Why did Watkins leave Eddowes body?

[Dr. John Watson]

Thank you, Phil, for a mature, reasonable and non-judgmental response.

[The Good Michael]

Let's get back to the question at hand: Watkins went to Morris for assistance. It has been proven that Morris was an ex-pc and that he and Watkins were closely acquainted. He was also nearby and was an absolutely known quantity. There is no real argument against these things, and therefore, there is no argument as to why Morris was chosen. There are only flights of fancy and wild speculations levied against Watkins, that cannot possibly be taken seriously or supported by any sane student of the case.

Cheers,

Mike

[Monty]

Phil,

Thank you for the kind words, though they flatter me.

Ive no issue with Johns ideas. I do have an issue in being told I am incorrect and in such a belittling tone.

Respect is a two way thing and, in my world, if you show me none then as far as Im concerned you have set the standard. Ill follow suit.

The theory Jon (sic) proposes is factually incorrect, and he has failed to address this. However if he is happy with that standard of analysis then fine. His world.

Monty (with a 'y')

[Supe]

Phil,

You make a fine argument for a multiplicity of views within the field and I would agree. But, you can't refute something with nothing and that is the position in which Watson finds himself at the moment. It is all well and good to claim 30 years of study but until he presents something beyond his "opinion" to question the analysis of Neil Bell or Gavin Bromley, we have good reason to remain skeptical of his claims. It isn't a question of orthodoxy/unorthodoxy or New Light/Old Light but rather established research against . . . well, nothing. Surely you see the point.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Consideration

Phil,

You make a fine argument for a multiplicity of views within the field and I would agree. But, you can't refute something with nothing and that is the position in which Watson finds himself at the moment. It is all well and good to claim 30 years of study but until he presents something beyond his "opinion" to question the analysis of Neil Bell or Gavin Bromley, we have good reason to remain skeptical of his claims. It isn't a question of orthodoxy/unorthodoxy or New Light/Old Light but rather established research against . . . well, nothing. Surely you see the point.

Don.

Hello Don,

Thank you for your comments about multiplicity of views. Most appreciated.
I wasn't actually making a case for nor supporting Dr. John Watson, nor refuting anything. I refer you to my own words written again below. I am not convinced, but can see where he is coming from, without a problem. I can also see the point you have made, without a problem.

Fingers have been pointed at certain police individuals and their actions from almost the very time of the murders themselves. I personally have grave concerns about Halse and his involvement with this murder, and many have other concerns, so I do understand Dr. John Watson's point. Not sure I agree with it though. There are indeed things that prima facea, seems clearcut.

As regards peer comment, I questioned a while ago for example, the provenance of a few of the photographs that turned up out of the blue in an album from apparently (at the time) nowhere. The fact is that there ISN'T any documentary provenance before 1987, and we have no proof that the pictures of Nicholls and Chapman are indeed those people, for there is no reference to photo's of these particular individuals ever having been taken. However, some of my peers argued vehemently because it went against the accepted views ("well, who are they then?") Without documentary provenance, no material is a fact. So if our peers accept such non-provenance as dead-cert fact, they must be prepared for questions to be asked regarding any testimonies that are also accepted as fact, based on the obvious problems with everything regarding Mitre Square.

That said, I repeat that I am not sure I can agree with Dr. JW's point, but it deserves consideration and investigation, without needing absolute proof being presented before judgement. Because if that is the case, the photos I mentioned above do not constitute reliable evidence. I will therefore look deeper into what Dr. John has to say, and consider it further.

Like I said though, changing the established view is, in some cases, impossible whatever the evidence, be it "Kosminski is a mass murderer" - without factual evidence or "victims photos" - without provenance....

As always Don,
respectfully and with best wishes

Phil

[dixon9]

imo i think Watkins is just human like the rest of us,probable that he ran to the nightwatchman(knowing he would be there) in fear and for back up,who could blame him in the circumstances?

Dixon9
still learning
and btw still celebrating our double winning season.

[The Grave Maurice]

I don't see any reason to be critical of Watkins. He ran the dozen or so steps to Morris's door knowing that he was an ex-cop, was probably awake and alert, and (maybe) that he had a whistle. He was shaken certainly (who wouldn't be?) but didn't seem very fearful. What was he supposed to do? Stand there and wait until PC Harvey's beat brought him back to the end of Church Passage?

[Jenny]

Whew! I never thought up stirring up such a hornet's nest with my first post. I am amazed at tje responses and the JTR intelligencia that is behind them. My hat is off to you..this is going to be fun!

Jenny

[Suzi]

Hi Mont (y) hehe

Just PM'd you re a whistle question.

Ref this pic below


Who's the lttle guy??

Suz xx

[Tecs]

Dear all,

As you can see I'm new to all this so apologies if it's way too late to post a reply. I'm still getting used to the etiquette of the boards but for now, I'd be interested to see what people say?

I was only wondering why nobody had mentioned Don Rumbelow's theory from years ago that Watkins may have been having a sneaky cup of tea with Morris inside the warehouse at the time? As a former City PC himself, Don knows that this sort of thing does go on and wondered if it might explain a few discrepancies?

When the Stephen White story came to light, it may possibly have added to the idea. I know many people doubt the story, but if we did take it as fact, the PC who discovered the body "came out of the house he had been in." I know there is debate about whether the story is true or not and if it is, which murder site it relates to, but it could be a description of the events in Mitre square.

If so, obviously there must have been some sort of cover up as Watkins kept his job and the story didn't get out. It would not have been good for the police to be seen as lazy, tea swiggers who let the ripper kill right under their noses. Also, there is the issue of White's being a Metropolitan officer in City territory, so what authority would he have had to do anything anyway?

One thing against this though is that in "White's story" he did appear to say that it was one of the two incognito policemen who came out of the house and as we know, Watkins was a beat officer not involved in a stakeout.

Oh and just a final quick one, if I may, regarding the whistle. The description said it was "c 1887" Doesn't this mean Circa 1887 ie "around" 1887 in other words could mean 1888, 1889 etc?

Thanks all,

Kindest Regards.

[Monty]

Hi Mont (y) hehe

Just PM'd you re a whistle question.

Ref this pic below
[ATTACH]9373[/ATTACH]

Who's the lttle guy??

Suz xx

Andy Ailiffe

Tecs,

If so, obviously there must have been some sort of cover up as Watkins kept his job and the story didn't get out.

Obviously.

Or, oddly enough, he did as he said he did. Just me thinking outside the box.

Monty

[Monty]

City of London Police Station No6 (Bishopsgate) Order Book entry dated 21st May 1889.

As stated, all along, the City of London Police Officers did NOT have whistles until 1889.



Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Great post. Most informative.

Watkins [inquest]: "I did not sound an alarm. We do not carry whistles."

A question occurs to me—

Why didn't Watkins spin his rattle for all it was worth?

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

A question occurs to me—

Why didn't Watkins spin his rattle for all it was worth?

Because George Morris had a whistle ... ?

[Fisherman]

Simplifier!!

Fisherman