"Crime Scene" Sketch.

[Monty]

The cottages in Mitre Street which adjoined Mitre Square did not have yards.

Collard had the neighbourhood searched immediately and the backs of the cottages too.

Watkins duty was to ensure such vacant properties were secure. He did not report they weren't.

If Eddowes was killed in a dark empty house then the killer would have had to drag her into the position she was found and then mutilate her, as there were no traces of blood anywhere other than around her body.

The above begs the question why? Why not leave her in the house?

Too convoluted and contradicts evidence provided.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

Interesting.

Probably not an original thought, but is there any chance the killer could have initially sheltered in one of the empty buildings, then maybe even escaped through it?

All the best

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Don Rumbelow has suggested, amongst others, that there remains the possibility that Eddowes was first strangled, then dragged to the spot from one of the empty houses with a back yard facing the square. Some have even suggested the body being carried from this area.
Whatever the pros and cons of this idea, I would like to expand upon this a little if I may?

Exit from the square has another possibility IF the idea above is taken into consideration.
Firstly, siipping back into the empty house avoids all measure of contact at the time of the 2nd Watkins patrol. When Watkins went over to Morris, even more time was available for the assailant to make good his escape, NOT through the back of the house, but the front, unseen by Watkins. Infact, from the moment Watkins walked into the Square.

It takes around 20-25secs to walk briskly turning left in Mitre Square at the junction of Mitre Street to reach Aldgate. Turning right, around the same time until the next junction
is reached. I did this myself quite a few times this summer, varying the pace enough to use 30secs eithes way. At 30secs, the walking pace was quite normal. In my opinion however, the killer(s) would have walked at a brisk pace.
We do not know the direction of either exit nor entrance to and from the square with any certainty and I realise that this is all speculatory of course.

There lies a small, even more unlikely possibility that the apron piece not being seen at 2.20am but at 2.55am may lie in the extremely risky chance that the killer(s) lay low in the empty house. Very unlikely imho.

It takes around 15secs to walk from Ripper corner to the diagonally opposite corner within the square. Watkins, we can safely understand, probably ran.
It takes between 15 and 18 secs to walk at normal pace to the lower end of Church passage from Ripper corner, and around 12 to 15 seconds from one end of the passage to the other, at normal walking pace. It takes around 30secs to walk from the top end of the passage to Ripper corner. It must be remembered that Harvey would walk at a slightly slower pace than this.

Re Harvey- his testimony is intruiging for this poster for the lines in his testimony-
quoted in The Times of Friday 12th October, page 4-

' When he (Harvey) got to got into Aldgate, returning towards Duke Street, he heard a whistle, and saw Morris with a lamp. The latter, in answer to witness, said that a woman had been ripped up in Mitre Square. Witness saw a constable on the other side of the street. They went to Mitre Square, where the saw Watkins with the body of the deceased. The constable who followed witness went for Dr Sequiera, and PRIVATE PERSONS were despatched for other constables, who arrived almost immediately, having heard the whistle.

By a juryman.- His beat took him down Church Passage to the end.
He WAS THERE THREE OR FOUR MINUTES before he heard the whistle; it was then about 18 or 19 minutes to 2 o'clock.'

My emphasis.

(Evans, Skinner- The Ultimate Sourcebook page 258.

from the same source, on page 236 we have Harvey's WRITTEN report of inquest testimony, which mentions Constable Holland as the 'constable on the other side ofthe street' and who went for Dr Sequiera. Also-
'By the Jury- "I go as far as to the end of Church Passage. I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 mins to 2".
(Inquest reports, Corporation of London Records Office."Ref. coroners inquest (L), .1888, No.135.")

We don't know who these 'private persons' were. We don't know WHERE they came from either. We don't know WHERE they went and at what time after they met the constables "almost immediately" after being sent to look for them either. Mysterious. Are THEY the two Halse cleared Who ALSO have no name?

Please note the Times statement of WHEN Harvey heard the whistle. Poor reporting it seems? Because if not he heard the whistle before Morris blew it!

All very interesting and thought provoking.
What to make of it? Hard to call. The length of time used in traveling a given distance is important, imho.
Is there ANÖTHER newspaper report that backs up The Times reporting of the inquest testimony?

I only pose the question.

Best wishes

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

But he was sure a police man already left one entrance, so he knew he wouldn't run into one if he left via Church Passage.

Rob

I'd imagine instinct would have kicked in and he would have gone in the opposite direction to the policeman and to the nearest exit.

Instinct would dictate that. I doubt he would have stood there reasoning it out.

But, I can look out of my door into the back garden and within a distance of 15 yards I can't see a thing. If someone was stood there I wouldn't see him/her. People living in that period would have been acquainted with such circumstances, so, why leave at all in the event Harvey came so far down and walked off? There's a decent chance JTR would have been comfortable stood in the shadows.

Personally, I think that had Harvey walked down that passage then JTR would have walked the other way, under the cover of darkness at the very same time: he wasn't to know that Harvey was about to stop half way down.

Becasue of the timefrane, it's fair to say there's a decent chance he heard someone's footsteps, and I'd go with Harvey due o being the first policeman in the vicinity of the square.

[lynn cates]

new twist

Hello Rob, Joe, Harry. Interesting to see a new opinion regarding the assailant's exit from Mitre sq. If I recall properly, Gareth plumped for St. James passage and Gavin Bromley opted for Mitre st.

At least your route covers the least distance to Goulston.

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

It would only have taken about twenty seconds from the body to the end of the passageway,then a few seconds to scan Duke street.I am also of the opinion the killer left the square the way he entered,by the passage.Not sure that the light would have deterred him,if there was no evidence of another presence there to observe him.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes.

Off the top of my head a Star report 1st October 1888, also somewhere else.

It would only be recorded officially in the beat book and/or the Order Book which have not survived.

Monty

Thank you

Trevor

[Monty]

Monty
It seems that several years ago you made reference to the police beats being reversed on the night of Eddowes murder.

Would you be so kind as to clarify this and what official document this information is to be found in.

Yes.

Off the top of my head a Star report 1st October 1888, also somewhere else.

It would only be recorded officially in the beat book and/or the Order Book which have not survived.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Your quite right. Only walked it yesterday as well, so should have known.
My point is still the same though.

Regards

Rob

Hi Rob.

Its the lamp that concerns me.
If a killer, somewhat stressed and desperate, needs to make a clean but rapid exit. Is he going to head towards the light and a long passage, or towards the shadows and a short turn around a corner?

Regards, Jon S.

[sleekviper]

I would think that following Harvey makes the most sense. Anything gets discovered while trailing Harvey, doesn't Harvey have to return and verify before he can determine if the person behind him has done something? Done what? As far as Harvey would know, whatever action can not concern who is behind him since he just left the area, so whatever is wrong must be with individuals that entered after he was there. I mean if he hears "MURDER!!!" a whistle, whatever, while walking away from the area, guy right behind him can not have anymore idea of what is going on than he does, right? They were both just there, and nothing seemed wrong, so say "excuse me", run past him, and see what the noise is about. Anyone at the end looking down and sees Harvey run past this guy, does the same action thinking since Harvey ran past, no reason to not do likewise. Well, makes sense to me, and if Harvey is going to emerge from that passage, how many other officers can be close to entering? He has an element of control; what other passage would he know what he would run into better than following Harvey out? Passage where an officer has checked, or an empty one; I think he followed Harvey.

[Michael W Richards]

I always appreciate your well informed posts regarding the actions of the police of the period Monty, thanks.

Cheers.

[Rob Clack]

Church Passage?

I think you'll find from the lamp to the street,
Is something in the order of 85 feet.

Excuse the shameful attempt at the poetic..


Regards, Jon S.

Your quite right. Only walked it yesterday as well, so should have known.
My point is still the same though.

Regards

Rob

[Trevor Marriott]

No, thats not the case. That night St James Passage was not patroled down by Watkins, however you could view straight down it.

The killer had all 3 exits open to him for the majority of the period from 1.35am to 1.45am.

Monty

Monty
It seems that several years ago you made reference to the police beats being reversed on the night of Eddowes murder.

Would you be so kind as to clarify this and what official document this information is to be found in.

[Wickerman]

Yes, we are only talking about a thirty foot passage and I am not suggesting he was right up behind Harvey, more 20 odd feet behind him.

Church Passage?

I think you'll find from the lamp to the street,
Is something in the order of 85 feet.

Excuse the shameful attempt at the poetic..


Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

Michael.

Harveys record is incomplete, that is why we do not know the reasons for his dismissal.

This is not unusual as I have seen plenty of incomplete records due to misfiling, destruction, moving of records etc.

There is actually a record of Harveys dismissal other than his records (there is a note on file) and that is in the Bishopsgate order book for the period. It simply lists Harvey as dismissed along with another PC. This is in the end of month returns, as per procedure.

Usually, if there was a misdemeanor, there will be a record in the Order book that the offending PC is summonds to be seen by Henry Smith. There is no record of Harvey being seen by Smith prior to his dismissal, thus indicating whatever he was sacked for was not deemed unusual nor severe enough to be investigated by Smith, only authorised.

Therefore the evidence as it stands does not allude to Harvey being dismissed for anything out of the ordinary, with drunkeness being the most common reason.

I'm not raising this as a counter to your theory, just laying out what we know of harvey and his dismissal.

Monty