City PC Witness

[Fleetwood Mac]

The officer who found the body is positive that it could not have been there more than a quarter of an hour before he discovered it. He is timed to "work his beat," as it is called, in from ten to fifteen minutes. The police theory is that the man and woman, who had met in Aldgate, watched the policeman pass round the square, and then entered it for an immoral purpose.

People
Sunday, 7 October 1888

Could this refer to the City PC Witness?

Does this police theory suggest Watkins saw the couple?

Also, it seems clear that the police believed the man with 'the woman' was Jack. Would this lend weight to Lawende being of more importance than Schwartz?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fleet. You mean to say that because the couple allegedly watching the policeman pass before they ducked into the square, that it stands to reason PC Watkins saw them too? Not a bad idea, but the files don't back that up.

As for Watkins...as he had a former policeman in the square keeping an overall eye on the place...would we really blame him if he was lax in his duties patrolling the square? Of course, he couldn't admit as much, but...I'm not saying that's the case, and presumably other people in the area were asked about Watkin's credibility and regularity in patrols, and he checked out.

I'm pretty certain there was no police witness in Mitre Square, and it's just confusion for 'City Police Witness', which is what Lawende was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

I'm pretty certain there was no police witness in Mitre Square, and it's just confusion for 'City Police Witness', which is what Lawende was.

Just recently Chris reminded me of a story I had heard about years ago but forgotten the source.
Back when Viper (RIP) was initiating & organizing the Press Reports I transcribed this report by Det. Insp. Robert Sagar of the City Police, from The City Press, 7 January, 1905.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/city_press/cp050107.html

Later, other versions surfaced, apparently on 9 January The Daily News ran a reworded version but added this paragraph.

"I believe he came the nearest to being captured after the murder of the woman Kelly in Mitre-square. A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body."


On the same day The Morning Leader also ran a reworded version and the above paragraph now reads as follows:

"He believed the police were nearer to catching the "Ripper" on the occasion of the Mitre-st. murder than on any other. The woman Kelly, who was the victim, left Bishopsgate Police-station at 1 a.m. Three-quarters of an hour later she was found dead, and just before her body was discovered a police-constable met a man of Jewish appearance hurrying out of the court."


Then on Feb. 9th, The Seattle Daily Times provided yet another reworded version, and the relative paragraph now reads like this:

"We believe," he said, "that he came nearest to being captured after the Mitre Square murder in which the woman Kelly was the victim. She had been detained in Bishopsgate police station until 1 a. m. At 1:45 a. m. she was dead. A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across the woman's body. He blew his whistle, and sent the other officers who rushed up in pursuit, the only thing to guide them being the sound of retreating footsteps. The sounds were followed to King's Block in the model dwellings in Stoney Lane, but the search got no further."

The caveat for me is that these are recollections and I don't choose to be too trustful of recollections or memoirs.......however.
Judge for yourselves.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleet. You mean to say that because the couple allegedly watching the policeman pass before they ducked into the square, that it stands to reason PC Watkins saw them too? Not a bad idea, but the files don't back that up.

Pretty much, Tom.

I can see how this could simply be a broad theory without much susbstance: e.g. he had little time, so he must have watched the police before ducking into the court; or it could be a case that the police theory was built upon the police walking past the couple.

I suppose someone would have to argue that the police witheld this information, and the only viable reason I can think of is to avoid accusations of incompetence.

I find it hard to believe that when someone says City PC witness, he/she means something else. Also, it's a great board this, Tom, but I feel one of its failings is that posters overcome an obstacle by saying: "he meant something else".

There is a problem with the timeline: earliest estimated time of death 1:40; estimated shortest time to complete 5 minutes; Watkins arrives at 1.44. That's cutting it fine to say the least, and lends weight to the idea that Watkins saw the man coming out of the square.

[Jonathan H]

In 1907, for the first and only time, George Sims repeated a variation on this tale too:

'One man only, a policeman, saw [Jack] leaving the place in which he had just accomplished a fiendish deed, but failed, owing to the darkness, to get a good view of him. A little later the policeman stumbled over the lifeless body of the victim.'

What has been dropped here, of course, is the element that the man was of Jewish appearance. Now the cop can barely see him at all.

Quite a change when you think of the vivid description of the 1905 account.

I believe this was altered to make it fit in with Sims' claim that the 'Drowned Doctor' was the best suspect; by implication an English Gentile.

Or, am I making something into something else ...?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fleet. Let me put it another way. I don't mean to say that Macnaghten misrepresented himself, per se, although that's a possibility. He may very well have believed there was a witness who was a City policeman. My suggestion is that he came about this conclusion by misinterpreting the words 'City police witness' when reading the files left by Swanson, et al.

There clearly are apocryphal tales dating back to shortly after the murders that place a cowardly or incompetent constable near or at the murder scenes. The Robert Sagar tale (apparently not actually written by Sagar) is somewhat reminiscent of the Stephen White tale (certainly not written by White). Also brought to mind by reading this is the tale of Margaret Hames, the friend of Emma Smith who became obsessed with the Ripper crimes to the extent she would spend money to stay in the rooms they kept or spend all her time hanging around the murder sites. In 1895 she claimed to a reporter that there was a constable in Millers Court who could have stopped the killer but didn't. One would have to expect the denizens of the East End, who had no trust or love for the police, to tell tales that would put authorities in a bad light.

I know that much has been said in the past about the alleged City PC witness, and I imagine Monty, Chris Phillips, and Scott Nelson could say a lot about it. What I would like to know is 'What is the earliest reference for such a witness?'

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

To Tom

Sorry, mate, it's me the Druitt Leper who has to answer your question?

So far as I know, Major Arthur Griffiths in 'Mysteries of Police and Ctime' (1898, repirnted 2010) introduced this idea of the beat cop, who supposedly saw a man who resembled the Polish Jew suspect, with the fourth victim.

It was the Major's adaptation of the 'Aberconway' version by Macnaghten, a source which cannot be definitvely dated before 1898; before it was shown to a crony for dissemination to the public.

You think the chiefs were somewhat hiding the Le Grand bombshell, don't you? Have I got that right?

Well, here the embarrassing episode about Lawende, and the Sailorish suspect, and this Jewish witness 'confronting' Sadler in 1891 -- and it all being a wet noodle -- ceases to exist.

Griffiths does not mention Cutbush or Salder, but what that 'Home Office Report' claimed was that Coles was definitely killed by the latter.

This is of course helped by elimiating, from existence, the Ripper-witness who said 'no, it's not him'.

For the first time Frances Coles was absolutely and authoritatively eliminated as a Ripper victim, for all time, and the alleged 'official' story was now that the police knew at the time that Kelly was the last victim of 'Jack'.

The so-called canonical five were now cemented into place, and the long, frustrating, inconclusive investigation of 1888 to 1891 (even 1895) was recast as a brief 'autumn of terror' and the police efforts as super-efficient -- even a near-success.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan,

I certainly don't see as any sort of 'leper' and I hope no one else does, either. I'm not sure why you trace the City PC witness back to 1898 when we know the official version of MM was written in 1894, and doesn't it contain the same observation?

Are we sure Mac is the original source for this City PC business?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

Tom

We don't know when exactly Melville Macnaghten wrote the alternate 'Aberconway' version of his 'Report'.

Yes, it may well have been in 1894, and was a draft, and he rejected it and started all over again and wrote something more suitable. more discreet for a Liberal govt. with menacing Radical jackals.

This official version, which had no impact whatsoever on the public sphere about 'Jack the Ripper' until 1966, does not contain the detail about the beat cop who saw a Jew with a victim.

Instead Mac claims there were no witnesses at all?!

That 'Aberconway' was written in 1894, and stuck in a drawer by Mac, is certainly possible and most people think it was probable too.

I respect that theory, though I do not share it.

But ... the document, 'Abrconway', does not enter history, does not enter the extant record, not until 1898 when Mac showed, or verbally related its content to Major Griffiths (that's why I think it's a backdated rewrite: its too writer-friendly) who adapted its content virtually line for line (crucially changing the Druitt family into 'friends') though dropping the redundant Cutbush hook.

Either way, the claim in the Major's big book of 1898 -- quite false -- that a cop saw a Jew, with a victim, entered history; this is when this sub-tale first entered the public sphere.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan, thanks for that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott