PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Monty]

Yes Jon,

There is a figure of Harvey in that image...good spot.

Monty

[Monty]

Thanks Monty, yes.
If I recall, did you not offer the point that PC Harvey was expected to inspect street-lamps on his beat?

Allowing us to assume that he did walk as far as that Kearley and Tonge fixture?
Or, would that one lamp have been viewed as private property so not covered under police procedures?

I only mention this last detail because if the gas supply came from the private property, as opposed to a municipal supply, then the beat constable may not have been required to inspect that lamp?

Ensuring that all lamps were functioning correctly came under the polices responsibility. If not, they were reported to the board or the owner.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Two lamps in Church passage. One at Duke Street end, the other at Mitre Square end.

The one in Jakes image is affixed to Kearly and Tonge, upon the left, but hangs out into the centre of Church Passage.

Knowing the many maps and photographs Jakey consulted in order to create this CGI example, I would say it is very accurate.

Monty

Thanks Monty, yes.
If I recall, did you not offer the point that PC Harvey was expected to inspect street-lamps on his beat?

Allowing us to assume that he did walk as far as that Kearley and Tonge fixture?
Or, would that one lamp have been viewed as private property so not covered under police procedures?

I only mention this last detail because if the gas supply came from the private property, as opposed to a municipal supply, then the beat constable may not have been required to inspect that lamp?

[Wickerman]

But this shows where Pc Harvey would have stopped on his beat in the square and clearly the killer would have been able to see him as he approached that spot and when he got to it and stopped and looked around before turning and going back again.

My comment to which you responded was in relation to the first pic offered by Monty, you attached the second pic.

That said, who pasted the X in white?
I only ask because just to the right, and within the passage we can just make out the figure of a person - presumably intended to indicate the location of PC Harvey.

Harvey would probably not have been probably been able to see the killer as the murder was in the darkest part of the square and with that the killer could have quickly slipped out of the square as previously suggested.

With the exception of one too many 'probably', I agree.

The distance from that corner lamp, across the square to the body, was a little more than 72 ft.
But isn't it immaterial, had the killer heard footsteps coming towards him (an echo down the passage), he would have fled immediately, wouldn't he?
Long before the silhouette of a person came into view. He wasn't to know the person was not intending to walk across the square.

The fact the killer appears to have sufficient time to 'toy' with the body, indicates he was not pushed for time, or if interrupted at all, it was only in the 'toying' phase. The significant mutilations being already concluded.

[Monty]

Now there the lamp appears to be closer to the angle of the left corner of the passage, exactly where Foster placed one.
In the previous pic the lamp does not appear to be hanging from the left side of the passage, but the right side.

Two lamps in Church passage. One at Duke Street end, the other at Mitre Square end.

The one in Jakes image is affixed to Kearly and Tonge, upon the left, but hangs out into the centre of Church Passage.

Knowing the many maps and photographs Jakey consulted in order to create this CGI example, I would say it is very accurate.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, ok. With no illuminated bricks on the far side of the lamp, it appeared to indicate the end of the passage.
So there was a lamp halfway down on the right side?

But this shows where Pc Harvey would have stopped on his beat in the square and clearly the killer would have been able to see him as he approached that spot and when he got to it and stopped and looked around before turning and going back again.

Harvey would probably not have been probably been able to see the killer as the murder was in the darkest part of the square and with that the killer could have quickly slipped out of the square as previously suggested.

[Wickerman]

The view from the murder scene towards Church Passage by Jake Luukanen.

Again, Jake had to add light to the image in order for it to be viewed clearly.

Monty

Now there the lamp appears to be closer to the angle of the left corner of the passage, exactly where Foster placed one.
In the previous pic the lamp does not appear to be hanging from the left side of the passage, but the right side.

[Wickerman]

Well at least i have had a go. All you have done is pour water on what others suggest.

Not "others" Trevor, just you.

As I said if you think differently feel free to enlighten us with your timings and the chain of events.

You were talking about the bloodstains on the cloth, I was referring to the sequence of events which led to the bloodstains getting on the cloth.
Meaning, your assumption that the organ was lifted out and wrapped up immediately. In which case he would have the piece of apron already in his hand. Which in turn suggests that he would need to slice the apron off before he mutilated the abdomen, highly unlikely.

All that said, I see no reason to ignore PC Long's observation that one corner was still wet with blood.

[Wickerman]

That's not the end of the passage.

Monty

Ah, ok. With no illuminated bricks on the far side of the lamp, it appeared to indicate the end of the passage.
So there was a lamp halfway down on the right side?

[Monty]

The view from the murder scene towards Church Passage by Jake Luukanen.

Again, Jake had to add light to the image in order for it to be viewed clearly.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

It's the IF that you fail to convincingly demonstrate. Every reliable source confirms she was wearing an apron.
It wouldn't be so bad if you failed to see it, but you do see it, yet you refuse to accept it and apply the most ludicrous arguments in order to dismiss the fact.

One pic is worth a thousand words

As explained previously, you are in no position to duplicate the sequence of events.

Well at least i have had a go. All you have done is pour water on what others suggest. As I said if you think differently feel free to enlighten us with your timings and the chain of events. As the saying goes "put up or shut up"

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

[Monty]

As good as the artwork is, Church Passage was considerably longer than indicated.

That's not the end of the passage.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

The above image was created by Jane for use in an article of mine way back in 2005.

It must be understood that Jane added more light to the image in order for the reader to see the passage clearer. I'm not trying to contradict Trevor here (he is making a seperate point), merely pointing out that the lighting for the whole scene is unlikely to have been that bright in 1888.

Monty

I agree with you on the degree of lighting, we simply don't know exactly

However, irrespective of the degree of light accepting that there was some. I would suggest that in the quietness of the night the killer still could have seen and heard someone coming down the passage towards him. Whether the light would have been sufficient to identify that person as a police officer we don't know. But if Harvey had his lamp lit, again that might have been also visible to the killer.

But in any event if you were the killer and you just simply heard someone coming in your direction I think you would make good your escape pretty quick. After all the murder was in the corner of the square and the footpath down Church passage would take anyone walking down it straight to the murder spot.

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

[Wickerman]

When are you going to listen and digest what is being said. If she wasn't wearing an apron, .....

It's the IF that you fail to convincingly demonstrate. Every reliable source confirms she was wearing an apron.
It wouldn't be so bad if you failed to see it, but you do see it, yet you refuse to accept it and apply the most ludicrous arguments in order to dismiss the fact.

The description of the GS piece is not consistent with organs being wrapped in it.

As explained previously, you are in no position to duplicate the sequence of events.

[Wickerman]

As good as the artwork is, Church Passage was considerably longer than indicated.