Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Scott Nelson]

Why did Sutton pick a dump like 6 Mitre Street as a "bolthole"? Was this address used for the other murders? It seemed out-of-the-way for the other locations, small and probably rat-infested. And who lived there before Taylor left?

[DJA]

Seems to have had two.
Mitre Square and a pub in Hanbury Street.
Wife and one daughter resided at Knole Park.
Gotta work back again at the hospital babe.

[DJA]

Why did Sutton pick a dump like 6 Mitre Street as a "bolthole"? Was this address used for the other murders? It seemed out-of-the-way for the other locations, small and probably rat-infested. And who lived there before Taylor left?

A policeman and family resided there during the 1881 Census.
That meant the address needed to be above reproach.Many police resided in the area.
In 1887 there was a restaurant next door which was later extended to number 6. Ratatouille ?

[JeffHamm]

I have read DJAs theory and it sounds convincing...but bringing into account the piece of apron and the writing on the wall, a few questions for people who are more experienced than me...

Do people think this is Jack on his way home? If so, did Jack live in the area around the area of the C5 were known to hang out: Flower and Dean St, Thrawl St, Fashion St, Dorset St etc?

Did Jack take the route, up Goulston St, as it was between the attention at Berners St and Mitre Square?

Did Jack put in a dog leg (the time between Kates estimated time of death and the discovery in Goulston St) and if so which route did he take after leaving Mitre Square?

Was Jack aware of the boundary between the City and Metropolitan Police and did he use this to his advantage?

Was Kate the 'Nothing' mentioned in the writing on the wall?

Regards

Jim

Hi Juniper4576,

That's one of the big questions, did JtR drop the apron as he fled from Mitre Square (if so, we can consider his flight path to his bolt hole to be roughly north easterly of Mitre Square) or did he first go to his bolt hole, only to come out later and discard the apron (if so, it becomes a bit more complicated as all that we can say is that his "bolt hole" has to be in a location he can get to from Mitre Square, and then get from the bolt hole to Goulston Street, within some set amount of time, starting from 1:41 (a defendable time for JtR to have left Mitre Square) and ending at the time you think the apron was deposited at Groulston Street. That latter bit will have to be an assumption, as in "I assume PC Long missed it, and it was there when he patrolled at 2:20", which just means JtR could have dropped it at 2:19 (which still fits a "went home first" idea as it only takes about 5 minutes to walk from Mitre Square to Goulston street at an average pace), or JtR did drop it as he fled (that latter idea means you have to argue Long missed it at 2:20 and that JtR dropped it just after Long patrolled Goulston street around 1:45 (his beat took 35 minutes) (and note, JtR pending on the route he takes between Mitre Square and Goulston, would arrive there just after 1:45, so it could have happened - but it means Long is wrong when he testifies the apron and writing were not there at 2:20).

If he went to his bolt hole, then consider this, if JtR gets to his bolt hole, is he going to head back toward the crime scene in order to discard the evidence? Is he going to travel in a direction that increases his risk of detection after successfully evading the police? I tend to think probably not, although he's also likely to have a higher tendency to take risks than I do. So, I would think that if he has a bolt hole he went to first, it's probably inside a circle, centred on the Goulston Street graffiti, with a radius defined by "crime scene to Goulston Street". Something like this (red dot = Goulston, blue dots are crime locations):

What I'm thinking is, if JtR's bolt hole were between Mitre Square and Goulston, then when he goes out to get rid of the apron he's at least still heading away from the "danger zone" of the crime scene. But, if his bolt hole is further away, I can't see him heading any closer than (maximum) half way back, which is why I defined the radius as I did, at most he's gone the diamger of the circle away to his bolt hole, then half way back to get to Goulston.

Interestingly, Mary Kelly's residence (which was not a crime scene as of the night of Eddowes murder), does fall within the estimated range, but also along the "direct route" path as well. That will be considered important to those who suspect Barnett (Mary Kelly's boy friend) and coincidental by those who do not. There are some other suspeccts in that area too, as I think the police were monitoring a butcher located around Algate High Street, and I think the police were watching a house roughly forming an equilateral triangle with Goulston Street and MJK's location as one side, and the other point being to the west. Also, Hutchinson (another suspect according to some) also lives within this circle.

Now, the above circle is no where near the absolute physical limit of where he could get to, particularly if you think the apron was dropped closer to 2:55, just before it was discovered. But again, my thinking is, if JtR was able to get really far away, then he's more likely to dump the apron piece really far away as well, and not head straight back into the high danger zone. I can't prove that, of course, so the above represents only my opinion, and I hope I've made it clear the underlying rationale for that opinion - but remember, it's not a fact that JtR had a bolt hole inside this region, it's an inference, based upon an opinion of how far he's likely to have travelled, and based upon the assumption he did go to a bolt hole first and then went back out to drop it. There's a lot of opinion and assumptions in there, so be careful about your salt intake when considering it.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Here is another map to consider.
Anyone else think that Eddowes being arrested at 29 Aldgate High Street and later being found dead close by is not a coincidence?

[JeffHamm]

Here is another map to consider.
Anyone else think that Eddowes being arrested at 29 Aldgate High Street and later being found dead close by is not a coincidence?

Hi DJA,

No, probably not a coincidence. Personally, I see her continuing to be in the vicinity of St. Botolph's Church, both earlier in the day (when she had no money, but found enough to get drunk and arrested for it) and then later, after release, when she still had no money (as she seems to have spent it on drink, if she had any earlier). It looks to me that she was resorting to casual prostitution, earned enough to get drunk earlier, and since she had had success in that area, returned to it again to try and earn enough for a bed for the night.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Yet she had no history of prostitution.

[JeffHamm]

Yet she had no history of prostitution.

Hi DJA,

It's true we have no direct evidence that Kate engaged in prostitution (as far as I know there are no documented arrests for prostitution attributed to her). However, we have circumstantial evidence in her lack of money earlier in the day, yet she somehow ends up drunk enough to get arrested, and in the vicinity of a known area frequented by prostitutes. After being released and still without money for a bed, she heads back to that area, and ends up being murdered in a location that would be suitable for such purposes.

We have to keep in mind the context of her life in the Whitechapel area of 1888. Prostitution was often resorted to by many women of the time due to the pressures of the time. Not everyone who engaged in prostitution would resort to it regularly, nor would they rely on it, but rather might resort to it if no other options were available. Kate had just returned from a poor hop picking, had to pawn her boyfriend's boots, and had no place to sleep that night. She was at a very low point, and from what we can piece together, it appears she may have resorted to this avenue to obtain enough money to escape the difficulties of her current circumstances, and also to hopefully get enough money to get a bed and the boots back (as they would be of value to them). It's a sad fact that many women had to do this sort of thing. The lack of any convictions having been found could indicate she did not resort to such things regularly, but we cannot be sure she never did. And, as the circumstances around her last day do fit with this we can't really say the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Proven, no, but not disproven either.

- Jeff

[DJA]

The idea that Eddowes had been parading around St Botolph's in the rain ~ 1am or so is highly unlikely,given the local manhunt.

However the idea that she returned to claim a "reward" for knowing the identity of Jack the Ripper is highly likely.

[JeffHamm]

The idea that Eddowes had been parading around St Botolph's in the rain ~ 1am or so is highly unlikely,given the local manhunt.

However the idea that she returned to claim a "reward" for knowing the identity of Jack the Ripper is highly likely.

Hi DJA,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree as our opinions as to which is the more probable do not correspond.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

The idea that Eddowes had been parading around St Botolph's in the rain ~ 1am or so is highly unlikely,given the local manhunt.

However the idea that she returned to claim a "reward" for knowing the identity of Jack the Ripper is highly likely.

You know how it pains me to agree with you , but I believe also that Kate came back to make some easy money that didnt require skirt lifting. I think that the landlady recalled correctly what Kate had said to her, and its my belief that the confusion that surrounds the activities of both Kate and John that Friday night,...who stayed where, when the boots went into the shop, those kinds of issues, if sorted out could be a key in the answer to who killed her..and just as importantly, why.

Personally, I think she tried to leverage her take by negotiating directly with people close to, or the actual person, that she intended to name to see about a great windfall. Perhaps Friday night. And then again Saturday afternoon...perhaps the decision was almost made Friday night but loosening her tongue to see what she actually knows Saturday afternoon shows me that they didnt just respond by killing her, they wanted to know if they had to silence her. The cut nose is very telling in that regard.

[DJA]

The cut nose is more telling than you know.
Like the "chevrons" under her eyes,it denotes where the Maxillary Sinuses "interconnect".Overflow is a better term.
It is Jack telling us that Eddowes was a patient with Rheumatic Fever at one time.

Reckon Kate set up the Hanbury Street meeting,however got drunk with a part payment.
When released she headed straight to 6 Mitre Street,unaware of Stride's murder.

[Michael W Richards]

I know the basics of your working premise dja but havent drunk the coolaid yet on it. I agree she didnt know Strides murder had happened, but I dont believe its likey that she knew Stride anymore than in a possible passing in the streets. I also dont believe we have evidence that she was working the streets very much.. or at all in recent months and perhaps years, which again suggests that her going to Mitre Square had nothing to do with earning money via sex.

As for who knew who as far as the victims go...Im not sure whether you figure all knew each other and workeed together or they were all engaged in the same venture in an unco-ordinated fashion,..but for me I believe Kate knew Mary. That much I believe is sustainable. The various fake ides given by Kate...perhaps when she begins to negotiate with people she believes are killers, are I think a breadcrumb trail to follow if she disappears. In those 2 aliases is Mary Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street. Maybe for John. If he went to both addresses given they might have he have been told about a Mary or Jane Kelly in 26 Dorset just down the road.

I think John knew what she was up to that night...and its why he wasnt suprised when she didnt come to him that night or the next. He tried keeping a low profile with those people. Let them think she as doing this on her own. He was afraid of them...Kate wasnt. Turned out she should have been scared anyway.

I wonder...Was this an Irish connection from her days when with Conway? Someone she knew was a bad dude, maybe militant Fenian or just criminal? The Parnell Commission happening at this same time, and the Senior Members assembled within the police forces to look into these street whore murders instead of handling matters of national security and national intelligence seems to me too coincidental. Were they really looking into some street whore murders or some presumed terrorist acts?

But I think they both knew the risk, kate and John..and they risked it for the reward and a chance to live less desperately for a while.

[Michael W Richards]

Mitre Square history and its state at the time of the murder is interesting. It apparently was vibrant at one time, with a pub in there..and a case or two of Irish Self Rule factions storing dynamite in some warehouse there.

Almost deserted in there at the time of that murder...with one policemans upper window looking directly onto the murder spot apparently. One wonders if that positioning was intentional.

[DJA]

As for who knew who as far as the victims go...Im not sure whether you figure all knew each other and workeed together or they were all engaged in the same venture in an unco-ordinated fashion,..but for me I believe Kate knew Mary. That much I believe is sustainable. The various fake ides given by Kate...perhaps when she begins to negotiate with people she believes are killers, are I think a breadcrumb trail to follow if she disappears. In those 2 aliases is Mary Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street. Maybe for John. If he went to both addresses given they might have he have been told about a Mary or Jane Kelly in 26 Dorset just down the road.

When Kate gave Sgt Byfield her name as Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street ......











The address at the rear of Strides and MJK's real name.

Kidney and Stride were at 38 Dorset St,Chapman at 36 and Mary Ann Kelly,29 years old at 26.