"Crime Scene" Sketch.

[Phil Carter]

Oh yes, I do recall John.

And I provided the evidence to show that whistles were not standard issue to all regular City beat bobbies till 1889...and then there was silence from you.

Phil,

I know exactly when they were issued, why, the trial, the compund, tests, who made them and when.

No need to ask Mr Hutchinson.

Monty

Then you will know how rare his is. By the way- you arent the only one who knows those things. He was told it by me. In detail. 10years ago now maybe?
Shock! Horror! Phil never said! Cos Phil doesnt have to. Phil's just quiet about what he knows. You'd be surprised. Oh, and on that note, I genuinely have no idea of a 'vendetta' by anyone. I am not part of Italian ice cream wars,
- sorry- my mistake- thats Cornetto.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

That's nice Phil,

Well done.

Monty

[Dr. John Watson]

Oh yes, I do recall John.

And I provided the evidence to show that whistles were not standard issue to all regular City beat bobbies till 1889...and then there was silence from you . . .
Monty

Hmmmm, that ain't the way I recall it! What I remember is that your "evidence" consisted of some photos dated 1888 or 1889 showing uniformed City PCs with no whistle chains visible. In response, I submitted several photos of pre-1888 City Police whistles, with identification markings fully authenticating this, which I found on auction sites. Moreover, the London City Police own web site had a section on early police equipment which stated that City PCs were issued whistles prior to 1888. I'm quite sure I posted all this in response to your post. I'm not sure if I still have the photos on my computer; I'll see if I can find them and/or retrieve the thread. Or, perhaps you have since found evidence supporting my assertion and are of a mind to simply agree that at least some City PCs were issued whistles prior to 1888.

Hopeful John

[Monty]

Yeah John,

You do that, retrieve that thread.

If you cants I'd gladly see if I can.

Correct Monty

[Dr. John Watson]

Yeah John,

You do that, retrieve that thread.

If you cants I'd gladly see if I can.

Correct Monty

Monty

Here is a link to the thread: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4652

I thought I had posted the photos of the whistles showing the date markings; apparently I didn't - and I can't locate them in my JTR folder. However the auction listing and the City web site information still indicate that whistles were assigned to City PCs prior to 1888. I don't know how accurate the dates of your photos are - I have one showing a City officer with a whistle chain that is marked 1887, but I didn't post it because I couldn't confirm the date. Bottom line: It would be strange indeed if PCs were expected to patrol dangerous areas after dark with no means (whistle, rattle or baton) of sounding an alarm.

At any rate, putting whistles aside, this 2010 thread shows that debate over Jack's escape from Mitre Square goes way back, occassioned in no small part by the actions and statements of the two PCs involved, Watkins in particular. I continue to suspect that Watkins encountered the Ripper and allowed him to escape, and that he made his superiors aware of this and was shielded to prevent embarassment to his department.

John

[Errata]

At any rate, putting whistles aside, this 2010 thread shows that debate over Jack's escape from Mitre Square goes way back, occassioned in no small part by the actions and statements of the two PCs involved, Watkins in particular. I continue to suspect that Watkins encountered the Ripper and allowed him to escape, and that he made his superiors aware of this and was shielded to prevent embarassment to his department.

John

I think the only problem I would have with that is that being the only sure living witness to Jack the Ripper, he would have been pulled into the Mary Kelly investigation to potentially identify the Ripper. I would also think he would be pretty well protected for at least a short while afterward. Like, not walking his beat for a few weeks to make sure Jack didn't clean up loose ends, or to make sure he didn't die in some stupid accident before having gone over everything he heard and saw about a hundred times. A confirmed witness to the Ripper would have been worth their weight in gold, and even the greatest living PC would have been benched to protect that knowledge.

[Monty]

Hmmmm, that ain't the way I recall it! What I remember is that your "evidence" consisted of some photos dated 1888 or 1889 showing uniformed City PCs with no whistle chains visible. In response, I submitted several photos of pre-1888 City Police whistles, with identification markings fully authenticating this, which I found on auction sites. Moreover, the London City Police own web site had a section on early police equipment which stated that City PCs were issued whistles prior to 1888. I'm quite sure I posted all this in response to your post. I'm not sure if I still have the photos on my computer; I'll see if I can find them and/or retrieve the thread. Or, perhaps you have since found evidence supporting my assertion and are of a mind to simply agree that at least some City PCs were issued whistles prior to 1888.

Hopeful John

Monty

Here is a link to the thread: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4652

I thought I had posted the photos of the whistles showing the date markings; apparently I didn't - and I can't locate them in my JTR folder. However the auction listing and the City web site information still indicate that whistles were assigned to City PCs prior to 1888. I don't know how accurate the dates of your photos are - I have one showing a City officer with a whistle chain that is marked 1887, but I didn't post it because I couldn't confirm the date. Bottom line: It would be strange indeed if PCs were expected to patrol dangerous areas after dark with no means (whistle, rattle or baton) of sounding an alarm.

At any rate, putting whistles aside, this 2010 thread shows that debate over Jack's escape from Mitre Square goes way back, occassioned in no small part by the actions and statements of the two PCs involved, Watkins in particular. I continue to suspect that Watkins encountered the Ripper and allowed him to escape, and that he made his superiors aware of this and was shielded to prevent embarassment to his department.

John

I can provide a date.

City of London Police Station No6 (Bishopsgate) Order Book entry dated 21st May 1889.

As stated, all along, the City of London Police Officers did NOT have whistles until 1889.

Monty

[Dr. John Watson]

I think the only problem I would have with that is that being the only sure living witness to Jack the Ripper, he would have been pulled into the Mary Kelly investigation to potentially identify the Ripper. I would also think he would be pretty well protected for at least a short while afterward. Like, not walking his beat for a few weeks to make sure Jack didn't clean up loose ends, or to make sure he didn't die in some stupid accident before having gone over everything he heard and saw about a hundred times. A confirmed witness to the Ripper would have been worth their weight in gold, and even the greatest living PC would have been benched to protect that knowledge.

Errata, if you read the entire thread from 2010, you know my reasoning for questioning Watkins' public statements and testimony, so I won't go into that. If Watkins did encounter the Ripper, his superiors would quickly have alerted the highest levels to that fact. Some confirmation of this comes from Macnaghten who specifically referred to "the City PC" as one who saw the Mitre Sq. killer. Watkins' value as a witness could explain why he wasn't disciplined for letting the Ripper escape. I don't think his superiors felt any need to protect Watkins, other than to conceal the fact that he came face to face with the Ripper - if, in fact, he did. Remember, I'm basing my suspicions only on the timing of events, which puts Watkins and the Ripper in the square at the same time. Perhaps Watkins didn't see the Ripper. It's also possible, for instance, that the Ripper heard Watkins approach and was able to scale the wooden gate into the yard behind him before Watkins rounded the corner and discovered the body. In the few seconds it took for Watkins to run to the warehouse for Morris, he could have gone back over the gate and fled onto Mitre Street. At this point, it's all theory.

John

[Dr. John Watson]

I can provide a date.

City of London Police Station No6 (Bishopsgate) Order Book entry dated 21st May 1889.

As stated, all along, the City of London Police Officers did NOT have whistles until 1889.

Monty

Now why didn't you post this in the first place - legitimate documentary evidence - instead of relying on Watkins' word and a few photographs? It doesn't explain why photos in Martyn Gilchrist's article on the history of police whistles show two numbered whistles, stamped "London City Police," with markings showing they were manufactured by J Hudson & Co., at 131 Barr St., between 1885 and 1888. However, your document trumps this, so I concede the fact. It also indicates that City PCs were equipped with rattles, which probably wouldn't have done Watkins much good in Mitre Square.

However, I still maintain that if Watkins times are correct, he and the Ripper were in the square at the same time. As to whether they saw each other, or the Ripper was able to conceal himself before Watkins rounded the corner, is debatable.

John

[Monty]

John,

Because I didn't have that particular document at that particular moment in time.

I'm not disputing that the City Poilice as an organisation did not use whistle prior to 1889. They did. However these were used for special ops like riot control or large crowds where something loud was required and used predominantly by the Inspectors. This is why those whistles you mention have date stamps before 1888, they would be special ops whistles I suspect.

Whistles, for the regular City beat bobbies were not standard issue till late 1889, as the document states. So watkins would not have been issued with one in 1888.

The rattle is an interesting one. From what I can gather they were being phased out and us was optional. If Watkins had one I'm sure he would have used it.

As for your theory, I do not agree with it but I cannot dismiss it either. So I respect that and will not challenge it for those reasons.

Monty

[Dr. John Watson]

John,

Because I didn't have that particular document at that particular moment in time.

I'm not disputing that the City Poilice as an organisation did not use whistle prior to 1889. They did. However these were used for special ops like riot control or large crowds where something loud was required and used predominantly by the Inspectors. This is why those whistles you mention have date stamps before 1888, they would be special ops whistles I suspect.

Whistles, for the regular City beat bobbies were not standard issue till late 1889, as the document states. So watkins would not have been issued with one in 1888.

The rattle is an interesting one. From what I can gather they were being phased out and us was optional. If Watkins had one I'm sure he would have used it.

As for your theory, I do not agree with it but I cannot dismiss it either. So I respect that and will not challenge it for those reasons.

Monty

Monty

London police specified exactly which button the whistle chain should be attached to. Reminded me that as a rookie officer, I was equipped with a silver whistle and chain, chain to be attached to shoulder strap, whistle stored in blouse or shirt pocket. It was mainly for traffic control, totally unnecessary for patrol car duty - even hazardous it turns out. My first day on the job, I was subduing a wild woman on drugs. She got one hand free and immediatly grabbed that whistle chain and yanked so hard it ripped my pocket open; worse, it distracted me for a second during which time she belted me in the face, bloodying my nose, much to the later amusement of my fellow officers. Result: Clipped the whistle to my belt, ditched the chain!

The thought that Watkins would be assigned to one-man foot patrol in a high-crime urban area, after dark, with a knife-wielding madman loose and no means to summon help, really bothered me. I couldn't believe his Department would permit such a thing. Now I know he at least had a rattle and, more importantly, he didn't lie about the whistle. Which somewhat weakens my theory about his encountering the Ripper. I'm now leaning toward the Ripper hearing Watkins' approach and hauling himself over the gate and out of sight before the officer rounded the corner. Judging from drawings of the fence and gate, I imagine it would take an extremely strong and agile man to scale it quickly - but I've always pictured the Ripper as just that sort of fellow.

John

[Garry Wroe]

... Harvey's version of events is highly improbable.

I'd disagree with that Gary,

I wouldn't say 'Highly'

You may be right, unfortunately like me you have no evidence to back up your opinion.

The evidence, Rob, lies in the timings. The delicate cuts inflicted about Eddowes’ eyes signify that the Mitre Square murder was not committed with undue haste. The fact that the killer also excised the apron portion implies that he wasn’t disturbed before completing what he’d set out to accomplish. Assuming that Lawende and party really did sight Eddowes with her killer at 1:36am, the notion that the Ripper was able to reach the crime scene, subdue, murder and mutilate Eddowes before making good his escape within a maximum four-minute timeframe is all but untenable to my way of thinking.

I suggested in my book that Harvey was not where he subsequently claimed to have been at 1:40am. Indeed, I went even further and proposed that he may have deserted his beat in order to shelter from the same cloudburst that had delayed Lawende’s departure from the Imperial Club. Whereas there is no concrete evidence to support such a contention, common sense alone ought to be sufficient to raise doubts regarding his stated version of events – doubts that are only reinforced by the recognition that Harvey was dismissed the following year for what appears to have been a similar dereliction of duty.

Like I said, it’s about the timings, and the timings only add up once Harvey’s claims are excluded from the equation. So either Harvey didn’t visit the square as claimed or Eddowes could not have been the woman sighted by Lawende and companions.

[Rob Clack]

The evidence, Rob, lies in the timings. The delicate cuts inflicted about Eddowes’ eyes signify that the Mitre Square murder was not committed with undue haste. The fact that the killer also excised the apron portion implies that he wasn’t disturbed before completing what he’d set out to accomplish. Assuming that Lawende and party really did sight Eddowes with her killer at 1:36am, the notion that the Ripper was able to reach the crime scene, subdue, murder and mutilate Eddowes before making good his escape within a maximum four-minute timeframe is all but untenable to my way of thinking.]

I didn't say the killer was disturbed, merely finished.
I don't know where you got your 1:36 am time from Lawenda says about 5 minutes after they left the club and Levy 3 to 4 minutes after the half hour which would give the killer 5 to 7 minutes, which I think would be more than enough time.

I suggested in my book that Harvey was not where he subsequently claimed to have been at 1:40am. Indeed, I went even further and proposed that he may have deserted his beat in order to shelter from the same cloudburst that had delayed Lawende’s departure from the Imperial Club. Whereas there is no concrete evidence to support such a contention, common sense alone ought to be sufficient to raise doubts regarding his stated version of events – doubts that are only reinforced by the recognition that Harvey was dismissed the following year for what appears to have been a similar dereliction of duty.]

Similar dereliction of duty? What evidence do you have of that? As I have said, we do not know why Harvey was dismissed, so there is no evidence to suggest that it was dereliction of duty. There is nothing to compare the two incidents.

Like I said, it’s about the timings, and the timings only add up once Harvey’s claims are excluded from the equation. So either Harvey didn’t visit the square as claimed or Eddowes could not have been the woman sighted by Lawende and companions.[/QUOTE]

Harvey's timings fit perfectly well for me as do Lawenda and co. Whether they saw Eddowes with her killer is another matter.

[moonbegger]

Hello John ,

I'm now leaning toward the Ripper hearing Watkins' approach and hauling himself over the gate and out of sight before the officer rounded the corner. Judging from drawings of the fence and gate, I imagine it would take an extremely strong and agile man to scale it quickly - but I've always pictured the Ripper as just that sort of fellow.

Was there a alternative means of exiting the square on the other side of that fence ?

moonbegger

[Bridewell]

As I have said, we do not know why Harvey was dismissed, so there is no evidence to suggest that it was dereliction of duty.

Hi, Rob,

I agree. Like you, I have examined Harvey's personal file (or what's left of it) and the reason for his dismissal is not recorded. I'll PM you about my thoughts.

Regards, Bridewell.