Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n752704]

Hi Trevor,

While I appreciate your efforts at recreation, the problem is we do not have the original piece of material with it's blood pattern to compare to, so how do you know if your blood patterns are similar or different from those found on the Goulston Street Apron? Deciding you would use different words to describe your patterns isn't exactly evidence you know. And, the use of gloves, the type of knife, and material (type and cleanliness, etc) will all make these results less than an ideal comparison.

Anyway, I agree, let's move on from this, or take it to it's own thread. I think there's enough in it for the latter, but I'll leave it to you to decide if you think it's worth continuing. Cheers, as alway

of course we can judge without seeing the original just as much as you can say the description as described is consistent with your belief that the killer wiped his knife or his hands

the results shown clearly negate how the apron piece was described and clearly negate the reasons you say the apron piece was used for.

blood spots/ fecal matter only on one side of the apron piece. The next you will be trying to prop the old accepted theory is suggesting the killer only had one arm. I guess that might explain why when wiping the knife or his hand there is only residue on one side of the apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Scott Nelson]

Jeff, If I understand your latest reconstruction correctly, you have Harvey sheltering in the covered entry to Gun Square for about 3 minutes -- but this location would have been on Houndsditch, not Duke Street. So did Harvey delay for a few minutes earlier on his beat going up (north) Houndsditch, or later on his return down (south) Duke Street?

[DJA]

Clearly you are one who won’t let go of the old accepted theory by you unwarranted remarks

for your information with the exception of the knife wiping the rest of the tests were carried out under medical conditions in a hospital using standard hospital equipment.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So the knife was a scam.
There was no apron material.

The purple gloves are CHEMOTHERAPY GLOVES not surgical gloves.

[Scott Nelson]

...Because I though Harvey's beat was south on Houndsditch, then he made a right turn on Little Duke Street

[JeffHamm]

...
Ok, what I'm getting at is this. While we shouldn't over think these simulations, they are useful. We can start sorting ideas into plausible and implausible ones. So far, there are 2 scenarios that survive testing easily:

1) a slow and steady PC Harvey, who ignores the rain; this leaves between 6 and 8 minutes unaccounted for, 30 seconds of which would be used up by the CPC walking to the crime scene, leaving between 5 m 30 s and 7 m 30 s for the crime.

2) a fairly steady paced PC Harvey (2.1 mph) who shelters during a 3 minute rain and ends up where he says he was at 1:45; this one leaves 6 m 55 s for the crime and he patrols Church Passage at 1:41:25, which is right in the 1:41-1:42 range that we've always talked about.

Sorry, that should read 7 m 55 s for the crime (3 minute rain, means the time window spans from 1:33 to 1:41:25, which is 8 m 25 s, 30 of which are used up by the CPC moving to the crime location. Note, in all of these I'm indicating the amount of time unaccounted for. As Trevor points out, we don't know the exact time Eddowes and JtR arrived at the crime scene (or when the CPC moved from their Duke Street end of Church Passage), so all we can do is work out how much time is available and compare that to the estimates of how much time is thought to be required. Estimates for time required have ranged from 3 to 5+ minutes, and Dr. Brown reports that someone was able to remove the uterus and kidney in 3 m 30 s, and Trevor had a modern surgeon do similar and they took a bit longer, at 4 m. Scenario 1, no matter what the duration of the rain, always gives us more than the 5 minutes estimated by Dr. Brown (5 m 30 s is the least, based upon a 5 min rain), and scenario 2 (3 minute shelter, end up at 1:45 in the right place and patrol Church Passage within the right time window), gives plenty more time to work with (now have almost 8 minutes).

and a third which just could be argued to squeak in:
3) a regulation speed PC Harvey (2.54 mph) who shelters during a 5 minute rain; this one leaves 6 m 10 s for the crime

This leaves a bit more time unaccounted for than the typical estimations for the 5 m rain (Lawende) estimate, in fact 40 seconds more. However, PC Harvey's location 3 minutes later (at 1:44:40) corresponds to where he testifies he was when Morris blows his whistle. If we think 40 seconds is sufficient time for PC Watkins to run over to the warehouse, fetch Morris, return to view the body (as Morris testifies he does) and then for Morris to run out into Mitre Street and blow his whistle, then this works. If, however, you think those actions would take a bit longer, and I've generally been working with the whistle being blown at 1:45, then PC Harvey is now too far along although if you squint you could just argue it might work.

Basically, this really starts requiring we get all the numbers exactly right, otherwise sheltering for 5 minutes doesn't work.

And a 4th that I think we can reject
4) a speedy PC Harvey (2.75 mph) who shelters during a 5 minute rain; this one puts him in Houndsditch when the whistle is blown, and he should be between Mitre Street and Duke Street. This is ruled out.

and another one that doesn't quite work either is
5) having him shelter for 3 minutes, and get to Church Passage at 1:41 exactly. Now he patrols at 2.2 mph, but when the whistle blows he's at the post office again, which is too far from where he reports being.


Anyway, the important thing here is, there are multiple ideas that work, and we cannot differentiate between them (the first 2). However, there are also set ups that do not work, which we can reject (the 4th and 5th options), and others which are borderline (the 3rd one) and where accepting or rejecting it would reflect individual decision criterion. But, what we can do, is put ideas to the test, we can question our ideas and see if they fit the testimony. We have to allow some leeway, because the testimony involves estimations of time, and descriptions of places rather than time stamped data and geo coordinates. But even then, we can start to throw out configurations that don't work, reducing the viable options to a limited set. What I find interesting, though, that a lot of the viable options end up with JtR having a bit more time at the crime scene than we've often assumed. I wasn't expecting that, but that's why we must test our ideas.

- Jeff

Just making a correction to the estimated time available for scenario 2, and adding a few more thoughts, just because.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, If I understand your latest reconstruction correctly, you have Harvey sheltering in the covered entry to Gun Square for about 3 minutes -- but this location would have been on Houndsditch, not Duke Street. So did Harvey delay for a few minutes earlier on his beat going up (north) Houndsditch, or later on his return down (south) Duke Street?

Hi Scott,

Oh, my mistake. Yes, it's Houndsditch where he would be sheltering when going North, not Duke. Stupid brain transposed the streets.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

So the knife was a scam.
There was no apron material.

The purple gloves are CHEMOTHERAPY GLOVES not surgical gloves.

Stop being a numpty

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n752706]

of course we can judge without seeing the original just as much as you can say the description as described is consistent with your belief that the killer wiped his knife or his hands

Now Trevor, don't be slippery. I'm saying Dr. Brown testified that the blood pattern looked like a knife or hand was wiped on it, and he actually saw the cloth and stains. You are the one claiming that you know he was wrong without you actually seeing the cloth in question. My belief is that Dr. Brown, after looking at the actual stains, decided that the wiping a knife/hand on the cloth could produce them.

the results shown clearly negate how the apron piece was described and clearly negate the reasons you say the apron piece was used for.

Again, there's absolutely no way you can make that claim because you do not know what the original stains looked like, all we have are cursory descriptions of a cloth with blood on it, with only two statements that get a bit more speciifc, that of PC Long saying one corner was wet with blood during his sworn inquest testimony, and one from Dr. Brown who indicates the blood pattern appeared consistent with someone wiping a hand or knife on it.

Now, without knowing what the actual cloth looked like, how do you know if your recreations are using too much blood or too little and so forth? You don't, so you can't draw much of an inference.

Nowhere in the inquest statements does anyone describe the blood pattern as looking like it resulted from organs being wrapped up in the cloth. That, I think, is a more recent suggestion. Like you, I don't put much weight in that as I can't see why JtR would unwrap the organs in transit, nor do I see him re-emerging to discard of it after having made it home.

blood spots/ fecal matter only on one side of the apron piece. The next you will be trying to prop the old accepted theory is suggesting the killer only had one arm. I guess that might explain why when wiping the knife or his hand there is only residue on one side of the apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, I guess that means that your next target of the old accepted theories to overturn is the accepted notion there were any murders at all! Clearly, it was just a conspiracy between the police and press to get more money - the police could call in additional funds for the increased patrols and the press could sell more papers.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

...Because I though Harvey's beat was south on Houndsditch, then he made a right turn on Little Duke Street

Hi Scott,

No, I'm pretty sure he goes North on Houndsditch, ducks down Little Duke, then back to Houndsditch, north and then over to Duke, then south on Duke and he does Little Duke again, and then south towards Church Passage, etc.

You can see a description of it here, along with a graphic:

https://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-james_harvey.html#harvey

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n752706]

...

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor, and any others interested,

I've started a new topic "Kate's Apron" for us to discuss this issue. While it does bear upon aspect of Jack's Escape in that we have 3 possibilities
1) JtR went straight to Goulston Street and dropped the piece of apron somewhere around 1:48 ish and it was not spotted by PC Long at 2:20
2) JtR went to a bolt hole/home location then re-emerges and drops the apron later, sometime after 2:20 but beefore 2:55
3) JtR did not cut the apron and did not deposit it at Goulston Street (so there's no reason to suggest JtR ever was there)

The last one is Trevor's idea, and the focus is becoming more on the aspects of whether or not JtR was involved in the apron cutting and transport than on how this relates to his escape from Mitre Square. As such, I think it's time we move to the new thread and pick up this discussion there, otherwise it will get lost in this topic. The point of having discussions in well defined topic threads is so that they can be found later, after people have finished the back and forth. I think Trevor's idea is one that people should be able to find and review easily, rather than have us repeat ourselves only for all of our input to get lost by being filed in the wrong place.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Hey Jeff, is there any evidence for how long it had been raining, and thus how long Harvey may possibly have been sheltering?

[Varqm]

All this knife test and apron was used to carry the organ test are useless if the killer came prepared and had his own material .The blood could have been transferred while cutting and holding the apron in-situ.What if he was using the apron for another purpose who knows.

[JeffHamm]

Hey Jeff, is there any evidence for how long it had been raining, and thus how long Harvey may possibly have been sheltering?

Hi Joshua,

Sadly, not a lot. All we have is testimony from Leve or Lawende (I forget off the top of my head which it was who says this) that they got up to leave at 1:30 (that's Lawende) and then they waited either 3-4 minutes (Leve) or 5 minutes (Lawende) "on account of the rain.' So, while we have some indication of when the rain lets up enough for them to decide to head on their way (sometime between 1:33 and 1:35), and we know it was raining at around 1:30 (when they got up), we don't know when the rain started for sure.

There's testimony from the Stride case, I believe, where they say it was not raining around 1 o'clock or so, but that doesn't really narrow it down enough. What I've done here, is make a very big assumpiton, just to see what happens. And that is, that the down pour started at 1:30, just as Lawende and company get up to leave. They hear the rain, and decide to wait it out.

So, I introduce PC Harvey's "sheltering time" starting at 1:30 and have it last until either 1:33 or 1:35.

Basically, I have him shelter for the same times that Lawende and company "wait it out".

So, keep that in mind for some of these. However, having PC Harvey "pause" for any longer than 5 minutes would, I think, end up requiring him to patrol much too fast in order to get to Church Passage by 1:41, which would then mean he would overshoot the mark for the whistle location by 1:45.

I suppose, though, there are some who presume that PC Harvey lied, and that he didn't actually patrol Church Passage. That would mean we only have to get him to the location where the whistle blows by 1:45, and that might be possible. However, now we're building on multiple assumption and actively rejecting testimony that we have no evidence to suggest we should reject; sort of like unicorn hunting, if I decide to assume unicorns exist, then I can claim that my grandfather shot one provided I also assume he lied to me when he said there was no such thing.

- Jeff

P.S. Ah yes, Dr. Blackwell makes some statements in the Stride inquest, but as I say, they don't help much. Key statements he makes are:

I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m.

[Coroner] Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? -

From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived. The clothes were not wet with rain.

So, from that we can conclude that it was not raining at 1:16, and presumably hadn't been for the previous 20-30 minutes.

Sadly, we're interested in when the rain starts, which is after 1:16 and up to and including 1:30. For these simulations I've chosen 1:30, but as I say, there's 14 minutes there, so it could have started earlier. My choice was based upon the idea that we're dealing with a fairly heavy down pour, and these usually don't last all that long, even if it continues to rain afterwards. I'm assuming that Lawende and company would have left at 1:30 if it was only lightly raining.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

All this knife test and apron was used to carry the organ test are useless if the killer came prepared and had his own material .The blood could have been transferred while cutting and holding the apron in-situ.What if he was using the apron for another purpose who knows.

Hi Varqm,

Just so you know, I've started a new thread for the apron topic.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n752718]

Now Trevor, don't be slippery. I'm saying Dr. Brown testified that the blood pattern looked like a knife or hand was wiped on it, and he actually saw the cloth and stains. You are the one claiming that you know he was wrong without you actually seeing the cloth in question. My belief is that Dr. Brown, after looking at the actual stains, decided that the wiping a knife/hand on the cloth could produce them.

Again, there's absolutely no way you can make that claim because you do not know what the original stains looked like, all we have are cursory descriptions of a cloth with blood on it, with only two statements that get a bit more speciifc, that of PC Long saying one corner was wet with blood during his sworn inquest testimony, and one from Dr. Brown who indicates the blood pattern appeared consistent with someone wiping a hand or knife on it.

Now, without knowing what the actual cloth looked like, how do you know if your recreations are using too much blood or too little and so forth? You don't, so you can't draw much of an inference.

Nowhere in the inquest statements does anyone describe the blood pattern as looking like it resulted from organs being wrapped up in the cloth. That, I think, is a more recent suggestion. Like you, I don't put much weight in that as I can't see why JtR would unwrap the organs in transit, nor do I see him re-emerging to discard of it after having made it home.

Well, I guess that means that your next target of the old accepted theories to overturn is the accepted notion there were any murders at all! Clearly, it was just a conspiracy between the police and press to get more money - the police could call in additional funds for the increased patrols and the press could sell more papers.

- Jeff

The apron piece was also described as being spotted with blood as you can see the test shows that the knife wiping or the hand wiping would cause more than blood spotting if the killer had done what you and others suggest

But lets look at what Brown did say because it seems he has been reported wrongly somewhere along the way

Dr Brown signed inquest testimony

"It was the corner of the apron with a string attached.The Blood spots were of recent origin"

He goes onto say

"Some blood and apparently fecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street

The Telegraph Inquest testimony Dr Brown

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.


The Times Inquest testimony Dr Brown

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a knife or a hand had been wiped on it"

Now we see a change from blood spots to smears

Brown also refers to fecal matter being visible now that also puzzles me because if as suggested the killer having put his hands inside the abdomen which was filled with blood and fecal matter, surely both would get on his hands, but if he wiped his hands on the apron piece as likely as not the blood and the fecal matter would become as one, and almost impossible to identify individually on the apron piece.

The test were carried out to prove or disprove the theories that the killer took away the organs in the apron piece and that he used the piece to wipe his bloody hands and his knife. There is no need to view the original to make a concerted decision. The test shows that wiping a bloody knife, or bloodstained hands on a cloth would not leave blood spots, and blood spots seems to be what was described

I also notice you make no comment about the documenting of the victims clothes by Collard and his subsequent ambiguous inquest testimony, and how residue was only seen on one side of the piece, and I am dying to see how you explain that one away seeing as you are so fixated in the belief that the killer cut the apron and used it to wipe his bloody hands and his knife

www.trevormarriott.co.uk