Questioning PC Harveys testimony.

[Fisherman]

Natalie writes:
"Its not true that it was a Kate Eddowes "look alike". Lawende didnt have any idea what she looked like-he didnt see her face for a start ----read his testimony again.He said they were the same clothes as the ones worn by the woman he saw.But didnt they all wear similar bonnets and dark jackets? Name one of them who dressed differently.Besides,she has a green floral skirt on which he never mentioned and that is rather strange because it was distinctively marked with daisies.

Mitre Square,we are told was a regular haunt for "business transactions".Why not another woman soliciting?
I dont personally believe the Ripper would have allowed his face to be seen only half an hour after the Stride murder.Especially since he was planning a second murder.Murder carried the death penalty-death by hanging.
Also this elusiveness of the Ripper is what has kept the case going for 118 years-----noone knew who he was and he managed to avoid capture.
Only a half wit would have let his face be seen by three men looking over at him, just after he had killed someone.The man Lawende saw was allowing his face to be seen while his chest was being stroked.That wasnt the Ripper!"

I have not been home these last few days, so I have to apologize for not answering before. But here goes:

Natalie, I know that Lawende never saw the womans face. And I know that you know that I know too.
Now, if I wear a paper bag on my head, guess what you will have to do to become my look-alike? Exactly - put a paper bag on your head too. Not only facial features go to form something to which you can create a likness, and the woman seen from behind in Church Passage seemingly had a length that tallied with that of Eddowes, just as she wore clothes that Lawende felt were the ones he had seen. He was quite explicit, actually, as he did not just say that they could have been the jacket and bonnet - he said that to the best of his recollection they WERE those garments that the woman had worn.

"Name one of them who dressed differently"

Come on, Natalie - Do you really hold me so high in esteem that you think me able to present you with a full covering of the wardrobes of the East End prostitutes of that autumn? What CAN be said is that each woman would differ from her next to some extent. They were not wearing uniforms. And given how fashion has always driven women to try and stand out, I fail to see why it should not apply even among the poorest of women in the East End. "See what a jolly bonnet I have" - remember?
If the bonnet and the jacket HAD been of types exactly similar to those worn by all prostitutes - then why would Lawende venture to state that the garments he was shown seemed to be the very garments worn by "his" woman? It´s bad logic, simple as that.
I will not make the mistake you made and say that the man in Church Passage was or was not definitely the Ripper. But I will say that the chances that he was not the Ripper are very, very slim.

"I dont personally believe the Ripper would have allowed his face to be seen only half an hour after the Stride murder".
Natalie, don´t take the usual angle of the Ripper being made up by invisible gas as a truth - he was not. They only way he could have ensured that he was not seen half an hour after the Stride killing - which I don´t think he perpetrated in the first place - would be to stay off the streets. If you go out on the streets and contact prostitutes, you do so in a public area, and guess why public areas are thus named? Exactly, they ARE in fact public, meaning that you may bump into anyone there.
And keep in mind that when the Ripper killed Eddowes, he had in all probability been loked upon by people both on his way to George Yard, to Buck´s Row, to Hanbury Street - as well as on his way from those venues. If not, we must surmise that he walked totally empty streets, seen by noboy, and that is a strange supposition. It is far more likely that he headed for bigger thoroughfares, where he blended in and was seen by lots of people - but noticed for what he was by nobody.

He took immense chances at each kill, and he seemingly had the good luck not to be seen at these exact moments. To hope that you may go undetected altogether, traversing the streets either looking for prey or heading for a bolthole after a strike, would not be something he did. It would be virtually impossible, since it is totally beyond your control. He killed, come what may.

Simon, you ask me whether I really believe in the traditional scenario. That would, bye and large, depend on how you define that scenario, would it not?
Do I believe that the couple in Church passage was Jack and Kate? Yes.
Do I believe that he cut her up in very few minutes? Yes.
Do I believe that this happened inbetween Watkins visits to the square? Yes.
Do I believe that Harvey saw nothing of the strike? Yes.

And if that is traditional enough for you, then I guess I am a traditionalist in this case.

The best, Natalie, Simon,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi Monty,

I have seen the plan before but didnt check it before responding to you. And I do see your contention. I would think though it would imply that the killer, hearing footsteps, immediately backed off the woman and utilized a blind spot, and I think that has our man a wee bit to jumpy to ring true. And it impacts his overall cutting time....which as we know, is slim.. at best, and likely with very few pauses. A good question though is, if he is absorbed in his act....the culmination of all the fantasies he has between kills.....would he be alert and listening to sounds? Or just cutting quickly.

For me personally Monty, if Lawende saw Kate's killer with her, the only way I can fathom him doing everything and still being gone by 1:43-44am when Watkins enters, is if he worked steadily after the throat cut, and that took place within 2 minutes of the sighting.

He takes a kidney out through her front..that requires at least full attention and a minute or two..and of course what I believe might have been the primary objective, but was botched, a partial uterus.

Best regards Monty.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Fisherman,
Well I dont think Lawende actually knew what to say or do.Nor his friends -well even less so his friends, from whom nothing clear can be deduced.He saw a couple .He saw the face of the man in a dim lit passage .But he also said he wouldnt know him again and that he didnt see the woman"s face.
PC Harvey did not see Lawende,Levy or Harris,though,if his testimony is correct,then PC Harvey SHOULD have seen these three men either where they were standing near Church Passage or as they moved away-because he was approaching Church Passage at that time.Neither,ofcourse.did PC Harvey see the couple.Moreover ,PC Harvey was clearly quite puzzled that he could possibly have missed ALL FIVE PEOPLE.
Best
Natalie

[Sam Flynn]

He takes a kidney out through her front..that requires at least full attention and a minute or two

A minute or just under, at a guess, Mike.

[Natalie Severn]

A minute or just under, at a guess, Mike.

says Sam,self appointed "Casebook Medical Expert in Residence"

[Fisherman]

Hi Natalie!

You write "Well I dont think Lawende actually knew what to say or do", but I think he is everything but hesitant at the inquest. His words, once again:
“The Coroner: Were they talking? - The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back. She had one hand on his breast. He was the taller. She had on a black jacket and bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police-station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing.
[Coroner] What sort of man was this? - He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same.
Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.
Mr. Crawford (to witness): You have given a description of the man to the police? - Yes.
[Coroner] Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me. I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.
[Coroner] Did you overhear anything that either said? - No.
[Coroner] Did either appear in an angry mood? - No.
[Coroner] Did anything about their movements attract your attention? - No. The man looked rather rough and shabby.”

Please notice that there is not one single “I´m not sure”, “perhaps” or “may have been” around here. When Lawende is asked if he would recognize the man if he saw him again, he does not say “I could not say”, “well, perhaps” or something like that. He very soberly says “I doubt it”. It is not as if he does not know what to say at all, Natalie – he is sharp as a razor, is he not?

As for what Harvey saw or not saw, I think enough has already been said on the thread of the difficulties to measure what certainty we may deduct from the varying observations of the time. The only thing we know is that even if Harvey himself regarded it a strange coincidence that he saw none of the five mentioned people from the Church Passage sighting, it would be just as baffling a coincidence if suddenly all witnesses got all their times right in their respective testimonies.
We see it with Long and Cadoche, we see it with the PC:s involved in the Nichols murder, aptly described as resembling a French farce – we keep staring ourselves blind at given estimations of times, though the evidence existing clearly points out that it is a ridiculous thing to do. The estimations give a rough guidance and are useful in that respect, but when we try to use them to establish exact timelines, they turn into fool´s gold, and should be treated with much suspicion, I feel.

The best!
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Fisherman,
On October 11th ,only eleven days after the event,Lawende told the inquest:

Lawende: "I doubt whether I should know him again".
......and at the end of the month Inspector McWillliam reported to the Home Office that
"Mr Lewende[sic] who was nearest to the man & woman & saw most of them,
says he does not think he should know the man again.......the other two took little notice and state that they could not identify the man or woman,and even Mr Lewende states that he could not identify the man"

Major Smith also recalls that when he questioned the man who said the man "wore a deer stalker hat ie a hat with a peek both fore and aft"-I could not lead him in any way""You will easily recognise him then" I said ,"Oh No!
he[Mr Lawende] replied,"I only had a short look at him".

But despite all this,Fisherman, the major weakness is that he did not see the woman"s face.
So NO, we can not be sure,from the comments recorded for the government on October 11th that this witness actually saw either Catherine Eddowes OR her killer.
Best
Natalie

[Ben]

So NO, we can not be sure,from the comments recorded for the government on October 11th that this witness actually saw either Catherine Eddowes OR her killer.

....But it is overwhemingly probable that they did.

[perrymason]

Unless Im overstepping the thread premise bounds.....which I suppose I am...isnt it possible she was brought there, and Lawende and Co. saw different people. Might explain why Harvey sees nothing, if she is put there after he goes back down the passage. And there were abandoned houses in that very square...which were checked, of course... but were there other abandoned or condemned properties close by that werent? Might also answer the question of "lacking skill" but still getting a kidney out...would be much easier over 10 minutes by candlelight.

Just sayin.

Heres one for you.....what if her facial wounds actually represent torture.....and some touches were added a la Ripper before dumping her....her thimble and tea tin falling loose.

No one was tasked to watched the carriageway that night....the only entrance/exit for the killer?

Again....just sayin.

Best regards.

[Monty]

The Good Mike.....not the bad one,

Yes, I agree, to a point.

Im sure Harvey was well aware that his beat boardered on to what was considered to be the Killers territory. However, Im sure Jack wasnt his priority (I feel the same about Halse, Outram and Marriott).

Day to day business as it were.

Monty

[Monty]

Guys,

Re the Lawende sighting and Eddowes attire. This may help.

Below are two photos taken by Stephen Leece at the Wolves conference.

Claudia Ailiffe re-created the clothing Catherine Eddowes wore during her last hours.

[Fisherman]

Natalie!

If your only point from the outset was to prove that we cannot be certain who the couple in Church Passage were, then I must apologize for wasting your time - of course we can´t. Still, I´m with Ben here, as he states that it is overwhelmingly probable that it was Eddowes in the passage.

Montys contribution, with the re-creation of her dress of that evening, is something I believe makes the assertion that it WAS Eddowes even more credible. You have argued that all streetwalkers looked virtually the same, more or less, but as you can see from the pictures, the clothes worn by Eddowes had many a personal trait, giving Lawende ample opportunity to recognize the clothes afterwards.
Nice and useful one, Monty - many thanks for that!

Michael, your theory of Eddowes being moved was thought useless from the outset. No bloodstains that would go to bolster it were found, for example.
As for the facial mutilation representing torture, I think not. I think we are looking at some very quick slashing with a very sharp knife, evinced by the fact that a piece of Eddowes´ear fell from her clothing as she was lifted from the ground to be taken away from Mitre Square. The cutting all looks very random to me, and I am not in the least surprised to notice that a piece of one ear was chopped off in the process - not to be taken away, just ending up where it randomly fell.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Just from a personal feeling, although I feel Eddowes was the woman seen by Lawande and co in church passage, I still have nigging doubts if the man seen with the appearance of a seaman, was her actual killer.
To me the hand on the chest is a way of saying 'Back off'. and could well have been Kate halting sexual advances from a randy sailor, which may have succeeded, and as the man walked of, she cut through the square meeting her fate.
Bleinkensops press statement[ night watchman in Orange place] intrests me with regard to a man asking him'Have you seen a man and woman pass this way.? 'Yes' was the reply but I never paid much attention.
Question... Was this man and woman, the same couple observed at church passage, and if so, who was the man that questioned the watchman?
My answer is a plain clothes police officer...
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

To me the hand on the chest is a way of saying 'Back off'.

From the Daily Telegraph, 11th October:

[Coroner] Did either appear in an angry mood? - No.
[Coroner] Did anything about their movements attract your attention? - No. The man looked rather rough and shabby.
[Coroner] When the woman placed her hand on the man's breast, did she do it as if to push him away? - No; it was done very quietly.
[Coroner] You were not curious enough to look back and see where they went. - No.

[Gideon Fell]

Montys contribution, with the re-creation of her dress of that evening, is something I believe makes the assertion that it WAS Eddowes even more credible. You have argued that all streetwalkers looked virtually the same, more or less, but as you can see from the pictures, the clothes worn by Eddowes had many a personal trait, giving Lawende ample opportunity to recognize the clothes afterwards.
Nice and useful one, Monty - many thanks for that!
Fisherman

I'm sorry but the actual clothing worn by Eddowes would not have been as distinctive and bright as the ones shown in the photos above. Eddowes clothes were dark, dirty, worn and shabby and were only seen fleetingly by dim gaslight in the early hours of the morning. The below sketch was done at the time in Mitre Square - where are the huge, distinctive fur collar and cuffs shown in the conference photographs?