Mitre Square: Take Two?

[Tom_Wescott]

If we're talking only about the phrase itself, I think Martin Fido's theory about its meaning is reasonable: someone may have bought a faulty item from a Jewish vendor from the nearby market, and taken it back to the vendor for a refund, which the vendor refused to give. So the customer wrote the graffito, meaning that Jews won't accept responsibility for anything when he said that they "won't be blamed for nothing". That we have no evidence that the writing was there before the murders is what makes me question the theory, not the meaning of the words. I don't see why writing it small or just above ground level points toward the Ripper writing it. I can't really assess the significance of the apron being right under the graffito, because I don't know how common graffiti was in the Whitechapel area at the time.

Very little of what Martin Fido hypothesizes in his book is reasonable, and his ideas about the writing is among the more laughable suggestions.

Other discussion in this thread about the 9 month gap between the Kelly and McKenzie murders and your previous statements about not believing in coincidences got me thinking again about a point I've made in the past. Even if we count the C5 plus Tabram and McKenzie all as being Ripper murders, the Kelly murder is the only one that took place inside, and also the only one that didn't happen in July, August, or September. The murders that occurred outside all occurred in a warmer part of the year than the one that occurred inside. Is that a coincidence? If not, that might partly explain the 9 month gap between Kelly and McKenzie. Most of the period between those two murders was during a part of the year where the Ripper was wanting to murder inside, if at all, and that greatly limited his opportunities.

Not a bad idea! I would mention that Coles was also killed in cold weather, but if we're excluding her, then you have proposed an idea worth keeping in mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lewis C]

There are no reasonable ideas (outside of the Ripper)as to why THIS phrase would be written at just above ground level in tiny writing on a jamb when there was a whole wall of street facing black dado to work with. And even if such an idea can be conceived, how does the apron end up under it? How can it?

The decision to erase the writing was indefensible and stupid, and the police looked for evidence to justify their actions. They could find none. Arnold called it 'blurred' yet 2 1/2 years later he's in Swallow Gardens looking for more writing. Even Warren indicated he believe it was written by the Ripper and he's the guy who ordered it erased! Personally, I find the writing inconvenient. Just the apron by itself would make theorizing easier, wouldn't it? But the evidence forces the likelihood it's legit, so my stance is we have to take it on board, incovenient or not. We shouldn't be lazy in our thinking.

You know what would be really convenient? A photograph of it!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

If we're talking only about the phrase itself, I think Martin Fido's theory about its meaning is reasonable: someone may have bought a faulty item from a Jewish vendor from the nearby market, and taken it back to the vendor for a refund, which the vendor refused to give. So the customer wrote the graffito, meaning that Jews won't accept responsibility for anything when he said that they "won't be blamed for nothing". That we have no evidence that the writing was there before the murders is what makes me question the theory, not the meaning of the words. I don't see why writing it small or just above ground level points toward the Ripper writing it. I can't really assess the significance of the apron being right under the graffito, because I don't know how common graffiti was in the Whitechapel area at the time.

Other discussion in this thread about the 9 month gap between the Kelly and McKenzie murders and your previous statements about not believing in coincidences got me thinking again about a point I've made in the past. Even if we count the C5 plus Tabram and McKenzie all as being Ripper murders, the Kelly murder is the only one that took place inside, and also the only one that didn't happen in July, August, or September. The murders that occurred outside all occurred in a warmer part of the year than the one that occurred inside. Is that a coincidence? If not, that might partly explain the 9 month gap between Kelly and McKenzie. Most of the period between those two murders was during a part of the year where the Ripper was wanting to murder inside, if at all, and that greatly limited his opportunities.

[The Rookie Detective]

To me that indicates that either the thrill was gone for the Ripper or Mackenzie's killer was attempting to imitate the Ripper, but lacked the stomach to equal his mutilations.

Or he had cut himself and damaged his hand/fingers when slashing Kelly, and it took him months to recover to a point where he could kill again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

agree. the killer could easily had about fifteen minutes. the official nine minutes is tight bit still doable anyway.

That’s how I see it Abby.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To me that indicates that either the thrill was gone for the Ripper or Mackenzie's killer was attempting to imitate the Ripper, but lacked the stomach to equal his mutilations.

Yes, I’ve always wondered if Mackenzie’s killer knew her and killed her in a flash of anger and then worried that he could be ‘connected’ to her by the police (as a known associate or even a family member) when they investigated so he decided to make it look like a ripper murder. He may have felt or assumed that if he could provide an alibi for the other murders, or at least one of them, he’d be ok. When he came to do it though he couldn’t bring himself to go anywhere near as far as the ripper. Maybe the scratches indicate that reluctance/hesitation?

[Fiver]

The problem for me with Mackenzie is that after the horror of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly our killer suddenly becomes tentative:

• A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
• Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
• Small cut across the mons veneris.

To me that indicates that either the thrill was gone for the Ripper or Mackenzie's killer was attempting to imitate the Ripper, but lacked the stomach to equal his mutilations.

[Abby Normal]

Herlock the Broken Record is her again. I know that I go on about this but I really do think it’s very important that we all consider the clocks. Previously in ripperology we have looked at witnesses and times etc and drawn our own inferences and differing interpretations but using the stated times but by doing this we could be using inaccurate information. I’m not suggesting a wild theory here I’m just stating a fact. Even if we were judging modern day events we would have to make consideration for how various clocks were synchronised to give us a reasonable margin for error. You may remember a while ago I did a spot check at home while I had family visiting. On around 7 or 8 different clocks including smart phones, an iPad, wall clocks etc I found a range of around 8 minutes. And that was 2025. So how inaccurate might we be if we don’t make allowances for 1888 when the issue would have been more pronounced.

Put roughly, and I’ll stress I’m not claiming this as a certainty - only a very reasonable possibility - what if Lawende’s watch (set by the club clock) was just 5 minutes fast by GMT? And what if the clock that Watkins used was 5 minutes slow by GMT. This would give us the reasonable possibility that Lawende saw Eddowes close to 1.30 and that Watkins found the body at closer to 1.49. We don’t know how long passed between Lawende passing and the couple entering the square (as Trevor keeps pointing out) but it doesn’t matter because we’re not saying what actually happened (because we don’t know and can’t deduce) we’re only saying what might have happened.

agree. the killer could easily had about fifteen minutes. the official nine minutes is tight bit still doable anyway.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock the Broken Record is her again. I know that I go on about this but I really do think it’s very important that we all consider the clocks. Previously in ripperology we have looked at witnesses and times etc and drawn our own inferences and differing interpretations but using the stated times but by doing this we could be using inaccurate information. I’m not suggesting a wild theory here I’m just stating a fact. Even if we were judging modern day events we would have to make consideration for how various clocks were synchronised to give us a reasonable margin for error. You may remember a while ago I did a spot check at home while I had family visiting. On around 7 or 8 different clocks including smart phones, an iPad, wall clocks etc I found a range of around 8 minutes. And that was 2025. So how inaccurate might we be if we don’t make allowances for 1888 when the issue would have been more pronounced.

Put roughly, and I’ll stress I’m not claiming this as a certainty - only a very reasonable possibility - what if Lawende’s watch (set by the club clock) was just 5 minutes fast by GMT? And what if the clock that Watkins used was 5 minutes slow by GMT. This would give us the reasonable possibility that Lawende saw Eddowes close to 1.30 and that Watkins found the body at closer to 1.49. We don’t know how long passed between Lawende passing and the couple entering the square (as Trevor keeps pointing out) but it doesn’t matter because we’re not saying what actually happened (because we don’t know and can’t deduce) we’re only saying what might have happened.

[The Rookie Detective]

I would suggest that the Ripper spent no more than 5 minutes with each victim (excluding MJK)

If we add 30 seconds to leave the scene, plus up to 90 seconds to enter the square with the victim, engage and then attack; that's a total of 7 minutes at the very most.

7 minutes from entering the square to having left the scene undetected.

To achieve what he did in the small time frame and with virtually no light, would suggest that the killer knew what he was doing to a certain extent.

The question should be... In what profession could a man achieve inflicting those wounds under those specific parameters?

I would suggest that a butcher, slaughterman, surgeon or doctor are the most likely.


Of course, we could say that he used up to around 19 minutes, but that to me sounds very unrealistic considering the beats of Watkins and Harvey respectively.


And just because a professional surgeon stated he couldn't have achieved it in under 15 minutes, doesn't mean that someone else couldn't.

[Fiver]

So are you suggesting that Insp Reid who was directly involved in the murders is wrong?

Lets look at some of the things he said.

"It was said in the case of the woman Kelly that portions of the body were carried away. This was not true. Every body was found complete." - Inspector Reid

"The Ripper was a man with no skilled knowledge - not even the skill of a novice in butchery." - Inspector Reid

"As no one ever saw the man, except his victims, not the slightest evidence could be obtained as to his description." - Inspector Reid

"Even the so-called "Whitechapel murders" were not peculiar to that division, for one was in the City of London, one in Bethnal Green, four in Spitalfields, two in St. George's, and only one in Whitechapel." - Inspector Reid

The first is provably false. The others are debatable.

[Fiver]

Insp Reid in a press interview after his retirement, stated that no organs were removed from Mary Kelly by her killer and the body intact,

Not exactly.

"It was said in the case of the woman Kelly that portions of the body were carried away. This was not true. Every body was found complete. It was simply hacked without any system or plan other than dictated by ferocity." - Inspector Reid, 1901

Inspector Reid's memory clearly failed him.

Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed?
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown: Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] None whatever.

[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] I cannot give any reason whatever.

"Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and have not been found, and the uterus has been removed. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing part seems overwhelming." - Coroner Wynne Baxter, Chapman Inquest.

[Fiver]

No, it couldn't because we have no idea how long the couple stood at the entrance to the square before entering the square.

How long the couple stood at the entrance to the square before entering the square is irrelevant to Herlock's point. Herlock is correct when he said "So the time from when the three men saw the couple to the time that Watkins found the body could have been 19 minutes."

We have no idea if the couple seen by Lawende, Levy, and Harris ever entered Mitre Square. Lawende is the only one who identified the woman as Eddowes and he could have been wrong about an unremarkable stranger seen for a few moments in poor lighting. None of the three appear to have seen when they left or which direction they went.

If Lawende was wrong about the woman being Eddowes, she and her killer could have already entered Mitre Square by one of the other entrances at the time Lawende saw the woman he thought was Eddowes.

[The Rookie Detective]

For me it feels like McKenzie is a regression back to the murder of Nichols; there being too many similarities to ignore.

But what if it wasn't the Ripper OR a copycat

What if the Ripper...was a gang?

A small group of men with a mutual penchant for butchering women.

Was McKenzie an initiation type kill, as Nichols was? In terms of Canonical 5)

Brothers?

Father and Son?

Friends?

Ex-convict friends?

Ex-cops?

Ex-military comrades?


What better way to confuse the police than to have 1 man cut Stride's throat, while another from the group was in Mitre Square ready to kill Eddowes.

Each man covering for the other.


It's an idea at the very least.

[Tom_Wescott]

The problem for me with Mackenzie is that after the horror of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly our killer suddenly becomes tentative:

• A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
• Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
• Small cut across the mons veneris.

I'd say that is the problem with McKenzie, if indeed a problem it is. It's a difference. The knife is clearly not the same that was used on Eddowes. However, the abdominal wounds we see on McKenzie are, to a large extent, the killer trying to work his knife under her very tight stays, which had not been an issue with earlier victims. The fingernail impressions are fascinating to me. He must have squeezed very hard to leave the nail marks he did. Knife aside, the method of attack and everything else are rather bang on.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem for me with Mackenzie is that after the horror of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly our killer suddenly becomes tentative:

• A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
• Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
• Small cut across the mons veneris.