Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Sam Flynn]

There were several knife wounds to the abdomen not just one, she was stabbed through her outer clothing several times, so the opening of the abdomen was not premeditated in order to extract organs.

There was a vertical gash from breastbone to pubis, the flesh was retracted, the intestines were pulled out and a section of colon had been cut out and left on the pavement. Of course the abdomen had been opened with the intent of removing the organs!

How in God's name did you get into the murder squad? More worryingly, how many obvious murderers are wandering freely in our midst because you completely overlooked what they did?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Sam,

But not, I'd have thought, on the left cheek. This would be more consistent with the killer's clamping a hand over her nose and/or mouth, or with his holding the head steady with the left hand whilst inflicting cuts with a knife held in the right. I'm not averse to the idea of strangulation, or inducing brief insensibility by restricting carotid flow, but I think these specific abrasions on the cheek might have come about by other means.

Yes, that's one possibility. It was the "under the left ear" that makes me think these could be strangluation marks, but I agree they could be from what you describe too. I should have mentioned that there are other explanations for them.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Harry D,

Also, if her body had been murdered and mutilated elsewhere before she was dumped, surely there would have been hardly any bloodshed at the scene?

And a trail of blood, which was looked for and not found at any of the crime scenes. The Pinchin Street torso, on the other hand, had little blood at the scene (though the wound to the neck is described as "oozing", it wasn't bleeding out on the spot), and it was clear it was dumped there after the murder.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

Yes, that's one possibility. It was the "under the left ear" that makes me think these could be strangluation marks, but I agree they could be from what you describe too.

What I think militates against their being strangulation marks, Jeff, is that they're on the cheek. Whilst strangulation might leave marks on the throat or (possibly) the jaw, I can't quite see the marks extending as high as the victim's cheek.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

There is no definitive answer to your question, because you could have 3 different people all doing the same thing and all three may take a different time.

I don't understand what you mean here? Are you suggesting there were up to 3 people crouching over Eddowes all working together? Or are you talking about different murderers for different crimes? I assume you mean the latter. But I'm not asking about the time required for any of the other murders, just Eddowes in Mitre Square. You keep saying he didn't have sufficient time, and I am asking you to explain how much time you think he needed.

What do you believe is the minimum amount of time that whoever killed Eddowes required to do what he's reported to have done?

I've asked this about 4 times now. You clearly have an idea on this because you are confident the time available is less than the time you think was required. Do you think it would take 20 minutes? An hour? That seems to be the implications when you mentioned Chapman's murder above. But if you're now saying that could have been someone else, what was the point of mentioning her at all?

and I totally disagree that a slaughterman would have sufficient anatomical knowledge to effect a removal of a kidney and a uterus from a human in the allotted time.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that, but regardless, who JtR was doesn't change the amount of time you think Eddowes' murderer required.

If organ harvesting was the motive then why didnt the killer find a victim who had their own room, why did he make the task more difficult by picking up a victim in the street and trying to remove organs in almost total darkness.

Killing and mutilation was his primary motive. Taking organs was just trophy taking.

All these victims are attributed to one killer, but other than Chapman, we see no other signs of organs removal or attempted organ removals.

Kelly's heart was missing, so Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly all had internal organs of some sort taken. The fact that Kelly's uterus wasn't taken suggests there wasn't a specific motive or design upon that particular organ.

And if he had taken a uterus which was complete with Fallopian tubes attached, why would he want to take another from Eddowes doent make sense. plus the organs from both Chapman and eddowes were removed in two different ways, thereby suggesting that it was not the same person.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Who knows? It might have just been easy to take. And, if there's a sexual aspect to his motive, then there's some connection. But without having been caught, the specific thoughts these killers have are extremely hard to guess at as they have some very bizarre ideas and thought patterns.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

After washing the left hand carefully, a bruise the size of a sixpence, recent and red, was discovered on the back of the left hand between the thumb and first finger .... Back of the hand not proof at all she was defending herself from be strangled .....

I didn't say proof, I said sounds like defense wounds, but of course there could be other explanations.

There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium under the left ear.....The preceding sentience imply the killer could have quite easily have held her chin while making those cuts hence the abrasions.

Yes, I agree. I was hasty in my previous post and should have said there are other explanations. I think what you describe above (and Sam mentions as well), is a good possibility as well for those marks.

And blood from the neck will flow out regardless whether she was killed there or dumped there afterwards . So the physical evidence would be the same , just more speculation . ...

Oh, are you now saying she was killed elsewhere, but taken to Mitre Square, and then had her throat cut and her abdomen mutilated?
If so, how was she killed?

If not, and her throat was cut before being taken to Mitre Square, the majority of the bleed out would have occurred. There would not be a pool of clotted blood by her neck, etc. She was killed where she was found, that is as clear from the crime scene then as it is today.

Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds,'' 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.''.(ellipses in text, where a question from the corner to be more specific about the location was asked). And, if you've grabbed someone by the throat to strangle them, under the ear is where bruising/abrasions will occur.. This statement is not in the official inquest notes or post mortem so unsubstantiated, cant comment . so ill stick buy my post 490... 100% .p.s ,sorry about the shouting ill endeavor to tone it done a touch.

No worries. I find the bold, or underline, formatting works well for emphasis. All caps just makes it harder to read and is distracting, it doesn't help.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Yes somebody did kill these women but whoever it was he didnt take away their organs !!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ummmm, you keep telling me I'm disregarding the evidence when I say it's possible for the Church Passage Couple to take a 30 second walk when there's a minute in which to do it, and you're pushing for none of the organs were taken, in any of the murders?

Trevor, look, even the Victorian doctors knew how many kidneys, uteri, and hearts were in a female human body. And they could count, and do maths too. And they don't forget that they removed bits, because they took notes, and even had others observing them. And if they do remove the uterus during an autopsy, they don't botch it by leaving 1/3rd of it behind, because, you know, they're trained surgeons taking their time.

Now, once again, I'm asking you to take the issue of missing organs to another thread. It's off topic in this one, and sufficiently controversial that it will get distracting. The only thing that is relevant is how much time do you think it would take JtR to kill and mutilate Eddowes if he did take the organs as stated by the medical professionals of the day.

If you want to then say "but it would only take him X minutes if he didn't take the organs", that's fine, you can say that if you wish, but give the times as they are related to JtR and escaping from Mitre Square and stop the proliferation of "if's and maybe's" in this thread and take them to another where they can be the focus.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
There's a video above where a hunter - not even a slaughterman - does pretty much that in less than a minute
Not on a human being, and not in almost total darkness

And not over a minute required. Yes, different animal, but note how quickly and easily a sharp knife cuts through the much thicker and tougher skin of a deer. And note how he can do so without damaging anything, which tells you how much more quickly JtR was probably doing things. If that alone doesn't convince you that you're grossly overestimating the amount of time required, then we're talking the difference between the unconvinced and the unconvincable.

.If organ harvesting was the motive, and he had better working conditions than existed at Mitre Square, why did he make such a balls-up of removing the uterus and only take one kidney? I'm sure that it's not only in the antiques trade that it's more desirable to have a pair.

I am not suggesting organ harvesting but other have done

Agreed. Organ taking was probably a post-offense trophy activity, not the primary motive.

What are you talking about? Eddowes and Kelly certainly had organs removed and, if he'd had time, the same might have happened to Nichols - perhaps it did, and the less-than-stellar Dr Llewellyn missed it.

Ah the good old time .Kelly had her organs ripped out with no anatomical knowledge shown at all. And none were taken away, when the killer could have taken away almost every body part !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, as the organs were probably taken as trophies, and not the primary motive, he doesn't need all of them. The medical reports indicate her heart was missing. You can disregard the evidence if you want, but please do so in another thread as it's off topic here.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

There was a vertical gash from breastbone to pubis, the flesh was retracted, the intestines were pulled out and a section of colon had been cut out and left on the pavement. Of course the abdomen had been opened with the intent of removing the organs!

How in God's name did you get into the murder squad? More worryingly, how many obvious murderers are wandering freely in our midst because you completely overlooked what they did?

by his "out of the box" thinking Sam, cmon LOL!

[packers stem]

And there was sufficient light according to Sequeira.

I'll keep repeating this until I see it sinking in ....

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 ....

[JeffHamm]

Hi guys,

Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
There was a vertical gash from breastbone to pubis, the flesh was retracted, the intestines were pulled out and a section of colon had been cut out and left on the pavement. Of course the abdomen had been opened with the intent of removing the organs!

How in God's name did you get into the murder squad? More worryingly, how many obvious murderers are wandering freely in our midst because you completely overlooked what they did?
------------------------
by his "out of the box" thinking Sam, cmon LOL!

Let's keep the personal attacks out of it, please. And yes, Trevor's willingness to consider "other than the obvious" is an asset. It forces everyone, himself included, to carefully consider the evidence and where it leads. While he's convinced that it leads him in directions that I may disagree with, his arguments and suggestions have required me to look at the evidence more closely. And even by keeping to his insistance that Lawende's time of the sighting/end of the rain (1:35), and PC Havey's earliest patrol time (1:41), still leads to a 6 minute window in which to fit a 5 minute murder, with 1 minute available to the Church Passage Couple to make a 30 second journey. So even by his strictest criterion, there is nothing in the evidence that rules out that JtR had enough time to commit the murder and escape upon PC Harvey's arrival, which is likely to have caused him to flee. It also means that even in the most restrictive reading of the evidence there is still enough time for the Church Passage Couple to get from where they were last seen to the crime scene in time for that 5 minute murder to occur, which means they are not ruled out by any of the evidence.

The debate over removal of organs, and such, are not relevant to this thread, and personal attacks are not conducive to the sharing of ideas. What is relevant to this topic is whether or not the 5 minute window for the murder is reasonable. Trevor thinks that it is not, and that more time was required. But we don't know how much more time Trevor thinks would be required to do the murder including the taking of organs. Once we know his opinion on that, we can consider that information in light of the evidence we have and consider it's validity in and of itself. Without that information, however, we're at an impasse in the discussion because we don't know what the discussion is about.

The deer video is just to show how quickly a sharp knife can cut through very tough skin, and it shows the kind of cuts that are used to do so by one who cleans animals. It also shows that without working very fast one can entirely gut an animal in less than a minute. The amount of time to cut open the abdomen, remove a few flaps of skin, remove a few bits of intestines, remove a uterus with one sweep of the knife (thinking Chapman here), would take no more time than that, particularly if one is working even faster than the hunter in the video. Eddowes' murder and mutilations, including all of the organ harvesting is, in my view, more than possible in 5 minutes. But I want to know how long Trevor thinks would be required to do all that, because he clearly thinks more time is required because he thinks there wasn't enough time. So Trevor's view must be more than the 6 minutes, but how much more I have no idea, so I don't know what he's thinking.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem,

I'll keep repeating this until I see it sinking in ....

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 ....

If you're going to "if and maybe" his moonlit walks, why not "if and maybe" they turned off the light to, you know, get an idea of what the crime scene was like during the crime?

Oh, because that's not stated anywhere?

Oh, but it is stated that there was enough light?

Oh ....

-Jeff

[packers stem]

Hi packers stem,



If you're going to "if and maybe" his moonlit walks, why not "if and maybe" they turned off the light to, you know, get an idea of what the crime scene was like during the crime?

Oh, because that's not stated anywhere?

Oh, but it is stated that there was enough light?

Oh ....

-Jeff

Hi Jeff
The problem is the word of a doctor , who arrived in the square when at least three ,probably four and possibly more lamps were lighting that corner up .
his previous walks through should not be taken as evidence of anything due to variable moonlight .
By stating there would be enough light in that corner he was effectively suggesting that every night has equal moonlight ,irrespective of lunar cycle or cloud cover .
If anyone agrees with this nonsense we really are in trouble lol

Nick

[packers stem]

On the plus side at least he didn't stand up at the inquest and tell us it doesn't rain on mitre square as whenever he's walked through its been dry .....

[Joshua Rogan]

Neither moonlight nor fully functional lamps were available that night .

Do you have a source for the substandard lighting inside the square that night? I know that one outside the square was reported as below par on the night of the murder, but can't recall which one within the square wasn't working properly.