PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Monty]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Phil.
Hope you are well.

Yes, although it has been conjectured that the killer may have paused, keeping still, when PC Harvey appeared at the bottom end of Church Passage, it hardly seems likely.
Anyone positioned where the body was found would have heard the slow measured tramp of a policeman coming down the passage, and also may have been able to see up the passage.

Correct me if I am wrong but was there not a lamp situated at the entrance to church passage. So if the killer was in situ he would have been able to see and hear Pc Harvey coming down the passage !

See attached and my thanks go to Jane Coram for this excellent piece of work.

It is barely worth considering that the killer would assume he would not be seen.

Regardless of the T.o.D. estimates offered by Brown & Sequeira, the time window for the murder lies between 1:30/32 - 1:42.
The earliest time for Watkins leaving the square previously, and the latest time given by Harvey for arriving at the end of Church Passage (18-19 minutes to 2:00).

Eddowes was dead by 1:40-1:42 (consistent with estimates by Brown & Sequeira), deduct at least five minutes for the estimated required time for the murder, and her throat is being cut at the same time as Lawende is passing this other couple out on Duke Street.

It is true that all the stated times could be shifted earlier or later, due to potential inaccuracy, depending on what theory we choose to accept. This fact though is sufficient to demonstrate that the couple seen by Lawende is not a 'proven' case by any means.
The couple could well have been someone else.

That I have already stated in a previous post

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

[Trevor Marriott]

What was Crawford's last comment to P.C. Harvey?
Crawford: That is assuming the clock was right?

Exactly our problem today. We rely on the times offered by four witnesses, none of which were synchronized.

If Harvey was at the Mitre square end of Church Passage about 1:40-1:42 (by his words), yet Watkins found the body at 1:44, then a hell of a lot occurred in those 2-4 minutes.
So, something is amiss.

Watkins admitted to only checking his watch after he found and alerted Morris, so this was 1:44, which suggests he may have found the body at 1:43-1:42.
Watkins tells us his beat takes 12-14 minutes, and he was in the Square about 1:30.
Provisionally then if he was last in the square at 1:30, then returned at 1:42/3, then alerted the watchman by 1:44, the sequence fits.

However, Harvey was also at the end of Church Passage between 1:40-1:42, so almost within the same minute as Watkins, or to a maximum difference of 4 minutes. Not enough time to murder and mutilate the woman.
Unless, the killer was mutilating Eddowes while PC Harvey came to the end of the passage, but was unable to see across the square in the dark.

The conclusion then is, as the body was clearly dead by the time Watkins discovered it, then it was also just as dead when PC Harvey reached the end of Church Passage.

So lets say PC Harvey interrupted the mutilations at 1:40-42, and the estimate by Dr Brown that it would take about 5 minutes. Then the cut to the throat took place between 1:35-1:37 approx.

Lawende said he passed the couple at 1:35, Levy said 1:33-34.

Church Passage is 85 ft long, the square is 72 ft across to where the body was found. That's 157ft this couple had to walk after Lawende & Co. were at a sufficient distance to not notice.

The times are so tight that for this to have to worked it would need to be rehearsed - thats why I think your sequence is more the product of wishful thinking.

And, none of this has anything to do with the organs being carried away in the apron.

Well as usual you have gone to great lengths to disprove what is a most likely chain of events based on the approx timings to hand. Now I can understand concern if we are 5-10 mins adrift but we are not we are only a matter of short minutes which could be as a result of clock or watch discrepancies. Minutes that cannot drastically effect the chain of events.

The time differences which you seek to question are simply for your benefit to show the killer had time to do all he is supposed to have done and left the scene undisturbed with the organs.

You huff and puff yet, you bring nothing to the table as an alternative other than to keep banging on about the organ removal.

When are you going to listen and digest what is being said. If she wasn't wearing an apron, the killer could not have taken the organs away in it. Unless of course he picked up one of the two loose apron pices she had in her posssesion. But that unlikely if he was disturbed.

In any event as has been said before and its not registering or you don't want it to register. The description of the GS piece is not consistent with organs being wrapped in it.

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

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

72feet is 24 yards. There is the sound of echo to consider both down the passage and then into the open, yet enclosed Mitre Square itself. It had been raining, which also affects the sound. Light is also a question here too, with the opening of the door by Morris, however small, the opening would create a shaft of light across the square.


best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil.
Hope you are well.

Yes, although it has been conjectured that the killer may have paused, keeping still, when PC Harvey appeared at the bottom end of Church Passage, it hardly seems likely.
Anyone positioned where the body was found would have heard the slow measured tramp of a policeman coming down the passage, and also may have been able to see up the passage.
It is barely worth considering that the killer would assume he would not be seen.

Regardless of the T.o.D. estimates offered by Brown & Sequeira, the time window for the murder lies between 1:30/32 - 1:42.
The earliest time for Watkins leaving the square previously, and the latest time given by Harvey for arriving at the end of Church Passage (18-19 minutes to 2:00).

Eddowes was dead by 1:40-1:42 (consistent with estimates by Brown & Sequeira), deduct at least five minutes for the estimated required time for the murder, and her throat is being cut at the same time as Lawende is passing this other couple out on Duke Street.

It is true that all the stated times could be shifted earlier or later, due to potential inaccuracy, depending on what theory we choose to accept. This fact though is sufficient to demonstrate that the couple seen by Lawende is not a 'proven' case by any means.
The couple could well have been someone else.

[Phil Carter]

Church Passage is 85 ft long, the square is 72 ft across to where the body was found. That's 157ft this couple had to walk after Lawende & Co. were at a sufficient distance to not notice.

The times are so tight that for this to have to worked it would need to be rehearsed - thats why I think your sequence is more the product of wishful thinking.

And, none of this has anything to do with the organs being carried away in the apron.

Hello Jon,

72feet is 24 yards. There is the sound of echo to consider both down the passage and then into the open, yet enclosed Mitre Square itself. It had been raining, which also affects the sound. Light is also a question here too, with the opening of the door by Morris, however small, the opening would create a shaft of light across the square.


best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

To much muddying of clear waters going on now with regards to this issue !

None of the timings can be accurate to the minute because the likelihood is that not all the clocks etc were accurate and in sync with each other as is the case today with all our clocks and watches, but we have to accept them in general terms.

What was Crawford's last comment to P.C. Harvey?
Crawford: That is assuming the clock was right?

Exactly our problem today. We rely on the times offered by four witnesses, none of which were synchronized.

If Harvey was at the Mitre square end of Church Passage about 1:40-1:42 (by his words), yet Watkins found the body at 1:44, then a hell of a lot occurred in those 2-4 minutes.
So, something is amiss.

Watkins admitted to only checking his watch after he found and alerted Morris, so this was 1:44, which suggests he may have found the body at 1:43-1:42.
Watkins tells us his beat takes 12-14 minutes, and he was in the Square about 1:30.
Provisionally then if he was last in the square at 1:30, then returned at 1:42/3, then alerted the watchman by 1:44, the sequence fits.

However, Harvey was also at the end of Church Passage between 1:40-1:42, so almost within the same minute as Watkins, or to a maximum difference of 4 minutes. Not enough time to murder and mutilate the woman.
Unless, the killer was mutilating Eddowes while PC Harvey came to the end of the passage, but was unable to see across the square in the dark.

The conclusion then is, as the body was clearly dead by the time Watkins discovered it, then it was also just as dead when PC Harvey reached the end of Church Passage.

So lets say PC Harvey interrupted the mutilations at 1:40-42, and the estimate by Dr Brown that it would take about 5 minutes. Then the cut to the throat took place between 1:35-1:37 approx.

Lawende said he passed the couple at 1:35, Levy said 1:33-34.

Church Passage is 85 ft long, the square is 72 ft across to where the body was found. That's 157ft this couple had to walk after Lawende & Co. were at a sufficient distance to not notice.

The times are so tight that for this to have to worked it would need to be rehearsed - thats why I think your sequence is more the product of wishful thinking.

And, none of this has anything to do with the organs being carried away in the apron.

[Abby Normal]

I believe that I was the first to postulate the notion that the killer used the apron remnant to wrap up the body parts taken from Kate Eddowes, and I stand by the idea. I couldn't give a toss either way, but it makes a great deal more sense than some of the nonsense littering this thread.

Hi Garry
I find the apron piece as organ carrier an intriguing idea. Perhaps after chapman, the ripper realized that organs are a little messier than he realized, and needed to bring something along to wrap them in.

But after being disrupted with stride, and still wanting to fulfill his mutilating desires, he had to use the cloth he had brought with him for organ wrapping to wipe his hands after killing stride. And then since it was now bloody he had to get rid of it.

There was a story in the press about a suspicious man in a peaked cap wiping his hands on a step in church street. I Beleive that there is a good chance this story is accurate and it was the ripper because witnesses at both stride and eddowes crime scenes describe a man with a peaked cap.

Since he now needed another cloth to wrap up eddowes organs, he cut a size able portion of her apron to do so. What do you think?

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe that I was the first to postulate the notion that the killer used the apron remnant to wrap up the body parts taken from Kate Eddowes, and I stand by the idea. I couldn't give a toss either way, but it makes a great deal more sense than some of the nonsense littering this thread.

Hi Gary
But did you not wonder why no one from 1888 or therefater ever thought of it ?

Trevor

[Garry Wroe]

Thank you for your comments ...

Like I said, Trev, credit where credit's due.

[Garry Wroe]

No. Not a word about the organs being taken away in the apron piece. Nothing. Not ever. Zero. You don't know who or what you are arguing against. You can't give me one example of a ripper book where the idea is entertained.

There isn't one mention because as I said previous the extent of the spotting/staining/smearing did not lend itself for them to even consider that fact.

I believe that I was the first to postulate the notion that the killer used the apron remnant to wrap up the body parts taken from Kate Eddowes, and I stand by the idea. I couldn't give a toss either way, but it makes a great deal more sense than some of the nonsense littering this thread.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s not about mocking or ridiculing anyone, Trev. Credit where credit’s due. You are one of the few Casebookers who expends time, money and energy in the pursuit of new avenues of research, and for that I applaud you. All too often, however, you ignore existing evidence when presenting an argument and enter into conflict with those who disagree with your line of thinking. Try to accept that you’re not always right. Even when you are, not everyone will acknowledge the fact. That’s just the way it is. Stick with presenting the evidence and leave the cage fighting at the gym.


Er, let’s not. Whereas Eddowes’ apron was originally white, it had degenerated over time to the extent that on the night of the murder it was said to have been a filthy grey colour. Since blood is less visible on darker backgrounds your experiment using a pristine white cloth is not a like-for-like comparison and thus has very little in the way of empirical validity. Again, though, I applaud you for at least trying to bring some real world evidence to the table.

Thank you for your comments I just want to say that I don't think for one moment that I am always right. It annoys me though when others are not prepared to consider fresh alternatives to some part of this mystery.

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Lawende was still inside the club at 1.30.
"We left there to go out at ½ past one and we left the house about 5 minutes later"
Official Inquest Record.

Levy said:
"We got up to go home at ½ past one We came out about 3 or 4 minutes after the half hour"
Official Inquest Record.



Watkins estimated his beat at "12 - 14 minutes", so if we accept finding the body at "1.44", then he was last in the square at either 1.30 or 1.32, by approximation.
But then, how sure are we about the "1.44"?

To much muddying of clear waters going on now with regards to this issue !

None of the timings can be accurate to the minute because the likelihood is that not all the clocks etc were accurate and in sync with each other as is the case today with all our clocks and watches, but we have to accept them in general terms. But of course there are those who want to expand on these times in order to prop up the theory that the killer had sufficient time to do all that he is alleged to have done and was not disturbed

At 1.45 Watkins after finding the body knocks on the door of Kearley and Tonge, George Morris inquest testimony.So that's two witnesses that corroborate each other so 1.44 we can say is right. The doctors also estimate the time of death to be around that time

Working back Lawende clearly saw a couple at the entrance to the square at approx 1.35. This couple were not there when Pc Harvey comes down the passage and he makes no mention of meeting a couple en route to the square.

So given the close proximity of those timings either the couple were the killer and Eddowes, or they were not, and they went off in the opposite direction to which Harvey was approaching from

If it was the killer and Eddowes then that puts them entering the square at the earliest of 1.36/37 approx. He watched them for a time. If it wasn't them the only other scenario is that the killer and Eddowes entered the square via Mitre Street after Watkins left, which would have been around 1.33 approx, not much difference in either scenario I would suggest with regard to times

So what can we deduce? The body was there at 1.30 and Watkins missed it? That scenario is ruled out if you accept that the doctors don't put the time of death as early as that. Watkins wasn't there at 1.30 but the killer was. Again the above tends to rule that out.

So whats left the timings of Pc Harvey? He says that at 1.40 approx, I use approx because his testimony is ambiguous because he mentions 1.4O in a general term for describing his movements en route to the square. So he could have arrived at 1.40 but not much later having regard to Watkins times otherwise they would have seen each other

Which ever scenario you look at you get back to a time window of time of max of 4-5 mins and with Pc Harvey coming into the square minutes before Watkins he must have disturbed the killer there can be no other explanation but I am sure one of our fantasty writers will come up with one.

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

[Garry Wroe]

Well you Hunter and all the others can mock and ridicule all you like it has no effect on me especially when you know you are holding all the cards.

It’s not about mocking or ridiculing anyone, Trev. Credit where credit’s due. You are one of the few Casebookers who expends time, money and energy in the pursuit of new avenues of research, and for that I applaud you. All too often, however, you ignore existing evidence when presenting an argument and enter into conflict with those who disagree with your line of thinking. Try to accept that you’re not always right. Even when you are, not everyone will acknowledge the fact. That’s just the way it is. Stick with presenting the evidence and leave the cage fighting at the gym.

So lets now forget about further discussion about the organs being taken away in the apron piece as it didn't happen …

Er, let’s not. Whereas Eddowes’ apron was originally white, it had degenerated over time to the extent that on the night of the murder it was said to have been a filthy grey colour. Since blood is less visible on darker backgrounds your experiment using a pristine white cloth is not a like-for-like comparison and thus has very little in the way of empirical validity. Again, though, I applaud you for at least trying to bring some real world evidence to the table.

[Wickerman]

Lawendes time is 1.30.

Lawende was still inside the club at 1.30.
"We left there to go out at ½ past one and we left the house about 5 minutes later"
Official Inquest Record.

Levy said:
"We got up to go home at ½ past one We came out about 3 or 4 minutes after the half hour"
Official Inquest Record.

1.30 Watkins come in to the square and out again presumably by Mitre Street before Harvey comes down the passage.

Watkins estimated his beat at "12 - 14 minutes", so if we accept finding the body at "1.44", then he was last in the square at either 1.30 or 1.32, by approximation.
But then, how sure are we about the "1.44"?

[Wickerman]

... 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.

Trevor, all the witnesses had to sign their testimony, and initial any corrections.
So you don't want to use any press coverage?

Then how did Watkins know the time was 1.44 am?
There is no mention of how he knew this in the Official Inquest record.

We know how because a press reporter thought it relevant to say so, and he was correct wasn't he?

So did Watkins check the time "immediately" on finding the body?

"About sixteen minutes to two, a time I fix by the reference I subsequently made to my watch."
Star.

Subsequently means "after", not immediately.
So when did he check the time?

"He fixed the time by reference to his watch after he had called the watchman."
Times.

Ah, so he found the body, checked the condition for a moment, then ran across to Kearley & Tonge, knocked on the door and pushed it open, spoke to the Watchman, only then did he check his watch?

So what time did he actually find the body?
We don't know do we.

Dismissing the press coverage is an excuse often touted by those who are really trying to push a particular argument. The reporters caught much valuable information in their coverage, and yes of course there are mistakes. What the historian does is use ALL the sources, combined. He does not dismiss one in favor of another.
It is necessary to compare what was recorded, regardless who did the recording. Only then apply judgment.

How would we know the capital letters of the graffiti were 3/4 of an inch tall, or do you think the Times reporter just made that up?

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.[/B]

The fact we know she was wearing the apron, that a portion was removed at the crime scene, along with whatever time it took to add facial mutilations, is highly suggestive that this killer was not interrupted.