From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sequeira when asked the same question and stated “three minutes”.

I can't find reference to this 3 minutes outside of The Star, a newspaper with dubious credentials. Either way, we'd need to know the logic underpinning that 3 minutes opinion.

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

There is a reasonable explanation. Serial killers experiment. It is well documented by those who have studied serial killers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Where is the risk and reward in scrawling nonsense on a wall when a search is taking place? The risk is there, but where is the reward? Nobody understood what it meant, 150 years later people are still disputing its meaning. There was no reward in it.

Several posters have commented that it is impossible to discern whether the graffito was anti-Jewish or pro-Jewish, but no such uncertainty existed at that time.

The police were of the opinion that the message was anti-Jewish, that the murderer wrote it, and that it was an attempt to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment.

That was sufficient reward.

And, the idea that this was someone who held a grudge against 'the Jews' or 'prostitutes' or any other conspiracy idea is completing missing the point.

On the contrary, the murderer may have been antisemitic and murdering a woman in the yard in front of a Jewish club is consistent with that.

'Long story short: the experience of serial killers tells us that when he passed Goulston Street, he was trying to get home with his possessions. 'Not remotely interested in semi-literate impressions on a wall.

You are assuming that Pc Long's testimony was wrong.

There is no reason to think so.

Those organs would have been very important to him, whereas scrawling on a wall held no reward.

I do not see how you can know that.

the last thing he would have done was to come back out of his house to scrawl nonsense on a wall

The evidence of Pc Long implies he did leave his lodgings - to leave the apron piece.

Since it was unlikely that the graffito just happened to be there and just happened not to have been erased, that means it is likely that the murderer left that too.

The good news is, it opens up the type of person this was beyond the Victorian idea (not all of them, by the way) that his must have been someone broadly in line with Anderson's idea of who this person was.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Anderson?

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Rational choice is bound up with the concept of risk and reward. In our age, you can have police cars radioed in, in no time. In his age, walking ten/fifteen minutes to commit another murder was not such a risk due to the nature of communication and transport.

What you tend to find with serial killers is that when they take a greater risk, the crime is more violent. Risk and reward.

Where is the risk and reward in scrawling nonsense on a wall when a search is taking place? The risk is there, but where is the reward? Nobody understood what it meant, 150 years later people are still disputing its meaning. There was no reward in it.

And, the idea that this was someone who held a grudge against 'the Jews' or 'prostitutes' or any other conspiracy idea is completing missing the point.

There is a pattern among these types of serial killers who kill women in the street, demonstrable by means of empirical studies:

1) They are in it for ephemeral pleasure. Not because they hate people, e.g. 'the Jews' or 'prostitutes', and nor is it to do with revenge.

2) There is a very high incidence of abuse or neglect in their formative years. That's not to say it's a good reason for going 'round carving up women, and of course most people who have been neglected or abused do not wish harm on other people; but it is extremely prevalent in their make up. It's a very important factor, whereas some hatred of some group of people, is not observed. It's about pleasure not revenge and not hatred.

3) When they mutilate and take organs, it is for pleasure. Ownership, possession, control; whatever you want to call it.

4) They like to relive the experience.

'Long story short: the experience of serial killers tells us that when he passed Goulston Street, he was trying to get home with his possessions. 'Not remotely interested in semi-literate impressions on a wall.

Those organs would have been very important to him, whereas scrawling on a wall held no reward. He would have been trying to get home with his gains to relive the experience, and, as Jon claimed; that may well have involved eating them. One thing's highly probable: he would have taken a great deal of pleasure from getting home with his gains and the last thing he would have done was to come back out of his house to scrawl nonsense on a wall when he could have been reliving the experience.

The bad news is, those who believe this was done out of revenge or hatred of a certain group of people, well, it's unlikely.

The good news is, it opens up the type of person this was beyond the Victorian idea (not all of them, by the way) that his must have been someone broadly in line with Anderson's idea of who this person was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dictionary definition of the word ‘excised’:

“having been cut out surgically.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I asked two questions Trevor. One of which you ignored and for the other you answered a completely different question.

I know that Collard took wrote the list of possessions but what I was asking is how quickly they were given to The Press? Before or after the inquest?

The other questions was - why would Sequeira have been asked about the killers expertise if they were only talking about if they were only talking about a few hacks and cuts? The only expertise would have been for the removal of organs.

[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'?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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".