PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[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)

[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)

[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

[Wickerman]

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

[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.

[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)

[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]

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]

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

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.