Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Herlock Sholmes]

If all the collective facts were put to a jury they would say that they were unsafe to be able to come to a definitive verdict. So in that case you cannot positively state that the killer removed them.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is a brick wall. Why don’t you get this Trevor?

Stripping everything away it simply boils down to this. To show that the killer didn’t take the organs you have to show definite evidence. You cannot rely on ‘might have’s’ which is exactly what you’re doing. We can show that it’s entirely possible that they could have been taken but you can’t show anything to suggest either a narrower time frame or a longer period required. Keep repeating ‘unsafe’ is inappropriate to this discussion because, a) it’s not unsafe to say that the killer could have had between 5 and 8 minutes, and b) it’s not unsafe to place some weight on the doctors evidence because they were there and we weren’t and their opinions were based on their specific knowledge.

And so our position isn’t unsafe. We are making no claims to exact timings. We are simply saying that no positive evidence exists that make the events impossible or even unlikely.

In every debate you have on here Trevor you keep very selectively using the word ‘unsafe’ in an attempt bolster your own viewpoint. And you usually use it when someone isn’t stating something as a fact, just a possibility or a likelihood. In effect your saying that it’s unsafe to take a balanced view. Even when a poster fully and repeatedly states that they are not being rigid on things like timing and that they fully accept the possibility of variation or error you still keep parroting ‘unsafe.’

Many posters are tired of continually repeating that we are taking all of these things into consideration and we are not stating opinions as facts and we are not saying that witnesses times must have been exactly right but it’s like talking to a wall. You just keep saying ‘unsafe, unsafe.’ Why do we bother discussing anything in a case with so many uncertainties? It’s simply impossible that you can’t understand this Trevor. Impossible. It’s yet another case of you having a ‘theory’ and because it’s your theory of course it cannot be wrong and so you defend it at all costs no matter how many offences to logic, reason and evidence you commit. You simply and clearly have absolutely nothing to lead any reasonable person to consider the possibility that Catherine Eddowes organs were stolen in the mortuary or that Drs Brown and Sequeira were the Abbott And Costello of the medical profession who, at the Inquest, managed to forget that the organs were missing.

[Michael W Richards]

It was said a few posts back that Brown stated the organs taken would have no value, I don't believe that he was correct. After Annies murder the Teaching Hospital that was allegedly approached a year earlier about uteri specimens for sale did not deny that story when confronted with it. I believe that there were still remnants of the Burke and Hare trade lurking about and that the research being done at that time in London would require lots of specimens.

I don't believe that is why some of these murders have missing organs though. In Annies case, and probably intended with Polly, the organ taken is specifically connected to women. I think that's a factor, female reproductive curiosity. A kidney extraction is therefore something not similar, because it lacks the symbolic significance. I think the man who took Kates kidney didn't know why Annies killer took her uterus.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was said a few posts back that Brown stated the organs taken would have no value, I don't believe that he was correct. After Annies murder the Teaching Hospital that was allegedly approached a year earlier about uteri specimens for sale did not deny that story when confronted with it. I believe that there were still remnants of the Burke and Hare trade lurking about and that the research being done at that time in London would require lots of specimens.

I don't believe that is why some of these murders have missing organs though. In Annies case, and probably intended with Polly, the organ taken is specifically connected to women. I think that's a factor, female reproductive curiosity. A kidney extraction is therefore something not similar, because it lacks the symbolic significance. I think the man who took Kates kidney didn't know why Annies killer took her uterus.

I agree Michael. Do you think that Brown might have been considering that there was a part of the uterus missing when he made is comments about the organs having no value? Was he being specific rather than talking about organs in general?

[Michael W Richards]

I agree Michael. Do you think that Brown might have been considering that there was a part of the uterus missing when he made is comments about the organs having no value? Was he being specific rather than talking about organs in general?

If I was to make a guess Herlock Id say that his comments concerned the only organ taken in complete form from Kate, as the partial uterus would have no resale value as a research specimen anyway. Im not certain that a kidney would have had no value either, but I assume his comments were about the intact kidney.

And again, I think the reason Kate lost any organ is because her killer presumed that any organ from the abdomen would be reminiscent of Annies murder. I don't believe he was targeting a specific organ....but I do believe Annies killer did. Its that missing specificity for me that prevents me from matching Annie with Kate outright.

[The Baron]

I think that's a factor, female reproductive curiosity. A kidney extraction is therefore something not similar, because it lacks the symbolic significance. I think the man who took Kates kidney didn't know why Annies killer took her uterus.

The man who took Kates Kidney also took her uterus out, maybe you have forgotten all about that, just to support your boring theory.

Or maybe you like to say they were two men, one who took the Kidney, and one who took the uterus, then I will add another one just for you, the man who took her nose! Cutting the nose lacks the symbolic significance of extracting a Kidney!



The Baron

[DJA]

Given that Jack cut deeply into Eddowes' right inguinal lymph nodes and performed a hysterectomy , there is a possibility he might have formed the opinion that she had cancer.

Then there are the signs of xanthelasma and cuts around her eyes. Particularly above her left.

Not to mention the deviation around her navel.

Fascinating that she just happened to suffer from Gull-Sutton disease.

[Trevor Marriott]

The man who took Kates Kidney also took her uterus out, maybe you have forgotten all about that, just to support your boring theory.

Or maybe you like to say they were two men, one who took the Kidney, and one who took the uterus, then I will add another one just for you, the man who took her nose! Cutting the nose lacks the symbolic significance of extracting a Kidney!



The Baron

That is not true the nose slicing was part and parcel of the murder and mutilations, the removal of the organs is a different and contentious issue as has been discussed.

And I am puzzled by Browns comments, when we know individual organs for research were fetching a high price, but costing a high price to acquire from mortuaries.

I am also puzzled by how the killer after carrying out a frenzied attack on Eddowes was able to compose himself enough to be able to then locate a kidney in a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness, and remove it with anatomical knowledge, with a long bladed knife !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Especially when Brown's brother in law is taken into consideration.

[Trevor Marriott]

Especially when Brown's brother in law is taken into consideration.

Stephen H Appleford aged 39 born Coggeshall - Surgeon

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

His speciality?

[Michael W Richards]

The man who took Kates Kidney also took her uterus out, maybe you have forgotten all about that, just to support your boring theory.

Or maybe you like to say they were two men, one who took the Kidney, and one who took the uterus, then I will add another one just for you, the man who took her nose! Cutting the nose lacks the symbolic significance of extracting a Kidney!



The Baron

No, actually he took a partial uterus. If his objective was the uterus, and that's why he cut, then he has proven his ability to take a complete one already. And demonstrated zero interest in obtaining any other organs, which in the case of the kidney, is non gender specific. Like the uterus is. Your remarks do not reveal any intelligent review of what is learned from the 2 most probable murders that can be linked with one man in the "series". Polly and Annies. The fact that Kates murder does not have the same focus, and has elements that are strictly to disfigure, and at least one cut that was preventable, suggests it doesn't appear to be Annies killer.

[The Baron]

No, actually he took a partial uterus. If his objective was the uterus, and that's why he cut, then he has proven his ability to take a complete one already. And demonstrated zero interest in obtaining any other organs, which in the case of the kidney, is non gender specific. Like the uterus is. Your remarks do not reveal any intelligent review of what is learned from the 2 most probable murders that can be linked with one man in the "series". Polly and Annies. The fact that Kates murder does not have the same focus, and has elements that are strictly to disfigure, and at least one cut that was preventable, suggests it doesn't appear to be Annies killer.

You realy don't see the flaw in your theory, do you?!

Why you connected Polly who didn't miss any organ with Annie, why not with Kates?!

How do you know Annies Killer didn't want to take her Kidney?!

Or another completely different Organ, her Stomach for example, and then we have three active Killers in place!

At least Kates uterus was cut out not like Polly's, if you wish to link only two murders, then Kates and Annies.


I don't buy any of this clearly.



The Baron

[Michael W Richards]

You realy don't see the flaw in your theory, do you?!

Why you connected Polly who didn't miss any organ with Annie, why not with Kates?!

How do you know Annies Killer didn't want to take her Kidney?!

Or another completely different Organ, her Stomach for example, and then we have three active Killers in place!

At least Kates uterus was cut out not like Polly's, if you wish to link only two murders, then Kates and Annies.


I don't buy any of this clearly.



The Baron

If he wanted to take her kidney then that's still different from someone that was after a uterus, or is that too logical? And NOT ONE physician suggested Kates killer made the cuts required to obtain precisely what he took, without any unnecessary cuts....however Phillips did say that about Annies killer. Your purchase of this isn't required, it is what it is, whether you buy it or not. In virtually every aspect that is relevant Pollys kill matches the subsequent one 10 days later. ALL the markers one would use to assess this are virtually identical, the degree to which she had her abdomen mutilated is the only codicil, and very easily dealt with when you realize that Polly was his first kill and as such he made premature decisions about where and when he would attack. And how much pm privacy he would have been afforded. Clearly that is shown on the likely time lapse between his leaving and someone finding Polly...minutes tops.

Again, If Kates uterus was a target, then there was no need for the other superfluous cuts and a great deal of need to explain why he botched taking this one out complete if he had done it before, and if Kates kidney was the target, then her killer chose organs not specific to females or reproduction. Something Annies killer may have sought specifically based on Phillips observations.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Watkins said his beat timespan was 13 minutes, +/- 1 minute.

He said he passed through the square at 1:30.
Is 1:30 his last entry time, or exit time?

Assume it takes him a minute to inspect the square.
If he entered the square at 1:30, he would, based on his beat's average timespan, be back at the Mitre St entrance at 1:43.
If last exited the square at 1:30, then he reenters at 1:42.

Dr Sequeira put time of death as probably not more than 15 minutes prior to his arrival at 1:55 - so no earlier than 1:40.

I see five possibilities, other than a 1:44 arrival time:

1. Watkins was wrong about his last clock time at Mitre Square - he actually exited close to 1:35, and does not reenter until nearly 1:47
2. Watkins got his times right, but did not let on at the inquest (or possibly to anyone) that he witnessed Jack leaving the square - probably after Watkins himself enters
3. Watkins and Morris were actually enjoying a cup of tea, in the warehouse, when Jack was removing organs
4. Morris let Jack in the door of the warehouse, just as Watkins is about to renter the square
5. Sequeira's ToD estimate is wrong, and Jack leaves the square by the time Harvey looks into it, and Morris puts the door on the jar (as early as 1:39)

#5 would cast doubt on the couple seen by Lawende and Levy, being JtR and Eddowes.

[JeffHamm]

Watkins said his beat timespan was 13 minutes, +/- 1 minute.

He said he passed through the square at 1:30.
Is 1:30 his last entry time, or exit time?

Assume it takes him a minute to inspect the square.
If he entered the square at 1:30, he would, based on his beat's average timespan, be back at the Mitre St entrance at 1:43.
If last exited the square at 1:30, then he reenters at 1:42.

Dr Sequeira put time of death as probably not more than 15 minutes prior to his arrival at 1:55 - so no earlier than 1:40.

I see five possibilities, other than a 1:44 arrival time:

1. Watkins was wrong about his last clock time at Mitre Square - he actually exited close to 1:35, and does not reenter until nearly 1:47
2. Watkins got his times right, but did not let on at the inquest (or possibly to anyone) that he witnessed Jack leaving the square - probably after Watkins himself enters
3. Watkins and Morris were actually enjoying a cup of tea, in the warehouse, when Jack was removing organs
4. Morris let Jack in the door of the warehouse, just as Watkins is about to renter the square
5. Sequeira's ToD estimate is wrong, and Jack leaves the square by the time Harvey looks into it, and Morris puts the door on the jar (as early as 1:39)

#5 would cast doubt on the couple seen by Lawende and Levy, being JtR and Eddowes.

Watkins had a watch on him apparently, so his times are based upon his noting the times (as would be done to log his beat, for the entry time, and for important events, like finding bodies). We can set out times by his watch. How tohse marry up with other clocks, we don't know.

Number 2 is speculation with nothing to back it up other than to fall back on "it's possible". Possible isn't enough to make it a serious contentender for what is probable. Without evidence to support it, it's just a "well maybe it was ..." type story.

Number 3 falls into the same category as number 2.

Number 4, to be honest, I think doesn't even fall into the possible range.

Sequeira's ToD estimate, like all ToD estimates of the time, are based upon a flawed method, and shouldn't be considered as being either here nor there. Sometimes they seem ok, sometimes they do not. Random estimates will do that. We can set them all aside as unreliable, though occasionally they may by luck look accurate. Most likely, JtR fled the scene when Harvey patrolled Church Passage, which by his account was a few minutes before he heard the whilstle, which was shortly after Watkins' finds the body. That would make JtR fleeing the scene somewhere around 1:42 or 1:43, pending on how long it takes from Watkins finding the body to fetch Morris, for Morris to view the body, then go back and get his whistle. I would give all that a minute.

If the Church Passage Couple is Eddowes and JtR, the earliest they could entre the square is around 1:33 (based upon Levy's testimony) or 1:35 (based upon Lawende's). Prior to that, Levy and Lawende indicate it was raining hard enough that they waited for it to pass, so it is unlikely that Eddowes and JtR would have entered regardless (meaning, if the Church Passage Couple is not them, which is possible), then it is still unlikly Eddowes and JtR entered the square any earlier. But from 1:33 - 1:42 is 9 minutes, and from 1:35 it's 7 minutes. While those would fit with Sequeria's estimate, I would suggest that's probably because Sequeria was aware that's the time window that it had to be, and he was just saying he didn't dispuse that.

- Jeff