a par with Browns expert. He would have to have know where the organs were located in the abdomen. There was no cut and slash as some have suggested.

As I have been saying for several years now the killer did not remove the organs. He didnt have the knowledge or the skill to have been able to in such a short period of time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't know why you think JtR and Eddowes had to, or could have, arrived after 1:36 given he appears to have required about 5 minutes. That should tell you he had to have arrived 5 minutes before he left, and at least we're in agreement that PC Harvey's Patrol is probably when he left? (I should say arrived by 1:36 or 1:37 since PC Harvey patrolled at either 1:41 or 1:42).

And also, the latest time for the sighting of the Church Passage Couple is 1:35. They have 1 minute to cover a distance that would require about 30 seconds. That means they could use up 30 more seconds letting Lawende and company walk past them (takes 10 seconds to cover the 45 feet from the club, another 20 seconds puts the trio 90 feet further along, and then the 30 second walk to the crime scene, and they arrive at 1:36, which is 5 minutes before the patrol). If 5 minutes are needed, you have to consider scenerio's that meet the requirements, not make up a scenario that doesn't fit the evidence, and then try and say the evidence is wrong.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,



I don't know why you think JtR and Eddowes had to, or could have, arrived after 1:36 given he appears to have required about 5 minutes. That should tell you he had to have arrived 5 minutes before he left, and at least we're in agreement that PC Harvey's Patrol is probably when he left? (I should say arrived by 1:36 or 1:37 since PC Harvey patrolled at either 1:41 or 1:42).

And also, the latest time for the sighting of the Church Passage Couple is 1:35. They have 1 minute to cover a distance that would require about 30 seconds. That means they could use up 30 more seconds letting Lawende and company walk past them (takes 10 seconds to cover the 45 feet from the club, another 20 seconds puts the trio 90 feet further along, and then the 30 second walk to the crime scene, and they arrive at 1:36, which is 5 minutes before the patrol). If 5 minutes are needed, you have to consider scenerio's that meet the requirements, not make up a scenario that doesn't fit the evidence, and then try and say the evidence is wrong.

- Jeff

At 1.35am they were seen standing they were not on the move. So the earliest they could have moved from that spot is 1.36am. Lets not get pedantic and talk about milliseconds. We dont know if they moved from that spot at 1.36. 1.37 or 1.38. Any later than 1.36 there is no way the times would fit, and at 1.36 in my opinion it still doesnt equate it gives 4 mins. As I keep saying you can only work with the times as we have been told. Watches and clock mat have been fast or slow but we dont know so we cant speculate. We cant speculate either on how fast the couple walked to the murder spot, perhaps they stopped for a kiss and a cuddle en route.

And Dr Browns 5 mins is also not to be readily accepted especially when he states it could have taken longer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

At 1.35am they were seen standing they were not on the move. So the earliest they could have moved from that spot is 1.36am

Why not 1:35:10, once Lawende, Levy and Harris had walked past? I'm thinking of a "Let's not stay here in case more people come out of that club. It'll be quieter in the Square anyway" type of scenario. Indeed, the arrival of Lawende and co on the scene might have given the putative killer the impetus to get things moving.

[FISHY1118]

You might come under just as much ridicule here with your theory Trevor as people who have supported Stephen knights. I read your book and whilst i dont 100 per cent agree, i respect your right to form such a detailed analysis of what you believe to have happen.Now whilst on the subject lets for a minute say knight never wrote his book, and were simply discussing what was possible on that night based on eyewitness accounts and time lines . As nobodys 100% positively identified Eddows [ now remember Lawende is not an I .D as clothes dont count ] from the time she left Bishopsgate police station to 1.44am when Watkins found her, is it then not possible she could have been picked up and murdered ,then somehow transported to Mitre street entrance which is 11 metres from the spot she was found . Would it not be easy for her to be carried and dumped on the spot between 133 to 1.40. a full 7 minutes ? .would that then be more than enough time to drop a dead body, cut a piece of apron ,wipe hands and quickly take off . Now just remember again im not suggesting knights theory is correct as far as motive is concern,or for that matter a motive behind this scenario,and i will not get into any debates about anything else in his book or the reasons behind it either. I will simply say this, there was the means[butchers or abattoir cart] and the opportunity [Watkins had started his route into king st by 1.33 ] where this scenario is concerned .

[Joshua Rogan]

Browns expert took 3+ mins just to remove the uterus, and he still managed to damage the bladder, something the killer did not do.

You keep saying this, but I can't find any reference to the expert damaging the bladder. Yet the killer did just that with Chapman. Am I missing something or are you confusing the two?

Dr Sequeria stating 3 minutes, the killer could not have done all that he is supposed to have done in three minutes, so that interview was clearly only based on the murder and the mutilations I would suggest becaue we no it was and is impossible to do all of that in three mins

Perhaps it was based on the time mentioned by Brown as the time it took the expert he asked to replicate the organ removal? Whereas Brown's "at least five minutes" included the throat cut, facial disfigurement etc. Heck, it might even have included the walk from Church Passage!

The Star newspaper interviewed some of the material witnesses. It is not clear as to whether some or all of those interviews took place early that same morning, or later during the day.

Or even the next day -
The murder took place in the early hours of Sunday 30th Sept. The PM on Sunday afternoon. The Star wasn't published on Sundays. The next edition came out on Monday 1st, giving them well over 24 hours to conduct interviews before going to press.

These interviews appeared in various editions of that newspaper during the following day October 1st, and in fact the Star newspaper published no less than 5 different editions that day.

That may be. But all five of those editions came out after the post-mortem.

The last being and evening edition, which I would suggest would have been published between four and five pm. For anything to be included in that edition it would need to be ready to go to press for about 3pm for 4pm publishing, and 4pm for the 5pm edition.

Well, the Star was an evening paper so ordinarily the first edition would come out around then, but ok.

In that last edition there is no mention of the post mortem, or any organs being found missing. In fact in the last edition it is clearly stated that “no organs” were missing.

I don't think the Star - or any other paper - learnt of the missing organs until the inquest, on the 4th. Just as previously with Chapman. As the Daily News said on 1 Oct; "Several surgeons were yesterday engaged in the post-mortem examination, but of course nothing has been allowed to transpire as to the conclusion arrived at."

In the final edition there are the two interesting quotes, from Dr Brown, and Sequeira.

In the final edition, but not the earlier ones? If that's the case, this indicates that the doctors had only recently been interviewed, so probably sometime early on Monday afternoon.

Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter “How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”. This question and answers from both doctors are somewhat ambiguous, because the term “As you found it” could refer to the crime scene, equally it could refer to the body as it was found at the mortuary prior to the post mortem being conducted, or equally when the post mortem was carried out, as both the doctors were also present at the post mortem. Both Doctors gave the same statements at the inquest, but were never asked to clarify their statements having regard to the fact that Dr Brown was then disclosing evidence about the missing organs.

The fact that the doctors didn't change their time estimates between the interview and the inquest surely points to the PM already having taken place when they were asked, no?

[Trevor Marriott]

You keep saying this, but I can't find any reference to the expert damaging the bladder. Yet the killer did just that with Chapman. Am I missing something or are you confusing the two?



Perhaps it was based on the time mentioned by Brown as the time it took the expert he asked to replicate the organ removal? Whereas Brown's "at least five minutes" included the throat cut, facial disfigurement etc. Heck, it might even have included the walk from Church Passage!



Or even the next day -
The murder took place in the early hours of Sunday 30th Sept. The PM on Sunday afternoon. The Star wasn't published on Sundays. The next edition came out on Monday 1st, giving them well over 24 hours to conduct interviews before going to press.



That may be. But all five of those editions came out after the post-mortem.



Well, the Star was an evening paper so ordinarily the first edition would come out around then, but ok.



I don't think the Star - or any other paper - learnt of the missing organs until the inquest, on the 4th. Just as previously with Chapman. As the Daily News said on 1 Oct; "Several surgeons were yesterday engaged in the post-mortem examination, but of course nothing has been allowed to transpire as to the conclusion arrived at."



In the final edition, but not the earlier ones? If that's the case, this indicates that the doctors had only recently been interviewed, so probably sometime early on Monday afternoon.



The fact that the doctors didn't change their time estimates between the interview and the inquest surely points to the PM already having taken place when they were asked, no?

Well we will agree to disagree

"The question posed to Brown and Sequeira was "“How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”. This question and answers from both doctors are somewhat ambiguous, because the term “As you found it” could refer to the crime scene, equally it could refer to the body as it was found at the mortuary prior to the post mortem being conducted, or equally when the post mortem was carried out, as both the doctors were also present at the post mortem.

Now by Sequeiras three minute answer suggests that he gave that timing not knowing organs were missing.

If they had quoted those times before the inquest they would have looked a bit silly then going to the inquest and changing the times. They might have been asked why didnt you look to see if organs had been taken at the crime scene

And why would they not mention the organs were missing, after all it was going to come out, and having regards to Chapmans organs going missing it would not have been groundbreaking info to keep back.

But of course each person on here will play the field and use whatever answer suits their purpose, but we cant rule out the fact that they gave that interview before the organs were found to be missing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

At 1.35am they were seen standing they were not on the move. So the earliest they could have moved from that spot is 1.36am. Lets not get pedantic and talk about milliseconds. We dont know if they moved from that spot at 1.36. 1.37 or 1.38. Any later than 1.36 there is no way the times would fit, and at 1.36 in my opinion it still doesnt equate it gives 4 mins. As I keep saying you can only work with the times as we have been told. Watches and clock mat have been fast or slow but we dont know so we cant speculate. We cant speculate either on how fast the couple walked to the murder spot, perhaps they stopped for a kiss and a cuddle en route.

And Dr Browns 5 mins is also not to be readily accepted especially when he states it could have taken longer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, it doesn't take me a full minute to start to move. If you don't want to suggest people can move other than in full minute steps, then you don't get to use up the minute between 1:35 and 1:36. The earliest they could move is, therefore, 1:35 - they're sighted, and before 1:36 they're moving. Throwing out a whole minute when minutes count is what makes it look impossible.

And I'm not the one speciulating on how fast they are walking, you are when you keep suggesting they walked slower than average. Choosing the average walking speed is choosing the speed that introduces the least amount of error, you're presuming a specific slow pace. Look, if the Church Passage Couple is not Eddowes and JtR, then fine, they can walk at any pace you want, and leave at any time.

But if they are Eddowes and JtR, they have to get to the dark corner of Mitre Square no later than 1:36 or 1:37 depending upon if PC Harvey patrolled Church Passage at 1:41 or 1:42. So, if they are Eddowes and JtR then they had to wallk at whatever speed required based upon the time they left Duke Street to get to the Dark Corner. The closer to 1:35 they depart, the slower they can walk. And, since an average walking speed would take them 30 seconds, then I suggest that makes sense because of the remaining 10 seconds of that minute would be Lawende and company coming up to them (and you're right, they weren't moving then, so those 10 seconds cover that part of the evidence), but once Lawende and company are past them, you don't know what they did next. But if they are Eddowes and JtR, they have to start going to Mitre Square because they have to get there by 1:36 in order for there to be the 5 minutes for the murder. So yes, if they are Eddowes and JtR, I know they start moving pretty soon. They might even hang out for another minute, because PC Harvey might have patroled at 1:42, there's nothing magic about 1:41 other than it's the earliest time. And also, neither you nor I know if Lawende's 5 minute estimate is correct, Levy's 3 minutes might be, which means they've got minutes before they have to move to get there by 1:36, and they can stroll and amble as slow as you fancy, just as long as they get there such that there is 5 minutes before PC Harvey arrives.

You keep seeming to suggest, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you, that the Church Passage Couple is probably Eddowes and JtR but they might have arrived at Mitre Square at 1;39, for example??? But you know that's got to be wrong because that's only 2 minutes before the patrol, and we know the murder took at least 5 minutes, so I don't understand what the problem you're having is? They have to get there by 1:36 (or 7 if the patrol is 1:42, ....). Look, if Harvey's Patrol was between 1:41 and 1:42, then there's an additional 30 seconds too, and that amount of time is significant here. Carving up time into 1 minute blocks and pretending that people can't start walking at any point in the cycle of the second hand distorts things rather than clarifies them.

And I think the "didn't take the organs" is a topic for a different thread, and here it's just ignoring probably one of the one solid facts we have. Doctors know how many kidneys and uteri a female human body has. And they don't forget removing them during an autopsy. And if they do remove the uterus, they don't botch the process so badly they leave 1/3 of it behind. But again, if you want to argue that case here, and I would be interested in reading your views, it is best suited to it's own thread.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, it doesn't take me a full minute to start to move. If you don't want to suggest people can move other than in full minute steps, then you don't get to use up the minute between 1:35 and 1:36. The earliest they could move is, therefore, 1:35 - they're sighted, and before 1:36 they're moving. Throwing out a whole minute when minutes count is what makes it look impossible.

And I'm not the one speciulating on how fast they are walking, you are when you keep suggesting they walked slower than average. Choosing the average walking speed is choosing the speed that introduces the least amount of error, you're presuming a specific slow pace. Look, if the Church Passage Couple is not Eddowes and JtR, then fine, they can walk at any pace you want, and leave at any time.

But if they are Eddowes and JtR, they have to get to the dark corner of Mitre Square no later than 1:36 or 1:37 depending upon if PC Harvey patrolled Church Passage at 1:41 or 1:42. So, if they are Eddowes and JtR then they had to wallk at whatever speed required based upon the time they left Duke Street to get to the Dark Corner. The closer to 1:35 they depart, the slower they can walk. And, since an average walking speed would take them 30 seconds, then I suggest that makes sense because of the remaining 10 seconds of that minute would be Lawende and company coming up to them (and you're right, they weren't moving then, so those 10 seconds cover that part of the evidence), but once Lawende and company are past them, you don't know what they did next. But if they are Eddowes and JtR, they have to start going to Mitre Square because they have to get there by 1:36 in order for there to be the 5 minutes for the murder. So yes, if they are Eddowes and JtR, I know they start moving pretty soon. They might even hang out for another minute, because PC Harvey might have patroled at 1:42, there's nothing magic about 1:41 other than it's the earliest time. And also, neither you nor I know if Lawende's 5 minute estimate is correct, Levy's 3 minutes might be, which means they've got minutes before they have to move to get there by 1:36, and they can stroll and amble as slow as you fancy, just as long as they get there such that there is 5 minutes before PC Harvey arrives.

You keep seeming to suggest, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you, that the Church Passage Couple is probably Eddowes and JtR but they might have arrived at Mitre Square at 1;39, for example??? But you know that's got to be wrong because that's only 2 minutes before the patrol, and we know the murder took at least 5 minutes, so I don't understand what the problem you're having is? They have to get there by 1:36 (or 7 if the patrol is 1:42, ....). Look, if Harvey's Patrol was between 1:41 and 1:42, then there's an additional 30 seconds too, and that amount of time is significant here. Carving up time into 1 minute blocks and pretending that people can't start walking at any point in the cycle of the second hand distorts things rather than clarifies them.

And I think the "didn't take the organs" is a topic for a different thread, and here it's just ignoring probably one of the one solid facts we have. Doctors know how many kidneys and uteri a female human body has. And they don't forget removing them during an autopsy. And if they do remove the uterus, they don't botch the process so badly they leave 1/3 of it behind. But again, if you want to argue that case here, and I would be interested in reading your views, it is best suited to it's own thread.

- Jeff

Which ever time frame you want to adopt there was not enough time for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done.

How long would it have taken the killer to just carry out the murder and the mutilations, rifle her pockets? So whatever time frame you want to adopt I would suggest that it would be possible for the killer to have done just that.

But add to that the time needed for the killer to locate and remove these organs is just not there.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Which ever time frame you want to adopt there was not enough time for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done.

Yes there was.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes there was.

You are entitled to you opinion but there is no way on gods earth did the killer remove those organs from eddowes in almost total darkness and given the crime scene conditions, in the same time and in the same way an experienced medical person could have done.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

You are entitled to you opinion but there is no way on gods earth did the killer remove those organs from eddowes in almost total darkness and given the crime scene conditions, in the same time and in the same way an experienced medical person could have done.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

According to Sequeira, there was sufficient illumination. And I rather hope that an experienced medical person wouldn't have caused that unnecessary collateral damage to the liver, pancreas and spleen, to have only succeeded in removing part of the uterus, or to have got his hands smeared in $hit.

[Abby Normal]

ah, found it. It doesn't say serum, it says "Fluid Blood", which would still be consistent with what I was getting at - some of the blood gets diulted by the existing rain water and remains fluid, while the bulk of it clots.

dosnt this sketch definitively torpedo your theory Trevor?

[John G]

According to Sequeira, there was sufficient illumination. And I rather hope that an experienced medical person wouldn't have caused that unnecessary collateral damage to the liver, pancreas and spleen, to have only succeeded in removing part of the uterus, or to have got his hands smeared in $hit.

I broadly agree with you. However, for sake of argument, would a medical professional apply surgical techniques in such a situation, i.e. poor lighting, working under pressure, limited time frame?

[Sam Flynn]

I broadly agree with you. However, for sake of argument, would a medical professional apply surgical techniques in such a situation, i.e. poor lighting, working under pressure, limited time frame?

I was responding to Trevor’s specific words, John, which didn't make any allowances either. In response to your query, I'd rather hope that a medical professional would be able to secure more than part of the uterus, even if they were in absolute darkness... which, according to Sequeira, was not the case here.

[packers stem]

According to Sequeira, there was sufficient illumination

I keep hearing this .... shame that nobody seems to give it serious thought though .
By the time of Sequeira's arrival , that corner of the square would be lit up like Blackpool on a late November evening .
I find this blind faith in the lighting qualifications of the newly qualified GP startling.
I'll now wait for the oft trotted out line of how he knew the area .....
Lighting varies from one night to the next moon and cloud dependent .
He may have previously walked through on moonlit nights with all lamps in the square fully functional .
Neither moonlight nor fully functional lamps were available that night .
His proclamation regarding necessary lighting is completely irrelevant and should be treated as such .
And what would this GP know regarding removing kidneys in darkness ?
Nothing I would suggest ....