Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[bolo]

Dr Gordon Brown concluded that it took the murderer about 5 minutes to kill and mutilate Eddowes. If the Church Passage couple was indeed Kate and Jack and they were seen at 1.34am, there was a time window of about 10 minutes before PC Watkins re-entered Mitre Square at around 1.44am and found the body.

The time window may have gotten slightly smaller if the couple was not Kate and Jack but given Dr Brown's estimate, there still was enough time for what the killer had in mind.

I think that is the closest we can get to the timing of the events on that night. If he knew about Watkins' beat, his safest bet probably would have been to escape via Church Passage to Duke Street and then back to the East End.

[JeffHamm]

Dr Gordon Brown concluded that it took the murderer about 5 minutes to kill and mutilate Eddowes. If the Church Passage couple was indeed Kate and Jack and they were seen at 1.34am, there was a time window of about 10 minutes before PC Watkins re-entered Mitre Square at around 1.44am and found the body.

The time window may have gotten slightly smaller if the couple was not Kate and Jack but given Dr Brown's estimate, there still was enough time for what the killer had in mind.

I think that is the closest we can get to the timing of the events on that night. If he knew about Watkins' beat, his safest bet probably would have been to escape via Church Passage to Duke Street and then back to the East End.

Hi Bolo,

Dr. Sequeria (sp?), also at the crime scene, gives an estimate of 3 minutes required, so there's variation offered there as well (as there will be on just about anything estimates are made for - they are, after all, estimates). Anyway, that aside, there are two events that happen before PC Watkins returns at 1:44, both of which one needs to consider. First, PC Harvey patrols Church Passage (but not into Mitre Square), and that was around 1:41. Also, the fellow in the warehouse (whose name escapes me at the moment), was cleaning up and opened the door to sweep the dust out and he says he did this a couple (or was it a few) minutes before Watkins arrives and ran to him for help. It's hard to know exactly when that happens, but it sounds similar to the time of Harvey's patrol, so which came first is unclear.

Anyway, either of those events would, in all probability, have alerted JtR as to activity in the area, and he is likely to have fled at the first opportune moment after that, and unlikely to do any more cutting, save perhaps the cutting of the apron I suppose. While we can't prove that's the case and one could argue it's possible he stuck around to continue mutilating, and fled just before Watkins arrival, I tend to think the safer bet is that he fled at or near to, 1:41 (PC Harvey's patrol of Church Passage). That narrows the time by 3 minutes. It is still 7 by your estimate, which is more than 5, just by a smaller margin. It expands to 8 minutes if we go with Leve's time of 1:33 rather than his 1:34 (he said they waited 3 or 4 minutes after 1:30) and shrinks to 6 if we go with Lawende's time of 1:35. Even the narrowest window (6 minutes) is longer than the longest estimate 5 minutes) required, although that 5 minutes was presented as "5 minutes or more", but how much more is unclear. Combined with the shorter 3 minute estimate given by Dr. S, I think dealing with between 3-5 minutes a safe range, though not everyone agrees with me of course, and you are not beholden to either.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Bolo,

Dr. Sequeria (sp?), also at the crime scene, gives an estimate of 3 minutes required, so there's variation offered there as well (as there will be on just about anything estimates are made for - they are, after all, estimates). Anyway, that aside, there are two events that happen before PC Watkins returns at 1:44, both of which one needs to consider. First, PC Harvey patrols Church Passage (but not into Mitre Square), and that was around 1:41. Also, the fellow in the warehouse (whose name escapes me at the moment), was cleaning up and opened the door to sweep the dust out and he says he did this a couple (or was it a few) minutes before Watkins arrives and ran to him for help. It's hard to know exactly when that happens, but it sounds similar to the time of Harvey's patrol, so which came first is unclear.

Anyway, either of those events would, in all probability, have alerted JtR as to activity in the area, and he is likely to have fled at the first opportune moment after that, and unlikely to do any more cutting, save perhaps the cutting of the apron I suppose. While we can't prove that's the case and one could argue it's possible he stuck around to continue mutilating, and fled just before Watkins arrival, I tend to think the safer bet is that he fled at or near to, 1:41 (PC Harvey's patrol of Church Passage). That narrows the time by 3 minutes. It is still 7 by your estimate, which is more than 5, just by a smaller margin. It expands to 8 minutes if we go with Leve's time of 1:33 rather than his 1:34 (he said they waited 3 or 4 minutes after 1:30) and shrinks to 6 if we go with Lawende's time of 1:35. Even the narrowest window (6 minutes) is longer than the longest estimate 5 minutes) required, although that 5 minutes was presented as "5 minutes or more", but how much more is unclear. Combined with the shorter 3 minute estimate given by Dr. S, I think dealing with between 3-5 minutes a safe range, though not everyone agrees with me of course, and you are not beholden to either.

- Jeff

I dont think even a modern day surgeon could do all of that in 3 mins let alone 5, and I think he was probabaly referring to the murder and the mutilations when he said that because the organs were not found to be missing when he gave that quote the same for Sequeira.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I dont think even a modern day surgeon could do all of that in 3 mins let alone 5, and I think he was probabaly referring to the murder and the mutilations when he said that because the organs were not found to be missing when he gave that quote the same for Sequeira.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Yah, I know you are of a different opinion on the amount of time required. All I know is that Brown gives the same estimate at the inquest, after the organs were known to be missing. There have also been modern forensic surgeons state that 3 minutes would be sufficient, and possibly even 2 minutes (which does seem awfully quick to me). I don't recall where Dr. Sequeira's 3 minutes estimate was stated, but I think it was after the PM when the organs were known to be missing. I could be mistaken, though.

Anyway, as a more general follow on, weirdly, there are quotes in some papers of Dr. Brown stating that a professional practitioner was able to do it all in 3.5 minutes, and it appears in an article where the kidney and uterus were known to be missing as well. I've put a quote from the article at the end and bolded relevant sections to make it easier to find.

My concern about this is that this "recreation" is embedded in a summary of the inquest testimony, and other sources of Dr. Brown's testimony do not include the reference to such a recreation. Either this information was obtained by the reporter by interviewing Dr. Brown after his testimony, or it was just made up (something we know plagues us in this case). Given Dr. Brown testifies that his opinion was that 5 minutes would be required, I think it unlikely he was in possession of information that it could be done in 3.5 minutes. The only way I could see him doing that is if he presumed that his expert practitioner could simply do it much faster than someone with less surgical skill (Dr. Brown does, after all, agree that everything could be done, including the organ removal, by someone who was famililar with cutting up animals after all. If he was of the view that they would be slower, then his 5+ minute estimation would reflect that.) But, as I dislike speculating so much just to make a one off reference fit in, and as I've not see mention of this "recreation" elsewhere (other than repeats of this story in other papers), I'm inclined to think this might be a reporters embellishment. If anyone knows of an independent corroborating source for this, though, I would be very interested in reading it. Personally, I would be surprised if this was done. But by all means, feel free to surprise me!

- Jeff

Fromaily News, 5 October 1888
"But the last and most important witness of the day was Dr. F. Gordon Brown, the City police surgeon. He described with great minuteness and at great length everything pertaining to the condition of the body when found and the results of the post-mortem examination on the day of the murder. The first important inferences he drew from his examination were that death must have been the immediate result of the cutting of the throat, that is was cut in such a manner that no cry could have been raised, and that the various mutilations were certainly done after death. Probably the murder was committed with a sharp-pointed blade at least six inches long, and the throat had been cut right through to the vertebral cartilages, just as was the case, it will be remembered, in the Hanbury-street murder. Dr. Brown said that he had removed the stomach, but had not as yet had time to examine it so as to determine whether any kind of drug had been administered. The left kidney, the witness went on to explain, had been removed in a particular manner. "Do you," said the City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford, "draw any conclusions from that?" and the answer evidently received the deepest attention. "I think that somebody who knew the position of the kidney and how to cut it out must have done it." It had been manifest for some little time that the City Solicitor in his cross examination of the witness had been leading up to what he knew would prove sensational, and the profoundest interest was displayed by all in court as the fact of the anatomical knowledge of the assassin became established by repeated answers of the surgical expert; and when at length in answer to explicit inquiry he stated that precisely the same organ - the uterus with its ligaments - as had been found missing in the case of Annie Chapman was also missing here, together with the left kidney, the sensation in court was profound. The possibility of this had, of course, been surmised, but all information on the results of the post-mortem examination had been steadily refused, and this announcement came as a startling confirmation of what had before been only suspected. In proof of the anatomical and surgical skill of the assassin, Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed this operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half."

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yah, I know you are of a different opinion on the amount of time required. All I know is that Brown gives the same estimate at the inquest, after the organs were known to be missing. There have also been modern forensic surgeons state that 3 minutes would be sufficient, and possibly even 2 minutes (which does seem awfully quick to me). I don't recall where Dr. Sequeira's 3 minutes estimate was stated, but I think it was after the PM when the organs were known to be missing. I could be mistaken, though.

Anyway, as a more general follow on, weirdly, there are quotes in some papers of Dr. Brown stating that a professional practitioner was able to do it all in 3.5 minutes, and it appears in an article where the kidney and uterus were known to be missing as well. I've put a quote from the article at the end and bolded relevant sections to make it easier to find.

My concern about this is that this "recreation" is embedded in a summary of the inquest testimony, and other sources of Dr. Brown's testimony do not include the reference to such a recreation. Either this information was obtained by the reporter by interviewing Dr. Brown after his testimony, or it was just made up (something we know plagues us in this case). Given Dr. Brown testifies that his opinion was that 5 minutes would be required, I think it unlikely he was in possession of information that it could be done in 3.5 minutes. The only way I could see him doing that is if he presumed that his expert practitioner could simply do it much faster than someone with less surgical skill (Dr. Brown does, after all, agree that everything could be done, including the organ removal, by someone who was famililar with cutting up animals after all. If he was of the view that they would be slower, then his 5+ minute estimation would reflect that.) But, as I dislike speculating so much just to make a one off reference fit in, and as I've not see mention of this "recreation" elsewhere (other than repeats of this story in other papers), I'm inclined to think this might be a reporters embellishment. If anyone knows of an independent corroborating source for this, though, I would be very interested in reading it. Personally, I would be surprised if this was done. But by all means, feel free to surprise me!

- Jeff

Fromaily News, 5 October 1888
"But the last and most important witness of the day was Dr. F. Gordon Brown, the City police surgeon. He described with great minuteness and at great length everything pertaining to the condition of the body when found and the results of the post-mortem examination on the day of the murder. The first important inferences he drew from his examination were that death must have been the immediate result of the cutting of the throat, that is was cut in such a manner that no cry could have been raised, and that the various mutilations were certainly done after death. Probably the murder was committed with a sharp-pointed blade at least six inches long, and the throat had been cut right through to the vertebral cartilages, just as was the case, it will be remembered, in the Hanbury-street murder. Dr. Brown said that he had removed the stomach, but had not as yet had time to examine it so as to determine whether any kind of drug had been administered. The left kidney, the witness went on to explain, had been removed in a particular manner. "Do you," said the City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford, "draw any conclusions from that?" and the answer evidently received the deepest attention. "I think that somebody who knew the position of the kidney and how to cut it out must have done it." It had been manifest for some little time that the City Solicitor in his cross examination of the witness had been leading up to what he knew would prove sensational, and the profoundest interest was displayed by all in court as the fact of the anatomical knowledge of the assassin became established by repeated answers of the surgical expert; and when at length in answer to explicit inquiry he stated that precisely the same organ - the uterus with its ligaments - as had been found missing in the case of Annie Chapman was also missing here, together with the left kidney, the sensation in court was profound. The possibility of this had, of course, been surmised, but all information on the results of the post-mortem examination had been steadily refused, and this announcement came as a startling confirmation of what had before been only suspected. In proof of the anatomical and surgical skill of the assassin, Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed this operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half."

Browns inquest testimony is as it was recorded before the inquest A’s was Dr Sequeira
i will attempt to locate the relevant report when I can access my files

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

As to Dr browns expert we do not know how or where or under what conditions the test was carried out, or whether or not one or two organs were removed in the test
if it was only on the uterus then extra time has to be added to this for the removal of the kidney.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

As to Dr browns expert we do not know how or where or under what conditions the test was carried out, or whether or not one or two organs were removed in the test
if it was only on the uterus then extra time has to be added to this for the removal of the kidney.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Do you know of any other source for this information though? I've only seen this newspaper report, and haven't seen it elsewhere. To clarify, I think the same story is printed in other papers, but I mean is this expert and recreation reported independently anywhere else other than reprints of the same story? Even if there are no more details about what was done, I'm more interested in whether or not there is any collaboration of the claim such a recreation was done.

- Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

What's the evidence for the police believing that Eddowes came to Mitre Square from Aldgate via Mitre Street?

This has been posted before, including on this thread:

The Derby Daily Telegraph (Oct. 1st): "indeed one of the policemen who saw the body (Eddowes) in the mortuary expressed his confident opinion that he had seen the woman walking several times in the neighborhood of Aldgate-High Street."[and,] "The police theory is that the man and woman, who had met in Aldgate, watched the policeman (Watkins) pass round the square, and they then entered it for an immoral purpose."

A similar story written on October 2, 1888 by a London correspondent for The New York Times: "The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watchboy who saw a man and a woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good description of him.”

Again, this was a theory the City of London Police had. In time they came to discredit the witness sighting at the top of Church Passage. Henry Smith, in the Ripper chapter of his book, "From Constable to Commissioner..." discounted Lawende's worth as a witness when he interviewed him.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Do you know of any other source for this information though? I've only seen this newspaper report, and haven't seen it elsewhere. To clarify, I think the same story is printed in other papers, but I mean is this expert and recreation reported independently anywhere else other than reprints of the same story? Even if there are no more details about what was done, I'm more interested in whether or not there is any collaboration of the claim such a recreation was done.

- Jeff

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”

But as stated we do not know under what conditions this took place. I would imagine not in a dark corner of a street, on a rain soaked pavement with no light to assist.

The bladder was found damaged at the post mortem!!!!!

The Star newspaper interviewed some of the material witnesses. It is not clear as to whether some or all of those interviews took place early that same morning, or later during the day.

These interviews appeared in various editions of that newspaper during the following day October 1st, and the Star newspaper published no less than 5 different editions that day. The last being an evening edition, which I would suggest would have been published between four and five pm. For anything to be included in that edition it would need to be ready to go to press for about 3 pm for 4 pm publishing, and 4 pm for the 5 pm edition. In that last edition, there is no mention of the post mortem, or any organs being found missing. In fact, in the last edition, it is clearly stated that “no organs” were missing.

In this final edition can be found a complete summary of both the murder of Eddowes and Stride, which would appear to be a repeat of some of what had already appeared in the earlier editions.

In the final edition, there are two interesting quotes, one from Dr Brown, and a second from Dr Sequeira. Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter “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”. This question and answers from both doctors are somewhat ambiguous because the term “As you found it” could refer to the crime scene, equally it could refer to the body as it was found at the mortuary before the post mortem is conducted, or equally when the post mortem was carried out, as both the doctors were also present at the post mortem. Both doctors gave the same statements at the inquest but were never asked to clarify their statements having regard to the fact that Dr Brown was then disclosing evidence about the missing organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for that Trevor!

I've found this by searching for the quote you provided:

"I think he had sufficient time; he would not have cut the lower eyelids if he had been in a great hurry. The wounds could not have been inflicted in less than five minutes. 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. I should think no struggle took place between the parties. The fact that there were no cries heard is easily understood, as the throat would be cut so suddenly as to allow of no time to make any noise. There was a piece of apron found in Goulston street with finger marks of blood upon it, which fits on to the piece left round the body. I think the face was mutilated simply to disfigure the corpse."

Which indicates that this recreation was performed after the PM (the "...a man accustomed to remove the portions removed was asked by me to do so as quickly as possible.", which can only refer to the missing kidney and uterus). While the bladder was not injured in this case as it was in Chapman, in Eddowes case the bowel was injured. It's odd that, knowing the above outcome, he still states 5 minutes. I suspect, therefore, that the additional time is him estimating the amount of additional time required to perform the actual murder and other mutilations. Unfortunately, he doesn't actually state why he estimates 5 minutes when his man performed the removals in 3. The only rational explanation I can think of for the the difference is that the recreation was only for the opening of the body cavity and removing the uterus and kidney, and not the other mutilations, etc. It would explain Dr. S's estimate of 3 minutes if Dr. S was of the opinion the additional activity would require less time than Dr. Brown estimated? Sadly, these are untestable speculations unless something more ever turns up about this, for which I am not holding my breath.

Anyway, not all versions of the inquest include that statement, which I find odd as it seems to me to be quite important information, even if incomplete (like so much of what we have). For example, the version presented here, https://www.casebook.org/official_do...t_eddowes.html which is much presented much more "verbatim" style (noting of course all testimony had to be copied down by hand so errors of wording can creep in, but should still be closer to the actual testimony than a summary presentation, which is only where this recreation ever seems to appear.

Regardless, I agree we don't have all the details we would like to have about what was done, or the conditions under which it was conducted, or even who was this "man accustomed to remove the portions removed", and where did he become so accustomed?

I'm rambling now. Just wanted to thank you for that. Gives me something to think about.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for that Trevor!

I've found this by searching for the quote you provided:

"I think he had sufficient time; he would not have cut the lower eyelids if he had been in a great hurry. The wounds could not have been inflicted in less than five minutes. 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. I should think no struggle took place between the parties. The fact that there were no cries heard is easily understood, as the throat would be cut so suddenly as to allow of no time to make any noise. There was a piece of apron found in Goulston street with finger marks of blood upon it, which fits on to the piece left round the body. I think the face was mutilated simply to disfigure the corpse."

Which indicates that this recreation was performed after the PM (the "...a man accustomed to remove the portions removed was asked by me to do so as quickly as possible.", which can only refer to the missing kidney and uterus). While the bladder was not injured in this case as it was in Chapman, in Eddowes case the bowel was injured. It's odd that, knowing the above outcome, he still states 5 minutes. I suspect, therefore, that the additional time is him estimating the amount of additional time required to perform the actual murder and other mutilations. Unfortunately, he doesn't actually state why he estimates 5 minutes when his man performed the removals in 3. The only rational explanation I can think of for the the difference is that the recreation was only for the opening of the body cavity and removing the uterus and kidney, and not the other mutilations, etc. It would explain Dr. S's estimate of 3 minutes if Dr. S was of the opinion the additional activity would require less time than Dr. Brown estimated? Sadly, these are untestable speculations unless something more ever turns up about this, for which I am not holding my breath.

Anyway, not all versions of the inquest include that statement, which I find odd as it seems to me to be quite important information, even if incomplete (like so much of what we have). For example, the version presented here, https://www.casebook.org/official_do...t_eddowes.html which is much presented much more "verbatim" style (noting of course all testimony had to be copied down by hand so errors of wording can creep in, but should still be closer to the actual testimony than a summary presentation, which is only where this recreation ever seems to appear.

Regardless, I agree we don't have all the details we would like to have about what was done, or the conditions under which it was conducted, or even who was this "man accustomed to remove the portions removed", and where did he become so accustomed?

I'm rambling now. Just wanted to thank you for that. Gives me something to think about.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

The times quoted by Brown and Sequeira as I stated are ambiguos with the question to him "As you found it" I personally take that to mean when the body was first seen by Brown and Sequeira at the crime scene,and before any organs were found missing.

You raise a valid question as to who this expert was, and if he was an expert in female anatomy. If the killer did remove the organs at the crime scene in the time suggested would he not have needed to have the same knowledge and expertise as Browns expert, because many are suggesting on here that 5 mins was enough time for the killer to do all that he is purported to have done but made even more difficult by the crime scene conditions at the time of the murder.

After all Brown did state that knowledge of anatomy would have been needed to locate and remove the kidney. I wonder how many would be victorian killers would have possessed such knowledge, and expertise to not only locate and remove organs but to do so in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen?

The more you think the more you have to question the old accpeted theories !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

This has been posted before, including on this thread:

The Derby Daily Telegraph (Oct. 1st): "indeed one of the policemen who saw the body (Eddowes) in the mortuary expressed his confident opinion that he had seen the woman walking several times in the neighborhood of Aldgate-High Street."[and,] "The police theory is that the man and woman, who had met in Aldgate, watched the policeman (Watkins) pass round the square, and they then entered it for an immoral purpose."

Interesting that St. Botolph's is on Aldgate High Street (and the station is the cross hatched area slightly to the right), which turns into just Aldgate by Mitre Street. The shortest route to Mitre Square from Aldgate High Street would be up Duke Street to Church Passage rather than to Mitre Street and up to the main entrance. For what it's worth, a couple standing at the Duke Street end of Church Passage would also be aware of when Watkins patrolled the square if they were paying attention to such things. Do we know who the policeman mentioned above was? Would be interested if he could be identified and more detail provided about what he reports seeing.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

The times quoted by Brown and Sequeira as I stated are ambiguos with the question to him "As you found it" I personally take that to mean when the body was first seen by Brown and Sequeira at the crime scene,and before any organs were found missing.

You raise a valid question as to who this expert was, and if he was an expert in female anatomy. If the killer did remove the organs at the crime scene in the time suggested would he not have needed to have the same knowledge and expertise as Browns expert, because many are suggesting on here that 5 mins was enough time for the killer to do all that he is purported to have done but made even more difficult by the crime scene conditions at the time of the murder.

After all Brown did state that knowledge of anatomy would have been needed to locate and remove the kidney. I wonder how many would be victorian killers would have possessed such knowledge, and expertise to not only locate and remove organs but to do so in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen?

The more you think the more you have to question the old accpeted theories !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Well, Dr. Brown indicates at the inquest that someone with experience cutting up animals would have sufficient anatomical knowledge, so there would be plenty of people who meet that requirement. The "as you found it" sounds to me in reference to "as you found it upon examination", as in after the post mortem. I can't see Dr. Brown giving a shorter estimate based upon first impressions at the crime sceneif the post-mortem results would change and lengthen that estimate, it's not his purpose at the inquest to present his initial opinion, but rather his professional opinion formed after proper examination. But that's my interpretation and we each must make our own.

Regardless, I would like to know more about this recreation, but I suspect what we're seeing now is all the information that has survived through time unfortunately.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Interesting that St. Botolph's is on Aldgate High Street, which turns into just Aldgate by Mitre Street. The shortest route to Mitre Square from Aldgate High Street would be up Duke Street to Church Passage rather than to Mitre Street and up to the main entrance. For what it's worth, a couple standing at the Duke Street end of Church Passage would also be aware of when Watkins patrolled the square if they were paying attention to such things. Do we know who the policeman mentioned above was? Would be interested if he could be identified and more detail provided about what he reports seeing.

- Jeff

Again for what its worth I discount the suggestions that police beats were being watched and timed. There were many out of the way places women could take punters too without worrying about being disturbed by the police.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Well, Dr. Brown indicates at the inquest that someone with experience cutting up animals would have sufficient anatomical knowledge, so there would be plenty of people who meet that requirement. The "as you found it" sounds to me in reference to "as you found it upon examination", as in after the post mortem. I can't see Dr. Brown giving a shorter estimate based upon first impressions at the crime sceneif the post-mortem results would change and lengthen that estimate, it's not his purpose at the inquest to present his initial opinion, but rather his professional opinion formed after proper examination. But that's my interpretation and we each must make our own.

Regardless, I would like to know more about this recreation, but I suspect what we're seeing now is all the information that has survived through time unfortunately.

- Jeff

Cutting up animals is a bit different to surgically removing organs from a human body in almost darkness. If you have a copy of my book you will see I used a modern day butcher who learned his trade in a slaughterhouse who gives his opininion on Browns statement which casts a major doubt on Browns comments.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk