Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

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

  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Gavin Bromley mentions it in one of his Mitre Square articles, but appears to attach no major significance to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juniper4576
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Hi Juniper4576,

    That incident has been mentioned a few times, but it will be scattered about, showing up in different threads and topics. After Eddowes' was found in Mitre Square, there was a lot of police activity in the area checking people in the area. Without anything more to go on, odds are this is simply one of those random checks. I can't recall if there's a specific time associated with this story to try and place it in the temporal sequence of events, but it would be after Eddowes was found. Certainly, a man with an umbrella would not be unusual, given we also know it had rained quite heavily for a period time of time around 1:30.

    NBFN indicates the newspaper and date where the story can be found, which is a really good habit to get into. You can find a lot of the newspaper stories archived here on Casebook, so I would suggest you start with that if you're interested.

    - Jeff
    Cheers Jeff, I sure will

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Juniper4576 View Post

    Is there anymore on this in a forum or the casebook?
    Hi Juniper4576,

    That incident has been mentioned a few times, but it will be scattered about, showing up in different threads and topics. After Eddowes' was found in Mitre Square, there was a lot of police activity in the area checking people in the area. Without anything more to go on, odds are this is simply one of those random checks. I can't recall if there's a specific time associated with this story to try and place it in the temporal sequence of events, but it would be after Eddowes was found. Certainly, a man with an umbrella would not be unusual, given we also know it had rained quite heavily for a period time of time around 1:30.

    NBFN indicates the newspaper and date where the story can be found, which is a really good habit to get into. You can find a lot of the newspaper stories archived here on Casebook, so I would suggest you start with that if you're interested.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Juniper4576
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    East London Observer, Oct 6:

    "I am not the Murderer."

    But Mrs. Lindsay, of Duke-street, who is also corroborated by her husband, and Miss Solomon, of the same street, gives an account of an extraordinary incident, stating, as she does, that she was awakened during the night by hearing voices in the street below, and on looking out of the window heard the words distinctly uttered by a man who carried an umbrella and a parcel, and who was rapidly hurrying away "I am not the murderer."


    As he said, he was not the murderer. He just held the candle, and watched the operation.
    Is there anymore on this in a forum or the casebook?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    East London Observer, Oct 6:

    "I am not the Murderer."

    But Mrs. Lindsay, of Duke-street, who is also corroborated by her husband, and Miss Solomon, of the same street, gives an account of an extraordinary incident, stating, as she does, that she was awakened during the night by hearing voices in the street below, and on looking out of the window heard the words distinctly uttered by a man who carried an umbrella and a parcel, and who was rapidly hurrying away "I am not the murderer."


    As he said, he was not the murderer. He just held the candle, and watched the operation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post

    Try reading the last sentence.

    Sorry Dave, I did,
    The whole comment is from Smith, I consider anything he reports to be questionable.
    The last sentence by the way, in no way supports that the vessels were attached.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    [QUOTE=JeffHamm;n752718]
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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






    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 03-09-2021, 12:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    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
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-08-2021, 09:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n752706]
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    ...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_offi...ey.html#harvey


    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n752706]
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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.

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post

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

    The purple gloves are CHEMOTHERAPY GLOVES not surgical gloves.
    Stop being a numpty

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X