Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Sam Flynn]

Cheers. Is that from a newspaper report or official testimony? I haven't got my books at the mo so can't find it myself.

It's carried by some provincial newspapers' coverage of the inquest, e.g. the Birmingham Daily Post and the Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, on 5th October 1888.

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem,

Hi Jeff

it was not a deliberate attempt to confuse anything .
I'm unaware of any mention by Sequeira of asking for the light to be shone on the body .
If you find it please post it here .... thanks in advance .
Halse did , he wanted to confirm that there was indeed a murder victim on the ground .

I would like to believe that Holland ,Watkins and probably Morris decided to ignore that Dr Sequeira wanted to check blood vessels etc without light , I really would but silly me , I keep suspecting that when the good doctor was knelt over the body they would take it upon themselves to shine the lamps for him .
Maybe when he arrived they just turned them off and turned them back on only when Halse questioned them as to the location of the body

Morning Advertiser 12th


For how long do you think the life would have been extinct? - I arrived at that in a very few minutes. Probably not more than a quarter of an hour. I could tell from the condition of the blood and the blood vessels.

Halse arrived after Dr. Sequeira. So, if Halse had to ask for the lights to be turned on the crime scene after Dr. Sequeira was there, what does that tell you about Dr. Sequeira's experience with the lighting conditions?

And no, Halse doesn't need to the lamps in order to determine there's a body, but he will want to see the details because he's a police officer who will need to report upon them. It was dark, light makes it easier to see and get the fine details. JtR doesn't need fine details and wasn't examining the scene, he was working in haste with no regard for excess damage, etc. They are not in a cave, there is sufficient light to see at night, even when it's cloudy. You're presentation makes it sound like you think that when the lamps were turned off it was equivalent to putting blindfolds on.

And, you're the one who keeps saying that Sequeira can't tell us that there was sufficient light because there were lights to be directed at the body. But you're right, I can't think of any testimony where he asks for light, though I suspect he did, but at the moment I can't think of anywhere where such a request by Dr. Sequeira is recorded. But, given Halse asked for light and he arrived after Dr. Sequeira, then I think it is up to you to provide evidence that he did, otherwise, all we have is someone who arrived after Dr. Sequeira asking for light, which means Dr. Sequeira is entirely able to inform us that there was sufficient light in the area without lamps being shone on the body.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

Hi packers stem,



Halse arrived after Dr. Sequeira. So, if Halse had to ask for the lights to be turned on the crime scene after Dr. Sequeira was there, what does that tell you about Dr. Sequeira's experience with the lighting conditions?

And no, Halse doesn't need to the lamps in order to determine there's a body, but he will want to see the details because he's a police officer who will need to report upon them. It was dark, light makes it easier to see and get the fine details. JtR doesn't need fine details and wasn't examining the scene, he was working in haste with no regard for excess damage, etc. They are not in a cave, there is sufficient light to see at night, even when it's cloudy. You're presentation makes it sound like you think that when the lamps were turned off it was equivalent to putting blindfolds on.

And, you're the one who keeps saying that Sequeira can't tell us that there was sufficient light because there were lights to be directed at the body. But you're right, I can't think of any testimony where he asks for light, though I suspect he did, but at the moment I can't think of anywhere where such a request by Dr. Sequeira is recorded. But, given Halse asked for light and he arrived after Dr. Sequeira, then I think it is up to you to provide evidence that he did, otherwise, all we have is someone who arrived after Dr. Sequeira asking for light, which means Dr. Sequeira is entirely able to inform us that there was sufficient light in the area without lamps being shone on the body.

- Jeff

Jeff
if you really want to believe that the officers did not shine their lanterns into that corner for Sequeira to carry out an examination and check the blood and blood vessels then there is nothing I will be able to say to change your mind .
I grew up in the country , walking home through fields and along public footpaths .... I know what real dark is when there's no moonlight and heavy cloud cover .
It's up to you what you believe
I'm just stunned that you're trying to convince anyone that Sequeira wasn't aided by the light of the coppers standing next to him .
I'll leave you with your thoughts

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem,

Jeff
if you really want to believe that the officers did not shine their lanterns into that corner for Sequeira to carry out an examination and check the blood and blood vessels then there is nothing I will be able to say to change your mind .

Of course I do. But you've been the one asking for evidence in testimony that this was done. I can't do that, and so, based upon your line of reasoning that should mean you don't believe it was done (just like you don't believe PC Harvey and PC Holland both showed up together, piror to which PC Watkins was alone, and then PC Holland went off to get Dr. Sequeira because PC Watkins didn't mention PC Harvey's arrival. And that despite both PC Harvey and Morris both testifying that was the order of things. But now, you are applying the exact opposite tactic.

I grew up in the country , walking home through fields and along public footpaths .... I know what real dark is when there's no moonlight and heavy cloud cover .
It's up to you what you believe

So did I, and so do I. And I know that one can still see things that are right in front of you, as Eddowes would be when JtR was mutilating her. Yes, things get harder to see at a greater distance, but JtR wasn't 10 feet away.

I'm just stunned that you're trying to convince anyone that Sequeira wasn't aided by the light of the coppers standing next to him .
I'll leave you with your thoughts

I'm not, I'm simply following your line of argument. I'm quite sure he requested the lights to be employed when he did his examination. You are the one who claims that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence - at least when it comes to PC Harvey. You've rejected all arguments to the contrary despite there even being evidence that PC Harvey and PC Holland arrived together to find a solitary PC Watkins. So I'm using your form of reasoning here. But Halse's request does point to the fact that the lights were not always focused on the body, once again demonstrating that Dr. Sequeira had an opportunity to observe the lighting - why that needs such an awful amount of explanation is because you keep swithcing how you employ the evidence to make claims in order to make it sound like things are consistent with your overall theory. What I'm demonstrating above is how, when your approach is used consistently, it fails to produce a coherent picture of the events.

All I've suggested with regards to Dr. Sequeira's comment that there was sufficient light for JtR to do what he did is point out that someone at the scene is capable of making that decision. You've argued that you know better and that the body was constantly lit up, and he couldn't possibly know (but apparently you can). What we see, though, is that Dr. Sequeira arrived when there were few people (PC Watkins, Havey, Holland, and Morris). He would have examined the scene (lit up to make observations of the body), and we know that it was not lit up at some point as Halse had to request lighting for him to do his own inspection of the crime scene. There was lots of opportunity for Dr. Sequeira to make his observation, yet you've argued that because it is not stated directly somewhere (other than Dr. Sequeira's observation itself of course), that we can't assume it happened despite the obviously simple ways in which such an observation could be made. So, again, by your criterion, we have no direct testimony that Dr. Sequeira had lights on the body, and we do have a later request for lights, your approach should be to argue he did it all int he dark (so I suppose you could question the reliability of his crime scene comments).

So no, it's you who has to justify your lines of reasoning, and why your approach changes whenever it starts to interfere with the explanation you've offered.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

...Dr. Sequeira is entirely able to inform us that there was sufficient light in the area without lamps being shone on the body.

Moreover, Sequeira lived nearby and was familiar with the locale.

[packers stem]

Hi packers stem,



Of course I do. But you've been the one asking for evidence in testimony that this was done. I can't do that, and so, based upon your line of reasoning that should mean you don't believe it was done (just like you don't believe PC Harvey and PC Holland both showed up together, piror to which PC Watkins was alone, and then PC Holland went off to get Dr. Sequeira because PC Watkins didn't mention PC Harvey's arrival. And that despite both PC Harvey and Morris both testifying that was the order of things. But now, you are applying the exact opposite tactic.


So did I, and so do I. And I know that one can still see things that are right in front of you, as Eddowes would be when JtR was mutilating her. Yes, things get harder to see at a greater distance, but JtR wasn't 10 feet away.

I'm not, I'm simply following your line of argument. I'm quite sure he requested the lights to be employed when he did his examination. You are the one who claims that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence - at least when it comes to PC Harvey. You've rejected all arguments to the contrary despite there even being evidence that PC Harvey and PC Holland arrived together to find a solitary PC Watkins. So I'm using your form of reasoning here. But Halse's request does point to the fact that the lights were not always focused on the body, once again demonstrating that Dr. Sequeira had an opportunity to observe the lighting - why that needs such an awful amount of explanation is because you keep swithcing how you employ the evidence to make claims in order to make it sound like things are consistent with your overall theory. What I'm demonstrating above is how, when your approach is used consistently, it fails to produce a coherent picture of the events.

All I've suggested with regards to Dr. Sequeira's comment that there was sufficient light for JtR to do what he did is point out that someone at the scene is capable of making that decision. You've argued that you know better and that the body was constantly lit up, and he couldn't possibly know (but apparently you can). What we see, though, is that Dr. Sequeira arrived when there were few people (PC Watkins, Havey, Holland, and Morris). He would have examined the scene (lit up to make observations of the body), and we know that it was not lit up at some point as Halse had to request lighting for him to do his own inspection of the crime scene. There was lots of opportunity for Dr. Sequeira to make his observation, yet you've argued that because it is not stated directly somewhere (other than Dr. Sequeira's observation itself of course), that we can't assume it happened despite the obviously simple ways in which such an observation could be made. So, again, by your criterion, we have no direct testimony that Dr. Sequeira had lights on the body, and we do have a later request for lights, your approach should be to argue he did it all int he dark (so I suppose you could question the reliability of his crime scene comments).

So no, it's you who has to justify your lines of reasoning, and why your approach changes whenever it starts to interfere with the explanation you've offered.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
Seems you are getting a little confused .
It was HALSE who asked for the light to be shone
I quoted the relevant part of the testimony in response to you telling me that Sequeira asked them to point their lamps at the body .There is no evidence of this claim of yours I post 652 and that's why i asked you to post evidence of your claim .

Yes, they would. As Joshua pointed out, he asked them too. Which means they weren't shining their lights on the body before that, which in turn means it's a trivial matter for him to have noted how much light there was at the time.

Halse arrived some ten minutes after Sequeira

You seem to be attempting to cloud issues by mentioning the Watkins inquest and the FACT that if Watkins was correct then Harvey was not present .
This has no bearing on whether or not Sequeira could see in the dark .

So you see, it's not my approach that keeps switching at all .
Enjoy your evening

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem,

Hi Jeff
Seems you are getting a little confused .
It was HALSE who asked for the light to be shone
I quoted the relevant part of the testimony in response to you telling me that Sequeira asked them to point their lamps at the body .There is no evidence of this claim of yours I post 652 and that's why i asked you to post evidence of your claim .

As I said, there is no recorded testimony of him asking, but it is clear that when he checked the body the lights would have been shown on the body to assist them. By his request, either spoken or assumed, given it would be necessary. You have been arguing that things not stated didn't happen. You're now switching who has made which claim.

Yes, they would. As Joshua pointed out, he asked them too. Which means they weren't shining their lights on the body before that, which in turn means it's a trivial matter for him to have noted how much light there was at the time.

Thank you for repeating back to me exactly what I have been saying all along and which you have been arguing against, but now you try and present it as your stance. I'm assuming you now agree with me that Dr. Sequeira's claim that the light was sufficient is valid.

Halse arrived some ten minutes after Sequeira

Yes, as I said above, though I didn't state 10 minutes, just said he arrived later.

You seem to be attempting to cloud issues by mentioning the Watkins inquest and the FACT that if Watkins was correct then Harvey was not present .
This has no bearing on whether or not Sequeira could see in the dark .

No, I'm mentioning Watkins as an example of the approach you've used in this issue. And now you're trying to create role reversal. You are now arguing what I've been saying all along, so at least that means we finally agree that it was a trivial matter for Dr. Sequeira to assess the light levels at the scene of the crime, a claim you've been saying was impossible up until this post.

So you see, it's not my approach that keeps switching at all .
Enjoy your evening

You too. Actually, it's now morning here. Hopefully there will be sun.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

Hi packers stem,


As I said, there is no recorded testimony of him asking, but it is clear that when he checked the body the lights would have been shown on the body to assist them. By his request, either spoken or assumed, given it would be necessary. You have been arguing that things not stated didn't happen. You're now switching who has made which claim.

No Jeff
I'm not saying that and never have .
We don't disagree on that point .You've got mixed up .I thought I'd made that point clear .
I really don't know why you keep saying this .
You said in the comment I reposted that Sequeira asked for light , I said it was Halse not Sequeira that ASKED for light .
You are trying to make an argument around a point we actually agree on and for the life of me i can't understand why .
I never claimed Sequeira ASKED for light , you did , all I did was ask you if you had any evidence of this request .

Thank you for repeating back to me exactly what I have been saying all along and which you have been arguing against, but now you try and present it as your stance. I'm assuming you now agree with me that Dr. Sequeira's claim that the light was sufficient is valid.

It's always been my stance for crying out loud
but as regards sufficient light without lamps ? no , of course not .

Sufficient light when the lamps ,which hopefully we can finally agree, were likely to be directed toward the body on Sequeira's arrival ...... yes ?

Sufficient light with lamps , or without lamps are two different questions don't you agree

Police lamps = sufficient lighting
No Lamps = insufficient

That's my opinion
It's NEVER varied
It never will

It's clear we're never going to agree
But that's life

[/QUOTE]

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem,

No Jeff
I'm not saying that and never have .
We don't disagree on that point .You've got mixed up .I thought I'd made that point clear .
I really don't know why you keep saying this .
You said in the comment I reposted that Sequeira asked for light , I said it was Halse not Sequeira that ASKED for light .
You are trying to make an argument around a point we actually agree on and for the life of me i can't understand why .
I never claimed Sequeira ASKED for light , you did , all I did was ask you if you had any evidence of this request .



It's always been my stance for crying out loud
but as regards sufficient light without lamps ? no , of course not .

Sufficient light when the lamps ,which hopefully we can finally agree, were likely to be directed toward the body on Sequeira's arrival ...... yes ?

Sufficient light with lamps , or without lamps are two different questions don't you agree

Police lamps = sufficient lighting
No Lamps = insufficient

That's my opinion
It's NEVER varied
It never will

It's clear we're never going to agree
But that's life

[/QUOTE]

Ok, clearly the lamps were required to provide sufficient lighting for medical and police to examine the scene. That we agree upon.
Clearly, when Dr. Sequeira arrived, he would have examined the body, which required the lights to be shown upon it. That we agree upon.
Clearly, when Halse arrived later, he requested the lights to be directed at the body so he could examine the crime scene. That we agree upon.
Clearly, if Halse had to ask for the lights to be shown upon the body, they were not at the time he arrived. That we agree upon.

Therefore, between Dr. Sequeira's arrival, and PC Halise's arrival, there was a period when the crime scene was not illuminated by the lamps. This follows from the fact that PC Halse had to request lighting.

And therefore, Dr. Sequeira had an opportunity to assess the lighting conditions.

And his assessment was that JtR would have had sufficient light for JtR's purposes, even though those lighting conditions were not sufficient for Dr. Squeira's or PC Halse's purposes.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

Hi packers stem,



Ok, clearly the lamps were required to provide sufficient lighting for medical and police to examine the scene. That we agree upon.
Clearly, when Dr. Sequeira arrived, he would have examined the body, which required the lights to be shown upon it. That we agree upon.
Clearly, when Halse arrived later, he requested the lights to be directed at the body so he could examine the crime scene. That we agree upon.
Clearly, if Halse had to ask for the lights to be shown upon the body, they were not at the time he arrived. That we agree upon.

Therefore, between Dr. Sequeira's arrival, and PC Halise's arrival, there was a period when the crime scene was not illuminated by the lamps. This follows from the fact that PC Halse had to request lighting.

And therefore, Dr. Sequeira had an opportunity to assess the lighting conditions.

And his assessment was that JtR would have had sufficient light for JtR's purposes, even though those lighting conditions were not sufficient for Dr. Squeira's or PC Halse's purposes.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

You are presuming that Sequeira would stand there staring at the corner after examing whilst the officers were turned away
Hard to see why on earth he would do that .
I would suggest once examination was done they would just be chatting , looking for blood spurts , spots etc etc . With lamps and Sequeira lol
I only think that Halse asked for the lighting to be redirected as on hearing Halse , Marriott ,Outram run into the square , the PC's would have directed their light their way and or towards himself when they were chatting
That's the way I see it .
None of which is provable of course

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem,

Hi Jeff

You are presuming that Sequeira would stand there staring at the corner after examing whilst the officers were turned away
Hard to see why on earth he would do that .
I would suggest once examination was done they would just be chatting , looking for blood spurts , spots etc etc . With lamps and Sequeira lol
I only think that Halse asked for the lighting to be redirected as on hearing Halse , Marriott ,Outram run into the square , the PC's would have directed their light their way and or towards himself when they were chatting
That's the way I see it .
None of which is provable of course

Which means you're assuming that he lied when he said there was sufficient light for JtR to do what he did, despite the fact that he was there, despite the fact that there is testimony that indicates he had the opportunity to make the very observation he testified under oath, and despite the fact that even in the dark one can see things right in front of them.

All I'm assuming is that someone who was there to examine the body at the crime scene, who had an opportunity to make a trivial observation that they testified to, actually observed what they claimed. In other words, I'm just looking at the information we have and noting that it doesn't contradict itself and so I have no basis to consider it inaccurate. You are assuming that despite the testimony all being consistent, it is inaccurate anyway.

Otherwise, we might as well just ignore all the testimony when it suits us. I find that approach unhelpful in trying to understand what happened. And without first understanding what happened, and the basic circumstances under which it happened, there's no hope of making any inferences beyond that.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

Not really Jeff
I just don't think he thought it out properly .
Not a lie in the true sense of the word ,just a throw away comment.
He said it in the same sentence as his mention of knowing the area .
I just don't think he realised the importance of presuming the lighting was the same there every night ,which we must surely all agree , it could not possibly be

[Curious Cat]

Pall Mall Gazette
2 October 1888

In connection with the Mitre-square murder a startling discovery was made. Sergeant Dudman had his attention drawn to 36, Mitre-street a house a short distance from the spot where the murdered woman was found, and there he found what appeared to be bloodstains upon the doorway and underneath the window, as if a person had wiped his finger on the windowledge and draw a blood-stained knife down part of the doorway. Mr Hartig, who lives on the premises, said he had only just noticed the stains, and then quite by accident.

Thank you for the snippet. Again, very interesting.

Presuming these stains were left by the killer upon leaving the murder scene, it shows an instinctive move to go southwards out of Mitre Square. That the killer takes a diagonal stride to the opposite side of the street rather than a straight left turn down suggests that passage way is the intended destination. I see no reason for the killer not to take cover there until PC Watkins had rounded the corner from Leadenhall Street into Mitre Street, emerging on the Leadenhall Street side before PC Watkins has even reached Mitre Square.

I do wonder if the Aldgate pump, just by the corner, was checked at the time for blood stains or just in general. The killer may have used it quickly to wash their hands or other items, the knife for instance.

[Alicia]

If the killer was disturbed by the watchman as you suggest, then that reduces, even more, the time the killer had with Eddowes in the square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I think the cuts to Catharine show an escalation in his post-mortem mutilation, begun with Annie Chapman who had more mutilations than Mary Ann Nichols. That he was disturbed before he finishing, explains why he waited a month before attacking Mary Kelly. Jack needed to save money to hire a prostitute with her own room.

[Alicia]

Hi Jeff,

The best study of the Mitre Square attack that I have found was done some years ago by Gavin Bromley and published in Ripperologist Issue 74, and discussed in the succeeding issue 75 (105). He focused on the two police officers, PCs Watkins and Harvey, and his microscopic study took into account the routes of each PC, the times involved, the lighting, etc. In effect, it's an autopsy of the entire event from start to finish, illustrated by maps, drawings, etc. His conclusions were similar to mine, give or take a minute or so. Clearly, one or the other of the PCs had to have entered the square while Jack was still there and simply missed seeing him due to the fact the killing happened in the darkest part of the square. My feeling is that as Watkins returned to the square, he could observe Mitre Street from Aldgate for at least a minute before entering the square, during which time he could have observed anyone headed East away from the square. Having once been a copper myself, I viewed Watkins with a critical eye, knowing full well it would not be out of character for him to have stopped for a cup of tea with his watchman friend or, perhaps more likely, that he came across the shocking specter of a crazed killer holding a bloody knife charging toward him in the darkness and simply ran for his life. Bromley went into some detail on Watkins' early problems on the police force, but I don't for a moment doubt the officer's bravery or ability to defend himself. Still, in that situation, surprised in the dark by a madman holding a bloody knife, and being armed with only a truncheon at my side, a wife and children at home, what would he do? Then I recalled something either Swanson or Anderson wrote which spoke of only two witnesses who actually saw the Ripper and could identify him, one of whom he referred to as the "City PC." Most Ripper students have decided he was confused and really meant Metro PC William Smith, at the scene of the Stride murder. But would he make such a mistake? At any rate, that led me to at least consider the possibility that Watkins encountered the Ripper and might have given some information to his superiors that were not made public since it would have reflected badly on the City police. I took a lot of heat from others on Casebook when I suggested my theory, some likely from present or former officers who saw it as an insult to a brave copper. Having been a copper once myself, I can understand that, but I also know police officers are human, with wives and children at home. Seeing a butchered woman on the ground, bathed in blood, and facing the likelihood of imminent death before I could even draw a club, I pondered what Watkins might do. At any rate, that's my take on it. If you can't find the Ripperologist issues, let me know and I'll email them to you.

Dr. John

Bolden by me.^^

Dr. John, you won't get heat from me. Both the encounter detailed in Detective Smith's story as well the murder in Mitre Square could have involved police hesitant to act. These constables were not well armed nor trained to deal with a knife-fiend like the Ripper. Catherine's murder is the one most likely to have multiple witnesses. Just like Ted Bundy was interrupted one night and took reckless risks to satisfy his blood lust, so too Jack must have determined to complete his self-assigned mission that night. Does anyone know of a map that traces Jack from Mitre Square to GSG location?