Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

and then he did a rendition of the highland fling before leaving

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course, wearing a coat is such a ludicrous idea…..as if people wear coats!! And then…….taking it off!! How preposterous…..why would he have wasted the 3 seconds that it would have taken?!! And then to top it all off…….he puts the coat back on!!!! The very thought!!

Who’d have possibly considered of such a complex piece of subterfuge. Such fiendishness!

You come up with the most far-fetched, provably wrong twaddle about the apron and then pour scorn on the suggestion that the killer might have taken a coat off then put it back on!!! A more perfect example of Ripperological bizarreness I can hardly imagine.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m certainly not saying that it couldn’t have been them SD but it seems to me that there has to have been a possibility that it wasn’t. On the apron, I tend toward thinking that he took it so that he could check himself over away from Mitre Square and then remove any obvious signs of blood. But I agree that he could have fled after hearing a PC’s footsteps.

I know that we shouldn’t really indulge in the game of ‘if I was the ripper I would have…’ but I’ve often thought about the risk of getting blood on clothing. For me it would have been a full length coat. Kill by strangulation, take off the coat to mutilate, put the coat back on covering at least the majority of blood.

and then he did a rendition of the highland fling before leaving

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It is very difficult to see how the couple seen was not Eddowes and JTR. In fact at the inquest it was stated the killer needed at least five minutes to perform the murder and mutilations. The timeline works for Lawende's suspect but more importantly it also ties in with why he took the piece of apron. Disturbed by PC Harvey's footsteps he cuts a piece of apron away to clean his knife when he gets a chance. It so happens that he got that chance on Goulston Street.

Put yourself in the shoes of the killer if you were committng a murder and you saw a police man coming down the passage towards you would you stop and cut a piece of apron not on your life you would want to escape as quick as possible maybe even leaving the knife behind

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mark J D]

Regardless of whether Jack was BS man or not, I just think that the location of Berner St was a riskier proposition than that of Mitre Square.

He would have been aware that any of the club members could pop outside at any moment.

Perhaps a noise from inside the club spooked him and he thought better of getting down to the mutilations.

Pure speculation of course, but that's really all we can do!

If we plug Lechmere into the situation, it all becomes even riskier: as opposed to the c.3:45am murders in quiet places he hadn't been walking through until recently, he's now killing at c.12:45am in an area where, in addition to there being more people about at the fag-end of a Saturday night, there are folks who've known him and his family for yonks. It's one thing to bury your bloodied hands and your oozing trophy in your work-coat pockets and carry on walking to Broad Street as unobtrusively as possible; it's quite another to risk having a former neighbour unexpectedly slap you on the back and expect to be able to shake your hand... "Hey, Charles! Haven't seen you for a while! Popped back to your old local for a drink, have you? Put it there, pal! Eeeeew, yuk..."

M.

[Sunny Delight]

I’m certainly not saying that it couldn’t have been them SD but it seems to me that there has to have been a possibility that it wasn’t. On the apron, I tend toward thinking that he took it so that he could check himself over away from Mitre Square and then remove any obvious signs of blood. But I agree that he could have fled after hearing a PC’s footsteps.

I know that we shouldn’t really indulge in the game of ‘if I was the ripper I would have…’ but I’ve often thought about the risk of getting blood on clothing. For me it would have been a full length coat. Kill by strangulation, take off the coat to mutilate, put the coat back on covering at least the majority of blood.

Of course there is always that possibility. But for me it is a very slim possibility. As I say the timeline works and we can also explain why the portion of apron was taken if Lawende saw Eddowes. PC Harvey spooks the Ripper into leaving the scene asap. We will never be 100% sure he did but it is much more likely than unlikely to my mind. In regards blood spatter the Ripper knew to turn the head before cutting the throat and all the doctors agreed that he likely did not have much blood on his person. So taking off the coat would have been a fairly pointless exercise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is very difficult to see how the couple seen was not Eddowes and JTR. In fact at the inquest it was stated the killer needed at least five minutes to perform the murder and mutilations. The timeline works for Lawende's suspect but more importantly it also ties in with why he took the piece of apron. Disturbed by PC Harvey's footsteps he cuts a piece of apron away to clean his knife when he gets a chance. It so happens that he got that chance on Goulston Street.

I’m certainly not saying that it couldn’t have been them SD but it seems to me that there has to have been a possibility that it wasn’t. On the apron, I tend toward thinking that he took it so that he could check himself over away from Mitre Square and then remove any obvious signs of blood. But I agree that he could have fled after hearing a PC’s footsteps.

I know that we shouldn’t really indulge in the game of ‘if I was the ripper I would have…’ but I’ve often thought about the risk of getting blood on clothing. For me it would have been a full length coat. Kill by strangulation, take off the coat to mutilate, put the coat back on covering at least the majority of blood.

[Sunny Delight]

Makes sense to me Wick. And then we can factor in a bit of leeway due to timing estimates. I have to admit that I’ve always pretty much accepted that Lawende and co must have seen Kate and her killer but how much weight should we put on vague descriptions given in the gloom by three guys looking to get home (perhaps after a beer or three?) I’m usually pretty slow to change my mind but I have to say that it makes total sense that Lawende and co just saw two people unconnected to the case (who were chatting away while Kate was being killed just a few yards away)

It is very difficult to see how the couple seen was not Eddowes and JTR. In fact at the inquest it was stated the killer needed at least five minutes to perform the murder and mutilations. The timeline works for Lawende's suspect but more importantly it also ties in with why he took the piece of apron. Disturbed by PC Harvey's footsteps he cuts a piece of apron away to clean his knife when he gets a chance. It so happens that he got that chance on Goulston Street.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely, if Lawende did see the killer with Eddowes at 1:35, but Harvey saw no-one or heard nothing by 1:40, the killer is required to have escorted Eddowes down Church Passage and across the square then murder & mutilate her and leave the square, all in five minutes.
That is the conventional view, but in my mind it is far too tight.

In this scenario, the killer has no way of knowing if he had time, Watkins had left the square, Eddowes has no idea when he might return.
Whereas, if the 'people' Blenkinsop saw pass through St. James Place at 1:30 were Eddowes & the killer, at least it is possible they saw Watkins leaving the square so Eddowes might have known they would have 15 minutes before he returns.

Makes sense to me Wick. And then we can factor in a bit of leeway due to timing estimates. I have to admit that I’ve always pretty much accepted that Lawende and co must have seen Kate and her killer but how much weight should we put on vague descriptions given in the gloom by three guys looking to get home (perhaps after a beer or three?) I’m usually pretty slow to change my mind but I have to say that it makes total sense that Lawende and co just saw two people unconnected to the case (who were chatting away while Kate was being killed just a few yards away)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Harvey's arrival at the end of the passage is only assumed, he had no watch either but checked his timing by the post-office clock. So we have another +/_ of around 1:40'ish, always assuming he did walk to the end of the passage. We have reports from beat constables who admitted to often not walking to the end of a passage when they could see the end. It wasn't his responsibility to check the square, and as there was a lamp at the end of the passage, then he could see the end from a good distance up the passage.
There is a lot of assumptions being made in the Eddowes murder.

Thanks Wick. I thought I recalled it being questioned whether he’d actually gone to the end of the passage or not. He claims to have done just that of course but there has to be a chance that he didn’t bother.

I just wondered how it’s known that it wasn’t his responsibility to check Mitre Square as he appears to claim that it was?

[FrankO]

For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride and also with Catherine Eddowes the next victim. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case, certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

Good post, Trevor - thanks for sharing!

[Sunny Delight]

[QUOTE=Sunny

[Sunny Delight]

Yes, but Lawende exited the club up on Duke St., this has no bearing on whether the killer & Eddowes entered the square on the heels of Watkins exiting.
I'm always intrigued by Blenkinsop's statement in the papers, to the effect that at 1:30 in the Orange Market a respectably-dressed man asked him "if he had seen a man & woman pass through here". He said he had seen some people pass.
I'm suspicious this was Eddowes with her killer.



Well yes, that is what I am saying, it is unlikely.
More likely the killer passed entered the square between 1:30-1:40, after Watkins but before Harvey.

Yes but I am saying that Eddowes and JTR were seen at roughly 1:33am- 1:35am. There is a window of maybe 5-6 minutes for the attack and mutilations to occur before PC Harvey walks down Church Passage. I know identification is somewhat unsatisfactory as Lawende never saw the body but even so the timeline gives very little scope for another couple to enter the fray and be unseen. The interaction witnessed even led Joseph Levy to remark that he didn't like being out when those characters were around which surely suggests this was no ordinary couple conversing.

And so it is almost certain this was Eddowes and the Ripper. The Ripper murders and mutilates between 1:35am-1:40/1:41am. He hears PC Harvey's footsteps, panics- cuts a piece of apron to clean up his knife when he has a chance and makes his escape. This to me is the most likely scenario and shows just how disorganised and deranged the killer had become.

[Trevor Marriott]

We have Harvey possibly reaching the end if Church Passage at about the same time that Morris opens the warehouse door during his sweeping up. Either of those events could be enough to make JtR leave the scene. Given their testimonies are unspecific enough that either of those could occur first (and both around 1:40-1:41ish) even if PC Harvey didnt go right to the end of the passage there is still Morris opening the door to act as a potential trigger to leave.

- Jeff

My money is on the killer being disturbed by the sight and sound of Harvey coming down the passage. The killer would have a complete line of sight of Harvey.

Harvey would have no been able to see anything in the square as he came down the passage due to the light outside the warehouse shining in his eyes and as he then got to the square he would have needed time for his eyes to adjust to the darkness of the square giving the killer time to make good his escape.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Harvey's arrival at the end of the passage is only assumed, he had no watch either but checked his timing by the post-office clock. So we have another +/_ of around 1:40'ish, always assuming he did walk to the end of the passage. We have reports from beat constables who admitted to often not walking to the end of a passage when they could see the end. It wasn't his responsibility to check the square, and as there was a lamp at the end of the passage, then he could see the end from a good distance up the passage.
There is a lot of assumptions being made in the Eddowes murder.

We have Harvey possibly reaching the end if Church Passage at about the same time that Morris opens the warehouse door during his sweeping up. Either of those events could be enough to make JtR leave the scene. Given their testimonies are unspecific enough that either of those could occur first (and both around 1:40-1:41ish) even if PC Harvey didnt go right to the end of the passage there is still Morris opening the door to act as a potential trigger to leave.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

There is no written statement from Schwartz and you know it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ahhh and there we have it . Predictable as ever.