Questioning PC Harveys testimony.

[Fisherman]

Monty, Jon; thanks!

Yes, Jon, Dews passage on the parading Kelly is a classic, but I always thought we needed some more than his recollections to ensure things. And it seems we have it - the prostitutes had to move about. That means that it would have been a bit harder for Kate to keep a keen eye on Watkins comings and goings. Hard to say if it rules the possibility out, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Nats,

On Watkins statement, I dont believe he states he looked right where they later knew the body must be, just that he didnt see anything. My earlier point was that at 1:42, if Jack was with Kate when seen at 1:35ish, Jack would still be there too...not just a body in the shadows, but perhaps with another kneeling over it.

Could he have missed that.....or did Jack do it all, get her there, kill her, mutilate her abdomen in all the ways he did, cut her face, cut her apron, and leave before 1:42am?

My guess is if he was seen at 1:35, he was still working at 1:42, maybe finishing, but still there with Kate when Harvey says he looks in.

Cheers Nats.

[Natalie Severn]

Mike,
Thats my take on it too!
Best
Natalie

[Monty]

Nats,

Its interesting how most pick up on the possibility Harvey Never ventured down Church passage yetr hardly anyone questions Watkins and the possibility he didnt enter the square. Especially when you read the Star report where he states that he sometimes leaves the square via Church Passage. Ive always assumed that was a reporting error as Church passage was not on his beat. However, St James passage is and I feel he may have used that route to Mitre Square from St James place and visa versa, thus may missing the corner.

That said, it must be stressed that Watkins had a duty in the corner, that is Heydemanns yard gate and the empty cottages. Again, as with Harvey, I see no evidence supporting that he missed this part of his beat. Also, with his 17 years good service, I dont think he was that type of PC.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:
"My guess is if he was seen at 1:35, he was still working at 1:42, maybe finishing, but still there with Kate when Harvey says he looks in."

...and he is seconded by Natalie.

I dug into the net, and came up with a pice from the Phil Spector trial, in which a dr Herold stated that: "it takes at least three to five minutes to visibly see "stringy material," which is blood clotting".

We know from Watkins testimony that there was both clotting and fluid blood at Kates body. If we venture a guess that she was cut at about 1.37, and that the Ripper then spent the time up to 1.42 rummaging about inside her, then the blood would have started leaving her body at about seven-eight minutes before she was found. It would have kept seeping out of her for a few minutes. All in all, that means that Michaels and Natalies scenario seems to work just fine, and we can pinpoint his leaving Mitre Square to somewhere around 1.42-1.43.
I know that I have seen plenty of material on clotting blood on the old boards. Is there anybody out there who can confirm or dispell?

The best!
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

Monty,
Good points, I must admit-especially regards Watkins service record.But when I try to envisage Watkins at 1.30 I see him doing sort of "habit duty"---ie not straying from his usual notes----almost seeing what he thinks he sees.Therefore if its pretty dark in that corner and he simply scans it with his bulls eye lamp it could have depended on a flick of the wrist whether or not he missed Kate"s body on the ground---the Ripper either flattening himself out of view or fleeing the scene----which doesnt seem likely there being no evidence of such a "flight".
But the next "flick" of his wrist does take in the corpse---parts of her limbs or the white parts of her body being glimpsed within the orbit of his lamp.
I do wonder though,seriously, if he "sensed" something at 1.30. Maybe he heard a slight rustle of clothing,unexpected movement that he thought about as he went on his round.He could have been afraid on his own at 1.30 to venture further and startle the unknown "rustler".He could have wondered if he had a knife on him on might attack him.But having had 15 minutes to think about it he may have thought better of it and thought to himself-"I"ll check out that corner again-maybe get some help if there is anything wrong"------too late! It might only have been a "hunch" that made him check out that corner in more detail.We dont know that---and he wasnt likely to say.

Fisherman------as I said in another post I dont know that anyone can be that precise as there appear to be differing clotting times for individuals.Even the temperature may influence it.


Best
Nats

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Also, with his 17 years good service, I dont think he was that type of PC.

Monty,
Not that it might mean anything for this particular issue, but wasn't Harvey sacked from the police in 1889?
And do we know why?

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I have often been of the opinion myself that Harvey's lack of noticing anything on the square seems suspicious and might indicate that he never went down into Church Passge.
However, I think it should be noted that there would be no obvious reason for Harvey to put his attention to any unrecognizable sounds or movements happening on a spot that didn't belong to his beat. Unless I am incorrect, it would take a whistle signal from a collegue or an alarm raised by another person in order for Harvey to actually depart from his strict beat. So in short, there simply might not have been any reason for him to note any occurrence on Mitre Square unless he with certainty witnessed a murder or a robbery.

All the best

[Monty]

Hey Glenn,

Monty,
Not that it might mean anything for this particular issue, but wasn't Harvey sacked from the police in 1889?
And do we know why?

All the best

I was referring to Watkins and not Harvey.

Cheers
Monty

[Fisherman]

Natalie writes:

"Fisherman------as I said in another post I dont know that anyone can be that precise as there appear to be differing clotting times for individuals.Even the temperature may influence it."

Of course individual and external variables will have an influence, Natalie. But to allow for your scenario of Edodowes perhaps being cut a lot earlier than what is traditionally thought, we must accept a major deviance in the normal pattern.
If we stick with a scenario where the Ripper cuts at about 1.37, however, it suddenly becomes a case where the evidence evinced by the clotting of the blood follows normal procedure. And such things are always very useful, even if they will of course not allow us to rule out the chances that Catherine Eddowesī blood did not follow the normal clotting pattern.


The best, Natalie!
Fisherman

[Monty]

I have often been of the opinion myself that Harvey's lack of noticing anything on the square seems suspicious and might indicate that he never went down into Church Passge.
However, I think it should be noted that there would be no obvious reason for Harvey to put his attention to any unrecognizable sounds or movements happening on a spot that didn't belong to his beat. Unless I am incorrect, it would take a whistle signal from a collegue or an alarm raised by another person in order for Harvey to actually depart from his strict beat. So in short, there simply might not have been any reason for him to note any occurrence on Mitre Square unless he with certainty witnessed a murder or a robbery.

All the best

Glenn,

For the detection or prevention of a crime. In other words, unless he felt a crime was about to be committed or he felt a crime had been committed, he would have kept to his beat and the security of those (premises or people) on it.

Also, he would not have been obliged to enter private premises unless he felt a crime was about to or had taken place, or he was requested to by a tennant, landlord or any person responsable for that premises.

People should bare that in mind when considering Long. He found a bloodied apron, felt a crime had taken place and entered the premises. He followed procedure.

Cheers

Monty

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hey Glenn,



I was referring to Watkins and not Harvey.

Cheers
Monty

Ooops, sorry, My mistake. Seems like i've lost the ablity to read with old age.
Still, Harvey did lose his job in 1889 so that might be something taken in consideration when evaluating his efforts. Again, do we know on which grounds he was fired. I assume drunkedness seems to have been quite a common ground for dismissal, but who knows?

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn,

For the detection or prevention of a crime. In other words, unless he felt a crime was about to be committed or he felt a crime had been committed, he would have kept to his beat and the security of those (premises or people) on it.

Also, he would not have been obliged to enter private premises unless he felt a crime was about to or had taken place, or he was requested to by a tennant, landlord or any person responsable for that premises.

Exactly, that's what I meant. Sounds plausible to me.
Cheers, Monty.

All the best

[Monty]

Hey Glenn,

Ooops, sorry, My mistake. Seems like i've lost the ablity to read with old age.
Still, Harvey did lose his job in 1889 so that might be something taken in consideration when evaluating his efforts. Again, do we know on which grounds he was fired. I assume drunkedness seems to have been quite a common ground for dismissal, but who knows?

All the best

I remember reading someone, think it was Chris Scott, stating its possible Harvey was reinstated in 92. Would a drunk be reinstated?

Monty

[caz]

Hi Monty,

I suppose it depends on individual cases. If good and sober men were not easy to attract into the force at the time, they might have had to consider allowing a few of the good, but previously not so sober ones back in.

People should bare that in mind when considering Long. He found a bloodied apron, felt a crime had taken place and entered the premises. He followed procedure.

I do feel this is fairly good evidence that even if pieces of dirty or bloodstained rag were a common sight in those streets and usually overlooked or ignored, the apron half must have been sufficiently noteworthy for Long to have picked it up in the first place, and its condition must have been suggestive of a violent crime as opposed to something a butcher might dump.

Since prostitutes have their favourite spots, and since they donīt take kindly to competition over those spots, there is of course the obvious possibility that "Rippers corner" was in fact "Kates corner" up til that evening. It will to some extent hang on how much of a full-time/part-time prostitute Kate was, and how attractive a spot the corner was for business.

Hi Fisherman,

If we bear in mind that Kate had just been away from her 'corner' - if that's what it was to her - trying her luck hopping, it would make sense for other unfortunates to have moved in if it was an ideal spot for business which would normally come with competition issues.

This was after all Saturday night/Sunday morning, and any prostitute who had been taking full advantage of Kate's absence would have no idea when she would return to claim her favourite pitch, if ever. I can therefore see no problem with a second 'unsavoury' couple being nearby within the same time frame, and it might in fact be surprising if there wasn't in the circumstances. I'm not saying it would be like Piccadilly Circus at rush hour, but I doubt Kate and Jack were the only ones who popped into the square that night and dodged the boys in blue.

Also, Kate was reported as wearing a chintz skirt or dress with a flower pattern. If true, it could still have been too dark for Lawende and co to notice, but more of a chance than with a plain dark material. And there would be much more material on show beneath her jacket than in the jacket itself, unless this was more like a coat.

Talking about patterns, I do wonder if Jack had more than one double event on his mind that night: a woman there for the boys in the Met (for those who can bear to stomach the idea) and a woman here for the City tecs; cachous there, thimble here; half an apron there in the square, half back here in Goulston; half a pair of kidneys there, half a pair here (wherever 'here' was).

How about half a pair of specs there, half a pair here maybe? One mitten there, one mitten here? Red silk gauze there at Kate's neck, red silk kerchief here perhaps? Any more for any more?

Oddly, the writer of the Lusk letter carries on the theme somewhat by 'gifting' half a human kidney to the enemy, after the ripper had similarly gifted his half of Kate's apron to Long: a little gift to Long, a little gift to Lusk. From 'ell to el. Perhaps the writer would have needed to split a knife in two to send that too.

Sorry Monty!!!

A bit off topic there.

And a red face here.

Love,

Caz
X