Questioning PC Harveys testimony.

[Tom_Wescott]

Simon,

It seems you're again reading what you want to into those words. Clearly, he's not saying he fit them together over a bloody corpse. He's merely illustrating where the different pieces were when discovered. To fit them together, they must have been laid out on a flat surface. No grand conspiracy here, my friend.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Tom,

Read Doctor Brown's words again—

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

There's nothing equivocal about that.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

If you say so, Simon.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Simon,

Read Doctor Brown's words again—

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

There's nothing equivocal about that.

It depends to what the "still attached" refers. "Still attached as I matched the pieces together", or "Still attached when the body was found in Mitre Square". It seems reasonably clear to me that the latter meaning was intended.

Inspector Collard's inquest testimony, summarised in the Times, would appear to confirm this: "A portion of the apron produced was found on her, and the other portion, which was picked up in Goulston-street, would also be produced".

Or, Collard in the Evening News: "Witness [Collard] here produced a portion of deceased's apron found on the body after the murder, which he said corresponded with another piece found in Gouldstone street later on".

Collard in the Echo: "The portion of an apron (produced) was what deceased was wearing, and corresponds with the piece of apron which has been found in Goulston-street."

Finally, with useful additional detail, Collard in the Daily News: "The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. The body was then taken to the mortuary. It was stripped in the presence if the two doctors and myself. No money was found on it. The piece of linen produced, which was found in Gouldstone street, corresponds with a piece which is missing from an apron the deceased was wearing at the time of the discovery of the body."

[Fisherman]

Gideon Fell writes:
"As for 'Fisherman', he is an opinionated one isn't he? I'm afraid that I cannot begin to imagine that a 21st century reconstruction is more accurate than the drawing of Eddowes made in situ by someone standing there looking at the body and quite obviously he isn't going to spend time drawing flowers all over the skirt. "

Well, Gideon, if you really can´t even begin to imagine such a thing, I´m afraid that you may be the opinionated one here...
If, Gideon, the drawing left out the flowers, and the structure of the stockings, and their mending, and Eddowes´jackets fur lining - well, then there is no telling what more it left out or misrepresented, is there?

The fact that the re-creation of the dress in Wolverhampton HAD the flowers as well as the fur linings and collar, actually means that you may want to be careful to speak of me as opinonated for pointing to the obvious lacks of the drawing.
Whichever way, I think it would be as stupid a thing to argue over as was the comparison between Schwartz´description of BS man and the drawing of Michael Kidney, when that was thrown forward on another thread.
The same goes for this discussion as did for that - I could be right, you could be right, and we could both be wrong. No way of proving that, I´m afraid. And thus a stupid thing to stake your nights sleep on, Gideon!

Your not so very opinionated
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

I'm not being obdurate. I just don't see Brown's words meaning anything other than "At the time I fitted the two pieces of apron together, the piece with strings was still attached to Eddowes' body."

What's the problem with him doing that?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I'm not being obdurate. I just don't see Brown's words meaning anything other than "At the time I fitted the two pieces of apron together, the piece with strings was still attached to Eddowes' body."

Hi Simon,

I didn't think you were being obdurate at all - your point about Brown's words is fair enough. However, I'd recommend looking at the words of other witnesses - and more than one newspaper account, too.

If we read Halse's testimony in the Times, the matter is practically clinched. Halse "came through Goulston-street about 20 minutes past 2, at the spot where the apron was found, and he then went back to Mitre-square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing. He accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, where they heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. He then went with Detective Hunt to Leman-street Police-station, where he heard that the piece of apron that had been picked up had been handed to Dr. Phillips."

So, the body had already been undressed when Halse arrived at the mortuary at 02:20, and it was only after this, when Halse and Smith returned to Mitre Square, that the Goulston Street fragment became known to him. Halse then took a trip to Leman Street station, where he learned that Phillips had been given possession of the apron fragment after Long had discovered it, and handed it in, some time after 02:55.

It's fairly clear that the body had already been stripped at least 35 minutes before the Goulston Street fragment had even been found, and that the matching of the two pieces of cloth must have happened quite some time after the garment had been removed from her body.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

How could the body have been stripped at least thirty five minutes before the Goulston Street piece of apron was found (2.55 am)? At "about 2.22 am" Doctor Brown had only just arrived in Mitre Square to examine Eddowes' body.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

How could the body have been stripped at least thirty five minutes before the Goulston Street piece of apron was found (2.55 am)? At "about 2.22 am" Doctor Brown had only just arrived in Mitre Square to examine Eddowes' body.

Fair shout - however, Brown got to Mitre Square at about a quarter past two, and the body was removed to the mortuary shortly after half-past two. Halse saw the undressed body at the mortuary not long after this, and left for Mitre Square shortly afterwards. On arrival at Mitre Square (must have been after 02:55), Halse heard that Long had found an apron fragment in Goulston Street and had handed it over to Dr Phillips - time unknown, but obviously after 02:55. It's clear that Eddowes' body had already been undressed and was lying at the mortuary before Long had even made his find in Goulston Street.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom & Sam - the latest cabal!

Thanks for backing me up with all that hard data, Sam. The only computer I can use these days is my work computer. Since you and I agree on most points, howzbout you just follow me around the boards and provide the data to my patter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Sounds good to me, Tom - discussion of "orthopaedics" and women's lib excepted

[Tom_Wescott]

Agreed. Your orthography and my mysoginy leave much to be desired. But Ripperologically speaking, we're up there with other mighty duos, such as Laverne and Shirley, Siskel and Ebert, Amos and Andy, Bush and Blair, Morris Day and his black manservant, Captain and Tenille, the list goes on.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[egmond06]

Could there be another reason?

As PC Harvey had been a serving policeman for 12years & assume a good one or he might have been dismissed before 1889, could the reason for his dismissal in 1889 not be from the drink but from the terrible site he saw that night..which may have caused his work to suffer? Is it not possible to now get his police record after so long?

[miss marple]

harvey 1881 census

Harvey is in the 1881 census as
James Harvey Police constable age 26, unmarried born Ashburnham Sussex,
Lodging at Bishopsgate Police station.
All the constables were living there. The Inspector then was John Egan.
It might be possible to get his records. What about the black sheep index which shows reprimands against the police?
Miss Marple

[fido]

very good caveats, Monty.
All the best,
Martin F