Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    I forgot to remember that I forgot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

    I wonder how far Watkins went into the square on this pass prior to discovering the body. Could he have just walked up near the edge of the building without peering around the corner?
    I'm sure a lot bobbies cut corners, or took liberties on their beat, not looking everywhere they were supposed to look. It could be a boring job for some.
    We both know they are unlikely to admit it, and even if they could have that possibility doesn't make a firm basis for a theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Right, so Watkins was exiting through the wide access into Mitre street about 1:25-1:30.
    I wonder how far Watkins went into the square on this pass prior to discovering the body. Could he have just walked up near the edge of the building without peering around the corner?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Enigma View Post
    Am I only one who thinks this thread has gone off topic and the discussion about who saw what, when, where or was an unreliable witness in respect of the wrong murder and wrong place should be discussed under a more appropriate heading? Just a suggestion because this is supposed to be about how Jack avoided detection in the Mitre Square murder.
    A suggestion for a topic may be more productive than a complaint.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Enigma View Post
    Am I only one who thinks this thread has gone off topic and the discussion about who saw what, when, where or was an unreliable witness in respect of the wrong murder and wrong place should be discussed under a more appropriate heading? Just a suggestion because this is supposed to be about how Jack avoided detection in the Mitre Square murder.
    As youll note, we have attempted to steer this back and the last few posts have contained discussions that reflect that. So no need for a continued thread discussions content monitor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Enigma
    replied
    Am I only one who thinks this thread has gone off topic and the discussion about who saw what, when, where or was an unreliable witness in respect of the wrong murder and wrong place should be discussed under a more appropriate heading? Just a suggestion because this is supposed to be about how Jack avoided detection in the Mitre Square murder.
    Last edited by Enigma; 04-17-2020, 11:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Jon, this is about the reasonable answers, not only ones that are somehow stamped official by someone by virtue of their watch. Everyones watch's could be set differently, as can the clocks. Its very reasonable, because its almost universal, that within a house or within a club a clock that would be pretty accessible existed. But this is drifting off again...
    I wouldn't say it's not reasonable to assume a few of those witnesses had seen a clock without mentioning it, but as you say yourself, it is also reasonable to assume no two clocks show the same time. So, where does that leave us?
    Time was of the essence in a murder investigation like this, but it is a luxury the authorities did not have. Besides, when a witness claims something happened at a certain time, you must admit yourself any competent detective, or journalist, will automatically ask, "how do you know the time"?
    Because any stated time provides an anchor for the story being given, how that time was established is a very important detail not likely to be left out by the one doing the questioning.
    However.....

    On the square, I think your summary of the exits leads to a possibility that Kate and her killer could have been in there around 1:25-1:30. Which to me allows enough time for the event without presuming too much fast pacing by the killer. I don't think Lawende saw Kate.
    Agreed, on both points.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    The police do not assume, the witness must mention a clock.
    I understand it is more convenient for you to assume, the fact remains assumptions are not evidence.
    Jon, this is about the reasonable answers, not only ones that are somehow stamped official by someone by virtue of their watch. Everyones watch's could be set differently, as can the clocks. Its very reasonable, because its almost universal, that within a house or within a club a clock that would be pretty accessible existed. But this is drifting off again...

    On the square, I think your summary of the exits leads to a possibility that Kate and her killer could have been in there around 1:25-1:30. Which to me allows enough time for the event without presuming too much fast pacing by the killer. I don't think Lawende saw Kate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Back to Square One here, there were 3 exits/entrances to/from the square, one was large enough to allow carriages in. That for me rules it out, its probably lit. That leaves the 2 exits that at some point between 12:30 and 12:45 were each patrolled. One man to the edge of the square, and another through it at 12:44-45. That lateer pass is about 20 minutes before his earlier pass. There is the time allowed. If Lawende did see Kate, which I personally doubt, then theres the time allowed. Its said that all could be accomplished in 5 minutes. That was an estimate given by someone who couldn't understand the myriad of thoughts, pressures and emotions running through the killer at the time. Sure, someone tasked to do the same actions when unfettered by such influences may well need only 5 minutes, but I don't see this killer as someone like that.
    Right, so Watkins was exiting through the wide access into Mitre street about 1:25-1:30. Lawende & Co. were exiting the club about 1:30-1:34 in view of Church Passage, and there was a nightwatchman on duty in St. James Place. All entrances covered for a brief moment in time.
    Only the nightwatchman saw someone pass through St. James Place (the Orange Market).

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Fanny was in and out of her house, presumably there was a clock indoors. Issac K said he arrived back at 12:30 and about 10 minutes later he was summoned from inside the club, presumably one with a clock indoors. The other 2 members were upstairs, again, presumably there were clocks indoors. Spooner is the only one that we have what may be broader interpretations of how long something took. The fact that Louis says he uses the clock and that Fanny who is at her door for 10 minutes does not even see him on the street at 1 suggests strongly, based on your premise that access to timepieces is relevant, he was wrong. Either accidentally or intentionally.
    The police do not assume, the witness must mention a clock.
    I understand it is more convenient for you to assume, the fact remains assumptions are not evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    Should be 1911 Perjury Act.

    The William Smith /James Brown testimony was enough.

    it seems to me, that when PC William Smith,who passed Berner St. at 12:30-12:35 A.M. said "She stood on the pavement a few yards
    from where the body was found, but on the opposite side of the street",Smith was across the street,Stride and the man were
    already a few yards from Dutfields yard,nearly or about to go in to do their "business" but the sight of Smith deterred them they have to scram.At 12:40 AM Morris Eagle "went through the gateway into the yard, reaching the club in that way" and there was no couple.
    I'm sure you are aware that the yard was considerably deeper extending way past the club door, and probably darker too.


    The fact that Stride returned to the yard with the man meant she was a willing participant....
    If Stride and her 'client' left the yard because the PC was there, why would they return?
    Besides, the PC was not on duty at Dutfields Yard, he was walking passed as part of his beat. They only need to wait for him to go by.
    Anyway, in my view they entered the yard and loitered where it was dark enough, for whatever reason perhaps Stride did not feel comfortable?, she turned to the gates where she was faced with BS-man staggering passed....

    Jack was disturbed.He went towards the City/Aldgate/Portsoken area either to escape,find another victim or both,it's not known.

    He escaped probably to Mitre St.,Heneage lane.Even before Watkin arrived at Mitre St./Aldgate,he may have been finished by then.
    Brown said " It might be done in five minutes.".
    Yes, it is the best possible scenario providing we assume Watkins was not as diligent as he claimed. Otherwise, we have a tight window of time, which is not impossible and coincidences do happen. Watkins could have been leaving the square as Eddowes & Jack arrive.
    In this scenario, the Lawende suspect is not the killer with Eddowes.


    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Back to Square One here, there were 3 exits/entrances to/from the square, one was large enough to allow carriages in. That for me rules it out, its probably lit. That leaves the 2 exits that at some point between 12:30 and 12:45 were each patrolled. One man to the edge of the square, and another through it at 12:44-45. That lateer pass is about 20 minutes before his earlier pass. There is the time allowed. If Lawende did see Kate, which I personally doubt, then theres the time allowed. Its said that all could be accomplished in 5 minutes. That was an estimate given by someone who couldn't understand the myriad of thoughts, pressures and emotions running through the killer at the time. Sure, someone tasked to do the same actions when unfettered by such influences may well need only 5 minutes, but I don't see this killer as someone like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Michael.
    I think the crux of the 'time' issue depends on which witnesses referenced a time-piece.

    How many of your four witnesses said they knew the time because they looked at a clock, or heard the chimes of a local church?
    Any witness who wore a watch goes to the top of the list, next would be the witness who saw a clock close-by (Diemschutz), the rest who are just guessing the time are listed below.

    Who would you believe?

    This isn't a numbers game. It's four people guessing against one person seeing the time.
    A detective knows by instinct who is the more likely to be reliable.
    Fanny was in and out of her house, presumably there was a clock indoors. Issac K said he arrived back at 12:30 and about 10 minutes later he was summoned from inside the club, presumably one with a clock indoors. The other 2 members were upstairs, again, presumably there were clocks indoors. Spooner is the only one that we have what may be broader interpretations of how long something took. The fact that Louis says he uses the clock and that Fanny who is at her door for 10 minutes does not even see him on the street at 1 suggests strongly, based on your premise that access to timepieces is relevant, he was wrong. Either accidentally or intentionally.

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    Should be 1911 Perjury Act.

    The William Smith /James Brown testimony was enough.

    it seems to me, that when PC William Smith,who passed Berner St. at 12:30-12:35 A.M. said "She stood on the pavement a few yards
    from where the body was found, but on the opposite side of the street",Smith was across the street,Stride and the man were
    already a few yards from Dutfields yard,nearly or about to go in to do their "business" but the sight of Smith deterred them they have to scram.At 12:40 AM Morris Eagle "went through the gateway into the yard, reaching the club in that way" and there was no couple.The fact that Stride returned to the yard with the man meant she was a willing participant.No assault needed?

    Jack was disturbed.He went towards the City/Aldgate/Portsoken area either to escape,find another victim or both,it's not known.

    He escaped probably to Mitre St.,Heneage lane.Even before Watkin arrived at Mitre St./Aldgate,he may have been finished by then.
    Brown said " It might be done in five minutes.".

    Last edited by Varqm; 04-16-2020, 06:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post

    I would call the editor of the Star suggesting that the police had used one of their journalists to post a fake news story in order to aid the police investigation something of note, wouldn't you? I would also argue that editor of the Star himself is a rather better source than these random unnamed posters you mention. As for the idea of the police using the press to meet their own ends, I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone else who would consider such a suggestion 'extraordinary'. It simply is what it is. The police were attempting to locate Pipeman and BS Man. To do that, they had to hold Schwartz back from the inquest and try to lure one or the other out via the press, hence the Star report with a clearly fabricated version of events re: Schwartz. It's as simple as that and I laid it all out in 2017. That anyone is still on here debating the issue is a mystery to me, but horses and water and all that, I guess.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    This does not make sense.Whatever flushing they had to do they already did.Schwartz's STAR newspaper story about BS man and Pipeman was already out there.All he had to do was to repeat the same story in the inquest,just adding more newspapers to write about it, that's it.

    It seems the simple reason Baxter did not include Schwartz was,if he told his STAR version of the assault in the inquest he would be confronted with his police statement which was different from the STAR statement.In the police statement the man on the right (BS man) was doing the talking and the one aggressive,in
    the STAR it was the man on the left (Pipeman) being aggressive and doing the talking.He would have been a nuisance,the questioning will turn to his credibility.

    But Schwartz did nothing wrong as there were no general (mostly courts) perjury laws until the 1914 Perjury Act .
    Last edited by Varqm; 04-16-2020, 04:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X