PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Jon,

It is impossible that the woman seen by Lawende at the top end of church passage can have been Eddowes, IF Harvey is telling the truth about his time of arrival in the passge and IF the killer was disturbed by Harvey walking down the passage...because working backwards, Harvey would have met Eddowes before her entry into Church Passage, would have seen the couple at the top of it and as we know it takes ca. 4-5 mins (at least) for all the injuries inflicted on the body to be done...how do we then account for Watkins supposed appearance at 01.30 on his previous round? Surely?

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil
Lawendes time is 1.30.

1.30 Watkins come in to the square and out again presumably by Mitre Street before Harvey comes down the passage. So Watkins may not have seen the couple at the other end of Church passage or if he did he paid no attention.

If the couple is the killer and Eddowes then they walk down the passage into the murder spot, between 1.30 and the time Harvey appears at the passage. The later the time the more questions now arise about what he did to the victim as you suggest !

The killer is then in the process of carrying out the murder when he sees and hears Harvey coming down the passage in his direction. He is not to know Harveys beat stops him short of coming right into the square, so he quickly exits the square turning left into Mitre Street. Thus avoiding the oncoming Watkins who says he enters the square from the right being from Aldgate

A perfect scenario ?

[El White Chap]

Indeed, there are a number of scenarios for the timeline of Eddowes' murder. None of which can either be confirmed or ruled out. On evaluating the reliability of the evidence we have from the witness reports at the inquest we cannot say exactly how long the killer had with Eddowes before and after her death.

[lynn cates]

good

Hello Jon, GUT, Phil. Well done.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Estimated Time of Death - 1:35-1:37 am.

Given that the victim needed to be walked or coerced down Church Passage and across Mitre Square several minutes before he attacked her then it appears unlikely that the couple seen by Lawende at 1:33 in Duke St. were the victim & her killer.

Hello Jon,

It is impossible that the woman seen by Lawende at the top end of church passage can have been Eddowes, IF Harvey is telling the truth about his time of arrival in the passge and IF the killer was disturbed by Harvey walking down the passage...because working backwards, Harvey would have met Eddowes before her entry into Church Passage, would have seen the couple at the top of it and as we know it takes ca. 4-5 mins (at least) for all the injuries inflicted on the body to be done...how do we then account for Watkins supposed appearance at 01.30 on his previous round? Surely?

best wishes

Phil

[GUT]

G'day Jon

As usual a very helpful summary the only thing I would say is that it may have been nearer 1:45 when Harvey got to the end of Church Passage

Harvey tells us:

"At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square"
Official Inquest Testimony.

"He was there three or four minutes before he heard the whistle; it was then about 18 or 19 minutes to 2 o'clock."
Times.

So yes, by 1:40, or slightly later (1:40 - 1:42?) Harvey was at or near the end of Church Passage.

IE 2:20 down Duke Street 3 or 4 minutes before he heard the whistle brings as as late as 1:44 I guess we are only talking a couple of minutes either way but I am honestly of the view that any scenario that relies on timings down to minute or two in case from 1888 is unsustainable, in fact the same probably applies to this day when most people have an accurate timepiece of some type..

[Trevor Marriott]

Quite true, yet to what degree their knowledge of when Watkins appeared on the scene had influenced their estimates is unknown at this time.

None I would suggest, as you say when both doctors attended they found her dead. Notice both doctors dont totally agree to the minute but they both got pretty dam close to the time I believe she was killed

I mean, I need no medical PhD to conclude that she was dead by the time Watkins arrived at 1.44.
The question is, was she dead at 1:40 or 1:30?

And where have you plucked 1.30 from Watkins was in the square at 1.30 are you suggesting he missed the body because if you are you are way off because 1.30 does not fit in with the doctors timings.

Given that the victim needed to be approached, then walked or coerced down Church Passage and across Mitre Square several minutes before he attacked her then it appears unlikely that the couple seen by Lawende at 1:33 in Duke St. were the victim & her killer.

But you cant dismiss that fact, and all the timings dovetail nicely into that being so. and again we have conflict with the press reports which I would suggest you totally disregard and just stick to the inquest testimony which was verbally given and then signed by the doctors.

And of course then valuable minutes were used up in talking, and walking to the murder spot all eating into the 5 minutes makes other things even more less likely do you not think?

And if Harvey did interrupt the killer, which I think he did then bang goes the theory of any apron piece being cut, torn or taken away, and with it the organ removal theory.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

[Wickerman]

Dr Brown arrived at the scene 2.18 AM he stated victim must have been killed with the past 30 mins that takes the time back to 1.45am approx

Dr Sequeira arrive at scene 1.55am stated death had occurred with the past 15 mins that take the time back to 1.40am

Both doctors corroborate the time of death with each other.

Quite true, yet to what degree their knowledge of when Watkins appeared on the scene had influenced their estimates is unknown at this time.
I mean, I need no medical PhD to conclude that she was dead by the time Watkins arrived at 1.44.
The question is, was she dead at 1:40 or 1:30?

Sequeira justified his assumption by saying:
"Probably not more than a quarter of an hour.
That is 1/4 of an hour from 1:55.

I could tell from the condition of the blood and the blood vessels."
In other words by how near the blood was to being fully congealed.
An estimate much dependent on temperature & humidity.


Dr. Brown's words were recorded differently across a variety of sources, his times are taken from 2:18, when he arrived.

"She must have been dead most likely within the half hour "
Official Inquest Testimony.

"The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body."
Daily Telegraph.

"She must have been dead but a few minutes, less than half an hour."
Morning Advertiser.

"The woman had probably only been dead within thirty or forty minutes."
Echo.

So both doctors estimate 1:40 at the outside, give or take, and allowing 5 minutes for the mutilations brings us back to the time Watkins entered the square.

That suggests that the killer may have been disturbed by Pc Harvey who came down Church passage and into the edge of the square at approx 1.40am

Harvey tells us:

"At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square"
Official Inquest Testimony.

"He was there three or four minutes before he heard the whistle; it was then about 18 or 19 minutes to 2 o'clock."
Times.

So yes, by 1:40, or slightly later (1:40 - 1:42?) Harvey was at or near the end of Church Passage.

If, as you suggest, Harvey interrupted the killer, then Eddowes had been killed at least 5 minutes (by Dr. Browns estimate), prior to Harvey interrupting him, in reaching the end of the passage.

Estimated Time of Death - 1:35-1:37 am.

Given that the victim needed to be walked or coerced down Church Passage and across Mitre Square several minutes before he attacked her then it appears unlikely that the couple seen by Lawende at 1:33 in Duke St. were the victim & her killer.

[Debra A]

[B]
As I said before everyone is entitled to their opinions but when plumping for one particular theory make sure you have assessed and evaluated all the facts concerning all the different scenarios first

Trevor, I know exactly how to assess and evaluate different scenarios, thanks.
I remain unconvinced by your argument that she wasn't wearing the apron however many times you repeat what you think you've proved!

And, if you were in some way proven right, and Kate wasn't wearing the apron and she did use it as a sanitary rag and leave it in the doorway herself- like Roy has already said-it makes no difference to my conclusions at all because I don't think the organs were carried in the apron.

[El White Chap]

Your points have been blown out of the water more times that battleships during the last war

Now that's just a lie Trev. Shame on you.

I'm certainly not the one who twists events around to match my theories. Might wanna have a good long look in the mirror if you can still muster that after all the humiliation.

There's no need to stoop to an even lower level than you're already at.

[Trevor Marriott]

Mmmmmmm, a bit of BOLD will get my point across better

Your points have been blown out of the water more times that battleships during the last war

[Trevor Marriott]

Another question

It was a "womb", if I recall, not the kidney.



So you choose to believe this killer opened up the abdomen, detached & lifted out the intestines, but did not remove the kidney or the uterus?

So now the theory of the killer taking away the organs in the apron piece has been blown out of the water how do you suggest he took them away then ?


I wouldn't confine yourself to the stated times (which you posted previously), the couple seen by Lawende may not have been the victim & killer afterall. There's no certainty attached to that assumption.
The killer may have already been in Mitre Square with Eddowes when Lawende & Co. exited the Club, thereby rendering the assumed time window useless.

[El White Chap]

Mmmmmmm, a bit of BOLD will get my point across better

[Trevor Marriott]

It was a "womb", if I recall, not the kidney.



So you choose to believe this killer opened up the abdomen, detached & lifted out the intestines, but did not remove the kidney or the uterus?


I wouldn't confine yourself to the stated times (which you posted previously), the couple seen by Lawende may not have been the victim & killer afterall. There's no certainty attached to that assumption.
The killer may have already been in Mitre Square with Eddowes when Lawende & Co. exited the Club, thereby rendering the assumed time window useless.

Dr Brown arrived at the scene 2.18 AM he stated victim must have been killed with the past 30 mins that takes the time back to 1.45am approx

Dr Sequeira arrive at scene 1.55am stated death had occurred with the past 15 mins that take the time back to 1.40am

Both doctors corroborate the time of death with each other.

That suggests that the killer may have been disturbed by Pc Harvey who came down Church passage and into the edge of the square at approx 1.40am


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, that's what I was getting at before. He must have been given a description to work from by you (was it taken from the inquest testimony reporting you won't allow others to make assumptions about the apron from too I wonder!). How do I know the description he was given was a wholly accurate one of the apron piece given your mission to prove Eddowes used it as menstrual rag and the fact that there is no official description.

There is no wholly accurate description to go on is there? I asked the questions which I asked you the answers were as you have heard. I ruled out the organs being taken away in the GS piece by comparing the various descriptions of the piece against the experiment done with the removal of the uterus at the hospital.

So having done that then as you would expect I looked at other explanations outside the original box which had not been explored before.

If you believe she was wearing an apron piece then of course you would choose to disregard those two new explanations which is your prerogative.

However if it were proved and I believe it has been that she wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her murder then it brings into question the killer having anything to do with it for the reasons you and others now suggest.

Of course it doesn't rule out the fact that she could have been in possession of two pieces of apron which at some time in the past had been part of a full apron. The mortuary piece a corner piece with a string attached. That could only have been top left or top right of the original apron. The GS piece which matched it must therefore have been bottom left of bottom right depending on which corner it was as above.

If this is correct then she as you suggest she would not have cut up a perfectly good working apron. Because it wasn't a perfect good apron to start with. The two pieces did not make up a full apron they couldnt have by reason of the descriptions as above


Yes, I do think the menstrual rag/toilet wipe use is the most unlikely scenario of how the apron piece got there as I am of the opinion there's enough evidence that Kate was wearing her apron. I also think she wouldn't use a piece of functional clothing for a sanitary purpose. I am definitely not persuaded by your arguments that Kate was carrying the apron as a belonging and not wearing it.

Well the mortuary lists tell us different. Lets take another look at those lists. The First is a a list of what she was wearing, which as stated came off in order of how the clothes were found on the body

The second list was a detailed description of the cuts and the blood stains in the clothing. So in order to prepare this they must have had to go back to the original pile of her clothes which they had taken off for the first list and examine them and list the cuts. So where was the apron then ?


The third list was her possessions where an old white apron piece is listed. Now I am sure even you can see there is a big difference in a piece of old white apron and an old white apron with piece missing if she had been wearing an apron would you not expect it to be described as the latter

At the moment, I think I favour a hand wiping then discarded scenario and I'm not certain the GSG was written by him. I do believe JTR was a serial killer who mutilated women and stole their organs. I have read your arguments that the organs could have been removed at the mortuary but again, I don't find them convincing. I also think your experts conclusions, as they appear in the book, are a little confusing on some points.

As to the hand wiping, blood on hands when it meets the outside air dries very quickly. So if he had have been in possession of the piece for that purposes his hands would have dried quickly in any event.

If as you suggest he took it away for that purpose. He surely would have been able to accomplish that task within a hundred yards, and I would suggest he would not want to be walking down the road wiping his hands with a piece of incriminating evidence in his hand. Besides if his hands were soiled why not simply wipe his hands on he victims clothes at the scene?

As I said before everyone is entitled to their opinions but when plumping for one particular theory make sure you have assessed and evaluated all the facts concerning all the different scenarios first

I should also point out that if the killer were disturbed as i beleive he was then he would have no time to cut or tear the apron piece of for that matter pick up a separate piece

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

[Debra A]

The description of the apron piece as you know differs from spotted with blood to staining to being smeared. As he said he cannot give a definite answer because the original piece he was not able to see the piece or a photo of the piece.

He simply gave his professional opinion based on what he was told.

Yes, that's what I was getting at before. He must have been given a description to work from by you (was it taken from the inquest testimony reporting you won't allow others to make assumptions about the apron from too I wonder!). How do I know the description he was given was a wholly accurate one of the apron piece given your mission to prove Eddowes used it as menstrual rag and the fact that there is no official description.

I don't know where you stand with this GS piece do you rule out her using it to wipe herself after servicing a client. or using it as a sanitary device ? or do you subscribe to the knife or hand wiping theory, or the fact he might have cut himself. Pick one and lets discuss it more if that's what you want to do.

Yes, I do think the menstrual rag/toilet wipe use is the most unlikely scenario of how the apron piece got there as I am of the opinion there's enough evidence that Kate was wearing her apron. I also think she wouldn't use a piece of functional clothing for a sanitary purpose. I am definitely not persuaded by your arguments that Kate was carrying the apron as a belonging and not wearing it.
At the moment, I think I favour a hand wiping then discarded scenario and I'm not certain the GSG was written by him. I do believe JTR was a serial killer who mutilated women and stole their organs. I have read your arguments that the organs could have been removed at the mortuary but again, I don't find them convincing. I also think your experts conclusions, as they appear in the book, are a little confusing on some points.