Mitre Square: Take Two?

[Trevor Marriott]

How long had it been raining for? According to the above it was raining at 1.30 but had stopped before 1.35 - so when had it started to rain? How do you know that it hadn’t started at 1.28.

Was it heavy rain or a light shower? We don’t know but it could have been a light shower of 5 or 6 minutes. So she and her killer could have sheltered and then entered Mitre Square just at the time that Lawende, Levy and Harris left the club. Alternatively shouldn’t we consider Eddowes lying in a corner, fence on one side, buildings on the other, a man leaning over her, in a short shower of light rain?

Im not pushing these as facts Trevor. I’m looking at what might have been possible however unlikely some may see them.

….

The fact that his watch was in sync with the club clock couldn’t really be more irrelevant Trevor. Basically he was in sync with himself. What would be relevant would be how was his watch synced with the clock in Bishopsgate Station and the clocks used by Harvey and Watkins. There could have a 10 minute or more difference between those clocks making any attempt at gauging accurate times futile. When the three men believed that it was 1.30 by another clock it could have been 1.25 or 1.35.

So the time from when the three men saw the couple to the time that Watkins found the body could have been 19 minutes.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So many times on discussions about Mitre Square you have repeated this statement Trevor and I’ve told you every time why it makes no sense. When will it sink in?

You cannot say that something couldn’t have happened based on an event which you only think might have occurred. That’s not logical. In fact I find it little short of remarkable that you can keep repeating it.

There are two options..

Option A - That after the three men passed, the couple stood around for an unspecified length of time (perhaps minutes) before they entered Mitre Square.

or,

Option B - That after the three men passed, the couple went into Mitre Square straight away or after a few seconds or even a minute.

I accept 100% that both option A and option B are possibles.

BUT, your statement:

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

…is only correct if option A is definitely what occurred.

As option B is equally possible your statement is provably wrong.


I know expect a response of almost superhuman level wriggling.

[GBinOz]

I’ve an alternative for the delay, she went via Aldgate where she was earlier arrested and met her killer there (perhaps even having arranged to meet up earlier - who was she late for?)

Eddowes reportedly claimed that she knew who the Ripper was, so was she engaged in blackmailing him, and returning to Aldgate to conclude a deal? This would fit the report in the NY Times of "a watchboy who saw a man and a woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone". Jack tells her he has the money stashed and he will take her to get it....via Mitre Sq.

So did Watkins take shelter from the rain just before 1:30, and then, to make up time on his beat, he skipped Mitre Square. Did he (or White) step aside for the ripper in St James's Place when the latter was on his way back to Aldgate Station to be seen by the watchboy. This would mean Lawende's sighting was of different couple. All conjecture, of course, but that's what we're doing here.

[Trevor Marriott]

So many times on discussions about Mitre Square you have repeated this statement Trevor and I’ve told you every time why it makes no sense. When will it sink in?

You cannot say that something couldn’t have happened based on an event which you only think might have occurred. That’s not logical. In fact I find it little short of remarkable that you can keep repeating it.

There are two options..

Option A - That after the three men passed, the couple stood around for an unspecified length of time (perhaps minutes) before they entered Mitre Square.

or,

Option B - That after the three men passed, the couple went into Mitre Square straight away or after a few seconds or even a minute.

I accept 100% that both option A and option B are possibles.

BUT, your statement:

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

…is only correct if option A is definitely what occurred.

As option B is equally possible your statement is provably wrong.


I know expect a response of almost superhuman level wriggling.

You clearly are missing the obvious, my point being that the longer the couple stood talking before entering the square then the less time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done i.e. murder, mutilate and remove organs, at best the killer had less than 9 mins to do all of that and that time decreases if they didn't enter the square soon after being seen by Lawende at 1.35am.

What don't you understand about that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Tom_Wescott]

A point I'm curious about is the farinaceous matter found partly digested in her stomach. Assuming this was meal or grain of some kind, when did she eat it? Not at the police station, so it must have been prior to that (around 29 Aldgate?) or after leaving the jail. I suppose the answer to this would be in answering the question 'How long does it take a person to fully digest farinaceous matter?' I've only thought of the question today so do not have an answer. But the fact that it was sporadically raining and yet Eddowes was dry and the presence of food in her belly might indicate how she spent part of her time after leaving the jail. Just thinking out loud.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

You clearly are missing the obvious, my point being that the longer the couple stood talking before entering the square then the less time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done i.e. murder, mutilate and remove organs, at best the killer had less than 9 mins to do all of that and that time decreases if they didn't enter the square soon after being seen by Lawende at 1.35am.

What don't you understand about that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve just written 184 words explaining the point to you and you appear either to have a) not read it properly, b) somehow not understood it or c) ignored it. I haven’t a clue which one.

Please READ….

I totally understand that you have said numerous times that if there was a delay between Lawende and co passing and the couple entering Mitre Square it reduces the time available to the killer by however long the delay was. So that if they waited a minute then we have to deduct a minute from the time available to the killer. If they waited 2 minutes then we have to deduct 2 minutes and so on.

Now Trevor, do you understand that I understand your point? How could you think that anyone couldn’t understand that point?

Ok, now my very obvious point…

I’m not suggesting how much time the killer definitely had (because none of us can know this) I’m suggesting how much time he might have had. I’m talking about what is possible. And it’s possible and reasonable that the couple entered Mitre Square just after Lawende passed. So when we are discussing how much time the killer might have had we have to try and estimate the maximum and the minimum times. If the woman was Eddowes then the maximum time is calculated by them entering Mitre Square straight away.

Please tell me that you get it Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve just written 184 words explaining the point to you and you appear either to have a) not read it properly, b) somehow not understood it or c) ignored it. I haven’t a clue which one.

Please READ….

I totally understand that you have said numerous times that if there was a delay between Lawende and co passing and the couple entering Mitre Square it reduces the time available to the killer by however long the delay was. So that if they waited a minute then we have to deduct a minute from the time available to the killer. If they waited 2 minutes then we have to deduct 2 minutes and so on.

Now Trevor, do you understand that I understand your point? How could you think that anyone couldn’t understand that point?

Ok, now my very obvious point…

I’m not suggesting how much time the killer definitely had (because none of us can know this) I’m suggesting how much time he might have had. I’m talking about what is possible. And it’s possible and reasonable that the couple entered Mitre Square just after Lawende passed. So when we are discussing how much time the killer might have had we have to try and estimate the maximum and the minimum times. If the woman was Eddowes then the maximum time is calculated by them entering Mitre Square straight away.

Please tell me that you get it Trevor.

But you cannot tell how much time he might have had with the victim, the same as I cannot tell you what time they entered the square. All I can say is that the longer they stood talking it decreases the time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done.

What's so difficult for you to understand its not rocket science

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you cannot tell how much time he might have had with the victim, the same as I cannot tell you what time they entered the square. All I can say is that the longer they stood talking it decreases the time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done.

What's so difficult for you to understand its not rocket science

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How can you just not understand a point that a child could understand?

[The Rookie Detective]

There's also the possibility that the couple never existed, and that the 3 Jews who claimed to have seen Eddowes... were her killers.

We know that one of the witnesses' cousin's, was a Jewish Lunatic who was incarcerated.


Covering for his cousin?

A Jewish Ripper gang?


A policeman paid or told to look the other way.




Possibillties are endless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you cannot tell how much time he might have had with the victim, the same as I cannot tell you what time they entered the square. All I can say is that the longer they stood talking it decreases the time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done.

What's so difficult for you to understand its not rocket science

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ll have one last go at explaining that 1+1=2 and if you still don’t accept what I’m saying then there’s just no hope for you Trevor. I’m sorry to say this but it’s just a fact. The point that I made was so obviously correct. So incredibly simple to understand that i struggle to accept that you aren’t doing this on purpose.

My original point was that due to the fact that we cannot know how the various clocks were synchronised it is possible that the killer had longer with his victim. This is based on the simple concept that the three men might have passed slightly earlier than they believed and that Watkins might have discovered the body slightly later than he believed (due to poorly synchronised clocks). This concept can’t be simpler. Please note Trevor - I am not, I repeat NOT saying that this is what definitely occurred. Only that it is a possibility.

Your response was this:

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


Ok? The above is what YOU said. They are your words.


What you are saying is (and this cannot be misinterpreted) - ‘the killer couldn’t have had longer because they might have waited around before entering Mitre Square.’


I assume that you accept that this is exactly what your quote meant? Ok?


Then, I said this:

“I totally understand that you have said numerous times that if there was a delay between Lawende and co passing and the couple entering Mitre Square it reduces the time available to the killer by however long the delay was. So that if they waited a minute then we have to deduct a minute from the time available to the killer. If they waited 2 minutes then we have to deduct 2 minutes and so on.”


The above quote couldn’t be clearer. It proves that I totally understood and understand your simple and obvious point. So why did you then feel the need to post this?:


“But you cannot tell how much time he might have had with the victim, the same as I cannot tell you what time they entered the square. All I can say is that the longer they stood talking it decreases the time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done.

What's so difficult for you to understand it’s not rocket science.”


I’d already explained in detail how I understood your point and yet you post as if I hadn’t or as if you hadn’t read what I’d written. Can’t you see how exasperating this is? I actually think that you can but you just do it on purpose as a wind-up.

….


So to conclude - please try to understand this…


You can’t say “X couldn’t have happened because Y might have happened.” This is EXACTLY what your post meant. You are actually saying “the killed couldn’t have had more time because they might have waited around in Duke Street.”


You cannot exclude a possibility on the basis that something might have occurred…….because it might not have occurred of course.


PLEASE tell me that you understand this.

If you don’t, or your next post asks why I don’t understand something again then all that I can say is

[Tom_Wescott]

But you cannot tell how much time he might have had with the victim, the same as I cannot tell you what time they entered the square. All I can say is that the longer they stood talking it decreases the time the killer had with the victim to do all that he is alleged to have done.

What's so difficult for you to understand its not rocket science

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I must admit I'm at a loss as to what you're saying as well. It's true we don't know how much time passed after Lawende left that the couple entered the square. but we do know that Eddowes and her killer entered the square and that the killer had fled by c. 1:44a.m. Isn't that all we need to know?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

There's also the possibility that the couple never existed, and that the 3 Jews who claimed to have seen Eddowes... were her killers.

We know that one of the witnesses' cousin's, was a Jewish Lunatic who was incarcerated.


Covering for his cousin?

A Jewish Ripper gang?


A policeman paid or told to look the other way.




Possibillties are endless.

Fantasies are endless. Viable possibilities are quite few. Either Lawende saw Eddowes with her killer or he saw a different couple. Those are the viable possibilities.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I must admit I'm at a loss as to what you're saying as well. It's true we don't know how much time passed after Lawende left that the couple entered the square. but we do know that Eddowes and her killer entered the square and that the killer had fled by c. 1:44a.m. Isn't that all we need to know?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No, because I have said all along the killer did not remove the organs, so what time they entered the square is relevant because the later they entered the square then the less likely it would have been for the killer to have the time to remove the organs in any event.

And another point to be considered with regard to the organ removal is if the killer's motive was to murder and take organs, why did he stab her abdomen and therefore likely to damage the organs he was allegedly seeking.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Tom_Wescott]

No, because I have said all along the killer did not remove the organs, so what time they entered the square is relevant because the later they entered the square then the less likely it would have been for the killer to have the time to remove the organs in any event.

And another point to be considered with regard to the organ removal is if the killer's motive was to murder and take organs, why did he stab her abdomen and therefore likely to damage the organs he was allegedly seeking.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, I see. I recall your research from several years ago regarding organ removal. Remind me though, was this started because you questioned if all the wounds/removal in Mitre Square could have been committed in the time allowed?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, because I have said all along the killer did not remove the organs,

Yes, it’s your theory. It’s not a fact.

so what time they entered the square is relevant because the later they entered the square then the less likely it would have been for the killer to have the time to remove the organs in any event.

Which we all understand and which I’ve explained that I understand 4 times! And yet you persist instead of saying “ok, I realise that you understand what I’m saying.”

And another point to be considered with regard to the organ removal is if the killer's motive was to murder and take organs, why did he stab her abdomen and therefore likely to damage the organs he was allegedly seeking.

Why do you assume that he wanted pristine organs? Have you had the OUIJA board out again?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree that I don’t know for certain what occurred but neither do you, so all of the following 4 are possible…

1. That the clocks were synchronised and the couple stood around after Lawende passed significantly reducing the ‘kill time.’

2. That the clocks were synchronised and the couple went straight into Mitre Square after Lawende passed giving the killer something like 8 minutes or so.

3. That the clocks weren’t synchronised which further decreased the kill time.

4. That the clocks weren’t synchronised which increased the kill time.


So…..all of these 4 are possible but we have absolutely no way of knowing for sure.

Therefore again…


Question - Is it possible that the killer had more time than previously considered?

Answer - YES