Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Trevor Marriott]

Nothing remotely like that appears anywhere in the evidence - and I include the photographs in that.

Besides, you simply can't cut the spleen in that manner; it's way over to the left and obscured by the stomach and ribs. If you tried to cut to the lower part of the spleen by poking a knife through a midline abdominal incision you'd puncture the stomach.

Likewise, if you're using the knife in the manner you suggest, then you can't cut the pancreas to the left of the spinal column without also puncturing the stomach, because the pancreas lies behind it.

Yes it does look at the cuts to her clothing for a start !

PM report here are two stab wounds for a start

“Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut. Two cuts were shown by a jagging of the skin on the left side.

“There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

PM report here are two stab wounds for a start

"Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument..."

That's entirely irrelevant to the specific wounds I was discussing. I repeat, with emphasis:

"You simply can't cut the spleen in that manner; it's way over to the left and obscured by the stomach and ribs. If you tried to cut to the lower part of the spleen by poking a knife through a midline abdominal incision you'd puncture the stomach.

Likewise, if you're using the knife in the manner you suggest, then you can't cut the pancreas to the left of the spinal column without also puncturing the stomach, because the pancreas lies behind it."

[Trevor Marriott]

That's entirely irrelevant to the specific wounds I was discussing. I repeat, with emphasis:

"You simply can't cut the spleen in that manner; it's way over to the left and obscured by the stomach and ribs. If you tried to cut to the lower part of the spleen by poking a knife through a midline abdominal incision you'd puncture the stomach.

Likewise, if you're using the knife in the manner you suggest, then you can't cut the pancreas to the left of the spinal column without also puncturing the stomach, because the pancreas lies behind it."

See my previous post where i offer another solution to some of those injuries

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

That's entirely irrelevant to the specific wounds I was discussing. I repeat, with emphasis:

"You simply can't cut the spleen in that manner; it's way over to the left and obscured by the stomach and ribs. If you tried to cut to the lower part of the spleen by poking a knife through a midline abdominal incision you'd puncture the stomach.

Likewise, if you're using the knife in the manner you suggest, then you can't cut the pancreas to the left of the spinal column without also puncturing the stomach, because the pancreas lies behind it."

I think we ere talking about he beinh stabbed through her outer clothing at the outset, the stabs described by the doctors and the cuts to her clothing confirm that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

See my previous post where i offer another solution to some of those injuries

I have, and that's the post to which I originally responded. Your solution doesn't work, because, for the third time:

"You simply can't cut the spleen in that manner; it's way over to the left and obscured by the stomach and ribs. If you tried to cut to the lower part of the spleen by poking a knife through a midline abdominal incision you'd puncture the stomach.

Likewise, if you're using the knife in the manner you suggest, then you can't cut the pancreas to the left of the spinal column without also puncturing the stomach, because the pancreas lies behind it."

[Wickerman]

Yes it does look at the cuts to her clothing for a start !

PM report here are two stab wounds for a start

“Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut. Two cuts were shown by a jagging of the skin on the left side.

“There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, No!
The lower wound is correctly described as a stab because the evidence shows an external wound. The stab to the liver was not caused by a stab to her chest, otherwise the doctor would have described it as such. The liver was stabbed in consequence of the removal of her internal organs, and a slight liberal use of the knife. It was an internal wound.
And in neither case were there any matching cuts to her clothing.

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem,

Jeff , the point being that too many people have convinced themselves that absolutely no knowledge of anything anatomical was necessary ....
This has been going on for years , hence they will fight anything.
You accept some sort of dissection experience.
Most will not
I don't agree with you as the anatomy is different but at least you're not trying to pin it on a barber

Ah, ok, but barbers haven't come up in this thread so it sort of came out of the blue and confused me. And I'm just going with what the medical experts have specifically stated, so you're not disagreeing with me, you're dismissing the medical testimony. And while I think there are some things that we do have to set aside, such as estimates of time of death (because modern research has informed modern medical experts that the techniques employed in 1888 were unreliable), so far the modern consensus is still corroborating the view that all that was needed was a general idea of where the organs were, and how they are found, which hunters, slaughtermen, etc, would have. And to be clear, that doesn't mean JtR couldn't have had more knowledge than that, but that sets the minimum required. It tells us something. So like you, while I don't know who JtR was, or exactly what his profession was, etc, I do know he has a high probably of being someone who has experience removing visera and organs, though not necessarily from humans. Also, from all the medical opinions offered, with that level of anatomical knowledge, 5 minutes, possibily less, is all the time required to complete everything in Mitre Square. And to test those opinions, I looked at the testimony of the time of other events, events that independently set the time for the murder to start (end of rain) and for it to end (PC Harris's patrol) and find that at a minimum 6 minutes were available. And so I am forced to conclude that the evidence indicates JtR had sufficient time to do what he was purported to have done and must have had at least a butcher/slaughterman's level of anatomical knowledge to do so.

It's not really all that hard. It's just reading all the evidence, and putting all the pieces together that we're being told, and see if they conflict. If they conflict, there's a problem. They don't conflict, so there's no basis for dismissing it.

What it doesn't allow, though, is to conclude that the Church Passage Couple had to be Eddowes and JtR. It does mean they could be, and there's lots of tantalizing pointers to that, but they are not really very strong pointers. Lots of people would take shelter from the rain and move off when it stops, so the Church Passage Couple could be anyone. And there are other viable locations that are close enough for Eddowes and JtR to have been and still get to the crime scene and have at least 5 of even those 6 minutes (easier to explain if our minimum time window is wrong and it's closer to the 9 minute maximum window; split the difference and call it 7.5 minutes, and that's still plenty of time).

What it also means is that I'm not dismissing out of hand any of the case evidence and testimony. Sometimes that is necessary, as sometimes there are times that must clearly be wrong, or medical opinion of the day was based upon now known inaccurate methods, and so forth.

I'm interested in understanding what story the evidence actually tells. I also know that we'll get holes in parts of it, and some things we'll get close to but not conclusively (i.e. was the Church Passage Couple = Eddowes and JtR? maybe but maybe not. My bias is that they are more likely to be than not, but that's my opinion and gut feeling based upon the fact at least we have a weak identification of her clothes, and the fact that none of the evidence rules them out, but that's not a strong argument and I recognize that).

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown. ''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''.See for me im not as concerned with he time it took to commit the act 5, 7 ,9, 15 mins its more the act itself that puzzles me .Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown.'' i believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground''. Eddows throat was cut while she lay on the ground . But nowhere do we have any doctor saying at the Post Mortem or inquest she was strangled and rendered unconscious to get on the ground . Its simply implied by marks and abrasions on the body behind her ear, that could also have been cause during the cutting of her throat , there were no ligature marks to speak of [dont even go there]. But no conclusive evidence that states from a medical person that she was 100% strangled and rendered unconscious before the official cause of death by throat cut. This poses two questions 1 Why no struggle? .2 Why no scream ?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown. ''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''.See for me im not as concerned with he time it took to commit the act 5, 7 ,9, 15 mins its more the act itself that puzzles me .Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown.'' i believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground''. Eddows throat was cut while she lay on the ground . But nowhere do we have any doctor saying at the Post Mortem or inquest she was strangled and rendered unconscious to get on the ground . Its simply implied by marks and abrasions on the body behind her ear, that could also have been cause during the cutting of her throat , there were no ligature marks to speak of [dont even go there]. But no conclusive evidence that states from a medical person that she was 100% strangled and rendered unconscious before the official cause of death by throat cut. This poses two questions 1 Why no struggle? .2 Why no scream ?

As Trevor mentioned, strangulation does not always leave identifiable injuries, so their absence doesn't rule it out. One has to take into consideration other factors, for example, you're 2nd question "Why no scream?". We know there wasn't one, as there were many people within earshot. You take that as support for her being brought in by carriage, already dead and mutilated, and dumped there, despite nobody hearing a carriage or horses either. Others take that absence of a scream to suggest the possibility that she was first strangled.

Now it's not definitive by any means, but it would be consistent with his attack on Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols. I suppose, though, JtR could attack suddenly with some sort of hand over mouth type attack (stifling any scream) and quickly get the victim to the ground and cut their throat. But that all seems a bit hard to work out. How does he prevent the signs of struggle, since that is pretty much by definition a struggle. How does he get the knife out? (after he's got her on the ground, pinning her down, covering her mouth with one hand, then uses the other to get the knife? - just thinking "aloud" here and running with what occurs to me at the moment, not suggesting this is how things happened). But, what if that were the case? Maybe Eddowes bit him, hence the attack on her face? Yes, another wild speculation, and no, I'm not expecting agreement (I'll probably disagree with myself after a short while anyway ).

Anyway, as I'm saying, it's the lack of screaming for one, evidence she was on the ground when her throat was cut, and partly "seems to be what he did before", combined with the fact that strangulation doesn't always leave identifiable marks, that tends to point towards it. But sure, I suppose there are other things he could do to prevent her from screaming, but I don't know how successful those sorts of tactics would be? I know horse and carriages are also quite loud though, so "why no sound of a horse and carriage in the square?".

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Fishy,



As Trevor mentioned, strangulation does not always leave identifiable injuries, so their absence doesn't rule it out. One has to take into consideration other factors, for example, you're 2nd question "Why no scream?". We know there wasn't one, as there were many people within earshot. You take that as support for her being brought in by carriage, already dead and mutilated, and dumped there, despite nobody hearing a carriage or horses either. Others take that absence of a scream to suggest the possibility that she was first strangled.

Now it's not definitive by any means, but it would be consistent with his attack on Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols. I suppose, though, JtR could attack suddenly with some sort of hand over mouth type attack (stifling any scream) and quickly get the victim to the ground and cut their throat. But that all seems a bit hard to work out. How does he prevent the signs of struggle, since that is pretty much by definition a struggle. How does he get the knife out? (after he's got her on the ground, pinning her down, covering her mouth with one hand, then uses the other to get the knife? - just thinking "aloud" here and running with what occurs to me at the moment, not suggesting this is how things happened). But, what if that were the case? Maybe Eddowes bit him, hence the attack on her face? Yes, another wild speculation, and no, I'm not expecting agreement (I'll probably disagree with myself after a short while anyway ).

Anyway, as I'm saying, it's the lack of screaming for one, evidence she was on the ground when her throat was cut, and partly "seems to be what he did before", combined with the fact that strangulation doesn't always leave identifiable marks, that tends to point towards it. But sure, I suppose there are other things he could do to prevent her from screaming, but I don't know how successful those sorts of tactics would be? I know horse and carriages are also quite loud though, so "why no sound of a horse and carriage in the square?".

- Jeff

I for one suggest her throat was cut from behind whilsts she was standing !

As to screaming muffled sounds would not have been heard.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Ok lets take one step at a t time , 1st, Trevor is entitled to his opinion ,i just dont happen to agree with it . 2nd in both cases whether there were marks or abrasion on her cheek and neck or there were no marks on her cheek or neck Dr Brown does not give any indication Eddows was strangled which he clearly needed to ,because it leaves it open to interpretation that she was conscious when she was attacked or dragged to the ground when her throat was cut.And i think your missing the point that im making and that is yes, no one heard her scream which they clearly should have . Another point your confusing , i never stated that a horse and carriage were in the square thats just obvious ,if you go back and read my post i clearly give a possible explanation as to where and when it would be possible to dump a dead body in the square and be just as quiet as the killer. i suggest you re read that post .... i think your description of the struggle is exactly what we should have expected had she not been strangled first or unconscious befoer her throat was cut ... on the ground

[FISHY1118]

''I for one suggest her throat was cut from behind whilst she was standing'' .... There are very obvious problems where this is concern Trevor . Surely you dont want me to list them .

[JeffHamm]

Hi fishy,

.... Another point your confusing , i never stated that a horse and carriage were in the square thats just obvious ,if you go back and read my post i clearly give a possible explanation as to where and when it would be possible to dump a dead body in the square and be just as quiet as the killer. i suggest you re read that post ....

Sorry, I've gone back looking for it but can't find it? Can you direct me to the post-number and I'll go back and re-read your suggestion.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Fishy,



As Trevor mentioned, strangulation does not always leave identifiable injuries, so their absence doesn't rule it out. One has to take into consideration other factors, for example, you're 2nd question "Why no scream?". We know there wasn't one, as there were many people within earshot. You take that as support for her being brought in by carriage, already dead and mutilated, and dumped there, despite nobody hearing a carriage or horses either. Others take that absence of a scream to suggest the possibility that she was first strangled.

Now it's not definitive by any means, but it would be consistent with his attack on Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols. I suppose, though, JtR could attack suddenly with some sort of hand over mouth type attack (stifling any scream) and quickly get the victim to the ground and cut their throat. But that all seems a bit hard to work out. How does he prevent the signs of struggle, since that is pretty much by definition a struggle. How does he get the knife out? (after he's got her on the ground, pinning her down, covering her mouth with one hand, then uses the other to get the knife? - just thinking "aloud" here and running with what occurs to me at the moment, not suggesting this is how things happened). But, what if that were the case? Maybe Eddowes bit him, hence the attack on her face? Yes, another wild speculation, and no, I'm not expecting agreement (I'll probably disagree with myself after a short while anyway ).

Anyway, as I'm saying, it's the lack of screaming for one, evidence she was on the ground when her throat was cut, and partly "seems to be what he did before", combined with the fact that strangulation doesn't always leave identifiable marks, that tends to point towards it. But sure, I suppose there are other things he could do to prevent her from screaming, but I don't know how successful those sorts of tactics would be? I know horse and carriages are also quite loud though, so "why no sound of a horse and carriage in the square?".

- Jeff

Ive always held the belief that these similarities that you point out Jeff might just be more common than imagined. In the case of Liz Stride there is evidence that she was choked with her own scarf, might choking or strangulation be something that many killers might use practically in the of the night? Trying to keep the victim silent seems to me to be good business practice for anyone doing that sort of thing, and to be sure, there were more men that just this Jacky fellow running about at night committing acts of violence. Torso man, the men that killed Martha, Alice..there are just Five Canonicals among some 13 names in total the Unsolved File alone. Other killers in the same area at the same time was the reality.

Ive been interested to read the surgical specifics arguments these past few days, but I think overall Im content with my opinion that Kate Eddowes was killed by someone who did not have the background or experiences that Annies killer had, some semi-surgical grade knowledge. Its the only case where such persons were sought out...insane medical students, even the body part brokers theories suggest someone who had experiences cutting up either human or close proximity (pigs)cadavers of some kind....teaching hospitals were contacted, the investigation had turned to someone with at least some surgical knowledge.

There would be no reason to explore that idea with Liz Strides murder, nor.. in my opinion... with Marys murder, but with Annie the signs were there. And maybe with Kate, I have to leave that door open. Its the similarities that you mention, and the fact that the abdomen was the target again. The poor workmanship might be due to the speed used, if Lawende did see Kate for example, or the lack of light. Not sure.

[JeffHamm]

HI Michael,

Ive always held the belief that these similarities that you point out Jeff might just be more common than imagined. In the case of Liz Stride there is evidence that she was choked with her own scarf, might choking or strangulation be something that many killers might use practically in the of the night? Trying to keep the victim silent seems to me to be good business practice for anyone doing that sort of thing, and to be sure, there were more men that just this Jacky fellow running about at night committing acts of violence. Torso man, the men that killed Martha, Alice..there are just Five Canonicals among some 13 names in total the Unsolved File alone. Other killers in the same area at the same time was the reality.

Ive been interested to read the surgical specifics arguments these past few days, but I think overall Im content with my opinion that Kate Eddowes was killed by someone who did not have the background or experiences that Annies killer had, some semi-surgical grade knowledge. Its the only case where such persons were sought out...insane medical students, even the body part brokers theories suggest someone who had experiences cutting up either human or close proximity (pigs)cadavers of some kind....teaching hospitals were contacted, the investigation had turned to someone with at least some surgical knowledge.

There would be no reason to explore that idea with Liz Strides murder, nor.. in my opinion... with Marys murder, but with Annie the signs were there. And maybe with Kate, I have to leave that door open. Its the similarities that you mention, and the fact that the abdomen was the target again. The poor workmanship might be due to the speed used, if Lawende did see Kate for example, or the lack of light. Not sure.

It seems to me that strangling is adopted by a number of serial killers, though by no means universally adopted by them. Non-serial murders are, of course, most often disputes between people who have a relationship of some sort, spouse, family member, friend, work colleague/business partner, etc, or are associated with some sort of criminal activity (gang related). Strangling seems more common in the first of sorts of crimes - domestic murder of spouse (but this is just an impression I have from reading, and documentaries, true crime type shows, etc, which is, of course a biased set of all murders so not a great sample to base much on, but it's all I've got, so take this with a large does of skepticism - I don't really trust me myself! ha ha). Most non-serial murders, but of course not all, occur in a moment of anger that has flared up after a period of long standing disputes.

So, I don't know how common it might be in terms of determining how likely strangling would occur in two separate murders. I'm not really sure Stride was strangled, though he might have grabbed her scarf as she fled which would have choked her briefly and possibly prevented any loud screams. If she is a JtR victim, something went "wrong", either he got spooked by something (Diemshutz being the usual explanation, but it could have been something else of course) or something else didn't go "right" in his mind and he aborted after cutting her throat. Of course, if she's not a JtR victim, then the lack of strangulation isn't telling. If she is, though, then it looks sort of like Stride was a bungled attempt. Anyway, Liz is a different topic for a different thread, so I'll stop pondering along those lines.

As for the background, I think the amount of skill shown in Annie's murder is a bit over-stated. He did, after all, damage the bladder. Also, in all likelihood she was killed while the dawn was breaking, so he would have had more light. The other similar behaviours, removal of intestines, and so forth, connect the two I think. I know that's a topic of debate, but the reduced light, the fact he's out in the open where the police could come by any moment, and also, it could be JtR was drunk to some extent when he committed the crimes. Annie, being closer to morning, could also mean JtR was more sober. If he's had a few pints earlier in the night, then Eddowes murder would be at a time when his motor skills would be reduced (note, I don't mean falling down drunk or anything like that, but had enough that the difference shows - again, just letting my thoughts wonder here, it speculation, but again, counter-arguments that inflate what I'm suggesting to him being exceptionally drunk would be countering something I'm not intending here).

Anyway, I think with Annie, being so grossly displayed, and then to find her uterus was taken, was something for which there was nothing for them to compare to. And, in the end, there was a lot of looking into butchers, cattle-boat men, and horse slaughterers as well. It appears even with Annie, they were looking for anyone with at least the anatomical knowledge of those groups, so not surprising they would also consider groups that might have more specific human anatomical knowledge as well.

- Jeff