From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So Wentworth Buildings was pitch black and Mitre Square wasn't is that what you are saying?

Clearly not. The reason being: nowhere did I state that.

As far as I'm concerned the WM wasn't the author of the scrawl on the wall, and so that part is all academic.

[erobitha]

Clearly not. The reason being: nowhere did I state that.

As far as I'm concerned the WM wasn't the author of the scrawl on the wall, and so that part is all academic.

Clearly you misunderstood my point. If there was enough light in Mitre Square to extract a kidney then there was enough light at Goulston Street to chalk a message on the wall. One was not more lit or darker than the other. The apron wasn’t found deep inside a cave. Just inside from the street.

You can choose to believe whatever you want but the argument the murderer couldn’t have written the message because it was too dark is not accurate or true. It doesn’t stand up as an argument.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Clearly you misunderstood my point. If there was enough light in Mitre Square to extract a kidney then there was enough light at Goulston Street to chalk a message on the wall. One was not more lit or darker than the other. The apron wasn’t found deep inside a cave. Just inside from the street.

You can choose to believe whatever you want but the argument the murderer couldn’t have written the message because it was too dark is not accurate or true. It doesn’t stand up as an argument.

Clearly, your understanding of the word 'clearly' leaves a bit to be desired. I didn't misunderstand. I was replying only to the Ripper extracted a kidney in almost pitch-black darkness part of your post, which should have been evident.

With regard to the other part of your post, I agree, it wasn't too dark to write the message; although I've no idea who said otherwise.

[Trevor Marriott]

He didn't.

Human beings have night vision. Providing there is some light source, our eyes adjust to darkness. There were two lamps in Mitre Square, admittedly in the northern part of the square and I believe the lamps we're talking about didn't give a great deal of light off at all. Still, that's a light source for human eyes to work with.

The only place where a human being would not be able to see due to darkness, is deep in a cave or somewhere like that where there is no light whatsoever.

And, we're not talking about being able to see down the street: we're talking about right in front of him.

And then, we have the opinion of Dr Sequeira, who wasn't surprised that the crime could be accomplished in that part of the square and at that time of the morning.

Dr Sequira could only have been referring to the murder and the mutilations when he mentions three minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

I would be interested to hear an actual motive for cutting the apron in two, carrying it so far, and then discarding it, apparently about an hour after the murder, at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews.

Well, there's a principle that governs all human actions: the principal of least effort to accomplish a task. It is bound up with rational choice.

There is rational choice in moving away from a crime scene, stopping to get yourself together, discarding what you don't feel you need anymore; and then walking on in a more composed fashion. Providing there is not a search going on around you at that point.

There is no rational choice in committing a murder, for which you will hang, escaping from the crime scene; and then returning to a street somewhere in the region of 5 to 10 minutes from the crime scene at a time when you know there will be a search going on (supposedly returning somewhere between 40 minutes and 75 minutes after the crime).

It's not sufficient to claim "we can't know" because it's a serial killer.

Very, very few serial killers display evidence of psychosis when monitored and observed after they have been apprehended. And, these sorts of murders are committed for psychological, ephemeral pleasure. These people remain governed by rational choice as we all do. There is definitely something wrong with them and they're not normal, but that doesn't mean they're stark raving mad and have lost all human instinct.

The studies of these people conclude that serial killers share common traits and behaviours, and as such we can get an idea of what drove this man and what his behaviour was likely to be.

One thing that is common among serial killers, is that they like to go back to the scene of the crime to relive the experience. That wouldn't include dropping an apron 5 or 10 minutes away, mind you. In the event he did go back to the crime scene, which according to studies isn't out of the ordinary for them, then you'd have to assume it wasn't at the time when the police were there and there was a search going on: rational choice.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Dr Sequira could only have been referring to the murder and the mutilations when he mentions three minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trevor, can you point me to this 3 minutes report?

In the meantime, what's most important is why they believed 3 minutes or at least 5 minutes.

Dr Brown's opinion seems to be based on 'having time to nick the lower eye-lids', which renders his opinion no more valid than yours or mine.

That opinion isn't based on his medical expertise. He's getting into the realms of the psychology of a serial killer there.

It could be argued to be a ludicrous assessment of what was in the WM's mind: "right, I've got a few seconds left over and so I'll just give these eye-lids a nick".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Sequira could only have been referring to the murder and the mutilations when he mentions three minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We’ve been here before on this point Trevor. I can’t recall where the ‘3 minutes’ was from but your claim that it was made to the Press before the inquest has no basis in evidence. When both Sequeira and Bond were asked they were aware of the full nature of the injuries and the fact of the missing body parts therefore their estimation had to have included the action of removing those parts.

From memory (which I admit could be hazy on this) you base you’re belief that the interview must have been before the PM purely because you insist that the killer couldn’t have murdered, mutilated and removed body parts in the time allowed and in the conditions at the time. That isn’t evidence that the interview took place before the PM. It’s simply you stating something as a fact purely because it conforms to your own viewpoint. To make your point you need proper, black and white evidence that the interview took place before the PM. As far as I’m aware, that evidence doesn’t exist.

The two Doctors who were there at the time, saw the mutilations, saw that body parts were removed, saw the lighting and the conditions, both saw no issue at all with the suggestion that the killer did what he’d done.

[Trevor Marriott]

We’ve been here before on this point Trevor. I can’t recall where the ‘3 minutes’ was from but your claim that it was made to the Press before the inquest has no basis in evidence. When both Sequeira and Bond were asked they were aware of the full nature of the injuries and the fact of the missing body parts therefore their estimation had to have included the action of removing those parts.

From memory (which I admit could be hazy on this) you base you’re belief that the interview must have been before the PM purely because you insist that the killer couldn’t have murdered, mutilated and removed body parts in the time allowed and in the conditions at the time. That isn’t evidence that the interview took place before the PM. It’s simply you stating something as a fact purely because it conforms to your own viewpoint. To make your point you need proper, black and white evidence that the interview took place before the PM. As far as I’m aware, that evidence doesn’t exist.

The two Doctors who were there at the time, saw the mutilations, saw that body parts were removed, saw the lighting and the conditions, both saw no issue at all with the suggestion that the killer did what he’d done.

I am going to correct you again because there is not one scrap of evidence to show the doctors found body parts missing in Mitre Square when they first exmanined the body

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, can you point me to this 3 minutes report?

In the meantime, what's most important is why they believed 3 minutes or at least 5 minutes.

Dr Brown's opinion seems to be based on 'having time to nick the lower eye-lids', which renders his opinion no more valid than yours or mine.

That opinion isn't based on his medical expertise. He's getting into the realms of the psychology of a serial killer there.

It could be argued to be a ludicrous assessment of what was in the WM's mind: "right, I've got a few seconds left over and so I'll just give these eye-lids a nick".

.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 stated “three minutes”. This question and answers from both doctors are somewhat ambiguous because the term “As you found it”

Dr Brown stated at least 5 mins that again is ambiguous because by that statement it could have taken the killer an unexplainable time in excess of 5 mins. In the case of Chapman Dr Phillips stated it would have taken him at least 15 mins to do what was done to her.

As to the nicking of the eyelids there is no reasonable explanation for the killer to have done this, we see no signs of that in any of the other victims

A more plausible explanation could be that the eyelids were not nicked by designs but were caused by the killer when attempting to cut the throat of Eddowes and the flashing of the blade across her face while she was struggling trying to avoid the knife.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no rational choice in committing a murder, for which you will hang, escaping from the crime scene; and then returning to a street somewhere in the region of 5 to 10 minutes from the crime scene at a time when you know there will be a search going on (supposedly returning somewhere between 40 minutes and 75 minutes after the crime).

If you expect the Whitechapel Murderer to behave rationally, then would you expect him to commit a murder about 40 minutes after having committed a murder, and when he could reasonably have expected the police to be searching for him?

And can we extend the criterion to Pc Long?

Why would he testify that the apron piece was not there if he had not checked whether it was there?

It is not as though he would have faced a reprimand for not having checked, any more than Halse would have or Pc Smith for not having checked whether there was a body in Dutfield's Yard when he passed by.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am going to correct you again because there is not one scrap of evidence to show the doctors found body parts missing in Mitre Square when they first exmanined the body

Is there not evidence that body parts were found to be missing in Hanbury Street?


[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

{Phillips] I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am going to correct you again because there is not one scrap of evidence to show the doctors found body parts missing in Mitre Square when they first exmanined the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I didn’t say that they did Trevor.

From The Star:

The clothing of the woman was very thin and bare. No money was found upon her, but the following articles were in the pockets of her dress:- A short clay pipe and an old cigarette case; a matchbox, an old pocket handkerchief, a knife which bore no traces of blood, and a small packet of tea and sugar, such as poor people who frequent common lodging-houses are in the habit of carrying.

A Star reporter saw Dr. J. G. Sequiera, 34, Jewry-street, who was the first medical man on the spot. "I was there," he said, "about 10 minutes after the policeman found the body. The woman could not have been dead more than a quarter of an hour. The work had been quickly done."

"By an expert, do you think?"

"No, not by an expert, but by a man who was not altogether ignorant of the use of the knife. It would have taken about three minutes."


My two questions would be, 1) were Eddowes possessions reported before the post mortem? And 2) why was Sequeira being asked if the killer was an ‘expert’ if they were only talking about wounds? You don’t need to be an expert to wound and kill someone.

[Trevor Marriott]

Is there not evidence that body parts were found to be missing in Hanbury Street?


[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

{Phillips] I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

As I said previously if Dr Phillips had found organs missing at the crime scene he would have said, and there would have been no need for the coroner to ask that question.

The term "some portions were excised" refers to the intestine that were drawn out

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I didn’t say that they did Trevor.

From The Star:

The clothing of the woman was very thin and bare. No money was found upon her, but the following articles were in the pockets of her dress:- A short clay pipe and an old cigarette case; a matchbox, an old pocket handkerchief, a knife which bore no traces of blood, and a small packet of tea and sugar, such as poor people who frequent common lodging-houses are in the habit of carrying.

A Star reporter saw Dr. J. G. Sequiera, 34, Jewry-street, who was the first medical man on the spot. "I was there," he said, "about 10 minutes after the policeman found the body. The woman could not have been dead more than a quarter of an hour. The work had been quickly done."

Not in 3 minutes

"By an expert, do you think?"

"No, not by an expert, but by a man who was not altogether ignorant of the use of the knife. It would have taken about three minutes."

Dr Brown

Coroner: Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?
Dr. Brown: It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

My two questions would be, 1) were Eddowes possessions reported before the post mortem? And 2) why was Sequeira being asked if the killer was an ‘expert’ if they were only talking about wounds? You don’t need to be an expert to wound and kill someone.

Yes the possessions of Eddowes as documented by Collard were taken down at the mortuary when the body was stripped

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As I said previously if Dr Phillips had found organs missing at the crime scene he would have said, and there would have been no need for the coroner to ask that question.

The term "some portions were excised" refers to the intestine that were drawn out

Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.


Would Phillips have used the word 'dissection' to describe the throwing of the intestines over the victim's shoulder?

Would he have described the removal of the intestines as an 'extraction'?

Would he have described the drawing out of the intestines as an 'excision'?