Why did Watkins leave Eddowes body?

[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

[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.

[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')

[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

[Dr. John Watson]

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

[Dr. John Watson]

. . . You may be right, but until you come up with something similar to what Monty and Gavin did . . . well it doesn't even qualify as informed opinion.

Well Supe, the two Ripperologist articles you mentioned were among the many studies of the Eddowes murder that I've reviewed over the years, and Bromley's research in particular was thorough and masterfully presented. In fact, it was Bromley's reconstruction I relied on to form my theory concerning Watkins, so you really can't say it's not informed. I promised myself years ago I wasn't going to get into the kind of piss and spit contests you fellows love so much, and I'm not going to now. Nor am I going to be intimidated by anyone. I don't have the time or inclination to make a career out of researching Jack the Ripper. I leave that to others (including Monty with a "y") who seem to have made a life's work of it. I simply posted an answer to a newcomer's insightful question and offered my theory on Watkins on the chance it might spark further discussion, perhaps bring forth new evidence. Unfortunately, all that resulted was the assertion by Monty (with a "y") about the police whistle, presented by him as accepted fact, which it wasn't. A minor point really, hardly worth debating, but it was the presumptious way he responded that caused me to call him on it. His defensive reaction was predictable; he completely ignored my evidence (the 1887 whistle sold at auction and the history of the whistle at the City's own police site) and went on the attack. The use of the police photos was clever (I'd considered the same thing but couldn't find one showing the whistle chains that I could prove was taken prior to 1888) but hardly evidence of anything. My evidence on the whistles is at least as persuasive as his, leaving the testimony of Watkins as the only solid evidence left. Problem with that is, if my theory is correct, Watkins would have a good reason for dodging the truth, which then weakens the strength of his testimony. As to whether or not Watkins encountered Jack in the square, it all comes down to a matter of interpretation of existing evidence available to all, mainly the times of the witness sightings and the times that Harvey and Watkins inspected the square, and the validity of the statements of Macnaghten and Griffiths. Since no one has come forward with anything new, things stand as they are - unproven.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Having owned a Metropolitan Police whistle for many years before I passed it on about 6-8 years ago, I can verify the stamping and dating etc that Monty is speaking of. There are certain areas within Ripperology about which I know relatively little about in comparison to other individuals, and on the subject of police whistles, uniforms and to a certain extent, the beat police in general, I consider Monty to be a pretty solid expert. He would, infact be one of the first I would turn to for help and facts in such matters.

That said, I am one of those who refuse to take the testimony of the police or witnesses (or how the evidence has been presented) as read, as many are well aware, and have on certain things raised questions (but not this specific one) as Dr. John Watson has done with this point. There are pieces of testimony within Ripperology that are conflicting and some indeed find questionable. Mitre Square, like other murder sites, the timing and the course of witness statements, combined with other factors such as the police and doctor evidence can be a bit of a conundrum.

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.

One thing I do say however, regarding who is "hardcore" and who isn't. Many choose to work outside the online forums with their research, and are much respected for it. There are others who research outside and contribute in debate on the forums too, as Monty does, as I also do. I have not a clue what Monty is currently researching but I know it is normally pretty thorough.
He has no idea what I am currently researching either, but I am sure that should I need a question answered, he will answer it, or give a fair opinion.
That deserves much respect. Working 30-40 hours a week or more on study and research etc, be it in public or in the shade, over many many years, make many people "hardcore", without having published anything at all. Monty is an established and well respected fellow because of his considerable input and output.

It must also be remembered that anyone who travels outside the lines of the accepted norm in this case, travel a very thin line and is likely to be questioned, criticised and (sadly, in my opinion) even ridiculed. That doesn't make those people popular by any means, I personally have masses of respect for those who dare to go against the norm. Imho, those wider views are very important. Such is this genre, that some will never accept any change from the presented "facts". Some may, yet are not convinced. Occasionally, some even change their long-held views. I know of at least 5 brave souls!

Peer view is fine, but even that must contain flexibility. For if we do not bend, we are left with certain peers who still push the age old theory that Anderson's Polish Jew, called Kosminski, killed 5 women, without a shread of factual evidence against him, and is a situation that many find unacceptable. That's an appalling label. So a wider view must be given fair consideration, I maintain.

More power to Monty and his like, and equally, more power to Dr. John Watson and his like, I say. There must be room for both types within this field. Much respect.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

That said, if you would like to submit an article based on your research to Casebook Examiner the odds are quite good we would publish it. And then--let the chips fall where they may--your findings would be subject to the same peer review as Monty's and Gavin's.

Touting for business Don ?

Seriously, I welcome this


Jenni,

I hope others 'get it' also.

Monty

[Monty]

Now I know you are yanking my chain Mr De Locksley.

Monty, quit flattering yourself. You're entitled to your opinion, and that's all it is. I may not be "hardcore," but I've been studying the Ripper for something like 30 years and have read just about everything written about the Eddowes murder

The point being? Those facts have not altered within a 120 odd years yet you still cling to untruths to support an half arsed theory.

In my opinion, the available evidence strongly suggests that Watkins surprised the Ripper in the square, then ran for his life.

You are entitled to your opinion yet it seems your 'interpretation' of the evidence ihas been loosened to fit that opinion.

Whether or not he had a whistle is unimportant

Backtracking now?

As for Watkins alleged testimony as to the whistle and the failure of his superiors to publically contradict him: I don't claim that Watkins lied in his report or at the inquest; he just didn't tell the whole truth.

Contradictory also.

Whether or not he had a whistle is unimportant. The timing is what's really crucial. I've gone over the recorded times, the distance traveled by the two constables on their beats, their statements, the witness statements, lighting in the square and any other pertinent information I could find. Without adding or shading the numbers (as others have done), the evidence puts Watkins and Jack in the same place at the same time - no way to avoid it. Now, it's my opinion that's probably what happened. It's an opinion. You happen to hold a different opinion - but that's all it is.

As Don (Supe) has mentioned, I suggest you look at Gavins excellent research on the matter. He puts forward some very peruasive arguments against this idea. However, as mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion.

As for Watkins alleged testimony as to the whistle and the failure of his superiors to publically contradict him: I don't claim that Watkins lied in his report or at the inquest; he just didn't tell the whole truth. Watkins likely informed his superiors as to what actually occurred, and it would make sense not to fire him and not to refute his public statements since his value as an eye-witness who could identify Jack the Ripper was more important than anything else

The Jury, at an inquest, sits as the people. It was one of them, not Watkins superiors, who asked the question why Watkins did NOT have a whistle. They queried it. I ve studied not only the inquest docs but also Watkins service record. There is nothing in there about his sighting. Therefore if what you said did happen happened, why is it missing? To which you are gonna say.....?

The bottom line is that the alledged sighting by Watkins is not recorded anywhere simply because it never happened.

The point is, Monte, that you haven't proven anything. Whether it's the truth of Watkins' story or whether whistles were or not issued to City Police by 1888. You've presented what you consider solid evidence to support your position on the actions of Watkins - but none of it is conclusive. Neither is my evidence, but it's just as valid as your's. You claim the time studies support Watkins, I believe just the opposite. That's where we differ. Now, you can call it a "pet theory" or anything else, but please show me the courtesy of taking my hypothesis seriously. Attempting to dismiss it as an outlandish fantasy is terribly arrogant on your part and hardly the mark of a serious researcher, one who should always have an open mind

Firstly your request for courtesy amuses me. This from a peron who has failed to get my name correct (it only has 5 letters in it) and refers to me as 'Old Man'. You stated quite clearly that I was incorrect and made no attempt to ascertain the facts regarding my own research. Simply put, you dimissed my views out of hand...the very thing you accuse me of doing.

Secondly, without wishing to sound arrogant (no, honestly, I dont), I have been published many times regarding the Mitre Square murder, my research (along with the help of a good many others) has been vast and still is ongoing. Whilst I acknowledge the opinion that you are not only allowed to have that said opinion, that it should be respected, you must also be prepared to have that opinion disected.

And it has been.

You have an idea which is contradicted by witness evidence (provided not only by Watkins but also by Morris and Harvey) and you have passed falsity as fact (stating clearly that City Beat Police constables had whistles as far back as 1886).

You ask me to respect. Fair enough...give me something to respect then Old Man.

Monty

[Supe]

Watson,

You've presented what you consider solid evidence to support your position on the actions of Watkins - but none of it is conclusive. Neither is my evidence, but it's just as valid as your's.

Ah, but the difference is that Monty has put his research out for peer review (Ripperologist 71 Sept 2006) as has Gavin Bromley (Ripperologist 74 & 75 Dec. 2006/Jan 2007) whereas all we have from you so far is your assertion that you have studied all the beats and timings and have come to the conclusion Watkins and Jack occupied the same space at the same time. You may be right, but until you come up with something similar to what Monty and Gavin did . . . well it doesn't even qualify as informed opinion.

That said, if you would like to submit an article based on your research to Casebook Examiner the odds are quite good we would publish it. And then--let the chips fall where they may--your findings would be subject to the same peer review as Monty's and Gavin's.

Don.

[Dr. John Watson]

It is this kind of misinformation which confuses and such outlandish claims do not help the study of this case . . . No wonder the true hardcore researchers prefer to share in house than tread outside.

Monty

Monty, quit flattering yourself. You're entitled to your opinion, and that's all it is. I may not be "hardcore," but I've been studying the Ripper for something like 30 years and have read just about everything written about the Eddowes murder. In my opinion, the available evidence strongly suggests that Watkins surprised the Ripper in the square, then ran for his life. Whether or not he had a whistle is unimportant. The timing is what's really crucial. I've gone over the recorded times, the distance traveled by the two constables on their beats, their statements, the witness statements, lighting in the square and any other pertinent information I could find. Without adding or shading the numbers (as others have done), the evidence puts Watkins and Jack in the same place at the same time - no way to avoid it. Now, it's my opinion that's probably what happened. It's an opinion. You happen to hold a different opinion - but that's all it is.

As for Watkins alleged testimony as to the whistle and the failure of his superiors to publically contradict him: I don't claim that Watkins lied in his report or at the inquest; he just didn't tell the whole truth. Watkins likely informed his superiors as to what actually occurred, and it would make sense not to fire him and not to refute his public statements since his value as an eye-witness who could identify Jack the Ripper was more important than anything else. Of course, the truth would also subject the City police to public ridicule if it got out that one of their finest had the chance to grab the Ripper but ran away instead. Perhaps a glimpse of the truth slipped out a few years later when Macnaghten wrote, "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square . . . ." Macnaghten's words were echoed 10 years later by Maj. Griffiths. It's possible they were mixed up, but it's also possible they spoke from direct knowledge.

The point is, Monte, that you haven't proven anything. Whether it's the truth of Watkins' story or whether whistles were or not issued to City Police by 1888. You've presented what you consider solid evidence to support your position on the actions of Watkins - but none of it is conclusive. Neither is my evidence, but it's just as valid as your's. You claim the time studies support Watkins, I believe just the opposite. That's where we differ. Now, you can call it a "pet theory" or anything else, but please show me the courtesy of taking my hypothesis seriously. Attempting to dismiss it as an outlandish fantasy is terribly arrogant on your part and hardly the mark of a serious researcher, one who should always have an open mind.

[The Grave Maurice]

I thought Monty and DJW's posts were models of clarity. Tell you what I do have trouble with, though: I can only see whistles (or, more accurately, the chains attached to the whistles) in the third photo. Must be time to get my eyes checked again.

[Supe]

Watson,

Sorry old man, but if you're basing your whole case on a newspaper report of Watkins' inquest testimony, you're relying solely on hearsay. I don't know (and neither do you) whether the newspaper quoted Watkins' inquest testimony in its entirety, correctly and verbatim, or whether the officer simply misstated the facts to explain why he didn't blow his whistle.

That may sound quite reasonable at first blush, but in fact it would apply to most every scrap of "evidence" available to us. Rather the conundrum posed by Borges's "Univer5sal Library" in reverse. Instead, historical analysis instructs us to consider sources and make judgments accordingly. To accept that PC Watkins did not have a whistle, something readily determined by his superiors, would seem in this instance the right decision regardless of how many whistles may have been lying in warehouses.

I know little about the equipment practices of the British police, but I am familiar with the U.S. military and could cite innumerable instances of hardware being officially adopted for use that nonetheless languished for years before being issued to those who needed it most--the front-line troops.

If you track the positions of the two PCs who patroled the square - Watkins and Harvey - and note the times they checked the square, then compare that with the time Eddowes and the Ripper were seen by Lawende and his two friends, and the time Watkins said he discovered Eddowes, you almost have to conclude Watkins and the Ripper were there - in the square - at the same time.

Strange, but not only has Monty come to a well-researched opposite conclusion, but Gavin Bromley applied his systems-analyst talents to the problem in even greater detail and came to a similar conclusion in conflict to yours. They both published their studies--might we see your research?

Don.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Mont,

blimey, a bit of a b**ger to get my head round, but I am with it now! And I do indeed see your point

Jenni

[Monty]

Sorry old man, but if you're basing your whole case on a newspaper report of Watkins' inquest testimony, you're relying solely on hearsay. I don't know (and neither do you) whether the newspaper quoted Watkins' inquest testimony in its entirety, correctly and verbatim, or whether the officer simply misstated the facts to explain why he didn't blow his whistle. In any case, it doesn't amount to real evidence. Now, you ignored my mention of an actual 1887 City of London police whistle being auctioned (which would be real evidence), so I found the auction site and I'm reprinting the information verbatim below. Then, a little further research revealed a very interesting site devoted to the City of London Police, and I'm posting the relevent facts from that site below. You can check them out youself on the web.

I honestly cant tell if you are taking the pi$$ John or just gripping on to a fantasy for your own needs.

Whistles are stamped with the manufacture date. As the Met were provided with 5,000 odd in 1884 they were still being manufacted in 1886 and beyond. Each whistle had their manufacture date, this incase of defaultes etc.

The City did NOT issue whistles TO THEIR BEAT OFFICERS TILL 1889. Thats not to say they did not have whistles. They did, however, just for reiteration, the average beat officer was not isssued with a whistle in 1888.

Watkins, in various reports, stated he did not have a whistle. Now why in Gods name would he lie about that? Why wasnt it questioned why, if he did have a whistle, didnt he use it? Somebody somewhere would have picked that up. Infact a Juror did and Watkins answered it.

It is this kind of misinformation which confuses and such outlandish claims do not help the study of this case.

No wonder the true hardcore researchers prefer to share in house than tread outside.



The answer is that in the 1887 photo, the time John states all the City Police Bobbies had whistles, not one Constable has one.

Yet in the other post 1889 photos they do.

Funny that.

Monty