Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Questioning PC Harveys testimony.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Questioning PC Harveys testimony.

    Hi Nats, Perry, all,

    Taken from 'No bloody piece of apron' thread.

    ....on the other hand Monty, if PC Harvey had been drinking.......but I agree,we need to know whether that was likely----why he was sacked........six months later?
    Drinking for example, when he should not have been, might,to him, have felt it was worth lying about.I am not saying he did or didnt do this.Just suggesting its a possibility....
    Best
    Nats
    We have no reason for Harveys dismissal from the force. Stating drink is speculation and it seems to be one that most punters jump on. Yes, PCs drunk on duty was a common reason, as was disappearing with prostitutes, corrupt activities, theft, blackmail, ....it goes on.

    It may, just as equally, have been a lesser crime. I guess some need speculation. However, my point will be made once Ive address Michaels post....

    This is to address Montys comments too....I dont think anyone should dismiss testimony given under oath, but I also dont think a group of men without their own timepieces synchronized would all get times accurate, nor do I think Harvey in this case does anything extraordinary if he skipped walking that passage once...it just happened to be the wrong time if so. And if he did walk it, its almost certain Eddowes has her killer over her. If he did his full duty, he would have scanned the entire square visually before turning and leaving.

    But can he admit that later when it comes out the time he said he was there was when the killer must have still been there....and now he would seem a fool for letting him slip through his fingers.

    Im not disparaging him, or his comrades, Im saying people are people, and white lies sometimes blow up in your face.

    Not that he did pass that check of the passage...just that I would believe that before Id believe he did make the check, fully scanned the square, and missed seeing a murder happening.

    As for Mr Evans, he is one of the few people I dont argue with ....because I wont live long enough to learn what he knows now about the Police of London and Jack the Ripper cases. And Im sure if he suggested that timing wasnt precise, and perhaps beats not exact all the time, it was not a negative...just an acknowledgment that Policemen were also just "men" too.
    OK, Harvey never stated his times were correct. In fact he stated they were judged against the Post Office clock. However, this is not about the timings.

    Yes, I agree, there is a possibility Harvey missed patrolling part, if not all of Church Passage. However, should he have done that sweep all the way down to the Square, he may not have looked with anything other than a brief glance. This because Harvey would know Watkins was about to pass in the Square minutes later. It wasnt Harveys domain.

    Now, Id like to know why you think Harvey would have been in the square the same time as Jack. Especially as you mention the inaccuracy of timepieces. Lewande uses the Club clock, there no mention of the exactness of that. Heck, there is no certainty he saw Eddowes. She may have already been dead with Jack over her when he, along with Harris and Levy, saw a couple.

    Due to the position of the body and Harvey, angle, light and possibility of obstructions in his field of vision, coupled with the fact that the square wasnt his responsibility, may have had an impact on what he saw, or rather didnt see.


    If he was lying, he runs the risk of being found out. There may have been someone in the square who later comes forward after the inquest and says 'well, actually, I was passing through Church passage at that time, I didnt see a PC'. There wasnt but....

    Yes, I know what Stewart is saying. Its something we discussed in private. And I agree with him. Thats not my point.

    My point is the dismissal of inquest testimony without evidence. Longs for example is in doubt. Halses statement contradicts him on nearly two levels.

    Nothing against Harveys testimony has been backed up with factual evidence, just conjecture. Which is fine. However it just seems that, after a while, conjecture becomes canard and in turn becomes a 'Kelly was pregnant' type untruth passed as fact.

    This type of speculation has bained this case for years. And will continue to do so. Im just trying to cut it down.

    Cheers

    Monty
    Monty

    https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

    Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

  • #2
    Hi Monty,
    I am off to wales today but will be able to post when I get there-[so long as phone is working].
    Its of much interest to me PC Harvey"s dismissal.Any possibility we could find out why?
    Best
    Nats

    Comment


    • #3
      Nats,

      So far no one knows.

      However, it seems he was reinstated in 1891 or 1901. If its the same Guy then the offence in 89 couldnt have been that serious for him not to return.

      Enjoy your break.

      Monty
      Monty

      https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

      Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Monty,

        Good call moving this topic, it is an interesting aspect of that night.

        I agree with you that sworn statements are serious business, but are statements given at inquest to be given more credibility than statements given only to the Police in private? I'm speaking of Schwartz and Hutchinson for example. Both swore what they saw was the truth at the police station, yet Schwartz story didnt get inquest exposure, which a story about an assault on a victim seen minutes before her death should have received. And Hutchinson seemed on the level...Abberline thought so, yet his story is soon tossed aside.

        Lawende saw a man and a woman, between the two, he had a better view of the woman, and he did later identify Kates clothing. This is recorded as being approx 1:35am, and he and Levy and Harris had just left the club nearby, and as they left, were likely aware of the time, as all people usually are when assessing whether its time to leave a place or not. Harvey took his time from the Post Office clock, which was still minutes walk from the entrance to Mitre Square from Church Passage.

        Assuming for the moment that Lawende and chums did see Kate...as that seems probable by his description of her, then the man she is with is most probably the one that kills her, based on the time available before she is found dead........just like Broadshouldered Man and Liz. So thats at 1:35-1:36. Kate is found at 1:43-1:44. Leaving a total of roughly only 6 minutes maximum for the attack itself, he needs time to and from the actual crime scene..., the throat cut, the stabs, the facial cuts, the colon severing and placing, the extractions...one with slightly more advanced skill needed than the priors, or a fools luck,....cut and tear the apron, and be out of the square before Watkins enters at 1:43-1:44am.

        But wait...Harveys sworn time says he was looking in at 1:42ish. Unless each action the killer takes was planned in advance by him, there would be pauses....assessments, lots of brief"work" stoppages while cutting..then maybe aggravation at feces...or he hears a noise. Its almost inconceivable that a man who only started his mutilation of Kate at perhaps 1:37-1:38... in a dark square, would be finished and out of the square by 1:42.

        That leaves us with Harvey not actually being there at that time, and if he was actually a few minutes earlier making his scan, then he had to catch the killer red-handed.

        Or, he was there at 1:42, looking carefully at the perimeter and core of Mitre Square...as any beat cop would be tasked to do there if not actually supposed to enter it, and he didnt see the murder of Kate taking place...which it must have been.

        The way I see this Monty, if he skipped Church Passage, it was because as you say, Watkins goes in minutes after his scan anyway, and nothing out of sorts had been noted earlier. And maybe he chatted a sec or two with street passers by,....although thats just sheer speculation, the point is, if he skipped it, it wasnt dereliction of duty, it was a decision made so he can keep to his allocated beat completion schedule.

        If he was there at 1:42, and did as he would be tasked to do, scanning the square carefully before leaving, I don't believe he could have missed seeing something worth checking out. And if he did miss it, I think that reflects on his abilities and value as an officer...and that I am not prepared to suggest about him. I have no idea why he is dismissed, although drink seems to be the common guess.

        Also, consider where he is when notified of the murder...I think he may have been ahead of his route timing.

        Best regards Monty.
        Last edited by Guest; 04-11-2008, 04:10 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Monty, Michael, Natalie,

          One thing I'm wondering about. How synchronized were the clocks scattered about the area? Were they synchronized, and, if so, by whom? It's only recently that clocks have been synchronized automatically. I can remember the clocks in my schools all being slightly off from one another. Any ideas on this?

          It's also a possibility that an individual's time piece would also disagree with at least some of the clocks he would pass during his rounds.
          "What our ancestors would really be thinking, if they were alive today, is: "Why is it so dark in here?"" From Pyramids by Sir Terry Pratchett, a British National Treasure.

          __________________________________

          Comment


          • #6
            Hey Michael,

            Im breaking this down if I may, its easier for me to follow.


            I agree with you that sworn statements are serious business, but are statements given at inquest to be given more credibility than statements given only to the Police in private? I'm speaking of Schwartz and Hutchinson for example. Both swore what they saw was the truth at the police station, yet Schwartz story didnt get inquest exposure, which a story about an assault on a victim seen minutes before her death should have received. And Hutchinson seemed on the level...Abberline thought so, yet his story is soon tossed aside.
            Hutchinsons story is tossed aside? by whom? Ben maybe but certainly not by the Police.

            All witness statements should be treated with the same credibility unless proven otherwise. Neither Hutchinson, Schwartz or Harveys have been proven to be incorrect. As I say, speculation is fine. As long as the facts remain not far away.

            Lawende saw a man and a woman, between the two, he had a better view of the woman, and he did later identify Kates clothing. This is recorded as being approx 1:35am, and he and Levy and Harris had just left the club nearby, and as they left, were likely aware of the time, as all people usually are when assessing whether its time to leave a place or not. Harvey took his time from the Post Office clock, which was still minutes walk from the entrance to Mitre Square from Church Passage.
            Lawendes view of the woman was of her back. He didnít see her face. He identified the clothing yet mentioned that he recognised the bonnet and jacket, which was black. A common colour for the period.

            Lawende and Co checked the time yet held back a little because of the rain. This may have meant their timing a tad out. Just a thought.

            Assuming for the moment that Lawende and chums did see Kate...as that seems probable by his description of her, then the man she is with is most probably the one that kills her, based on the time available before she is found dead........just like Broadshouldered Man and Liz. So thats at 1:35-1:36. Kate is found at 1:43-1:44. Leaving a total of roughly only 6 minutes maximum for the attack itself, he needs time to and from the actual crime scene..., the throat cut, the stabs, the facial cuts, the colon severing and placing, the extractions...one with slightly more advanced skill needed than the priors, or a fools luck,....cut and tear the apron, and be out of the square before Watkins enters at 1:43-1:44am
            Allocating a time is different from how long something actually takes to be done. Stating 6 mins when it may have taken 3 means the killer could have been long gone before Harvey entered the passage let alone get to its other end. Kate was found at 1.44 at the earliest, 1.45 was the time Watkins noted when he contacted Morris. So it was either 1.44 or 1.45am


            But wait...Harveys sworn time says he was looking in at 1:42ish. Unless each action the killer takes was planned in advance by him, there would be pauses....assessments, lots of brief"work" stoppages while cutting..then maybe aggravation at feces...or he hears a noise. Its almost inconceivable that a man who only started his mutilation of Kate at perhaps 1:37-1:38... in a dark square, would be finished and out of the square by 1:42.

            That leaves us with Harvey not actually being there at that time, and if he was actually a few minutes earlier making his scan, then he had to catch the killer red-handed
            .

            How long does it take to mutilate? Brown stated that it may take 5 mins. Lets take Lawendes timing and add a minute on to move the couple into Mitre Square Ė 1.36am. A swift assault and mutilation takes the time to 1.41am. A whole minute before Harvey arrives in the Square.

            That is hardly inconceivable.


            The way I see this Monty, if he skipped Church Passage, it was because as you say, Watkins goes in minutes after his scan anyway, and nothing out of sorts had been noted earlier. And maybe he chatted a sec or two with street passers by,....although thats just sheer speculation, the point is, if he skipped it, it wasnt dereliction of duty, it was a decision made so he can keep to his allocated beat completion schedule.
            I totally agree.

            If he was there at 1:42, and did as he would be tasked to do, scanning the square carefully before leaving, I don't believe he could have missed seeing something worth checking out. And if he did miss it, I think that reflects on his abilities and value as an officer...and that I am not prepared to suggest about him. I have no idea why he is dismissed, although drink seems to be the common guess
            Again, his duty was to the passage, not the square. As Ive said, I have studied all aspects of this crime and though I cannot tell you what happened exactly, I can say that if Harvey did venture down Church Passage, and looked into the Square, it is highly possible he missed Eddowes body laying in the dark, dark corner.

            Another thing that ought to be remembered. Harveys beat was the closest City PCs beat to what was deemed at the time as the Killers territory. The City Police were fully aware of the Mets situation and had ordered their men to be vigilant and on the look out for couples.

            Harveys beat meant that he had to be more vigilant than most.

            Cheers

            Monty
            Monty

            https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

            Comment


            • #7
              Ben maybe but certainly not by the Police
              Certainly by the police, Monty.

              Despite Abberline's initial enthusiasm, Hutchinson's description was clearly discarded by the police as a viable ripper-sighting in the long run. That's not so much speculation as an assumption that the police didn't suffer from bizarre collective forgetfulness with regard to his testimony. I disagree with the idea that all evidence should automatically be assigned the "same credibility" until proven otherwise. Obviously the more outlandish and ridiculous claims are accorded "less" credibility, even without proof.
              Last edited by Ben; 04-11-2008, 06:49 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ben View Post
                Certainly by the police, Monty.

                Despite Abberline's initial enthusiasm, Hutchinson's description was clearly discarded by the police as a viable ripper-sighting in the long run. That's not so much speculation as an assumption that the police didn't suffer from bizarre collective forgetfulness with regard to his testimony. I disagree with the idea that all evidence should automatically be assigned the "same credibility" until proven otherwise. Obviously the more outlandish and ridiculous claims are accorded "less" credibility, even without proof.
                While it may be true to say the police were not so excited about Hutchinson"s statement after a while,this may not be anything whatsoever to do with the description itself.
                It is on record that Anderson was back in London ONLY for the Mary Kelly murder----in other words he had been abroad when the other four women were murdered that Autumn returning four days after the double event.Swanson would no doubt have fed him with information but Anderson was up to his eyes with other matters which had affected his health that Autumn,so whether he took on board all the evidence presented is debatable and doubtful.
                However,he did attend Millers Court on the day Mary Kelly was murdered.He did bring his own preferred doctor, Dr Bond, to perform the autopsy in this instance,it being the only one of the five [accredited] to the Ripper that Dr Bond did see in the flesh.
                But above and beyond all else, in my opinion, it was a " Profile of the Killer" that Robert Anderson was after,and which he obtained from the obedient Dr Bond ofcourse.
                So what got into Anderson at this point to be personally arriving to view the corpse of Mary Kelly? Well first off, he needed to be seen to be doing his job properly.As Assistent Commissioner of CID / and Metropolitan police etc, and therefore as a police chief who had been absent from duty,when Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes were murdered-----he had been instructed by Matthews to return home and attend to these murders a.s.a.p .Meanwhile Major Smith,[acting] Chief Commissioner of the CITY POLICE, had in complete contrast roused himself and set off at the gallop when called upon to attend to The Mitre Square murder.
                So Anderson began to pay attention.He listened to the accounts of the house to house searches perfomed by police upon his return,he listened to Dr Bond telling him the man they were looking for was "probably living among respectable people........who were probably unwilling to communicate their suspicions to the police......and he put two and two together[and made five ]and up popped the spectre of a low class Polish Jew.
                Now few low class Polish Jews were likely to have been dressed up to match Hutchinson"s description .Few would have been doctors- the popular idea of which Anderson was very keen to scotch------ even if it caused hijinks with the City Police Chief Major Henry- who thought the very idea ridiculous,Robert Anderson was prepared to go through hell and high water to prove he was right.Out went Hutchinson"s man,in came the "low class Polish Jew"........
                And as I said, for Robert Anderson , like Cornball it was all "case solved".He just had to wait a little now for Kosminski to morph into the Ripper from after his transfer from Colney Hatch to the Leavesdon loony bin in 1894-----just in the nick of time to squash that pesky Newspaper story that was circulating all over England about Superintendent Cutbush"s nephew......godammit!

                Hutchinson"s man.........? forget it!

                Natalie
                Last edited by Natalie Severn; 04-11-2008, 08:53 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Monty,
                  I realise this thread is about PC Harvey"s testimony.However, I have written the above to demonstrate how I believe witness statements lost their importance over time -due possibly to changing circumstances-such as Robert Anderson"s return and a seemingly different take on matters to say Henry Smith or even Abberline.
                  Hope this is ok
                  Nats

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Forgive this one rebuttal of Hutchinsons validity....his suspect description was given Monday night, issued Tuesday by Police, and by Thursday it had reverted to Mary Ann Coxs Blotchy Face. That speaks volumes.

                    You make some great points regarding timing Monty, but I cant help but feel that the miniscule amount of time we have allocated for all that was done in the Square..including getting her down in the first place, infers some knife talent at the very least, likely some anatomical knowledge, and it doesnt allow for "stumbles" by him....like how long he might have paused after cutting the colon and getting its contents over his objectives. The time allocated only works if he worked the knife continuously and knew how to do what he wanted,... as in having in mind what to accomplish beforehand.

                    As I said elsewhere to you, IF Lawende saw Catherine Eddowes around 1:35am, 9 minutes before she is discovered dead by Watkins, her killer was over Kate at 1:42am. And although Harvey is not tasked with entering the square, he is tasked with surveying it...and a body in the shadows is one thing, but with a man knelt beside it is another.

                    Celesta, I think it safe to say all local clocks were set by the owner/operators timing, so likely none were actually synched. And few men had timepieces...for example Harvey didnt, so their beat schedules would to some degree be monitored using their own internal timing...knowing how long it takes to get there from here, kind of thing.

                    So for example, if Harvey did'nt enter that pass when Jack was killing Kate in the square, if he was behind he could just walk faster, and if ahead, dawdle for a minute. These beats were timed so coverage was as close as possible to continuous, seamless...just look how close behind Harvey Watkins enters from the opposite laneway.

                    Interesting aside though, while Harvey checked the Post Office Clock, that building may have been in the process of being robbed...it was, sometime over that weekend.

                    Best regards all.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So you dont think Im only being unfair to Harvey Monty, I think Pearce and Morris still have some serious questions coming as well.

                      I digress....

                      There are many strange incidents on record in these cases where for example 2 people see the same person at roughly the same time but in different places, or two people state being at the same place at the same time and neither sees each other, but my impression of this night is that Harvey wasn't a bad cop, and would have seen the forms in the square had he been there at 1:42. I think he neglected one passage pass, but didn't report it, instead placed himself where he should have been at that time......before it is revealed that is precisely the time when the killer is finishing with Kate in that square. He is warned of this later, and how it makes him look....but by then, how can he retract it?

                      A simple little deviation at the absolute wrong time, dictated by fate. Perhaps enough of a career staller to drive one to drink?

                      Cheers Monty.
                      Last edited by Guest; 04-11-2008, 10:35 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi Natalie,

                        You're essentially arguing that the senior police officals in charge of the Whitechapel investigation deliberately suppressed and lied about Hutchinson's description because it ran contrary to the Polish Jew theory. Sorry, Nats, that's on a theoretical par with the Royal Conspiracy; the all too 1970s notion that the establshment was hushing up rumours that the killer may have been someone of influence. We've moved on from that. Anderson et al didn't even have a Polish Jew theory at that stage, and if they wanted to be all hush-hush about Mr. Astrakhan, they would hardly have plastered in all over the newpapers to begin with.

                        Best wishes,
                        Ben

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ben View Post
                          Hi Natalie,

                          You're essentially arguing that the senior police officals in charge of the Whitechapel investigation deliberately suppressed and lied about Hutchinson's description because it ran contrary to the Polish Jew theory. Sorry, Nats, that's on a theoretical par with the Royal Conspiracy; the all too 1970s notion that the establshment was hushing up rumours that the killer may have been someone of influence. We've moved on from that. Anderson et al didn't even have a Polish Jew theory at that stage, and if they wanted to be all hush-hush about Mr. Astrakhan, they would hardly have plastered in all over the newpapers to begin with.

                          Best wishes,
                          Ben
                          Ben,
                          You misunderstand me.
                          I do not say Anderson lied.I am saying he had already "moved on" to consider other implications from other evidence,ie the recent police discussions he had had giving an account of their house to house searches,what he himself says he concluded from them,and the implications of Dr Bond"s "profile" -the salient bit of which I posted.
                          Having therefore "moved on" he was formulating thoughts about fairly respectable but low class ,Polish ,Jewish ,families who had someone living with them "who wasnt quite right"---as Dr Bond advised him, on 10 November 1888 ,in his "profile" .
                          They had therefore apparently already begun to prioritise looking into the local Jewish Community-Anderson said so later himself, in preference to chasing middle aged, middle class males with astrakhan collars and cuffs..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi Natalie,

                            They would only dismiss the possbility of a "middle aged, middle class male with astrakhan collars and cuffs" if they had damn good reason to. An Andersonian hunch that the killer was a low-class Polish Jew would not have been a "good reason" to ignore or "move on" from Hutchinson's alleged sighting. Ergo, there must have been a better reason for discrediting this particular witness, and inevitably, one wonders if Hutchinson's three-day-late impossible description and myriad press contradicitions had anything to do with it.

                            Anderson could not have arrived at the conclusion that the killer was a low-class Polish Jew purely from house-to-house searches unless he had someone specific in mind, and Kosminski wouldn't arrive on the scene for some considerable time to come. Deduction? He did not have a Polish Jew theory in November 1888.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Guys

                              Sorry for nipping this in the bud but this is a Harvey thread.

                              Know what I mean?

                              Thanks Guys.

                              Michael- just popped in, catch you later?

                              Monty
                              Monty

                              https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                              http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X