Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Trevor Marriott]

We can never prove exact timings of course but this actually works against your theory as you can’t prove times exactly either. If you could show, without any doubt, that the killer only had say 4 minutes then it certainly would call things into doubt but you can’t. It’s pointless saying “what if he didn’t have enough time?” We know that it’s entirely plausible/possible/probable that did have enough time based on the witnesses and the police. So it’s a bit like saying “ what if John Richardson had a neck disability which might have prevented him from looking properly to his left. If that was the case then he mightn’t have seen the body after all.”




Part of Chapmans uterus and Kelly’s heart? Who can say how a killer is thinking at the time of each murder? What the exact circumstances are. You are very conveniently thinking as if the killer was working to some serial killer manual. Maybe he became more confident as the murders progressed? Who knows?



And it would help matters if you removed the blindfold. You constantly post with the attitude of “well this is the conclusion that I’ve come to so why don’t these idiots all agree with me?” Perhaps you might for once Trevor consider the possibility that posters are disagreeing with you because there’s an extremely good chance that you’re wrong?

There are lots of things in life we shouldn't do, but we do, take that back to 1888.

Everyone has been using Dr Browns 5 minute window statement as a starting off point with all of this, and forgetting Dr Sequeiras 3 minute window. But those times are unsafe because Brown and Sequiera made those statements before the post mortems and before the organs were found to be missing, and therefore only refer to the murder and mutilations, and are forgetting the time Dr Phillips states it would have taken him.

It is not the time needed to remove the organs it is the time needed to be able to locate them in a blood filled abdomen, in almost total darkness and then to remove a kidney which is located at the back of the abdominal cavity and is one of the most difficult organs to locate at the best of times. How would the killer have been able to physically get at the kidney because there was only one mid line opening of the abdomen not really big enough to get at the kidney and I am sure the killer was not armed with retractors to open up the abdomen further to enable him to do that.

How many people in 1888 would have been capable of achieving that certainly not a butcher or slaughterer, or anyone just cutting as you suggest !

Two different methods of removal of the uterus in both cases, suggesting two different removers of the organs, two different mortuaries where organs were found missing, both bodies left for many hours at the mortuaries. Given all of that are you still prepared to state that no one could have tampered with the bodies during that time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.ik

[JeffHamm]

There are lots of things in life we shouldn't do, but we do, take that back to 1888.

Everyone has been using Dr Browns 5 minute window statement as a starting off point with all of this, and forgetting Dr Sequeiras 3 minute window. But those times are unsafe because Brown and Sequiera made those statements before the post mortems and before the organs were found to be missing, and therefore only refer to the murder and mutilations, and are forgetting the time Dr Phillips states it would have taken him.

It is not the time needed to remove the organs it is the time needed to be able to locate them in a blood filled abdomen, in almost total darkness and then to remove a kidney which is located at the back of the abdominal cavity and is one of the most difficult organs to locate at the best of times. How would the killer have been able to physically get at the kidney because there was only one mid line opening of the abdomen not really big enough to get at the kidney and I am sure the killer was not armed with retractors to open up the abdomen further to enable him to do that.

How many people in 1888 would have been capable of achieving that certainly not a butcher or slaughterer, or anyone just cutting as you suggest !

Two different methods of removal of the uterus in both cases, suggesting two different removers of the organs, two different mortuaries where organs were found missing, both bodies left for many hours at the mortuaries. Given all of that are you still prepared to state that no one could have tampered with the bodies during that time.

www.trevormarriott.co.ik

Hi Trevor,

I've been reminding you of Dr. Seq's 3 minute estimate for ages, but people tend to work with the longer 5 minute window because, well, if there's enough unaccounted time to fit 5 minutes then there's enough to fit 3. The 3 minutes gives one more room for slightly later starts, and earlier leavings, etc. And, as we discussed ages ago, even the longer 5 minute estimate fits within the smallest unaccounted for time window. That means, the evidence indicates there was enough time even when one uses the latest time for the end of the rain (Lowende's time), which creates the shortest time window available for the murder, and the longest estimate of how much time JtR needed. it still fits, so there's nothing in the testimony that results in a conflict that needs resolution. Your organ thief is a solution in need of a problem.

The diagram of Eddowes shows a pretty gaping abdomen. There's no indication it would be difficult to remove the organs. Dr. Seq. also testifies that while it was the darkest corner of the square there would still have been sufficient light. So while yes it was dark, it was not pitch black. Your repeated statements that a butcher or slaughter could not have done this is in direct opposition of the medical testimony of the day, people who both viewed the body and who would know what butchers and slaughters of the day could do. So your claim is refuted by the testimony. It's also refuted by the actions of other, non-medically trained, murderers who have mutilated bodies and removed organs (though they are rare and there's no perfect match to JtR; they also usually have experience cutting up and mutilating animals, just more self-taught than professionally trained like a butcher/slaughterer would be).

What official medical procedure was being demonstrated in each case? Can you demonstrate that the medical profession had multiple approaches to hystorecty at the time, one of which involves leaving 1/3 of it behind? Your medical thief is supposed to be medically trained, so were there two schools of operation being taught? I doubt you will provide that proof though. The fact that different methods were used points far more towards someone just winging it and not really having a standard procedure to work with, and that points towards a common killer not two people trained in a common procedure.

There is absolutely nothing other than your introductions of "could have"s and "might have"s with regards to an organ thief, which are the kind of arguments you rail against when anyone else uses those words, and yet you present them as if they are proof of an organ thief. Can you document anything that indicates someone did go to the mortuary (simply saying someone "could have" is not evidence, it's a hypothesis, but a hypothesis needs supporting evidence before it can be taken seriously). Can you document two people, with licences to perform Anatomy based research, who were doing research where a uterus would be required? Can you put them in the vicinity at the appropriate times? Anything at all other than "unspecified person could/might have"?

You're closing your eyes and ears to the counter-arguments presented, and at times even to the evidence from which we are to draw inferences. Ironically, you seem to think that's what everyone else is doing simply because they don't buy your arguments, but really, what people are doing is telling you why they don't agree which requires that they have read and considered your statements and found the conclusions unwarranted. People are even telling you directly what sort of information they think you need to demonstrate (i.e. my request for the statues that you claimed allowed for anyone even remotely connected to medicine to rock up and snatch bits off bodies - at which point you dismissed me. When I read the act, though, every one of your stated claims were shown to be incorrect. So basically, no, it was not easy and certainly not lawful for someone to take organs from a body that was awaiting post-mortem.

In short, the evidence we have indicates that there is enough time unaccounted for to complete all that was done. The evidence contains nothing to indicate anyone stole organs at the mortuary other than your insistence that there wasn't enough time, a statement that contradicts the evidence. You insist that there wasn't enough time by arguing that "if they entered the square without enough time then there wouldn't be enough time", and "If someone came in to the mortuary and took the organs then the organs were not taken by JtR", but provide no evidence of the existence of these someones (since there's two phantom organ thieves) other than arguing "If they existed they existed". There's no evidence presented that organ theft was rife, particularly at the two mortuaries involved, other than your say so, but again, the idea they could just rock up and pick bits was also based upon your say so and that claim was completely wrong in near every detail, so emotional statements demonstrating your level of conviction need to be backed up by some objective proof - to prove there were organ thieves at work to such a degree that it is at all likely that two successive murder victims were likely to have their uterus stolen (in an unlawful way).

There's enough rampant speculations and what if tales as it is when we look at aspects of the crimes for which we have far less evidence to work with, there's no benefit to applying the guessing game as a means of throwing out evidence simply based upon unsupported "could haves".

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I've been reminding you of Dr. Seq's 3 minute estimate for ages, but people tend to work with the longer 5 minute window because, well, if there's enough unaccounted time to fit 5 minutes then there's enough to fit 3. The 3 minutes gives one more room for slightly later starts, and earlier leavings, etc. And, as we discussed ages ago, even the longer 5 minute estimate fits within the smallest unaccounted for time window. That means, the evidence indicates there was enough time even when one uses the latest time for the end of the rain (Lowende's time), which creates the shortest time window available for the murder, and the longest estimate of how much time JtR needed. it still fits, so there's nothing in the testimony that results in a conflict that needs resolution. Your organ thief is a solution in need of a problem.

The diagram of Eddowes shows a pretty gaping abdomen. There's no indication it would be difficult to remove the organs. Dr. Seq. also testifies that while it was the darkest corner of the square there would still have been sufficient light. So while yes it was dark, it was not pitch black. Your repeated statements that a butcher or slaughter could not have done this is in direct opposition of the medical testimony of the day, people who both viewed the body and who would know what butchers and slaughters of the day could do. So your claim is refuted by the testimony. It's also refuted by the actions of other, non-medically trained, murderers who have mutilated bodies and removed organs (though they are rare and there's no perfect match to JtR; they also usually have experience cutting up and mutilating animals, just more self-taught than professionally trained like a butcher/slaughterer would be).

What official medical procedure was being demonstrated in each case? Can you demonstrate that the medical profession had multiple approaches to hystorecty at the time, one of which involves leaving 1/3 of it behind? Your medical thief is supposed to be medically trained, so were there two schools of operation being taught? I doubt you will provide that proof though. The fact that different methods were used points far more towards someone just winging it and not really having a standard procedure to work with, and that points towards a common killer not two people trained in a common procedure.

There is absolutely nothing other than your introductions of "could have"s and "might have"s with regards to an organ thief, which are the kind of arguments you rail against when anyone else uses those words, and yet you present them as if they are proof of an organ thief. Can you document anything that indicates someone did go to the mortuary (simply saying someone "could have" is not evidence, it's a hypothesis, but a hypothesis needs supporting evidence before it can be taken seriously). Can you document two people, with licences to perform Anatomy based research, who were doing research where a uterus would be required? Can you put them in the vicinity at the appropriate times? Anything at all other than "unspecified person could/might have"?

You're closing your eyes and ears to the counter-arguments presented, and at times even to the evidence from which we are to draw inferences. Ironically, you seem to think that's what everyone else is doing simply because they don't buy your arguments, but really, what people are doing is telling you why they don't agree which requires that they have read and considered your statements and found the conclusions unwarranted. People are even telling you directly what sort of information they think you need to demonstrate (i.e. my request for the statues that you claimed allowed for anyone even remotely connected to medicine to rock up and snatch bits off bodies - at which point you dismissed me. When I read the act, though, every one of your stated claims were shown to be incorrect. So basically, no, it was not easy and certainly not lawful for someone to take organs from a body that was awaiting post-mortem.

In short, the evidence we have indicates that there is enough time unaccounted for to complete all that was done. The evidence contains nothing to indicate anyone stole organs at the mortuary other than your insistence that there wasn't enough time, a statement that contradicts the evidence. You insist that there wasn't enough time by arguing that "if they entered the square without enough time then there wouldn't be enough time", and "If someone came in to the mortuary and took the organs then the organs were not taken by JtR", but provide no evidence of the existence of these someones (since there's two phantom organ thieves) other than arguing "If they existed they existed". There's no evidence presented that organ theft was rife, particularly at the two mortuaries involved, other than your say so, but again, the idea they could just rock up and pick bits was also based upon your say so and that claim was completely wrong in near every detail, so emotional statements demonstrating your level of conviction need to be backed up by some objective proof - to prove there were organ thieves at work to such a degree that it is at all likely that two successive murder victims were likely to have their uterus stolen (in an unlawful way).

There's enough rampant speculations and what if tales as it is when we look at aspects of the crimes for which we have far less evidence to work with, there's no benefit to applying the guessing game as a means of throwing out evidence simply based upon unsupported "could haves".

- Jeff

The old accepted facts are there to be proved or disproved and not readily accepted as some want to do just because they are obsessed with the old accepted facts surrounding this mystery which clearly some are

There is no guessing game if Dr Brown states that the 5 minute window was sufficient time to only carry out the murder and the mutilations, then extra time has to be added onto that time to allow for the time it took to remove the organs. If we work with the time it took for Dr Brown`s expert to remove a uterus then that take us to 8 mins to that we have to add the time it would have taken to locate and remove the kidney a minimum of another 3 mins taking us to an absolute minimum of 11 mins.

Now for that 11 minutes to work the couple would have to have left the spot where they were standing at 1.34 allowing for 1 minute to walk to the murder spot taking us to 1.35 so that leave just 9 mins before Watkins find the body, but we then have to subtract Harveys time on the basis he disturbed the killer at 1.42 approx it may have been 1.41. So working on those times the killer would have had no more than 7 mins. If you work on Levys time then it would have been 6 mins, and in that time he rifles her pockets and it is suggested cuts a piece of apron.

The later the couple move off the time is reduced

As to the issue with the mortuary you nor I have no idea as to what went on at these mortuaries on a daily basis, from what we know that medical personnel visited these mortuaries on a daily basis for the purpose of acquiring organs, and perhaps even those persons who were dealing organs on the black market, which we know did happen. If someone seeking organs had the money to acquire them and the opportunity presented itself to acquire them without making payment do you think that would have not prevailed?

I think you and others are foolish to dismiss this outright, but as you say you are entitled to your opinions as I am mine, and mine are not going to change. I firmly believe that there is more than enough facts/evidence to show the killer did not remove these organs and I rest my case !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

The old accepted facts are there to be proved or disproved and not readily accepted as some want to do just because they are obsessed with the old accepted facts surrounding this mystery which clearly some are

There is no guessing game if Dr Brown states that the 5 minute window was sufficient time to only carry out the murder and the mutilations, then extra time has to be added onto that time to allow for the time it took to remove the organs. If we work with the time it took for Dr Brown`s expert to remove a uterus then that take us to 8 mins to that we have to add the time it would have taken to locate and remove the kidney a minimum of another 3 mins taking us to an absolute minimum of 11 mins.

Now for that 11 minutes to work the couple would have to have left the spot where they were standing at 1.34 allowing for 1 minute to walk to the murder spot taking us to 1.35 so that leave just 9 mins before Watkins find the body, but we then have to subtract Harveys time on the basis he disturbed the killer at 1.42 approx it may have been 1.41. So working on those times the killer would have had no more than 7 mins. If you work on Levys time then it would have been 6 mins, and in that time he rifles her pockets and it is suggested cuts a piece of apron.

The later the couple move off the time is reduced

As to the issue with the mortuary you nor I have no idea as to what went on at these mortuaries on a daily basis, from what we know that medical personnel visited these mortuaries on a daily basis for the purpose of acquiring organs, and perhaps even those persons who were dealing organs on the black market, which we know did happen. If someone seeking organs had the money to acquire them and the opportunity presented itself to acquire them without making payment do you think that would have not prevailed?

I think you and others are foolish to dismiss this outright, but as you say you are entitled to your opinions as I am mine, and mine are not going to change. I firmly believe that there is more than enough facts/evidence to show the killer did not remove these organs and I rest my case !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The issue about proving or disproving is a red herring. We can't prove anything, at least not in the way you seem to be using the word. The evidence, as everyone acknowledges (well, most everyone as far as I can tell), is not sufficient to solve the case. However, the evidence is sufficient to constrain the possibilities. And upon the basis of the evidence and testimony we have to work with, the most time required is 5 minutes, not a minimum of 11, that's your conjecture arrived at by adding presumed events. The least amount of unaccounted time we have is 6 minutes, and since 6 > 5, there is no basis for the absolute statement "there wasn't enough time".

The idea that there are a few conclusions that have been around for awhile and that those need to be overturned is interesting, but sometimes it just reflects the fact that those long lasting ideas have been readily apparent from the evidence since the time of the crimes. The evidence was sufficiently strong to get anyone who looks at it objectively to that point. While I'm not saying questioning them isn't a good idea, I am saying that to overturn them one has to bring new evidence to the table, not just conjecture.

I respect that you firmly believe the case your making, though it's sad to see you clearly do not respect those that disagree (your reference to those who don't agree with you as foolish is not a sign of respect after all). I don't think you're being foolish, but I do think the arguments you're putting forth are unsubstatiated and I, and others, have pointed to where you need to find evidence, real evidence not just could have and might have and what if, but actual evidence. Having the opinion that JtR would require significantly more time to 1) slice a membrane and cut out the kidney and 2) incompletely cut out the uterus isn't evidence, and it's an opinion that I find hard to understand. Those are the only two actions that we have to consider since all the rest we both agree there was sufficient time to complete. It's those two actions that you have to demonstrate, not state, suddenly push the required time from 5 minutes to 11. And those don't take 6 minutes.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

The issue about proving or disproving is a red herring. We can't prove anything, at least not in the way you seem to be using the word. The evidence, as everyone acknowledges (well, most everyone as far as I can tell), is not sufficient to solve the case. However, the evidence is sufficient to constrain the possibilities. And upon the basis of the evidence and testimony we have to work with, the most time required is 5 minutes, not a minimum of 11, that's your conjecture arrived at by adding presumed events. The least amount of unaccounted time we have is 6 minutes, and since 6 > 5, there is no basis for the absolute statement "there wasn't enough time".

This is the nub of the matter Jeff. We simply can’t say “well if there wasn’t enough time.......”

If we are making a case that the killer couldn’t have removed organs at the scene (and by inference that they were removed elsewhere) we have to come up with evidence that there definitely wasn’t enough time. So if we can’t show that there wasn’t enough time (and we certainly can’t) and we can’t provide positive evidence that these organs were taken in the mortuary (and we certainly can’t) then we are simply chasing shadows.

[JeffHamm]

This is the nub of the matter Jeff. We simply can’t say “well if there wasn’t enough time.......”

If we are making a case that the killer couldn’t have removed organs at the scene (and by inference that they were removed elsewhere) we have to come up with evidence that there definitely wasn’t enough time. So if we can’t show that there wasn’t enough time (and we certainly can’t) and we can’t provide positive evidence that these organs were taken in the mortuary (and we certainly can’t) then we are simply chasing shadows.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with considering the possibility that JtR didn't utilize all of the available unaccounted time, and considering what the implications would be if that is the case. That's a good way to avoid tunnel vision and to generate hypotheses. But they are only hypotheses that need to be tested. The organ thief hypothesis has nothing to back it up other than a well crafted hypotheses, but none of it is substaniated. Trever continuously says we don't know exactly when Eddowes and JtR enter the square, which of course is true, but that means we don't know they entered with too little of the available time left to them. And given the evidence we have, the evidence all points to them entering with enough time. With no actual evidence to the contrary, and conjecture isn't evidence, we can infer from the events committed a rough idea of when they entered, and it would be shortly after the Church Passage couple was spotted by Lawende and company. Even if the Church Passage Couple isn't Eddowes and JtR, it is the time when the rain stopped, which was heavy enough for Lawende and all to wait it out, so it seems reasonable to suggest Eddowes, probably with JtR, was also sheltering somewhere and entered the square shortly after it stopped. That may even be what Lawende and friends witnessed when they saw the woman's hand on the man's chest, she was sheltering again him due to the previous rain. Again, that doesn't make them Eddowes and JtR, but it shows others appear to have been finding spots out of the bad weather. And like Lawende's group, they too probably moved on when it stopped. There's nothing magic about that, it's just normal events, and if the CPC was Eddowes and JtR, then that would explain why they moved on about the time they were spotted, and hence points to them having all of the unaccounted time available.

That is pointing to evidence, the couple is documented, the rain is documented, the locations are documented, etc, and we know Eddowes and JtR end up in Mitre Square from somewhere, and from all the damage done to her, we have an estimated amount of time required of 3-5 minutes (pending on the doctor). And the above gives between 6 and 9 minutes before Eddowes' body is discovered. From that, the inference that Eddowes and JtR must have moved into the square at about the time the rain stopped is forced because the evidence indicates JtR was there with the body for 3-5 minutes (pending on the doctor). The closer the truth is to 5 minutes, the earlier they had to move in. Given the tentative identification of the CPC as Eddowes and JtR, we see that they are at least a couple in a location that more than allows for them to get to the murder location quickly, and if it was Eddowes and JtR, that means they had to move off shortly after being spotted. But that's the evidence constraining the interpretation.

To say "what if they didn't move off until later", runs into the problem of insufficient time, but that problem only exists because of the emphasis placed on an unsupported conjecture (moved off later). One could just as easily solve that with "then JtR must have been able to complete things closer to the 3 minutes, the shorter end of the estimated time required. But if one then insists "what if they moved off later and what if it would require JtR more time than the doctors' estimate?", now one is creating problems and chasing will-o-the-wisps. The evidence tells us JtR had to be in the square with Eddowes for some estimated period of time, and these are the things he did to her - and from the evidence, and times, and so forth, we try and reduce the time window available for JtR to enter the square.

The ironic thing is the more and better quality data we have to work with the more and more specific our inferences should become. The evidence should constrain us to smaller and smaller time windows, as it does in this case (we're down to a matter of a few minutes really) but rather than see that as a good thing, Trevor flips it around by saying "if he entered outside that window that the evidence indicates he had to have entered by then the evidence is wrong". That's using the hypothesis to evaluate the data, what Trevor needs is evidence to show JtR did not enter the square with Eddowes shortly after the rain stopped. And he needs evidence that the act of cutting out the kidney, and the botched removal of the uterus, and only those two cut and grab actions, require somewhere between 6 and 8 minutes (he states a minimum of 11 minutes are required, and has referenced the 3 minute estimate by Dr. Seq, so that means just slicing a membrane and removing the kidney, along with cutting out a portion of the uterus, in Trevor's opinion, takes a minimum of 6 minutes and as much as 8. Those two actions, in his hypothesis, require more time than the murder, facial mutilations, all other abdominal injuries, scattering of possessions, and apron cutting combined. He creates this long duration by speculation that JtR would have to hunt around in the body cavity, and adds all sorts of specific things to extend the time for those actions, but those are stories. His own logic, when applied against him, should be sufficient to refute him, as in "What if it didn't take him that long", but then he resorts to saying people are blinkered, foolish, etc. because he's frustrated that people don't agree with him. But if one steps back, we see that is the basis of the whole story in the first place "What if he didn't have enough time?". Before one tries to answer that question, one has to prove he didn't. Trevor, I believe, overestimates how much time would be required to perform those two actions, removal of a kidney, and partial removal of the uterus. I do not see any reason why those two actions should add so much additional time that we suddenly go from requiring 3-5 minutes to requiring at least 11 minutes. Those two actions do not require that much time.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with considering the possibility that JtR didn't utilize all of the available unaccounted time, and considering what the implications would be if that is the case. That's a good way to avoid tunnel vision and to generate hypotheses. But they are only hypotheses that need to be tested. The organ thief hypothesis has nothing to back it up other than a well crafted hypotheses, but none of it is substaniated. Trever continuously says we don't know exactly when Eddowes and JtR enter the square, which of course is true, but that means we don't know they entered with too little of the available time left to them. And given the evidence we have, the evidence all points to them entering with enough time. With no actual evidence to the contrary, and conjecture isn't evidence, we can infer from the events committed a rough idea of when they entered, and it would be shortly after the Church Passage couple was spotted by Lawende and company. Even if the Church Passage Couple isn't Eddowes and JtR, it is the time when the rain stopped, which was heavy enough for Lawende and all to wait it out, so it seems reasonable to suggest Eddowes, probably with JtR, was also sheltering somewhere and entered the square shortly after it stopped. That may even be what Lawende and friends witnessed when they saw the woman's hand on the man's chest, she was sheltering again him due to the previous rain. Again, that doesn't make them Eddowes and JtR, but it shows others appear to have been finding spots out of the bad weather. And like Lawende's group, they too probably moved on when it stopped. There's nothing magic about that, it's just normal events, and if the CPC was Eddowes and JtR, then that would explain why they moved on about the time they were spotted, and hence points to them having all of the unaccounted time available.

That is pointing to evidence, the couple is documented, the rain is documented, the locations are documented, etc, and we know Eddowes and JtR end up in Mitre Square from somewhere, and from all the damage done to her, we have an estimated amount of time required of 3-5 minutes (pending on the doctor). And the above gives between 6 and 9 minutes before Eddowes' body is discovered. From that, the inference that Eddowes and JtR must have moved into the square at about the time the rain stopped is forced because the evidence indicates JtR was there with the body for 3-5 minutes (pending on the doctor). The closer the truth is to 5 minutes, the earlier they had to move in. Given the tentative identification of the CPC as Eddowes and JtR, we see that they are at least a couple in a location that more than allows for them to get to the murder location quickly, and if it was Eddowes and JtR, that means they had to move off shortly after being spotted. But that's the evidence constraining the interpretation.

To say "what if they didn't move off until later", runs into the problem of insufficient time, but that problem only exists because of the emphasis placed on an unsupported conjecture (moved off later). One could just as easily solve that with "then JtR must have been able to complete things closer to the 3 minutes, the shorter end of the estimated time required. But if one then insists "what if they moved off later and what if it would require JtR more time than the doctors' estimate?", now one is creating problems and chasing will-o-the-wisps. The evidence tells us JtR had to be in the square with Eddowes for some estimated period of time, and these are the things he did to her - and from the evidence, and times, and so forth, we try and reduce the time window available for JtR to enter the square.

The ironic thing is the more and better quality data we have to work with the more and more specific our inferences should become. The evidence should constrain us to smaller and smaller time windows, as it does in this case (we're down to a matter of a few minutes really) but rather than see that as a good thing, Trevor flips it around by saying "if he entered outside that window that the evidence indicates he had to have entered by then the evidence is wrong". That's using the hypothesis to evaluate the data, what Trevor needs is evidence to show JtR did not enter the square with Eddowes shortly after the rain stopped. And he needs evidence that the act of cutting out the kidney, and the botched removal of the uterus, and only those two cut and grab actions, require somewhere between 6 and 8 minutes (he states a minimum of 11 minutes are required, and has referenced the 3 minute estimate by Dr. Seq, so that means just slicing a membrane and removing the kidney, along with cutting out a portion of the uterus, in Trevor's opinion, takes a minimum of 6 minutes and as much as 8. Those two actions, in his hypothesis, require more time than the murder, facial mutilations, all other abdominal injuries, scattering of possessions, and apron cutting combined. He creates this long duration by speculation that JtR would have to hunt around in the body cavity, and adds all sorts of specific things to extend the time for those actions, but those are stories. His own logic, when applied against him, should be sufficient to refute him, as in "What if it didn't take him that long", but then he resorts to saying people are blinkered, foolish, etc. because he's frustrated that people don't agree with him. But if one steps back, we see that is the basis of the whole story in the first place "What if he didn't have enough time?". Before one tries to answer that question, one has to prove he didn't. Trevor, I believe, overestimates how much time would be required to perform those two actions, removal of a kidney, and partial removal of the uterus. I do not see any reason why those two actions should add so much additional time that we suddenly go from requiring 3-5 minutes to requiring at least 11 minutes. Those two actions do not require that much time.

- Jeff

I don’t think that it could be summed up better than that Jeff. There’s nothing wrong with a ‘what if’ of course if we’re trying consider what might have occurred but in this case it’s completely inappropriate. It’s like saying - “what if this guy was colour blind and it’s why he said that the suspect had dark brown hair and yet the other witnesses said that he had red hair?” The first question would have to be - “well do we have any evidence at all that he was colour blind?” If the answer to that was - “we have absolutely no way of knowing.” Then it’s game over for that line of thought. The available evidence gives us nothing that would lead us to suspect that the killer didn’t have enough time and yet it’s been stretched to try and create doubt. And then we have to suspend belief to accept the notion that someone simply strolled into the mortuary and took away two body parts, for medical use, damaging one in the process. I’m sorry to say that it’s a deliberate attempt to create a mystery where none exists. We have enough genuine mysteries to look at.

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with considering the possibility that JtR didn't utilize all of the available unaccounted time, and considering what the implications would be if that is the case. That's a good way to avoid tunnel vision and to generate hypotheses. But they are only hypotheses that need to be tested. The organ thief hypothesis has nothing to back it up other than a well crafted hypotheses, but none of it is substaniated. Trever continuously says we don't know exactly when Eddowes and JtR enter the square, which of course is true, but that means we don't know they entered with too little of the available time left to them. And given the evidence we have, the evidence all points to them entering with enough time. With no actual evidence to the contrary, and conjecture isn't evidence, we can infer from the events committed a rough idea of when they entered, and it would be shortly after the Church Passage couple was spotted by Lawende and company. Even if the Church Passage Couple isn't Eddowes and JtR, it is the time when the rain stopped, which was heavy enough for Lawende and all to wait it out, so it seems reasonable to suggest Eddowes, probably with JtR, was also sheltering somewhere and entered the square shortly after it stopped. That may even be what Lawende and friends witnessed when they saw the woman's hand on the man's chest, she was sheltering again him due to the previous rain. Again, that doesn't make them Eddowes and JtR, but it shows others appear to have been finding spots out of the bad weather. And like Lawende's group, they too probably moved on when it stopped. There's nothing magic about that, it's just normal events, and if the CPC was Eddowes and JtR, then that would explain why they moved on about the time they were spotted, and hence points to them having all of the unaccounted time available.

That is pointing to evidence, the couple is documented, the rain is documented, the locations are documented, etc, and we know Eddowes and JtR end up in Mitre Square from somewhere, and from all the damage done to her, we have an estimated amount of time required of 3-5 minutes (pending on the doctor). And the above gives between 6 and 9 minutes before Eddowes' body is discovered. From that, the inference that Eddowes and JtR must have moved into the square at about the time the rain stopped is forced because the evidence indicates JtR was there with the body for 3-5 minutes (pending on the doctor). The closer the truth is to 5 minutes, the earlier they had to move in. Given the tentative identification of the CPC as Eddowes and JtR, we see that they are at least a couple in a location that more than allows for them to get to the murder location quickly, and if it was Eddowes and JtR, that means they had to move off shortly after being spotted. But that's the evidence constraining the interpretation.

To say "what if they didn't move off until later", runs into the problem of insufficient time, but that problem only exists because of the emphasis placed on an unsupported conjecture (moved off later). One could just as easily solve that with "then JtR must have been able to complete things closer to the 3 minutes, the shorter end of the estimated time required. But if one then insists "what if they moved off later and what if it would require JtR more time than the doctors' estimate?", now one is creating problems and chasing will-o-the-wisps. The evidence tells us JtR had to be in the square with Eddowes for some estimated period of time, and these are the things he did to her - and from the evidence, and times, and so forth, we try and reduce the time window available for JtR to enter the square.

The ironic thing is the more and better quality data we have to work with the more and more specific our inferences should become. The evidence should constrain us to smaller and smaller time windows, as it does in this case (we're down to a matter of a few minutes really) but rather than see that as a good thing, Trevor flips it around by saying "if he entered outside that window that the evidence indicates he had to have entered by then the evidence is wrong". That's using the hypothesis to evaluate the data, what Trevor needs is evidence to show JtR did not enter the square with Eddowes shortly after the rain stopped. And he needs evidence that the act of cutting out the kidney, and the botched removal of the uterus, and only those two cut and grab actions, require somewhere between 6 and 8 minutes (he states a minimum of 11 minutes are required, and has referenced the 3 minute estimate by Dr. Seq, so that means just slicing a membrane and removing the kidney, along with cutting out a portion of the uterus, in Trevor's opinion, takes a minimum of 6 minutes and as much as 8. Those two actions, in his hypothesis, require more time than the murder, facial mutilations, all other abdominal injuries, scattering of possessions, and apron cutting combined. He creates this long duration by speculation that JtR would have to hunt around in the body cavity, and adds all sorts of specific things to extend the time for those actions, but those are stories. His own logic, when applied against him, should be sufficient to refute him, as in "What if it didn't take him that long", but then he resorts to saying people are blinkered, foolish, etc. because he's frustrated that people don't agree with him. But if one steps back, we see that is the basis of the whole story in the first place "What if he didn't have enough time?". Before one tries to answer that question, one has to prove he didn't. Trevor, I believe, overestimates how much time would be required to perform those two actions, removal of a kidney, and partial removal of the uterus. I do not see any reason why those two actions should add so much additional time that we suddenly go from requiring 3-5 minutes to requiring at least 11 minutes. Those two actions do not require that much time.

- Jeff

Jeff
It is clear you have not read my post properly before posting your reply.

Firstly it is not I that came up with 11 minutes. I mentioned it because another poster stated that the killer could have had that length of time.

It was Dr Brown and Dr Sequeira who came up with the 3 and 5 minute window which clearly relates to only the the murder and mutilations, and does not include the time needed for the killer to remove the kidney and uterus, and do all that he is supposed to have done has to be added to these timings.

For the final time

Working with Dr Browns guess of 5 mins to carry out the murder and mutilations, we then have to add the time it would then have taken to remove the organs. It took Dr Brown`s expert 3 mins to remove a uterus, of course he perhaps was not working in almost total darkness on a wet cobbled pavement, agaisn we do not know. I see no reason why the killer could have done it any quicker, that take us to 8 mins to that we have to add the time it would have taken to locate and remove the kidney given the degree of difficulty in doing so I would suggest another 3 mins taking us to an absolute minimum of 11 mins. I know we cannot be precise but there has to be some form of a time scale to try to work with.

Now for that 11 minutes to work the couple would have to have left the spot where they were standing at 1.34 allowing for 1 minute to walk to the murder spot taking us to 1.35 so that leave just 9 mins before Watkins find the body, but we then have to subtract Harveys time on the basis he disturbed the killer at 1.42 approx it may have been 1.41. So working on those times the killer would have had no more than 6 or 7 mins. If you work on Levys time then it would have been 5- 6 mins, and in that time he rifles her pockets and it is suggested cuts a piece of apron.

The later the couple move off from where they were standing the time is reduced, and there lies the rub of the green because we don't know what time they left that spot and walked into the square, so anything is possible, as well as impossible.

So in order to establish the possible or the impossible we have to consider all the facts not just surrounding this murder but all the other murders and look at the overall picture with regards to the fact that there were no other organs taken from any of the other victims other than Chapman if you include the murders before and after the canonical five that is a total of 9 victims all supposedly killed by the same hand yet no attempt to remove any organs from the remainder. Now to me that's a very relevant and important point, especialy when we have the only two victims who were missing organs at the post mortem stage, taken to two different mortuaries, and two different methods used to remove a uterus from each, now call me old fashioned but to me that shows two different persons removed those specific organs. It is highly unlikely that anyone other than someone aversed in the female anatomy in 1888 would have had enough medical knowledge to be able to effect two different methods of removal, and certainly not a butcher or a slaughterer, that suggestion is not even worth considering, yet because a doctor in 1888 states that these removals could be carried out by such a person everyone wants to readily accept what they say, despite being told by current medical professionals that this was nothing more than guess work.

We have a modern day consultant gynecologist who has reviewed the medical evidence and who suggests the way Chapmans uterus and the attached Fallopian tubes were removed indicates it being taken for medical research.

You cannot say with any certainty that the organs were not taken at the mortuaries, because we simply do not know what went on at those mortuaries over the 6-8 hours the bodies were left. Likewise I can only present the facts which in my opinon far outweigh those that suggest they were not, and it is a matter for researchers to assess and evaluate all those facts from both sides of the argument, and make up their own minds.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Jeff
It is clear you have not read my post properly before posting your reply.

Firstly it is not I that came up with 11 minutes. I mentioned it because another poster stated that the killer could have had that length of time.

It was Dr Brown and Dr Sequeira who came up with the 3 and 5 minute window which clearly relates to only the the murder and mutilations, and does not include the time needed for the killer to remove the kidney and uterus, and do all that he is supposed to have done has to be added to these timings.

For the final time

Working with Dr Browns guess of 5 mins to carry out the murder and mutilations, we then have to add the time it would then have taken to remove the organs. It took Dr Brown`s expert 3 mins to remove a uterus, of course he perhaps was not working in almost total darkness on a wet cobbled pavement, agaisn we do not know. I see no reason why the killer could have done it any quicker, that take us to 8 mins to that we have to add the time it would have taken to locate and remove the kidney given the degree of difficulty in doing so I would suggest another 3 mins taking us to an absolute minimum of 11 mins. I know we cannot be precise but there has to be some form of a time scale to try to work with.

Now for that 11 minutes to work the couple would have to have left the spot where they were standing at 1.34 allowing for 1 minute to walk to the murder spot taking us to 1.35 so that leave just 9 mins before Watkins find the body, but we then have to subtract Harveys time on the basis he disturbed the killer at 1.42 approx it may have been 1.41. So working on those times the killer would have had no more than 6 or 7 mins. If you work on Levys time then it would have been 5- 6 mins, and in that time he rifles her pockets and it is suggested cuts a piece of apron.

The later the couple move off from where they were standing the time is reduced, and there lies the rub of the green because we don't know what time they left that spot and walked into the square, so anything is possible, as well as impossible.

So in order to establish the possible or the impossible we have to consider all the facts not just surrounding this murder but all the other murders and look at the overall picture with regards to the fact that there were no other organs taken from any of the other victims other than Chapman if you include the murders before and after the canonical five that is a total of 9 victims all supposedly killed by the same hand yet no attempt to remove any organs from the remainder. Now to me that's a very relevant and important point, especialy when we have the only two victims who were missing organs at the post mortem stage, taken to two different mortuaries, and two different methods used to remove a uterus from each, now call me old fashioned but to me that shows two different persons removed those specific organs. It is highly unlikely that anyone other than someone aversed in the female anatomy in 1888 would have had enough medical knowledge to be able to effect two different methods of removal, and certainly not a butcher or a slaughterer, that suggestion is not even worth considering, yet because a doctor in 1888 states that these removals could be carried out by such a person everyone wants to readily accept what they say, despite being told by current medical professionals that this was nothing more than guess work.

We have a modern day consultant gynecologist who has reviewed the medical evidence and who suggests the way Chapmans uterus and the attached Fallopian tubes were removed indicates it being taken for medical research.

You cannot say with any certainty that the organs were not taken at the mortuaries, because we simply do not know what went on at those mortuaries over the 6-8 hours the bodies were left. Likewise I can only present the facts which in my opinon far outweigh those that suggest they were not, and it is a matter for researchers to assess and evaluate all those facts from both sides of the argument, and make up their own minds.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

For the last time, as you say. I most certainly did read your reply, this time, and every other time you've repeated the same thing. Ok, I want to see a description, or at least a source that allows me to go read it for myself, for this expert attempt at uterus removal that you keep saying required 3 minutes. Because, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the amount of time from the first cut to open up the abdomen - we both agree that was done, so that's not the extra time required. But that's an invalid starting point because we both agree the abdoment was opened. You're "reusing time" to stretch it out. It's the time to grab hold, and cut out, the uterus (badly) we're talking about. We both agree the abdomen was cut open, etc. It's the action of grabbing and the movement of the knife to cut out the uterus that you are arguing takes 3 minutes. I don't buy that, those two movements would take a matter of seconds. Nor do I buy that it takes more than a few seconds to slice a membrane, grab a kidney, cut the renal artery. The removal of the organs require actions that take far less than a minute over and above what we both agree was actually done at the crime scene.

In short, very little additional time is required for organ removal because we agree all the rest was done in the allotted time - you can't double dip.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I don’t think that it could be summed up better than that Jeff. There’s nothing wrong with a ‘what if’ of course if we’re trying consider what might have occurred but in this case it’s completely inappropriate. It’s like saying - “what if this guy was colour blind and it’s why he said that the suspect had dark brown hair and yet the other witnesses said that he had red hair?” The first question would have to be - “well do we have any evidence at all that he was colour blind?” If the answer to that was - “we have absolutely no way of knowing.” Then it’s game over for that line of thought. The available evidence gives us nothing that would lead us to suspect that the killer didn’t have enough time and yet it’s been stretched to try and create doubt. And then we have to suspend belief to accept the notion that someone simply strolled into the mortuary and took away two body parts, for medical use, damaging one in the process. I’m sorry to say that it’s a deliberate attempt to create a mystery where none exists. We have enough genuine mysteries to look at.

Hi Herlock,

It's a confusion between statements, or claims, made in "theoretical space", which is where we consider what is possible. Trevor's claim that organ theft was "possible" is a theoretically based statement. Theoretical space is not directly observable, because it is our attempts at explanation. But theory evaluation occurs in "observable space", and what's lacking are the observable consequences that provide the support for the non-observable explanations. There's nothing to back up the existence of thievery of organs in these cases other than the non-observable claim "it might have happened". Getting trapped in non-observable hypothetical space is to get trapped following will-o-the-wisps. They pull you off the path, they beguile you into thinking your theoretical musings are solid evidence. But they're mist. There is nothing tangible at this time to warrant a change in view of what the observable evidence indicates. Now, if new evidence would be put forward, something tangible, observable, and reliable (musings years after the fact are not reliable), then that could suggest there's more to it. So far, all that's being put forth are repeated statements of belief, and we can believe things that are false.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

I think something that Trevor just reminded the discussion of is the fact that this particular murder has its own challenges beyond the mutilations. The light. Getting her to the location is not going to take much time, killing her might take a minute...but to just start slicing without having any idea where things are located in near darkness does refine the suspect field somewhat. This guy at least thought he knew what he was doing. Which for me helps sustain the probability that he had the skill which would translate into speed for this situation. Maybe Ive been wrong questioning the 5 minute scenario.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

For the last time, as you say. I most certainly did read your reply, this time, and every other time you've repeated the same thing. Ok, I want to see a description, or at least a source that allows me to go read it for myself, for this expert attempt at uterus removal that you keep saying required 3 minutes. Because, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the amount of time from the first cut to open up the abdomen - we both agree that was done, so that's not the extra time required. But that's an invalid starting point because we both agree the abdoment was opened. You're "reusing time" to stretch it out. It's the time to grab hold, and cut out, the uterus (badly) we're talking about. We both agree the abdomen was cut open, etc. It's the action of grabbing and the movement of the knife to cut out the uterus that you are arguing takes 3 minutes. I don't buy that, those two movements would take a matter of seconds. Nor do I buy that it takes more than a few seconds to slice a membrane, grab a kidney, cut the renal artery. The removal of the organs require actions that take far less than a minute over and above what we both agree was actually done at the crime scene.

In short, very little additional time is required for organ removal because we agree all the rest was done in the allotted time - you can't double dip.

- Jeff

There is no double dipping, and modern day medical experts clearly dont concur with you, and I wonder why? They are unbiased where you it would seem have an agenda to prop up the old accepted theory

You want to believe that the killer took the organs and it seems you are doing you level best to try to show that these organ removals were done in almost record time that clearly doesn't even fit with the skill and expertise of the Victorian doctors. Talk about being blinkered !

Dr Browns inquest testimony

“Dr. Brown—“The bladder was in no way injured in the body, and I may mention that a man accustomed to remove the portions removed was asked by me to do so as quickly as possible. He accomplished the task in three minutes, but not without injuring the bladder”

A more recent exercise I commissioned with a mortuary took an experience eviscerator two minutes to make a mid-line incision locate and remove a kidney. This was done under mortuary conditions with an element of haste attached to the exercise for obvious reasons, and in full lighting, not in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen using a long bladed knife on a wet pavement, and with the eviscerator wearing surgical gloves to allow him to be able to grip the organ,something the killer would not have had access to!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

I do not believe that last paragraph.
Where was that done and by whom?

Curious about the source of Brown's Inquest statement in the second last paragraph.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just re-read Brown’s Inquest testimony to refresh my memory. From The Times (JTR Sourcebook)

Mr Crawford - Could the organs removed be used for any professional purpose?

Brown - They would be of no use for a professional purpose.

So no equivocation on that point. There was no point in anyone stealing the parts for professional/medical reasons according to Brown.

Then.

Mr Crawford - About how long do you think it would take to inflict all these wounds, and perpetrate such a deed?

Brown - At least 5 minutes would be required.

So 5 minutes. No issue there.


Then from The Telegraph (Casebook)

Coroner - Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed?

Brown - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.

So Brown said that he’d had enough time. Ok.

Then.....

Coroner - How long would it take to make the wounds?

Brown - It might be done in 5 minutes. It might take him longer, but that is the least time it could be done in.

So a minimum of 5 mins required according to Brown. No issues there.


And so, to me at least, this really couldn’t be clearer. Brown didn’t say “but the removal of the organs would have added time onto my 5 minute estimate.” I don’t know where this statement of Brown comes from where he says that he’d got someone to perform the same extraction and that it took three minutes? Obviously I’m not questioning it’s existence but surely this would have meant that 3 minutes of the time taken would have been taken up by the extractions? After all Brown doesn't distinguish at the Inquest between the time for the actual murder with mutilations and the removal of parts.

So this seems pretty black and white. Brown said 5 minutes minimum and that the killer had sufficient time.

Could someone point out the mystery to me as I can’t see one?

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve just re-read Brown’s Inquest testimony to refresh my memory. From The Times (JTR Sourcebook)

Mr Crawford - Could the organs removed be used for any professional purpose?

Brown - They would be of no use for a professional purpose.

So no equivocation on that point. There was no point in anyone stealing the parts for professional/medical reasons according to Brown.

Then.

Mr Crawford - About how long do you think it would take to inflict all these wounds, and perpetrate such a deed?

Brown - At least 5 minutes would be required.

So 5 minutes. No issue there.


Then from The Telegraph (Casebook)

Coroner - Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed?

Brown - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.

So Brown said that he’d had enough time. Ok.

Then.....

Coroner - How long would it take to make the wounds?

Brown - It might be done in 5 minutes. It might take him longer, but that is the least time it could be done in.

So a minimum of 5 mins required according to Brown. No issues there.


And so, to me at least, this really couldn’t be clearer. Brown didn’t say “but the removal of the organs would have added time onto my 5 minute estimate.” I don’t know where this statement of Brown comes from where he says that he’d got someone to perform the same extraction and that it took three minutes? Obviously I’m not questioning it’s existence but surely this would have meant that 3 minutes of the time taken would have been taken up by the extractions? After all Brown doesn't distinguish at the Inquest between the time for the actual murder with mutilations and the removal of parts.

So this seems pretty black and white. Brown said 5 minutes minimum and that the killer had sufficient time.

Could someone point out the mystery to me as I can’t see one?

Brown and Sequeria estimated time was given by both of them during a press interview prior to the post mortem “How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”.

So extra time has to be added onto those times for the organ removalsbecause the organs had not been found to be missing at that time

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk