Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes


    So, Phillips was called in specifically because of his experience in the Chapman case and he could check for similarities between the two murders. I’d assume that these would have included wounds and whether there were any organs missing? I seem to recall you previously doubting that any kind of pre-post mortem examination would have occurred?

    Thats right none were carried out Brown wanted to establish from Phillips if it was the work of the same Killer of Chapman

    Come Trevor, you surely can’t hope to get away with ignoring the quote below?



    Phillips assist in the preliminary examination of the body (later determined to be that of Catherine Eddowes) which was underway when he arrived.

    London Times, Oct. 1, 1888”

    So Dr. Brown sent for Dr. Phillips and then began making a preliminary examination of the body which Phillips joined in when he got there. So how can any of us say that they wouldn’t have checked for missing organs when faced with a body with its abdomen lying open?


    Then you may remember this Trevor:

    “To obtain 21st-century medical opinions, I first asked two different forensic pathologists Dr`s Calder and Biggs, and also medical expert Phillip Harrison all experienced experts in their own fields, along with Mr Edmund Neale a consultant gynaecologist. Dr Biggs and Edmond Neale both concur with Dr Brown on the “at least” 5 minutes window. After studying the postmortem reports on both Eddowes and Chapman, Dr Calder, and Phillip Harrison believed it was not possible within that time frame. In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. Mr Neal also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

    So we have:

    Biggs (Forensic Pathologist) - agreed with Brown’s assessment.

    Neale (Consultant Gynaecologist) - agreed with Brown’s assessment.

    Calder (Forensic Pathologist) - disagreed with Brown’s assessment.

    Harrison (Medical Expert [bit vague?]) - disagreed with Brown’s assessment.


    Plus…


    Prosecutor (a surgeon I believe) - disagreed with Brown’s assessment.

    Nick Warren (a surgeon) - called the killer ‘a trophy hunter.’ He removed organs.

    So this clearly isn’t a black and white issue Trevor. There’s a divergence of opinion to be considered.

    Yes, but none of those experts only gave opinions none of them carried out an experiment to see how long it would take any of them and in haste and given the crime scene conditions there are documented pitfalls which in any experiment may go wrong and thereby effect the timings

    So why have they been quoted in the past (by yourself) if their opinions had no value?



    And did Dr. Brown just rely on his own estimation of how long it would have taken? Apparently not:

    “In proof of the anatomical and surgical skill of the assassin, Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed this operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half.”​

    East London Observer, October 6th:​

    Yes, under mortuary conditions not in the dark and that expert still managed to damage part of the bladder if I remember right in haste which the killer of Eddowes avoided doing, but the article doesn't say if the experiment was geared to removing both organs.

    It shouldn’t need to be stated that it was in regard to the two organs Trevor. Dr. Brown was trying to recreate what the killer did in the case of Eddowes so he clearly wouldn’t have been stupid enough to only request that one organ be removed.


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    I have to express more than a little surprise Trevor. In many discussions on this case Dr. Biggs is your ‘go to’ medical man and yet when we find him agreeing with Dr. Brown’s estimation (and disagreeing with your position) he appears to become surplus to requirements. Perhaps another valid question might be:

    When is Dr. Biggs opinion worth listening to and when isn’t it?

    A final point to make of course is that the killer had longer than 5 minutes available to him anyway. He could have had 8 or 9 minutes.

    Comment


    • 'Seems the thread has lost its direction.

      Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

      In the event the murderer simply stumbled upon Goulston Street, broadly walking in that direction, as the OP suggests; then how did he avoid PC Harvey?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        I have to express more than a little surprise Trevor. In many discussions on this case Dr. Biggs is your ‘go to’ medical man and yet when we find him agreeing with Dr. Brown’s estimation (and disagreeing with your position) he appears to become surplus to requirements. Perhaps another valid question might be:

        When is Dr. Biggs opinion worth listening to and when isn’t it?

        A final point to make of course is that the killer had longer than 5 minutes available to him anyway. He could have had 8 or 9 minutes.
        And the killer could have had no time at all other than to murder and mutilate given we don't know what time the couple left to go into the square. You are forgetting the testimony of Dr Phillips who stated that with regards to Chapmans murder he could not have done all that was done to her in under 15 mins and that was in relation to a uterus only add a kidney to that with Eddowes

        As I have previously stated the doctors both past and present all gave their opinions whether they could have carried out those removals in the same crime scene situation is unchartered territory the same goes for Dr Browns expert so in reality opinions are clearly divided

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 12-03-2023, 10:52 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Hi Wick, I’ll ask you because I know that you’re well up on the Press reporting of the case. Do we know when the list of Eddowes possessions was first released to the Press?
          Hi Herlock.

          The same day - Oct 1st.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
            'Seems the thread has lost its direction.

            Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

            In the event the murderer simply stumbled upon Goulston Street, broadly walking in that direction, as the OP suggests; then how did he avoid PC Harvey?
            Meanwhile, back at Goulston Street ...............
            Why a four-year-old child could understand this report! Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
              'Seems the thread has lost its direction.

              Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

              In the event the murderer simply stumbled upon Goulston Street, broadly walking in that direction, as the OP suggests; then how did he avoid PC Harvey?
              He may not have, Harvey might have seen a man cross the street ahead of him, there's nothing suspicious about that, though I think he was already gone by the time Harvey emerged from Church Passage.
              It was probably Harvey's approach coming down the passage that alerted the killer to leave the square.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                And the killer could have had no time at all other than to murder and mutilate given we don't know what time the couple left to go into the square. You are forgetting the testimony of Dr Phillips who stated that with regards to Chapmans murder he could not have done all that was done to her in under 15 mins and that was in relation to a uterus only add a kidney to that with Eddowes

                As I have previously stated the doctors both past and present all gave their opinions whether they could have carried out those removals in the same crime scene situation is unchartered territory the same goes for Dr Browns expert so in reality opinions are clearly divided

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                When a doctor operates on someone, and with a little bit more care, the patient is expected to be alive at the end of it.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  Hi Herlock.

                  The same day - Oct 1st.
                  Cheers Wick

                  Comment


                  • I’ve started a new thread for any discussion on Trevor’s theory.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                      In that context, it could just as easily have been someone from what was viewed as a more 'respectable' class in society, and the idea that he was running 'round displaying obvious signs of 'madness' was a Victorian, ill-conceived view. In the event this person was put in an asylum, then it will have been because they caught him as opposed to being because he was showing obvious signs of 'madness'.

                      Look at the descriptions of the men last seen with Stride, Eddowes and Kelly.

                      Do they seem like members of a 'more 'respectable' class'?

                      I have never subscribed to the theory that the Whitechapel Murderer was certifiable, nor even that he was showing signs of madness, and I am on record as arguing that a certain well-known schizophrenic had nothing to do with the murders, or any other murder.

                      The evidence suggests that he was a member of the lower classes who because of lack of education was the kind of person who might have mis-spelled a certain word which somehow keeps coming up in discussion of the murders, just as it did at the time.


                      Clarence, Druitt and Gull, for example, would have had no difficulty in spelling it.
                      Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 12-04-2023, 11:14 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        He may not have, Harvey might have seen a man cross the street ahead of him, there's nothing suspicious about that, though I think he was already gone by the time Harvey emerged from Church Passage.
                        It was probably Harvey's approach coming down the passage that alerted the killer to leave the square.
                        I agree with the conclusion, Jon.

                        'Not sure about the idea that PC Harvey would have forgotten seeing a man cross the street moments before a body was discovered, however, particularly when you consider that he was paid to take notice of that which was going on around him.

                        On the other hand, when you look at PC Watkins' testimony, I don't think he was saying that he saw nobody on his beat. I think he was saying that he saw nothing unusual, and when he stated he didn't see anybody about, I reckon that related specifically to when he checked the square at 1.30am.

                        So, aye, both PC Harvey and PC Watkin could well have passed people or seen people ahead of them. Were it the case, as you suggest, then that would tell us that the WM didn't make his escape by running 'round drawing attention to himself, which is the way I always conceived of it.

                        Maybe you're right in that it's not the mystery we assume. Maybe he walked away looking outwardly calm, did pass police officers, but so did others; and he was just another face among a few, 'no reason to take a great deal of notice.

                        Still, in the event he came down from Aldgate High Street and entered the square via Mitre Street, then I see no good reason for him not to go back that way; he may even have passed DC Halse and associates when they were around St Botolph's Church.

                        I don't think we know how DC Halse got to Middlesex Street, but given he came down from Aldgate High Street way, and entered from Mitre Street (I think that's a fair assumption given that Morris ran in the direction of Aldgate from Mitre Street); it's reasonable to assume he went back that way and turned down Middlesex Street. I'd say it looks the simplest route from Mitre Street and they may have seen it that way also.

                        I reckon it depends on which exit the WM left from: Mitre Street makes it more likely he went back up Aldgate High Street and Duke Street means Stoney Lane becomes a decent option.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          On the other hand, when you look at PC Watkins' testimony, I don't think he was saying that he saw nobody on his beat. I think he was saying that he saw nothing unusual, and when he stated he didn't see anybody about, I reckon that related specifically to when he checked the square at 1.30am.

                          I imagine that you are going by the report in the Telegraph of the following exchange between Watkins and the coroner:

                          [Coroner] At half-past one did anything excite your attention? - No.

                          [Coroner] Did you see anyone about? - No.


                          I refer you to my #184 in
                          Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?


                          "And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

                          "At about a quarter before two."

                          "Had you met any person on your rounds?"

                          "Not a soul."

                          (The Star, 1 October 1888)​​

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                            I imagine that you are going by the report in the Telegraph of the following exchange between Watkins and the coroner:

                            Did you see anyone about? - No.
                            Place it in its context:

                            Or any person? - No. I passed through Mitre-square at 1.30 on the Sunday morning. I had my lantern alight and on - fixed to my belt. According to my usual practice, I looked at the different passages and corners.
                            At half-past one did anything excite your attention? - No.
                            Did you see anyone about? - No.

                            Could any people have been about that portion of the square without your seeing them? - No. I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44.

                            It looks very much that when PC Watkins said he didn't see anyone about, he was talking of half one in the morning when he entered the square, i.e. he didn't see anybody in the square at that time.

                            Comment


                            • I agree, and I thought I made it clear that I am not disagreeing with you about that.

                              My point is that the answer Watkins gave the reporter means that he did not see anyone between that visit to the square at 1.30 and his discovery of the body at 1.44 a.m.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                A neckerchief is usually tied around the neck, this piece of cloth was not tied as a neckerchief would be.
                                These are the accounts I have been looking for, they tell us the apron was around the neck, or at least on the body.

                                She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck.
                                ​Times, 1 Oct. 1888.

                                ....large white handkerchief round neck. She wore a pair of men's old lace-up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron.
                                ​Daily Telegraph, 1 Oct. 1888.

                                It's the last item on her list of possessions.
                                Trevor & I had this same discussion a couple of years ago. The above report naturally was the clincher, and predictably Trevor dismissed it as untrustworthy newspaper tattle.

                                The last item on Collard's list of possessions reads:
                                "1 Piece of old white apron".
                                The confusion comes from the question whether the G.S. piece was added to the bottom of her list of possessions, by rights, it shouldn't have been.
                                All items removed from her body must be kept separate from evidence found elsewhere. It isn't for the police locating evidence at or near the crime scene to assume what is or is not her possession.
                                If that last item had been removed from the body we might expect it to have been listed either before or after the red gauze (12th item).

                                Had Phillips arrived after the body was stripped, then the piece of apron that came off the body was in the pile of clothes, or spread out on a table. It would be removed from the pile and pieced together with the G.S. piece brought by Phillips to determine the match.
                                After which, the 'body' piece is dropped back at the end of the pile. It would then be recorded last.

                                The actual copy of the List of Possessions cannot be the original. The inspector had his notebook for any notes made at the crime scene or when gathering evidence. The present list is not written on pocketbook size paper.
                                The copy we find in the court records must be a clean copy made for the purpose of presenting in court - rewritten, neat & clean, devoid of any blood stains & strike-outs.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X