Questioning PC Harveys testimony.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Nats,Firstly, there's little that's intricate about two tiny nicks on the eyelids, and such wounds could easily be inflicted blindfold in a coal-cellar. Secondly, the Ripper was closer to Kate and would have been able to make out more, by mere dint of his proximity to the body, than Harvey at a distance ever would. That's assuming both Ripper and Harvey were in the square at the same time, of course - and I see no compelling reason to suggest that they were.

I just dont buy it:

i]at 1.35am The Ripper is allegedly seen by three men while talking quietly with Kate Eddowes .

ii]at 1.40 PC Harvey went down Church Passage -right to the end of it,looked around the square,saw and heard nothing at all when he was actually less than 50 feet away---not a rustle,not a glint of a knife or a movement of any kind while in the corner directly opposite him ie in his direct line of vision a woman was being murdered in.

iii]at 1.45 Kate Eddowes is found dead-her throat cut open,her body the same,intestines strewn over a shoulder ,kidney removed and the two tiny identical eye cuts on her eye lids.



When I think about that scene I can not accept that it could all be done in such a short time-the 9 minutes, that he is supposed to have done all this, the curious eye nicks, PC Harvey"s no see no hear stuff.PC Watkins no see no hear stuff. Morris no see no hear stuff .Blenkinsop"s no see no hear stuff and so on.

As far as the eye nicks go, I do not think it possible to have done these two ,almost identical ,tiny eye nicks ,blindfolded,Sam.
And I "ll leave it there and move on to discuss.
Best
Natalie

[Monty]

Apologies Nats,

I misunderstood.

Sam and Glenn have provided valid reasons but another is Harveys position of either under the lamp or just behind it.

Though streetlamps are far better today, try standing directly under or few feet behind it and try to pick out whats 50 yards ahead.

Speaking of darkness, this maybe why Eddowes wasnt seen, hiding in the shadows if needs.

Monty.

[Natalie Severn]

No need to apologise Monty,we all get exasperated from time to time---I am with Sam actually because I know and he knows its not valid or true to say the tiny parallel eye nicks could have been done" blindfolded" by anyone.Its a false assertion and he knows it.He was just point scoring as usual.

Well now you put the case that way well yes,I can well understand your point about the lamp suffusing and confusing everything.I can accept that if its all been tested out-----and knowing you it will have been-by yourself!
Best
Natalie

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

When I think about that scene I can not accept that it could all be done in such a short time-the 9 minutes, that he is supposed to have done all this, the curious eye nicks, PC Harvey"s no see no hear stuff.PC Watkins no see no hear stuff. Morris no see no hear stuff .Blenkinsop"s no see no hear stuff and so on.

Well, Dr Gordon Brown apparently was of the opinion that it could be done and that the whol process wouldn't take very long to perform - the vast mutilations included.

And we know from Polly Nichols murder that the Ripper was quick, silent and was able to appear on the scene, kill his victim, cut her throat and open her up (even though she wasn't as extensively mutilated) and then leave unseen, all under a short time frame between two police beats, so I don't really know what the fuzz is all about.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

iii]at 1.45 Kate Eddowes is found dead-her throat cut open,her body the same,intestines strewn over a shoulder ,kidney removed and the two tiny identical eye cuts on her eye lids.

Not quite identical, Nats - but that's another topic. What is relevant to the discussion of Harvey's evidence is the length of time the Ripper may have been in the Square. Nine minutes is a reasonable estimate, if by that one includes the entry of Eddowes with JTR, the killing/mutilation, and the killer's departure from the scene of the crime. However, it's conceivable that the whole sequence of events could have taken only 7 minutes, or slightly less.

[Sam Flynn]

all under a short time frame between two police beats, so I don't really know what the fuzz is all about.

...what a great typo, Glenn! We'd like to know what the fuzz were all about, too

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

...what a great typo, Glenn! We'd like to know what the fuzz were all about, too

Not to mention skillful, since the letter 'z' on my keyboard generally fail to produce anything when it is supposed to.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

No need to apologise Monty,we all get exasperated from time to time---I am with Sam actually because I know and he knows its not valid or true to say the tiny parallel eye nicks could have been done" blindfolded" by anyone.

They could, Nats - easily. I'm not saying that Jack was blindfolded, of course - my point is that there's nothing particularly spooky about holding a person's head in one hand and landing two dabs on their eyelids with a knife held in the other. A little light would help, of course, but it would not be strictly necessary.

Its a false assertion

It isn't. Anyone who's kissed somebody else, or nibbled an earlobe with the lights out clearly knows the layout of the human face - and that's all it would take to be able to target any part of the face with a knife. Horrible analogy, but it's the best I can do.

He was just point scoring as usual.

I was point-making, actually, but never mind.

[Natalie Severn]

Fair points Sam.
My Best
Natalie

[perrymason]

Natalie made some interesting points in one of her posts regarding Harvey's vantage point if he had walked his passage as stated.....and using one of Sams timeframe points it becomes more clear.

Sam says 7 minutes is possible for the entire attack and getaway, that puts the time at precisely when Harvey is said to be looking in. So its not just a body he must have missed in the darkness, he must have missed seeing a killer over it too. Lying flat is one thing....maybe he could miss it, heck, one of these women lying dead was confused for a tarp, ...but a figure over it, ....

If you think he was there and missed it, you must conclude Harvey is incompetent. I dont. I think he skipped a short check that Watkins would cover for him anyway within 2 minutes.

I wouldnt be surprised if Harveys dismissal soon thereafter is related to his knowing that had he been where he said he was, he would have caught "Jack the Ripper". Hows that for a career launcher. But instead, he has to live with being the guy that should have seen something.

Best regards folks.

[Monty]

Michael,

Have you studied Fosters plan, Im sure you have. Look at the junction of Horner and Co and Hedyemans.

Look at two photos if you can. The 1920s shot of the square taken from Church passage, its got the hoss n cart in it. Tell me what you see on the left. The other photo is the Whitby Green shot looking at the passage, its in Phil and Robs book. Again, whats against the wall?

[perrymason]

Ok I will Monty, but I have to get back to you later on my findings, cause believe it or not, Im working on a Sunday. Damn self employment. Its golf season for cryin out loud.

Anyway, well address this later my friend.

Cheers Monty.

[perrymason]

Ok Monty,

Ive looked through all the photos we have of Mitre here at Casebook...really easy to reference bless Stephen's heart...and the cart and hawker shot, with Kearly and Tongue in the background, has what appears to be a sewer grate or Underground ventilation shaft to his left, with what appears to be a small plank ladder leading to what I presume was a loading dock.

In other shots there you have Harveys vantage point, with Eddowes death site clearly in view without him having to even turn his head.

What did you expect me to see?

Best regards Monty.

[Monty]

Right Michael,

The ladders are for the Horner & Co loading bay. These would have been around in 1888 (though its possible there were some iron, or rather fixed steps, in he same spot at the time).

These ladders are in Harveys field of vision. Im not stating he mistook Eddowes for these but I feel theres a distraction going on there.

Also, if you have viewed the plan, the corner of Heydemanns yard and the cottages is obscured, as is the yard entrance. This because the yard 'kicks back' on the angle, from where it joins Horner & Co. Now the gap is minute and certainly not enough to shield a murderer standing upright but enough to blend in without question.

Now, of course Im not stating this happend. Im merely suggesting that Harveys view would not have been as clear as some suspect.

Monty


PS Below is the view Michael and myself are referring to.

[The Good Michael]

Monty,

You've made some good points here regarding possible vision obscurement due to lighting and the placement of objects, and these arguments do point away from negligence on Harvey's part. Yet, I would suggest that all beat policemen are, at times, less than diligent. One need only think of the many times that nothing happened in the Square on several evenings and multiple rounds of patrol to understand how easy it would be for complacency to set in. It's quite possible that both Watkins and Harvey were less than diligent, but covered each others' behinds.

I remember my 4 long years as a security policeman in the USAF. The most exciting part was gate duty because you could talk to any cute girls that came onto the base. Most often, we had many shifts, late shifts walking around the base perimeter, not allowed to speak to any other guards, only acknowledging them with a "Hey! How's it going?" from a respectable distance. Granted, this was not Victorian London where there was danger in many areas. Still, we became so complacent that a friend of mine got jumped by a hunter who took his rifle and clubbed his German Shepherd when they went into the jungle because the dog wanted to chase a rabbit.

Overall, I'd suggest that there were always at least moments of less than diligent behavior, and for some, perhaps hours on a beat. This doesn't mean they didn't walk the beat, just that they sort of zoned out at times.

Mike