Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Michael W Richards]

In the absence of anything to disprove the original testimony it has to stand, despite clear conflict especially with times, you cant juggle times around to suit as some want to do, and you cant make up times to suit.

You can however give examples of variations in the times relative to the various witnesses, for example the couple seen standing at the entrance to Church Passage then examples can be given based on what time they could have entered the square .i.e 1.36-1.37. 1.38 and work from there thus giving a better indication as to how much time the killer would have had with the victim, and could he had done all that he is supposed to have done in that time?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What is it that proves anything in the original testimony Trevor? Do Lawende, Levy and Harris establish beyond a doubt that they saw Kate? Does Harveys statement prove conclusively that he was where he said he was, at the time he estimated, looking into the square? Do we know exactly what time Watkins earlier pass took place?

Obviously the answers are no. If any accounts are inaccurate or incorrect, then the time that the killer may have had with Kate may well be sufficient to accomplish all the tasks without any of us needing to assess whether the maximum 5-6 minutes available using Lawende statement and the medical opinion of time needed is accurate.

I know your perspective on this Trevor, the shorter the interval the more probable your theory is, however, if its actually longer than what is created by the witnesses, then doing everything on the spot would be easy to accept. I don't like the 4-6 minute window for everything either, but I also don't believe anyone saw Kate outside the square at 1:35.

[Michael W Richards]

To create a scenario where the time available commit the murder and mutilations is reduced to a point where we might begin to question the very possibility, we have to assume things that we are unable assume as facts. But to assess whether the murder could have taken place we simply have to look at reasonable possibilities with no leaps of faith.

And so as Jeff has pointed out, the couple were seen (as per witnesses) sometime between 6.33-6.35. If it wasn’t Eddowes and her killer (which is at least a possibility) then we could allow a longer time for the murder. If it was them (which I think must be statistically stated as probable) then we have a starting point that we have no reason to question. They might have been wrong in some way of course. They might have both lied. They might have been out in their time’s by a minute or two. But we have nothing to point us in that direction of thinking.

Harvey’s time for checking Church Passage amounts to 1.42 (a couple of minutes before Watkins) Harvey might have lied about the rigour of this search of Church Passage. He might have been slightly out with his time. But we have nothing to point us in that direction of thinking.

Watkins stated that he’d discovered the body at 1.44. We know that he did this of course but yes he might have been out in his time by a minute or so but we have nothing to point us in that direction of thinking.

Therefore we have an earlier time for the couple being seen of 6.33 and we have to reasonably assume that Harvey would have seen the couple had they have been there at 6.42.

And so we have to ask ourselves which is the more reasonable, plausible even likely scenario?

a) that the Ripper killed Catherine elsewhere and for some unknown reason risks lugging her body into the corner of Mitre Square?

b) that the Ripper didn’t remove organs at the scene (despite doing it another murder) and that someone ‘stole’ them at the morgue from a body in the most high profile case ever?

or,

c) that Eddowes and the Ripper reached the corner of Mitre Square at 6.34ish and he scarpered when he heard Harvey’s approach at 6.42?

Where is the problem?

There simply isn’t one unless you have a vested interest in making it appear that this murder couldn’t have taken place in the time available. The evidence says otherwise though.

You know Herlock the number 6 is nowhere near the number 1 on most keyboards, so I have no idea how you managed the above.....

[Herlock Sholmes]

You know Herlock the number 6 is nowhere near the number 1 on most keyboards, so I have no idea how you managed the above.....

I’m glad you spotted the deliberate error Michael. Just checking that you’re on the ball

To be honest I think I know why I’ve done this. I spend most of my time on here discussing the Wallace case and one of the main debating points (and one that we’ve been discussing a lot lately) is the time that a milk boy left an address. Was it 6.35. Was it 6.37/8. Was it 6.45. I’ve typed these 6.00+ times so often.

I can state with absolutely confidence though and without fear of contradiction that William Herbert Wallace wasn’t Jack The Ripper.

[JeffHamm]

In the absence of anything to disprove the original testimony it has to stand, despite clear conflict especially with times, you cant juggle times around to suit as some want to do, and you cant make up times to suit.

You can however give examples of variations in the times relative to the various witnesses, for example the couple seen standing at the entrance to Church Passage then examples can be given based on what time they could have entered the square .i.e 1.36-1.37. 1.38 and work from there thus giving a better indication as to how much time the killer would have had with the victim, and could he had done all that he is supposed to have done in that time?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, and if you choose a time that doesn't give enough time for the testified things to have happened, which includes the removal of the organs, then you can't use that starting time as the evidence disproves it when there are earlier starting times available. All you can do is rule out that as a possible starting point. Otherwise, one could argue that Eddowes and JtR entered the square at 1:41:45, and JtR is chased off by Harvey at 1:42, and since 15 seconds isn't enough time to murder her then clearly, Eddowes wasn't even murdered, let alone mutilated, and the whole thing is just a scam by the police to get extra patrol funds supported by the press to sell extra papers. But you know, I don't think anyone is going to think I have a strong case for that. The evidence indicates that Eddowes and JtR were in the square for an amount of time sufficient for her to be murdered and mutilated, and the testimony we have indicates that there is a sufficient amount of time unaccounted for to make that possible.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, and if you choose a time that doesn't give enough time for the testified things to have happened, which includes the removal of the organs, then you can't use that starting time as the evidence disproves it when there are earlier starting times available. All you can do is rule out that as a possible starting point. Otherwise, one could argue that Eddowes and JtR entered the square at 1:41:45, and JtR is chased off by Harvey at 1:42, and since 15 seconds isn't enough time to murder her then clearly, Eddowes wasn't even murdered, let alone mutilated, and the whole thing is just a scam by the police to get extra patrol funds supported by the press to sell extra papers. But you know, I don't think anyone is going to think I have a strong case for that. The evidence indicates that Eddowes and JtR were in the square for an amount of time sufficient for her to be murdered and mutilated, and the testimony we have indicates that there is a sufficient amount of time unaccounted for to make that possible.

- Jeff

Jeff

I dont disagree with you that the killer of Eddowes had sufficient time to murder and mutilate her, but whether or not he had the time to do all the other things he is purported to have done is another matter, and careful consideration has to be given to those issues, along with all the evidence both past and present has to be considered.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Jeff

I dont disagree with you that the killer of Eddowes had sufficient time to murder and mutilate her, but whether or not he had the time to do all the other things he is purported to have done is another matter, and careful consideration has to be given to those issues, along with all the evidence both past and present has to be considered.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Ah, common ground! I knew we would get there eventually. Yes, and in the end it boils down to whether or not the act of removing the kidney and cutting out the uterus itself adds an appreciable amount of time to that required to murder her, mutilate her face, and disembowel her. There we clearly differ in our view, as I do not see those two acts requiring so much additional time to the rest of the process that the time window unaccounted for must be viewed as insufficient, while clearly you believe otherwise. Hence our differing conclusions. Obviously, given neither of us were there, there is no way to know who is truly correct. My argument, though, is that since, in my opinion, the act of removing the kidney and uterus would add little additional time to all else that was reported, there is nothing to substantiate the view that the contemporary evidence must be in error. Given your opinion that the actual removing the kidney and uterus adds a significant amount of extra time over and above the murder, facial mutilations, and disembowelment, etc, leads you to a different opinion.

I just want to point out, though, neither of us is ignoring the evidence nor is having a different opinion on the time required being blinkered.

It's been a pleasure, actually, and nice to see that in the end we got there.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Ah, common ground! I knew we would get there eventually. Yes, and in the end it boils down to whether or not the act of removing the kidney and cutting out the uterus itself adds an appreciable amount of time to that required to murder her, mutilate her face, and disembowel her. There we clearly differ in our view, as I do not see those two acts requiring so much additional time to the rest of the process that the time window unaccounted for must be viewed as insufficient, while clearly you believe otherwise. Hence our differing conclusions. Obviously, given neither of us were there, there is no way to know who is truly correct. My argument, though, is that since, in my opinion, the act of removing the kidney and uterus would add little additional time to all else that was reported, there is nothing to substantiate the view that the contemporary evidence must be in error. Given your opinion that the actual removing the kidney and uterus adds a significant amount of extra time over and above the murder, facial mutilations, and disembowelment, etc, leads you to a different opinion.

I just want to point out, though, neither of us is ignoring the evidence nor is having a different opinion on the time required being blinkered.

It's been a pleasure, actually, and nice to see that in the end we got there.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
My opinion has been arrived at with a combination of assessing and evaluating the original facts, and then from modern day medical experts, and just to go over some of that.

If the killer is organ harvesting why would he then stab the victim several times in the abdomen thereby potentially damaging any organs he might be seeking.

By stabbing the victim in the abdomen, it would then fill up with blood thereby making it difficult to work in the abdomen.

Was there even enough light for the killer to see what he was doing with the abdomen, and to be first able to locate the organs, and then to be able to grip them sufficiently to be able to remove them given the fact that the organs would be slippery.

Would he have been able to effect any removal using a long bladed knife

To be able to have done all that he is said to have done regarding the organ removal his knowledge would have to have been on a par with the medical experts of the day given the time frame available to him.

In the case of Chapman Dr Phillips gives his opinion as to how long it would have taken him
I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.

There were two different methods of extraction of both the uterus of Chapman and Eddowes if the same killer why was that ?

The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes taken to two different mortuaries

Chapman and Eddowes only two victims where organs were found to be missing

The 3 and 5 minute time window as stated by Sequeira and Brown relates to the murder and mutilations only, yet researchers use this 5 minute window as a yardstick to suggest the killer did have that 5 minute window available to him. He may well have but even if he did it is unsafe given what I have written.

Mr Neale a consultant gynecologist opines that the abdomen of Eddowes was opened in a way not conducive with someone with anatomical knowledge,

He also states that the way the uterus was removed from Chapman is consistent with it being removed for experimentation, (mortuary) !

Dr Brown stated that the killer must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge to be able to locate the organs in the first instance. Mr Neale concurs on this point.

So when all of these factors are put together and analyzed the old accepted theory that the killer removed these organs if unsafe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Dr. Phillips also testified that he believed the anatomical knowledge of a butcher or slaughter would be sufficient. And other modern medical professionals have presented similar opinions (presented in various posts scattered about these threads). But if a medical person, in the mortuary, removed Eddowes' uterus, when they would have had time and training to do so, how could they do such a botched job and leave 1/3 of it behind? In the case of Chapman JtR has not spent time performing facial mutilations, or rummaging for a kidney, and has the morning sun come ups, why would it be surprising if they do a better job of it than when pressed for time after spending some on facial mutilations, and in the dark, and getting a kidney? Also, Chapman and Eddowes involve two different mortuaries, so that's two separate organ thefts by two different medical people (none of which are mentioned anywhere in the evidence; and there are indications the bodies were under police watch). And also, Kelly's heart was missing, so that's 3 victims with organs taken.

I know you see it otherwise, and don't expect you to change your views simply because I repeat the same thing again, nor am I going to change mine simply by re-reading your presentations again. Neither of us has convinced the other, but that's hardly a rare occurrence in this area, but I hope we've both read and considered what each has posted. I know I have and considered your arguments, even if I don't agree with you.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Dr. Phillips also testified that he believed the anatomical knowledge of a butcher or slaughter would be sufficient. And other modern medical professionals have presented similar opinions (presented in various posts scattered about these threads). But if a medical person, in the mortuary, removed Eddowes' uterus, when they would have had time and training to do so, how could they do such a botched job and leave 1/3 of it behind? In the case of Chapman JtR has not spent time performing facial mutilations, or rummaging for a kidney, and has the morning sun come ups, why would it be surprising if they do a better job of it than when pressed for time after spending some on facial mutilations, and in the dark, and getting a kidney? Also, Chapman and Eddowes involve two different mortuaries, so that's two separate organ thefts by two different medical people (none of which are mentioned anywhere in the evidence; and there are indications the bodies were under police watch). And also, Kelly's heart was missing, so that's 3 victims with organs taken.

I know you see it otherwise, and don't expect you to change your views simply because I repeat the same thing again, nor am I going to change mine simply by re-reading your presentations again. Neither of us has convinced the other, but that's hardly a rare occurrence in this area, but I hope we've both read and considered what each has posted. I know I have and considered your arguments, even if I don't agree with you.

- Jeff

Kellys heart was not taken away by the killer there is more than enough evidence to prove that fact !

Individual Organs were in great demand both legally and illegally, and a high price paid for them as has been documented.

As to police presence that was to stop the public entering not medical personnel ! and they were outside only

Two different methods of uterus removal by the same killer, come on it was 1888 not 2020. Dr Browns expert could not effect a uterus removal without damagin the bladder in 3 minutes, something the killer avoided doing in almost total darkness .

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if a medical person, in the mortuary, removed Eddowes' uterus, when they would have had time and training to do so, how could they do such a botched job and leave 1/3 of it behind? In the case of Chapman JtR has not spent time performing facial mutilations, or rummaging for a kidney, and has the morning sun come ups, why would it be surprising if they do a better job of it than when pressed for time after spending some on facial mutilations, and in the dark, and getting a kidney? Also, Chapman and Eddowes involve two different mortuaries, so that's two separate organ thefts by two different medical people (none of which are mentioned anywhere in the evidence; and there are indications the bodies were under police watch). And also, Kelly's heart was missing, so that's 3 victims with organs taken.

Good points. And wouldn’t that person have been far less inclined to have tampered with the evidence on such a high profile case? One where the mutilations would have been so important in potentially identifying the killer? It seems unlikely to me.

[mpriestnall]

Two different methods of uterus removal by the same killer.

This is an intriguing point.

++

My candidate is a surgeon's son but didn't follow him into the profession, so I am interested in the question of how much medical JTR may have had etc.

Just purchased your book "Jack the Ripper - The Real Truth" for that reason.

I've also found Wynne Weston Davies's book of value in this regard too.

The Truth Is Out There!

regards,

Martyn

[Trevor Marriott]

Good points. And wouldn’t that person have been far less inclined to have tampered with the evidence on such a high profile case? One where the mutilations would have been so important in potentially identifying the killer? It seems unlikely to me.

Well Dr Brown states that the person who removed the kidney had anatomical knowledge, so if he had that knowledge to be able to remove a kidney, then he would have had enough knowledge to remove the uterus, but of course if the latter were done in haste for fear of detection that might explain why that part was botched, because as you say the body should not have been tampered with, but of course needs must when the devil calls, and we have no idea what went on at the mortuary, or who came and went during that long period of time when the body was left.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff
My opinion has been arrived at with a combination of assessing and evaluating the original facts, and then from modern day medical experts, and just to go over some of that.

If the killer is organ harvesting why would he then stab the victim several times in the abdomen thereby potentially damaging any organs he might be seeking.

By stabbing the victim in the abdomen, it would then fill up with blood thereby making it difficult to work in the abdomen.

Was there even enough light for the killer to see what he was doing with the abdomen, and to be first able to locate the organs, and then to be able to grip them sufficiently to be able to remove them given the fact that the organs would be slippery.

Would he have been able to effect any removal using a long bladed knife

To be able to have done all that he is said to have done regarding the organ removal his knowledge would have to have been on a par with the medical experts of the day given the time frame available to him.

In the case of Chapman Dr Phillips gives his opinion as to how long it would have taken him
I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.

There were two different methods of extraction of both the uterus of Chapman and Eddowes if the same killer why was that ?

The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes taken to two different mortuaries

Chapman and Eddowes only two victims where organs were found to be missing

The 3 and 5 minute time window as stated by Sequeira and Brown relates to the murder and mutilations only, yet researchers use this 5 minute window as a yardstick to suggest the killer did have that 5 minute window available to him. He may well have but even if he did it is unsafe given what I have written.

Mr Neale a consultant gynecologist opines that the abdomen of Eddowes was opened in a way not conducive with someone with anatomical knowledge,

He also states that the way the uterus was removed from Chapman is consistent with it being removed for experimentation, (mortuary) !

Dr Brown stated that the killer must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge to be able to locate the organs in the first instance. Mr Neale concurs on this point.

So when all of these factors are put together and analyzed the old accepted theory that the killer removed these organs if unsafe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But you appear to assume to be able to read exactly what the killers intention or state of mind was at each murder scene. This change. Events occur. The killer wasn’t working to a serial killer handbook here. Personally I think that we can be guilty of over analysing and trying to recreate the events down to the minutest detail when this isn’t possible.

As has been explained by Jeff how the killer might well have had up to 9 minutes to do what he did the “he didn’t have enough time” argument simply crumbles away. So we aren’t forced to look for an alternative explanations. So how could these body part thefts have occurred without the Doctors noticing? Would anyone have been so desperate for cash to have risked stealing body parts from such a high profile case?

There’s nothing unsafe here except for wild, baseless conspiracy theories I’m afraid.

[Curious Cat]

If the intention was to remove one or more internal organ then the killer must've carried some sort of container to hold the organs in post murder. They couldn't possibly have just carried the organs in their hands all the way back to their residence or hideout. So obviously someone carrying a bag comes immediately back to mind, which is of course part of the traditional description but may well be not clichéd at all.

I mentioned before the possibility of the killer carrying a small lamp, like the one police constables could clip onto their belts, so maybe it was also part of their murder kit which they carried around in their bag.

[Trevor Marriott]

But you appear to assume to be able to read exactly what the killers intention or state of mind was at each murder scene. This change. Events occur. The killer wasn’t working to a serial killer handbook here. Personally I think that we can be guilty of over analysing and trying to recreate the events down to the minutest detail when this isn’t possible.

As has been explained by Jeff how the killer might well have had up to 9 minutes to do what he did the “he didn’t have enough time” argument simply crumbles away. So we aren’t forced to look for an alternative explanations. So how could these body part thefts have occurred without the Doctors noticing? Would anyone have been so desperate for cash to have risked stealing body parts from such a high profile case?

There’s nothing unsafe here except for wild, baseless conspiracy theories I’m afraid.

One again you like others seem to want to avoid the real issues surrounding this murder, because where as you say the killer did have enough time, conversely we can also say that he didnt have enough time. We cannot be precise so as to determine whether or not he did or didnt, or could have or couldnt have, or what time was avaialbe to him.

Those who postulate the killer did take them will as can be seen go for the longest time to back their horse

We have to broaden the horizons and look at all the other facts both for and against, and I am afraid those facts which I have continued to post which seem to fall on deaf ears with some people, all point to the killer not removing the organs at the crime scene.

Clearly Dr Brown had concerns about the timings because he asked another doctor to see how long it would take him to remove a uterus

You ask how could the body parts been taken without the doctors knowing, the answer is simple !

In the case of Chapman and Eddowes the doctors did not notice organs missing until the post mortem stage

Chapman and Eddowes were the only two victims that had their abdomens already open to the point that easy access was there already for someone to come along and remove them. This is where I suggest the anatomical knowledge was shown, because as is known bona fide medical persons were allowed to go to mortuaries on a daily basis and obtain organs for medical research lawfully.

So when the doctors carried out the post mortems they automatically assumed the killer had removed them in the absence of them knowing any different

Elementary my dear Holmes !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk