Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[jerryd]

Hi Fishy,



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

Dr. Brown also had this to say, according to a juryman. "He" is referring to Dr. Brown.

By a juryman. - He did not think any drug was administered to the woman, judging from the breath; but he had not yet examined the contents of the stomach.

What breath? She was dead.

[Sam Flynn]

By a juryman. - He did not think any drug was administered to the woman, judging from the breath; but he had not yet examined the contents of the stomach.

For those who might wonder, this rather odd wording "By [a] XYZ" means that the witness was responding to a question asked by XYZ.

So in this instance, he [Brown] was answering a question from a juryman; presumably something like "Do you think that the woman had been drugged, doctor?". Brown would have said something like this in reply: "I don't believe that any drug had been administered, judging by the woman's breath. However, I have yet to examine the contents of her stomach".

I'm sure you knew that, Jerry, but there might be some out there who didn't. The old-fashioned style of reporting can be confusing!

What breath? She was dead.

You can still sniff the air in someone's mouth even after death, and some poisonous substances might give off an odour could leave traces on the tongue and palate. Perhaps "breath" was a short-hand way to avoid saying all that?

Also, any residual air in the lungs could be expelled after death to "manufacture" a breath, I guess.

[Joshua Rogan]

Here is the Telegraph's version;

"A Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used? - I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis."

[packers stem]

Here is the Telegraph's version;

"A Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used? - I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis."

Yep ..... in a jar

Though by the time Saunders got to them they were back in the stomach , uninterfered with and the stomach tied and sealed

[packers stem]

Apologies Joshua
missed this before

The Times of the 1st

On two sides of the square are the warehouses of Messrs. Kearney [sic] and Tonge, and adjoining them are two old houses, which exactly face the scene of the murder - the wide pavement opposite, where, it is stated, there was some deficiency of light from the gas-lamp.

The one at the entrance to the square couldn't be seen from where the body was found and the only fully functional lamp was at the entrance to church passage some 20+ yards away

[Joshua Rogan]

Apologies Joshua
missed this before

The Times of the 1st

On two sides of the square are the warehouses of Messrs. Kearney [sic] and Tonge, and adjoining them are two old houses, which exactly face the scene of the murder - the wide pavement opposite, where, it is stated, there was some deficiency of light from the gas-lamp.

The one at the entrance to the square couldn't be seen from where the body was found and the only fully functional lamp was at the entrance to church passage some 20+ yards away

Ah, thanks for that. Well done for remembering, never mind finding the quote.

I know what your reaction will be, but I don't think that says that the lamp didn't work properly. The phrase "it is said" indicates that the reporter hadn't actually been to the site himself. And he's actually describing the site of the murder as having a deficiency of light, and saying what we already know; simply, that it's the darkest corner of the square.

[packers stem]

Ah, thanks for that. Well done for remembering, never mind finding the quote.

I know what your reaction will be, but I don't think that says that the lamp didn't work properly. The phrase "it is said" indicates that the reporter hadn't actually been to the site himself. And he's actually describing the site of the murder as having a deficiency of light, and saying what we already know; simply, that it's the darkest corner of the square.

You're entitled to your thoughts .
I see no grounds for that opinion though .

'It is stated' presumably from someone who was aware of the lamp .
"Some deficiency of light from the lamp" really is what it says on the tin.

There's no issue here as far as I'm concerned

[JeffHamm]

Hi Joshua,

Ah, thanks for that. Well done for remembering, never mind finding the quote.

I know what your reaction will be, but I don't think that says that the lamp didn't work properly. The phrase "it is said" indicates that the reporter hadn't actually been to the site himself. And he's actually describing the site of the murder as having a deficiency of light, and saying what we already know; simply, that it's the darkest corner of the square.

The phrasing does suggest the the lamp had a deficiency of light, but I can see how your interpretation works. There was a statement, by a juror I think, at the inquest stating that the lighting was poor in the area, but had since been improved. I can't recall off hand if that referred to the end of Church Passage where the couple was spotted or if it was the crime scene. If the latter, it would suggest the lamp burned low and didn't cast as good a light as was typical. Regardless, though, the important point (which holds for all "lamp situations") is that the corner where the crime occurred was in shadow, so darker than the other parts of the square. That indicates that poeple looking into the square would be in an area of light, even if it's poor light, and looking into an area without, which greatly reduces what they can see in the dark zone. Someone in the dark zone, though, can see quite well though.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

The phrasing does suggest the the lamp had a deficiency of light, but I can see how your interpretation works.

I hate to disagree with you Jeff, but I'm sticking to my guns. The Times is talking about "the scene of the murder....where...
there was some deficiency of light from the gas-lamp."

There's no lamp in or even near the murder site. So it must be saying that insufficient light it reaching the corner fron the lamp. Not that insufficient light is leaving the lamp. If that were the case there would be a "deficiency of light" everywhere, not just that particular spot.
Now it might possibly be that the deficiency was caused by the lamp being defective, or that the lamp was simply too far away to illuminate the murder site effectively, or it may even be a rephrasing of other reports that say the lamp in the Mitre Street entrance threw a shadow into that corner (there was certainly a deficiency of light reaching the corner from *that* lamp, however powerful it might have been).
If there was a lamp at the murder site, or if the report had already mentioned the lamp it was referring to, then fair enough. But since there were two lamps within the square which threw light directly (however ineffectually) onto the murder spot, it's strange to refer to "the gas-lamp" singular.

Well, that's how I read it.

There was a statement, by a juror I think, at the inquest stating that the lighting was poor in the area, but had since been improved. I can't recall off hand if that referred to the end of Church Passage where the couple was spotted or if it was the crime scene.

This is, I think, from Levy's sighting in Duke St, and according to one paper, at least, he mentions it is the light outside the club.

Morning Advertiser 12 Oct;

"The spot is better lighted now than it was prior to the morning of the murder. There is a better light at the club now than there used to be, and with the aid of the lamp a few yards off I could distinguish almost anybody. On the night in question, however, there was not sufficient light to enable me to distinguish the colour of the dress which the woman was wearing."

[packers stem]

I hate to disagree with you Jeff, but I'm sticking to my guns. The Times is talking about "the scene of the murder....where...
there was some deficiency of light from the gas-lamp."

There's no lamp in or even near the murder site. So it must be saying that insufficient light it reaching the corner fron the lamp. Not that insufficient light is leaving the lamp. If that were the case there would be a "deficiency of light" everywhere, not just that particular spot.
Now it might possibly be that the deficiency was caused by the lamp being defective, or that the lamp was simply too far away to illuminate the murder site effectively, or it may even be a rephrasing of other reports that say the lamp in the Mitre Street entrance threw a shadow into that corner (there was certainly a deficiency of light reaching the corner from *that* lamp, however powerful it might have been).
If there was a lamp at the murder site, or if the report had already mentioned the lamp it was referring to, then fair enough. But since there were two lamps within the square which threw light directly (however ineffectually) onto the murder spot, it's strange to refer to "the gas-lamp" singular.

Well, that's how I read it.



This is, I think, from Levy's sighting in Duke St, and according to one paper, at least, he mentions it is the light outside the club.

Morning Advertiser 12 Oct;

"The spot is better lighted now than it was prior to the morning of the murder. There is a better light at the club now than there used to be, and with the aid of the lamp a few yards off I could distinguish almost anybody. On the night in question, however, there was not sufficient light to enable me to distinguish the colour of the dress which the woman was wearing."

You seem to have forgotten there was a lamp at the entrance to church passage in the square which wasn't deficient !
That corner was no more dependent on one nor the other .
Neither would shine light that far and the Church passage one was only two or three yards further away from the location of the body than the one that was stated to be deficient .
Two or three yards difference in lamps that were 20 or so yards away can hardly mean that the lamp you refer to should be, in some way, so dominant that someone should blame that particular lamp and not the Church passage one .....
No, the lamp was faulty

[JeffHamm]

I hate to disagree with you Jeff, but I'm sticking to my guns. The Times is talking about "the scene of the murder....where...
there was some deficiency of light from the gas-lamp."

There's no lamp in or even near the murder site. So it must be saying that insufficient light it reaching the corner fron the lamp. Not that insufficient light is leaving the lamp. If that were the case there would be a "deficiency of light" everywhere, not just that particular spot.
Now it might possibly be that the deficiency was caused by the lamp being defective, or that the lamp was simply too far away to illuminate the murder site effectively, or it may even be a rephrasing of other reports that say the lamp in the Mitre Street entrance threw a shadow into that corner (there was certainly a deficiency of light reaching the corner from *that* lamp, however powerful it might have been).
If there was a lamp at the murder site, or if the report had already mentioned the lamp it was referring to, then fair enough. But since there were two lamps within the square which threw light directly (however ineffectually) onto the murder spot, it's strange to refer to "the gas-lamp" singular.

Well, that's how I read it.

I can't say your wrong as I do think your reading is plausible. In the end, though, whether the lamp was dimmer than the norm, or typical, or even brighter, we do know that the location of the body was described as the darkest corner of the square. The fine details of the relative workings of the lighting fixtures gets us no closer to actual measures of brightness.

What I don't know, and would like to find out (I'm sure someone here knows this), is how big of an area did a gas lamp "light up" (ok, yes, I know, some light travels to all locations, but basically, what's the utilitarian radius of a gas lamp?)

This is, I think, from Levy's sighting in Duke St, and according to one paper, at least, he mentions it is the light outside the club.

Morning Advertiser 12 Oct;

"The spot is better lighted now than it was prior to the morning of the murder. There is a better light at the club now than there used to be, and with the aid of the lamp a few yards off I could distinguish almost anybody. On the night in question, however, there was not sufficient light to enable me to distinguish the colour of the dress which the woman was wearing."

Yah, I had this sneaky suspicion that what I was recalling had to do with the lighting at the other end of Church Passage.

Anyway, here's a map I've found that has the two Mitre Square gas lamps marked (blue dots), just so people can orient themselves. Notice the one at the Mitre Square end of Church Passage. When PC Harvey patrols from Duke Street, that lamp would interfere with his ability to see beyond it and into the dark corner. But it would alert JtR to PC Harvey's arrival as PC Harvey is in the light. It's that gas lamp that makes me think it is very possible that PC Harvey didn't see JtR - he couldn't because of the interference with his vision by the intervening light source.

- Jeff

[jerryd]

Regarding lamps in the square:

[JeffHamm]

Hi jerryd,

Regarding lamps in the square:

Nice. I've not seen that one before.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Yer nice post jerryd , i must say im at a loss as to accepting how the killer was able to do all that said to have been done in 5 mins , and in near total darkness. Beats the hell outta me .And to boot, being attacked and dragged to the ground then her throat being cut , all without a single sound or signs of a struggle. might as well believe in the tooth fairy .

[Trevor Marriott]

Regarding lamps in the square:

This questions Dr Sequeira stating there was sufficient light, and by that I take his 3 minutes to mean enough light to carry out the murder, and mutilations, but nothing else.

Victorian street lamps only emitted a downward beam of light which lit no more than a small area around the base of the lamp. That is why street prostitutes through the ages have been pictured standing under a street lamp plying their trade.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk