Questioning PC Harveys testimony.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Monty,
yes-point taken.
The issue I am most interested in here is the strength of PC Harvey"s testimony.
Celesta mentioned accuracy of clocks.Well some were"nt all that accurate ,of that we can be pretty certain ,but the type of watch used by a policeman on a beat,probably was.
I am in two minds about why Harvey would have been "more" likely than not to have been paying special attention.Almost a month had elapsed since Hanbury Street which is some half mile from Mitre square and in the mets province.Would Harvey really be extra vigilant still?
But you are correct to point out that others could have "cross-examined" him-and did not.He on the other hand IMPLY"S that Lawende and co are either mistaken or had got their time wrong------or else he would have seen them.
I am inclined to believe PC Harvey here.....it was them who who got their time wrong,either that or more likely it was a different couple -more likely for the woman to be placing her hand on his chest if she was being a bit coy-I wouldnt put it past Kate to act coy with a stranger,but I dont think it was her somehow .I wonder where she had been for at least twenty minutes,having been seen leaving the cop shop at 1.00 which would normally have her arriving at Aldgate by 1.10.

Also , I cant quite go with the idea that the ripper was not seen by anyone at all-when outside that square Aldgate was teeming with police-who had probably heard about the murder in Berner Street and were looking out for him.But I believe that in such circumstances the Ripper would have not have allowed himself to be seen by three men especially not to be seen with his next victim.
From Berner Street to Mitre Square takes less than 15 minutes,at an average speed.So he could easily and more likely have arrived there by 1.10.---which if you think about it would be more or less the time Kate would have arrived there from Bishopsgate Police Station where she was released at 1.00.
So in my view they met ,not at 1.30 at Church Passage,but at 1.15----at the very latest!
This makes much more sense to me because it allows for a situation where Kate is not hanging round Mitre Square waiting for a man to appear,but has already met her man for the night"s doss money and is inside that square with him by 1.17 at the very latest.Alternatively she could have met him outside Aldgate Station in Aldgate High Street by 1.10 which is even nearer Berner Street and on the right path too for him as well as nearer the more usual spot for "meeting clients".Somebody reported having seen "a man and a woman walking away from Aldgate towards the square.
Anyway this brings the time back by 15 minutes at least to between 1.10 and 1.20 -leaving less time for Kate to have been waiting for her client and less time for Jack to be waiting around for his next victim,having just committed murder in Berner Street.
Where, at this point, is Harvey?I guess he could have had his peek down Church passage and been walking away from the pair up towards Bevis Marks as they approached Mitre Square.
Natalie

[The Good Michael]

Excuse me! I thought we knew that Harvey was the Ripper and that he went to an asylum on the coast, and that someone took his place as Harvey to protect the good name of the police force. Remember that John Drake (who may be watching now) supposedly uncovered this information, wrote a book, and had a press release last September or so? He then went back to firewalking and other BS activities, if I'm not mistaken. Harvey's so yesterday.

Mike

[Monty]

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.

Certainly? I must have missed that report in the files.

Michael,

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

Why?

Nats,

The timing is never accurate, thats my point regarding this particular issue.

Whats 1.42am to Harvey may have been 1.45 to Lawende.

Mike,

Yeah, so yesterday.

Whereas a 120 year old set of murders are so 2008.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Hi Natalie!

Let´s not forget that Lawnede did identify Eddowes by the clothes she wore. The chance of two women in that vicinity, at that time, wearing the same clothes, would be a very slim one, I think.

There is also the question of the blood. And in this case, we have excellent reference material, since we have Strides murder taking place within the hour.

Strides time of death would have been somewhere between 00.45 and 1.00. If, for theorys´sake, we settle for 00.52-00.53, being exactly in the middle of this given period of time, and if we surmise that Johnston arrived in Dutfields Yard somewhere around 1.10, preceding Blackwell by some five, six minutes, then we are dealing with a seventeen-eighteen minute span between the cutting of the throat of Stride and Johnston´s examination. And what Johnston said was that the body was "all warm except the hands, which were quite cold." Blood had stopped flowing from Elizabeth's throat wound. Further up the yard, a stream of blood had clotted, and there was very little blood left by the neck.

And where does all of this leave us with Eddowes if you are right? Then they would be inside Mitre Square at 1.17 ”at the very latest”, and if we surmise that the Ripper dispatched swiftly of Eddowes, say cutting her neck at 1.18-1.19, then there would still be 26-28 minutes to wait for Watkins arrival.
And when he arrives, he notes that there was ”clotted blood on pavement near left side of neck, around shoulder, and upper part of arm, Fluid blood under neck and right shoulder.”

So! We have Strides blood leaving her from a more superficial wound than the one Eddowes suffered, and clotting in seventeen-eighteen minutes, whereas Eddowes´blood is still fluid after twenty-six to twenty-eight minutes, having left her body through a more severely cut throat.

To me, it does not add up. If, however, she was cut in accordance with the schedule provided by Lawendes sighting, perhaps around 1.36-1.37, then that leaves us with between seven and nine minutes for the blood to start clotting to a minor extent at some places, whereas it was still fluid in others, then it suddenly makes a lot of sense.

I move for the latter, traditional scenario, although I cannot account for Eddowes´movements prior to her ending up in Mitre Square. I think your reasoning about the timeline is very relevant, and agree that she would have arrived considerably earlier in Church Lane than somewhere after 1.30, if she had headed there without any interruptions.

The best, Natalie!
Fisherman

[Monty]

Hey Fisherman,

Let´s not forget that Lawnede did identify Eddowes by the clothes she wore. The chance of two women in that vicinity, at that time, wearing the same clothes, would be a very slim one, I think.

What clothes were mentioned in Lawende report?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Hi Monty!

Why is it that I have a sense that you need no answer to this one?

You are of course asking a good question. The Lawende description is essentially a description of the clothes of the man he saw, and not of the woman. Meaning that I may have stepped into a trap, accepting what has always been said about the identification - that Lawende identified Eddowes by her clothes.
The one thing that is mentioned at the inquest does not give very much: "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." And a black jacket and bonnet is not much to go on, I admit that. But then again, there are many varying types of jackets and bonnets, and the ones Lawende saw would not have differed very much from the ones Eddowes wore.

The most economical way to have that issue settled will probably be to lean back and wait for your next post, so that is what I will do.

By the bye, didn´t one of Lawendes friends estimate the womans height at the exact height of Eddowes?

The best, Monty!
Fisherman

[Monty]

Hi Fisherman,

Im actually working off memory mate. No trap, honest.

OK, lets look at inquest testimony.

Joseph Lawende: I reside at No. 45, Norfolk-road, Dalston, and am a commercial traveller. On the night of Sept. 29, I was at the Imperial Club, Duke-street, together with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o'clock, when we left. I observed a man and woman together at the corner of Church-passage, Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square.
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.
[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.

He noted Black jacket and bonnet. No mention of the skirt, which was dark green. If he couldnt recollect the skirt then this leaves a black bonnet and jacket, common attire.

These were passing glimpses. Lawende and Co had no real reason to make a full study. Fleeting seconds.

There was really nothing distinctive about this womans attire in my opinion.

However, he may have noted the skirts so I wouldnt hold too much against my point to be honest.

Personally, despite all I have said, I feel this was Eddowes.

Levy stated that the man was 3 inches taller than the woman, who he put at around 5ft. We tend to gauge height against ourselves. I suspect left wasnt a tall man.

Shame Levy was a Butcher instead of a carpenter.

Cheers

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty!

Anybody who wants to push the issue that the woman Lawende saw was NOT Eddowes can of course do so, without taking the risk of being proven wrong.

I still say, agreeing with you, that the woman most probably was Eddowes.

There would probably not have been a great many people around at that time of night. If there was another pair present, the odds that she would be wearing clothes that could be mistaken for Eddowes diminishes the risk further. And I think that we must accept that though Lawende said nothing of the colour of the skirt, we can probably allow ourselves to rule out some possibilities. The skirt could probably not have been of just any colour to be approved of by Lawende as not swearing against what he saw. It could probably not have been of a very bright colour to be accepted, or have had a distintive pattern, for example. Then again, as almost all skirts were of a dark nature, that does not give much to go on.

Things like bonnets and such, could vary a lot in size and shape, though, just as jackets could vary inbetween them, and the fact that Lawende actually said that he believed that what he was shown by the police matched what he had seen on "his" woman goes a fair way to strengthen his feeling that it was Eddowes he saw, I think.

And if you couple this with my view on the clotting/fluid blood, I think that Lawendes sighting seems to be more or less exactly right chronologically too. I really do believe that it was Kate in the passage that night...!

The best, Monty!
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

Monty,
I agree that the synchronising of watches and clocks could and probably was a bit hit and miss.

Fisherman and Monty,
I have done that walk several times from Bishopsgate to Mitre Square as well as Bishopsgate to St Botolphs and am certain that it would have taken Kate no more than ten minutes,bringing her arrival time to 1.10 at latest-it takes 7 minutes at an average pace.
It was raining according to the three witnesses so its possible Kate took shelter on her way there,maybe in a shop doorway.The problem with this is that it was not the most populated part of town ,since then as now,Houndsditch it is the border between The City of London and Whitechapel.In the City everything traditionally closes down on Friday night,and though there may have been a few clubs still open and maybe some late night cafs, I reckon most places were closed.Therefore two thoughts come to mind.
i]if Kate took shelter in Houndsditch,the PC on duty there would have likely seen her.She was alone,at that time of night -up to no good? etc etc.As far as we know nobody saw Kate in Houndsditch,Leadenhall Street or any where else on her way to Mitre Square.
ii]So why was she heading for the area?

The usual thinking is that she was headed for St Botolph"s or Aldgate High Street.Ok.....why then was she on the wrong side of the road ie coming from Bishopsgate to St Botolphs she would usually have stayed on the left hand side of that road----but no-----she goes almost on a "detour"-see old maps-to reach "Church Passage".Its not in the same direction as St Botolphs or of Aldgate High Street.
But lets say she has already gone direct to St Botolphs-or Aldgate High Street.She has met a punter and set off with him back to Mitre Square where they will have some privacy.Just as they reach Church Passage, they stop,chat and Kate gently and quietly puts her hand on his chest.If this is Kate with Jack the Ripper ,fresh and very fired up from a murder just committed and probably interrupted in Berner Street.Would he,could he have had the presence of mind, to be loitering with his lady victim, under a lamp in Church passage all this,all this under a lamp and all this in full view of three men-only 8 or 9 feet away?
I really cant see the Ripper behaving like this.Apart from Lawende and co, there were the other police around that spot that night-round Aldgate,round St Botolphs.
But they could have slid in from the opposite side of the Square,from Mitre Street,from the entrance in Mitre Street which is just a few feet from twhere Kate was found and which was without light.
PC Harvey would almost certainly have missed them because his beat didnt take in Mitre Street,so his testimony could be completely accurate.
PC Watkins on the other hand could either still have been up in Leadenhall Street, or if action began about 1.17, he may have peeked in ,seen nothing because the ripper hid both himself and Kate,and gone on his way not realising anything was happening.In any case ,unless he shined his torch on them, he could have missed the murderer altogether.
Best
Natalie
Fisherman,
I understand blood clots at different rates dependent on age and health.

[Ben]

Would he,could he have had the presence of mind, to be loitering with his lady victim, under a lamp in Church passage all this,all this under a lamp and all this in full view of three men-only 8 or 9 feet away

Unavoidable, Nats.

If the ripper habitually inviegled his victims by posing, initially, as a client, he'd have to stop and talk to them first, and the chances of him not being seen doing this in such a densely (and noctural) population as the one we're interested in was slim to non-existent. He was flesh and blood. He was seen.

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Hey Fisherman,

For fear of berating myself, Im reluctantly going to post on this unrelated matter....stuff it, my gaff, my rules

Yeah, I understand your reasoning and agree. However, there is no certainty.

I will say that we know prostitutes knew their patch, and the PCs beats. She may have been fully aware that at 1.35am, Watkins would have just left the square and that Morris wasnt due to smoke his pipe that evening. It all kinda makes sense. I know Watkins reversed his beat, and this may account for the missing time Nats, its possible Eddowes was looking for something to eat and drink and whilst she did so may have logged Watkins returns to the Square from the passage.


Has anyone asked why Levy is so anti this couple? It seems, to him and me, that this was an obvious prostitute and client conversation. I can understand his uneasiness however I feel there may be more to this than merely a moralistic stance.

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

I wonder,Monty,if Kate would have been so savvy as to know PC Watkins beat ,after being comatose for several hours?
Why did none of them see her?
The only reason I can think is that she made her way to St Botolphs/area of Aldgate;arrived there at 1.08-1.10.The Ripper left Berner Street-arrived at Aldgate at 1.05-1.10.They went off together to Mitre Square entering it via Mitre Street,and slipped behind Mitre Street directly into the corner of Mitre Square[the crime scene]for transaction.
This might account for neither PC Harvey nor PC Watkins seeing them .
I"m posting these two pics to show what I mean.
Pic 1 of Aldgate which is the short strip of road seen between Houndsditch and Mitre Street.The people walking along it in the pic would be taking the route I imagine Kate took accompanied by the ripper from either St Botolphs-seen at the end of Aldgate or from Algate Station just behind it, at about 1.12 am.The corner is Mitre Street which I think they may have turned into----total time-- one minute from St Botolphs to Mitre Street.

pic 2 is the crime scene seen with its entrance from Mitre Street
total time to get from St Botolphs to crime scene 2 minutes.

Cheers
Natalie

[Fisherman]

First off, Ben, I agree with you on the point that the Ripper was seen. Many a time, I should think.

This "unseen ghost"-stuff is all very improbable. Of course, he would have preferred to be unseen, and he may well have taken precautions to avoid being seen. But the amount to which he was left unseen was something he could only affect to a limited extent - there is no stopping people who turn up by accident, who peak out their windows, who turn into a previously empty street and so on.

So what we are looking at here is - at least to my mind - a man who WAS seen (by Lawende, for example) before killing, and who was also seen after killing - but not recognized. He would not have left the murder sites running, dripping with blood. In all probability he dried his hands when the need was there (as shown by Eddowes´apron, if I am correct), and the method he employed, with the bleeding from the throat, ensured that he got very little - if any - blood on him.
He must have walked away, cool as a cucumber, from the various murder sites, thus attracting no attention. Seen by many, recognized by nobody.

Natalie, of course there will be differences inbetween people when it comes to clotting blood. But I think that when it comes to differences in age and health, there is nothing much to show for it in the material. There was only one stiff year between them (and today was Kate Eddowes´birthday, incidentally...!), and the extra ten minutes you are proposing is a LONG time in this respect. Things do point to Eddowes´blood on that pavement being freshly shed, as far as I´m concerned.

Oh, and of course, when it comes to scheduling Eddowes´arrival at Church Passage so as to fit a corresponding departure from Berner Street, I of course do not recognize the existence of such a problem. But that is for other threads and occasions...!

Monty, since we have no timetable for Eddowes plying her trade, I suppose you may be right on the issue of her keeping track of Watkins beat. But I think such a supposition involves a guess that she kept to that exact district, and that she felt assured that nothing would have changed schedulewise since before she went hopping. Myself, I think it may be asking a little too much from her.

Levis´antipathy towards the couple he saw seems a bit odd, I agree. Maybe the guy in Church Passage looked like a ruffian, I don´t know. It is when you couple Lawendes rather neutral description of the guy with Levy´s obvious affection and disliking that it becomes strange to the ear. But Lawende only described length and clothes (although he added that the guy looked "rough and shabby), he said nothing much about the "aura" of the man. In that, the answer to Levy´s disliking may be hidden, I guess.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

Fisherman I notice you are stuck on a Church passage encounter so I will leave you to it.Ditto Kate"s brights disease-found by doctor and an indication of very poor health.
Ben,
What you say about Houndsditch and Aldgate and Leadenhall Street is not borne out by police witness statements that night.Aldgate High Street on the next block-might have been busy with butchers-surprising on a Saturday night but possible but not the other City areas.Re read the police statements and nightwatchman"s and Lawende and co to see what I mean here.
Neither PC Harvey ,PC Watkins or PC Long saw him so shall we leave it at that?
Best
Natalie

[Fisherman]

Natalie!
Maybe we should turn to the dissertation ”Another look at the Lusk kidney” on these boards, before making too much out of Kate´s condition. This ”indication of very poor health”, as you put it, is something we perhaps ought to be very careful about.

As the dissertation points out, ”Bright´s disease” was a name collectively given to a number of conditions, heavy drinking (!) being one of them. Here is the relevant piece from the dissertation:

”What, then, of the Bright's disease, which we are told infected both the Lusk Kidney and Eddowes´ remaining right kidney? The condition of "Bright's disease" received its name from Richard Bright, an English internist and pathologist who first described the symptoms of this ailment in 1827. Today, it is more commonly and specifically called "chronic glomerulonephritis;" in 1888, however, the term was a catchall applied to a collection of various signs and symptoms of kidney disease emanating from a variety of different causes, one of which was thought to be the excessive intake of alcohol. It should be noted for the purposes of our discussion here that in 1888 "Bright's disease" was also used as a synonym for "nephritis," which is a nonsuppurative inflammation of the kidneys. This was not uncommon among the poor and destitute of the East End, and it would not be at all surprising were Catherine Eddowes to have suffered from this condition.”

Moreover, the sicker you need to get Kate to support your suggestion that her blood would not coagulate willingly, the more you will have to side with major Henry Smith, for it was he who put Kate in that sad state of hers more than anybody else through his memoirs. And he is not a good guy to side with in matters of seeking for the truth.

So, in fact, we cannot say whether Kate had the disease or not, as strengthened by this wording from that same dissertation:

”Dr Brown's post-mortem states that he found Eddowes' "right kidney pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids." N. P. Warren notes that such a description clearly indicates Bright's disease; unfortunately, not all medical opinion is in agreement on this point, and we cannot yet take it as given that Eddowes suffered from this condition.”

Moving on, the real disease actually does bad things to your kidneys – if the disease is long gone. This is how the changes that occur in the kidney as a result of Brights disease are described on the net:

”While the volume of the organ is always increased, there may be no perceptible change to the naked eye where the inflammation is mild. The fibrous capsule is loosely attached, and may be easily stripped off, unless previous inflammation has resulted in firm attachments. In the more severe form, however, the organ is swollen, of a dark-red color, and when incised, the cut surfaces drip blood, and the tissue is soft and friable. The pyramids and malpighian bodies are found deeply stained, which change to a mottled appearance as the disease progresses.”

No mentioning of the worser scenario in Kate´s case, is there? So if she HAD Bright´s, it may well have been a mild case of it.
And maybe just as well, for if we need to find a disease that explains why she could have bled longer than Stride did, Bright´s does not seem to be the right way to go.
For how is Brights disease treated, medically? Well, a commonly used substance from nature is Motherwort. It decreases high blood pressure, something that follows with Brights disease, if I read the sources correctly.

And this is how Motherwort is described:

”Motherwort is primarily an herb of the heart. Several species have sedative effects, decreasing muscle spasms and temporarily lowering blood pressure. Chinese studies found that extracts decrease clotting and the level of fat in the blood and can slow heart palpatations and rapid heartbeat”

So Motherwort, prescribed for Brights disease, actually DECREASES clotting of the blood. And if Eddowes carried a disease that made her blood clot easily, then that makes it a whole lot harder to accept your proposed early arrival on her behalf in Mitre Square.

Uncertain diagnosis to begin with - and an apparently useless diagnosis to prove slow coagulation even if right.

The best, Natalie!
Fisherman