Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[FISHY1118]

Hi Jeff . That would be post 454.

[packers stem]

Hi packers stem,



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

Personally I do disagree with you with regards the anatomy and am not inclined to agree that a hunter would be accustomed to removal of kidneys or uteri.
The hunter method is similar to a fishmonger where everythung is dragged out without a thought as to what it is ... this was not the case with either Chapman or Eddowes .
Not sure why you felt I was doubting the medical testimony .I'm perfectly content with the testimonies of both Phillips and Brown ..... I have issues with the others but they have no relevance really .

The barber quip is in relation to Kos followers who unbelievably use having experience of being a barber as a qualification for kidney removal

I would stop concerning myself over the timings too much if I were you .
Either Watkins or Harvey perjured themseves , which one we don't know but their testimonies are contradictory , meaning that none of the timings can be trusted .

We won't agree on the medical testimony of course , but that's the nature of ripperology

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

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 .

Thanks for that. There would have been a blood trail from carrying her body. The throat would have bled the whole 11 metres, and left an 11 metre (or however long) trail. There wasn't one. And then there's the pulling up of the dress, and the placement of the intestines, all that has to be staged. As does the other aspects of the crime scene (the contents of her pockets, etc). If they just dumped her body, it would look like it was dumped, rather than look like she was killed where she was. The blood evidence, and all aspects of the crime scene, indicate she was killed on the very spot. And the noise of the transport wasn't heard, they still had to get there. And why transport the body that close, only to carry it into the square. One would transport it to the dump site and then dump and go. I'm afraid the whole "killed elsewhere" is a non-starter.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem,

Personally I do disagree with you with regards the anatomy and am not inclined to agree that a hunter would be accustomed to removal of kidneys or uteri.
The hunter method is similar to a fishmonger where everythung is dragged out without a thought as to what it is ... this was not the case with either Chapman or Eddowes .
Not sure why you felt I was doubting the medical testimony .I'm perfectly content with the testimonies of both Phillips and Brown ..... I have issues with the others but they have no relevance really .

The barber quip is in relation to Kos followers who unbelievably use having experience of being a barber as a qualification for kidney removal

I would stop concerning myself over the timings too much if I were you .
Either Watkins or Harvey perjured themseves , which one we don't know but their testimonies are contradictory , meaning that none of the timings can be trusted .

We won't agree on the medical testimony of course , but that's the nature of ripperology

Yes, the hunter's method is different (as I mentioned earlier), and I'm not really pushing that, just mentioning that some aspects of what JtR are very similar (the long abdominal cut, for example) and quite different from surgical procedures. Also, non-medical people who remove viscera and organs do not work with instruments, like retractors, etc, but learn to do much by feel (if you watched the deer video above, you can see, much of it is done "blind"). Where kidneys would be located would be within their knowledge base, particularly slaughter men and butchers, who would remove kidneys as they were items for sale.

The timing is important, as it tells us the window of opportunity, and whoever killed Eddowes had to be able to complete things within that window.

What makes you think Watkins or Harvey perjured themself? There's no contradiction in their testimony that I can see? Watkins says he patrolled at 1:30 and again at 1:44, and PC Harvey indicates he patrolled Church Passage around 1:41-142, and heard Morris's whistle a few minutes later. That actually is pretty consistent. What are you seeing different?

- Jeff

[packers stem]

What makes you think Watkins or Harvey perjured themself? There's no contradiction in their testimony that I can see? Watkins says he patrolled at 1:30 and again at 1:44, and PC Harvey indicates he patrolled Church Passage around 1:41-142, and heard Morris's whistle a few minutes later. That actually is pretty consistent. What are you seeing different?

- Jeff

Evening Jeff

Watkins claimed to be alone in Mitre Square waiting for Holland to come back with Sequeira .
Harvey claimed he was there with Watkins .

You can't be alone with a dead body in a square for 10 minutes and not notice your colleague standing next to you .
This can't be passed off as a mistake .

Someone was telling porkies, therefore it casts doubt on their beat times also as we can't know which one

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem,

Evening Jeff

Watkins claimed to be alone in Mitre Square waiting for Holland to come back with Sequeira .
Harvey claimed he was there with Watkins .

You can't be alone with a dead body in a square for 10 minutes and not notice your colleague standing next to you .
This can't be passed off as a mistake .

Someone was telling porkies, therefore it casts doubt on their beat times also as we can't know which one

Ah, I've not looked closely at the post-discovery testimony yet, having been focusing on events up to when Watkins reports finding Eddowes. I do know there was a lot of activity, with 3 plain-clothes detectives showing up and then heading out looking for witnesses (which has been argued could be the Blenkinsop event in St. James Place), and so forth. But, until I familiarize myself with that portion of the evidence, I can't contribute much other than thoughts on what sort of things I'll keep an eye out for, such as is there anything that indicates what PC Harvey was sent to do at some stage, maybe even just to secure the Mitre Street entrance, the discrepancy there would just reflect how they describe their situation. PC Harvey would consider himself "there" if he's standing at the entrance to Mtire Street (for the sake of argument, not saying he really was, but easier to describe through an example) while PC Watkins might consider himself alone, given he's standing over the body itself.

Again, this is just a hypothesis that occurs to me, and is not being presented as anything else. I'll try and get a look at the post-discovery testimony and events though. Even if some of their memories don't quite mesh, there will be a period where PC Watkins was alone with the body (Morris ran off looking for more help, and PC Harvey doesn't get there until after that happens). So, he may have over-estimated how long he was alone at that time. Again, without having the testimony in front of me I could very well off base already (just trying to think of ideas to be tested when I do look at the testimony; not looking for things to try and spin the date to fit - I'm more than happy to reject my own hypotheses, they're just useful ways to make predictions about what one would expect to find if true, but often people think they are what one has to make the data appear to show because by thinking of something we presume it's true. It doesn't work that way. Theories are just attempts to explain events, they are an attempt to "uncover the truth that we do not know directly", and the more they connect to the evidence and data, the more confident we can be that what actually happened will resemble what's put forth. The more evidence and data you have to discard, ignore, or claim is wrong, the less likely the theory is to resemble the actual events. That's in part because the less data and evidence one has, the less constrained the theory is, so it is able to expand in so many ways, many divergent with the actual events. The other reason is, of course, the more data and evidence one argues is flawed, or must be disregarded, the more one is shaping the evidence to fit the theory rather than the theory being what the evidence/data leads one too. Dismissal of data/evidence must be done only when there is clear evidence that it cannot "co-exist" with other data/evidence. (what you describe above, for example, PC Watkins cannot both be alone and with PC Harvey, therefore, either one of their testimonies is inaccurate, or there is a way to reconcile their apparently contradictory statements. I take the approach that if we can reconcile them, that probably is a good explanation as it should only be a last resort to say "so this evidence/data is just wrong". Not everybody takes that approach though, which is where a lot of the debate about particular suspects tend to focus - because depending upon which evidence/data one ignores as "wrong" is determined by what suspect they are arguing for. I don't have any suspect that I favor, so I try to retain all of the evidence and data that we have, in part, because we have so precious little to begin with.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

I've created a post for it .
There comes a point though where we have to stop looking for alternative realities just to make everything neat and tidy and accept something may be not as it should be
There are numerous testimony issues people have searched for bizarre alternative explanations for and it gets tedious and obstructive .
Phillips and Blackwell both claiming to hand each other the cachous
Brown removing the stomach contents and Saunders claiming he received the stomach sealed with the contents not interfered with .
The fruit stain on Strides handkerchief being mistaken for blood (as Phillips confirmed it wasn't blood ) would be absolutely any other fruit bar black grapes ....
see where I'm going here ?
We're either here to try to work out what happened as best we can or we're here to constantly search for objection and alternatives , no matter how bizarre .
That square wasn't huge and Watkins never mentioned Harvey by name at any point , both city pc's on neighbouring beats.... had he been in another part of the square , which he wouldn't be , they knew the killer had fled , Watkins would have said as such.

Harvey
Morning advertiser of the 12th

." We went together to Mitre square, where we saw Police constable Watkins. The constable (Holland) who followed me went for a medical man, and private individuals were despatched for more police assistance. It came almost immediately. I waited there with Constable Watkins and information was at once sent to the inspector.

and Watkins

I remained with the body until the arrival of Police-constable Holland. No one else was there before that but myself. He was followed by Dr. Sequeira. Inspector Collard arrived about two o'clock, and Dr. Brown, who is surgeon to the police force.

[Joshua Rogan]

Watkins claimed to be alone in Mitre Square waiting for Holland to come back with Sequeira .
Harvey claimed he was there with Watkins .

You can't be alone with a dead body in a square for 10 minutes and not notice your colleague standing next to you .
This can't be passed off as a mistake .

Someone was telling porkies, therefore it casts doubt on their beat times also as we can't know which one

I'm not sure that's true.
Holland was the first PC to arrive at the murder scene along with Harvey. Holland subsequently fetched Dr Sequeira and returned with him. Therefore Watkins wasn't alone until 1:55 when Holland arrived with Sequeira, only until Holland arrived the first time with Harvey, having been summoned by Morris.
The fact that Watkins doesn't mention Harvey arriving is not really significant; Harvey himself didn't do anything significant after he did arrive. Watkins doesn't mention Halse or the other plain clothes detectives arriving or leaving either, that doesn't mean that they didn't come and go.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hmm. Just noticed a new thread about Watkins and Harvey.

Jeff, the Star has the following to say about Watkins' timings. Does it have any bearing on their accuracy, do you think?

"Did you pass through Mitre-square at half-past one on Sunday morning? - Yes, sir.
.....
At half-past one did anything excite your attention? - No, sir.
......
When did you next come into Mitre-square? - About sixteen minutes to two, a time I fix by the reference I subsequently made to my watch."

[JeffHamm]

Hi Joshua,

Hmm. Just noticed a new thread about Watkins and Harvey.

Jeff, the Star has the following to say about Watkins' timings. Does it have any bearing on their accuracy, do you think?

"Did you pass through Mitre-square at half-past one on Sunday morning? - Yes, sir.
.....
At half-past one did anything excite your attention? - No, sir.
......
When did you next come into Mitre-square? - About sixteen minutes to two, a time I fix by the reference I subsequently made to my watch."

Those correspond to the times we've been working with concerning PC Watkins patrol between 1:30 and 1:144, which is what I've been working with. Other times, like PC Harvey's time for his patrol of Church Passage are based upon estimates of how long since the last time he notes the time at the Post Office clock, and Lawende end Levey's sighting times are based upon their individual estimates of how long they waited for the rain to stop after 1:30 (5 or 3-4 minutes, for Lawende and Levey, respectively; the 1:30 they give is based upon Lawende's watch and the club clock). So we have 3 different clocks (well, 4 actually, since Lawende mentions both the club clock and his watch, but as they were in sync, we'll treat them as one here), so one unknown is how well synchronized those times are. We can never answer this, of course, so I've been treating them as if they are all in sync with each other.

If we could gather more evidence, one thing I would want to do is compare PC Watkin's watch with the club clock and the Post-Office clock and see if any adjustments needed to be made when considering the reported times. Also, I would want to ask Lawende if he, during that night, had earlier set his watch to correspond to the club clock type thing.

Knowing that information could very well make a huge difference in either direction. Let's keep PC Watkins' watch as the "standard" for this discussion. Let's say that when Watkins watch reads 1:29 the club clock reads 1:30. That adds an entire minute to the window of opportunity but if the club clock reads 1:31 then we lose a minute, and given how tight things were, that would be important to know. Similar things happen with respect to when we consider the Post-Office clock. The difficulties with having these multiple clocks is one we can never answer, which is frustrating. What it means, though, is that while I've been treating the times in a sort of "hard and fast way", as if there is no error in them, in reality we have to look at all of those times with a margin of error associated with them. But because that margin of error means we have to consider the possibility there might have been even a bit more time available, that doesn't change the conclusion that the evidence points to there being sufficient time available.

The only time we can conclude that there wasn't enough time is when the maximum amount of time available, once margins of error and such are taken into consideration, is still not enough time. Provided the maximum amount of time available the evidence allows is sufficient, then the hypothesis remains.

Now, without margins of error, even the minimum time is sufficient (we have a minimum of 6 minutes, need 5), which works strongly against the argument he didn't have enough time, unless one starts to disregard or ignore the medical opinions (that 5 minutes was enough time for someone with anatomical knowledge). Given some patterns of clock "desync" could result in that minimum time being less than 5 minutes, we end up with some possibility that there was insufficient time, but only if the unknown desync values fall in certain ways, other values, equally probable, give us more time rather than less. But trying to get agreement on the fact that 5 < 6 without considering this sort of error has been like trying to herd cats.

Anyway, in the end, though, the short story is that the evidence, even taking into consideration margins of error and so forth, does not indicate there was insufficient time available, so arguing a theory based upon that claim is a false argument. Now, just because there was sufficient time available doesn't mean the alternative explanations are necessarily wrong (having more time than necessary is not a problem after all), but if the whole basis for the alternative is "insufficient time", then that makes the alternative based upon a false premise, which lowers it in terms of prioritizing, or ranking, of the explanations.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Well it like i said Jeff i wont get into motives about why certain things were done as to the arrangement of the body parts and why Mitre square was the intended spot for her being dumped there , thats a topic for another day , but ill stand by the claim that scenario could have taken place no problem. If there was a mode of transport used it doesn't necessarily have to been seen and heard, there might not have been anyone around to see or hear it if its outside the area of the square.Dont forget people would have been well acclimatized to hearing things being transported in and around the whitechapel area during all hours of the day and night ,not associating with anything out of the ordinary. As for the trail of blood well yes its possible there could have been, but that depends on a number of factors as well . so motive debatable , execution certainly possible.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

Well it like i said Jeff i wont get into motives about why certain things were done as to the arrangement of the body parts and why Mitre square was the intended spot for her being dumped there , thats a topic for another day , but ill stand by the claim that scenario could have taken place no problem.

Simply because something is possible isn't a great argument to say it happened. Anything that is not physically impossible could have happened. However, when something does happen it generally leaves it's impression behind, like a mouse leaving footprints in the snow. So simply because something is not outside the realm of physical possibility, and so could have happened, doesn't mean it did happen, or even that it is reasonable to suggest that it did. What we look for are those footprints, and from that we try and determine what did happen. We won't be 100% accurate, of course, because some of those footprints are covered up, or mixed up with other footprints from other things that also happened. Some events leave larger impressions than others, and carrying a body with a cut throat and opened gut cavity from the street to a secluded corner of Mitre Square is one of those things that leaves a big footprint. But those prints were looked for by the police at the time and they did not find them. But we do see a pool of clotted blood, right beside her neck, we know it ran under her neck to her right side, where (from the inquest testimony) we know there was a large pool of fluid, serum (i.e. diluted blood that didn't clot because it's thinned out). Those bits of testimony are the footprints, and the water that diluted the blood was from the previous rain, which also left it's footprint in other places, like the testimony of Lawende and Levey. We can see bits and pieces of the trail that the true events have left behind, and it is our job to try and understand what made those impressions. Not try and make up reasons to explain why the elephant left no footprints behind simply because we like elephants. The evidence we have, the testimonies of witnesses, their recollection of what they did, are the only access we have to what was the trail left behind by the events that night. We don't even get to observe the trail directly, but only after they filtered through the memories of the witnesses as they testify, and that distorts and blurrs the trail, and we have to deal with the ambiguity of language, written down with the associated transcription errors, with editorial contribution at times, and so forth. All of these things blur, but do not obliterate, the trail and impressions we are looking for, those tiny indentations that truth left behind for us, over 130 years later, to try and understand the last days of a number of women who were murdered in the late 1880s. We may never be able to determine who JtR was, but we can at least try and preserve what aspect of truth remains.

If there was a mode of transport used it doesn't necessarily have to been seen and heard, there might not have been anyone around to see or hear it if its outside the area of the square.

And if there wasn't any mode of transport, there was nothing to be seen or heard or spotted. We have nothing to indicate a mode of transport existed, and what we have is consistent with the murder happening in the very location she was found. Just because a transport "could" have been used doesn't mean it was - it's also possible JtR "could" have decided not to kill her - but he didn't. The explanation, involving transports, and carrying bodies, and so forth, describe events that leave their footprints behind. We might not find all the prints they would have left, but we would expect to find at least some of them. And the evidence of those events, that might exist in the world of "is possible" have left no signs of their passing this way, this time.

Dont forget people would have been well acclimatized to hearing things being transported in and around the whitechapel area during all hours of the day and night ,not associating with anything out of the ordinary. As for the trail of blood well yes its possible there could have been, but that depends on a number of factors as well . so motive debatable , execution certainly possible.

A body with the neck slashed, the face mutilated, the abdomen wide open, leaves a trail of blood when you carry it. Particularly if it's still bleeding and the blood hasn't clotted yet, and only does so after you put it to the ground. There's no "could have" left a trail, it "would have" left a sizable trail, it's an elephant set of footprints. So possible in terms of within the realm of physically possible things people can do, yes, people can carry bodies. But is it possible given the marks that the actual events left behind? No. The evidence we have makes that humanly possible activity not possible on this occasion. The evidence does not allow for it, and the evidence, blurred and distorted as it may be, is what determines that which is possible.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Thanks Jeff ,i think you just made an argument as to why Eddows was not strangled first before she was forced to the ground and had her throat cut. [remember the marks and abrasions ?.... ill use the same argument as you, just because they were there doesn't mean she was strangled.. Almost as good as Trevors'' she had he back to the killer and had her throat cut while in the standing position. those poor mice feet would need a good scrubbing after trampling in her blood all around her body if that were the case.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

Thanks Jeff ,i think you just made an argument as to why Eddows was not strangled first before she was forced to the ground and had her throat cut. [remember the marks and abrasions ?.... ill use the same argument as you, just because they were there doesn't mean she was strangled.. Almost as good as Trevors'' she had he back to the killer and had her throat cut while in the standing position. those poor mice feet would need a good scrubbing after trampling in her blood all around her body if that were the case.

The strangulation hypothesis is one where the "footprints" are faint, and perhaps the only impressions we have left is the fact that there was no scream. That's not a very deep impression though. But somehow she was put to the ground without any sound being heard, and no signs of a struggle (but what signs there could be on a paved surface I don't know), and her throat was cut where she lay. Trevor's idea of cutting it while she was standing would have left blood on the front of her clothes, and I believe (unless I'm confusing cases here) it was reported there were no blood stains on the front of her clothes. But, I suppose if she bled to the side, rather than forwards, that might be indistinguishable from bleeding while on the ground. And with the rain water about, some of the blood evidence would be unclear, as the blood will be falling onto a wet surface, etc.

Dr. Brown's inquest testimony (when he was recalled) suggests otherwise though:

Mr. Crawford - The theory has been forward that it is possible for the deceased to have been taken to Mitre-square after her murder. What is your opinion about that?

Dr. Brown - I think there is no doubt on the point. The blood at the left side of the deceased was clotted, and must have flowed from her at the time of the injury to the throat. I do not believe the deceased moved in the slightest way after her throat was cut.

And that speaks to the whole "killed elsewhere" set of ideas as well.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Evening Jeff

Watkins claimed to be alone in Mitre Square waiting for Holland to come back with Sequeira .
Harvey claimed he was there with Watkins .

You can't be alone with a dead body in a square for 10 minutes and not notice your colleague standing next to you .
This can't be passed off as a mistake .

Someone was telling porkies, therefore it casts doubt on their beat times also as we can't know which one

This is a great example of why the sources must be scrutinized better to assess what motivations might have existed to create a need for altered realities. In the earlier murder that night one club attendee says he was sent out alone by Louis around 12:45 to look for help, where Louis says 2 parties were sent out for help..one with himself and the witness who says he was sent alone. Louis doesn't mention sending anyone out alone, and certainly not before 1am. 2 stories, which one was the reality? Most of the "supporting stories", ones that have the witness by the murder scene between 12:35 and 1am, see nothing, excluding the "theatrical" Israel Schwartz story, yet almost a handful of witnesses,...4 in all, saw activity in the passageway around 12:45am.

Which of these sources might have motivations to establish when the woman was found, after the fact?