Striking after being seen?

[Raoul's Obsession]

Another weird detail is, PC Harvey went into Church Passage as far as Mitre Sq – but not into the square – at 1.40 and saw and heard nothing, although the murder site was opposite Church Passage, there was a street lamp in Mitre Square, and the square cannot be that big.

I realise that the square was poorly lit, and also that the corner in which the murder occured was the darkest in the square - but I agree that this has always bothered me. In patrolling his beat, he would have gone down Church Passage but not into the square - but by standing at the end (or near the end) of Church Pasage he would have been looking directly at the murder site, and at a time where he may very well have seen the murderer in action. If Jack was in there, I think it's unlikely he wouldn't have been seen.

I see two likely options:
1. the murderer had heard the approaching policeman and left - I think a dead motionless body would be less likely to have been found and was maybe overlooked in the gloom.
2. The policeman never went that far up Church Passage - I believe it had a kink in it such that you couldn't see into the square from Duke street? I think that while he perhaps should have gone that far up the passage, maybe he was running late, and didn't, and lied.

[Supe]

Mr. Mac,

Dr Brown claimed it couldn't have been done in less than 5 minutes, and Watkins is on the scene at 1.44am.

Perhaps Dr. Brown was wrong and it was done more quickly. After all, in estimating the time to do what was done Brown was mindful of the cautious way a surgeon would proceed in order to protect a patient's life. Jack did not have that concern, as evidenced by the fact he was rather careless in extricating the womb.

Don.

[Wickerman]

Estimation of time of death is not an exact science, even today and Victorian doctors estimated time of death by touch of skin alone. I would give all times of death in these murders a little leeway.

It is very possible they got it wrong by 5 mins.

Garza.
Your conclusion is correct, they could have got the time of death wrong by 5 mins, at least.
Nineteenth century doctors used three principal means of estimating time of death. Body Temperature (Algor Mortis), Body Stiffening (Rigor Mortis), and Blood Settling (Livor Mortis), and they are still in use today.
Today we complement those with other methods but the doctors involved in these murders most certainly used the principal three above.

Body Temperature is still the most reliable method, Body Stiffening is subject to a number of variables both as to it's cause & duration. Blood Settling is only of use providing the body has not been moved.

Regards, Jon S.

[ChrisGeorge]

I’m disinclined to take any of the witness testimony in this case very seriously as I am fairly sure that whoever they saw was usually not the victim and still less the victim with the Ripper, and then even if they did their minds would have muddled up and confused things to such an extent to make their testimony almost worthless.

They would have all been influenced by the mythology of the case. The first instances of witnesses claiming to have seen the victim with the culprit were associated with the Chapman murder, by which time ‘Whitechapel Murder’ hysteria was in full swing.

Basic human powers of observation and recall when confronted with either an unusual or unexpected situation or conversely recalling mundane situations a day after the event (and the witness sightings would have appeared mundane and unmemorable at the time) are notoriously poor.

Hello Lechmere

I agree with you about the virtual valueless-ness of the eyewitness testimony. This is a case in which there is too much information. Too many murder locations. Too many witnesses who thought they saw something but probably did not. The information is contradictory and self-cancelling much like, if you will, the assertions of certain police officials who claimed to have the answer to the case but most probably did not.

Best regards

Chris

[Fleetwood Mac]

Estimation of time of death is not an exact science, even today and Victorian doctors estimated time of death by touch of skin alone. I would give all times of death in these murders a little leeway.

It is very possible they got it wrong by 5 mins.

They did give a time range. Give or take 5 minutes, with the earliest being 1.40 when taking 5 minutes.

I think it helps that she was killed not long before the doctors arrived at the scene. Fewer variables; a recent killing made it easier to identify the time of death.

[Fleetwood Mac]

He could have killed her at 1.36 - those extra minutes would make all the difference.

A minute to wait until the 3 witnesses were out of sight, close the deal, choose the corner, get into position and kill her? I'd say 1.37 earliest.

But:

What should we make of Dr's Brown and Sequiera - one said certainly no earlier than 1.40; the other said probably no earlier than 1.40. These were people in the know about these sorts of things.

[Garza]

K,

Dr Brown was certain that the earliest the murder could have taken place was 1.40. Dr Sequira felt it was probably no earlier than 1.40.

Two doctors, trained in this sort of thing, in agreement re 1.40 being the earliest time of the murder.

Estimation of time of death is not an exact science, even today and Victorian doctors estimated time of death by touch of skin alone. I would give all times of death in these murders a little leeway.

It is very possible they got it wrong by 5 mins.

[Monty]

What was odd about the Morris and Watkins exchange?

Monty

[Lechmere]

He could have killed her at 1.36 - those extra minutes would make all the difference.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The “sailor” seen by Lavende is quite suspicious.
BUT one of the problems with him is, if he was Jack, he would have struck immediately after he had been seen by no less than three witnesses with his victim, standing with his face towards them.
He could not rely on them not paying much attention or not discerning much in the badly lit spot. He had to reckon with them giving a detailed description of him or recognizing him.

K,

Dr Brown was certain that the earliest the murder could have taken place was 1.40. Dr Sequira felt it was probably no earlier than 1.40.

Two doctors, trained in this sort of thing, in agreement re 1.40 being the earliest time of the murder.

In the event you place store in their opinion, then that decreases the possibility that our sailor wasn't Jack.

It would fit quite nicely:

Lawende and associates walk past at 1.35 and Jack and Eddowes are having a fairly amicable chat. Presumably by the time they're out of sight, and Jack convinces her it's a good idea to go into the square, and they choose a corner, make their way there, and he does his killing thing: 1.40ish sounds about right.

One big problem:

Dr Brown claimed it couldn't have been done in less than 5 minutes, and Watkins is on the scene at 1.44am.

This would mean he was disturbed, and I for one think this is a decent shout.

I suppose the other option is that Watkins wasn't there at 1.44am (and actually arrived later), but then Dr Sequiera arrives at 1.55am (so 11 minutes to run around a bit, stand and stare, make your way to Jewry Street, the doctor to put some clothes on and make his way to the scene seems believable).

It explains the City PC witness, the only person to get a good look at him; and explains the problem with Lawende or Schwartz being the witness.

It also explains the odd exchange between Watkins and Morris: Watkins does Morris the courtesy of knocking on his door when he's just found a butchered a woman, the door is ajar and he knows Morris is inside.

Lawende & co, and the doctors' times fit, as does Dr Sequiera's arrival time.

The one thing that doesn't is that Jack kills Eddowes at 1.40am and is out of there by 1.43am without being seen.

[Addy]

Kate was found in the darkest corner, where the light wasn't working that night. Only when a lantern was shining on the body, so from close range, was she visible. And the night watchman, working in one of the buildings in the square, saw and heard nothing and he had the front door open at one point.Even a policeman living in the square heard and saw nothing. So a policeman not seeing and not hearing anything as he didn't enter the square but passed it, doesn't surprise me.

Greetings,

Addy

[K-453]

Another weird detail is, PC Harvey went into Church Passage as far as Mitre Sq – but not into the square – at 1.40 and saw and heard nothing, although the murder site was opposite Church Passage, there was a street lamp in Mitre Square, and the square cannot be that big.

[Lechmere]

I’m disinclined to take any of the witness testimony in this case very seriously as I am fairly sure that whoever they saw was usually not the victim and still less the victim with the Ripper, and then even if they did their minds would have muddled up and confused things to such an extent to make their testimony almost worthless.
They would have all been influenced by the mythology of the case. The first instances of witnesses claiming to have seen the victim with the culprit were associated with the Chapman murder, by which time ‘Whitechapel Murder’ hysteria was in full swing.

Basic human powers of observation and recall when confronted with either an unusual or unexpected situation or conversely recalling mundane situations a day after the event (and the witness sightings would have appeared mundane and unmemorable at the time) are notoriously poor.

Of course the culprit would not be thinking this if he was seen and I think he would have moved on to find another victim if he felt he had been compromised.

Up until the file were effectively closed the police where totally in the dark as to who did it, notwithstanding the self-serving after the event ‘I knew who it as all along’ type memoirs that came from several usually senior officers.
That is why several culprit ‘types’ remained under the spotlight – such as ‘sailor’ or ‘mad Jew’, and why a witness such as Lawende (who lived a stable lifestyle and so was easily traceable and retrievable) may have been used again.

How seriously can we treat the claim that Lawende recognised the clothes – when confronted with what must have been a set of cut and bloody garments? Not very seriously I would suggest.

Having said that the man seen by Lawende could have done it – he may have relied on the fact that it was a fleeting sighting. I would say that 8 minutes was ample time for him to complete his work. The Nichols attack, although nowhere near as elaborate, must have been over and done in a couple of minutes. The time factor does not rule out the Lawende sighting as being that of the Ripper

[Tom_Wescott]

So Lawende did not get a good look at Eddowes, and as Swanson was not wholly convinced of the value of Lawende's sighting it serves us no credit to put more faith in Lawende than Swanson did.

What you say makes sense, and you may be right, but I think we should consider the politics of the Oct. 19th report to Home Office that you're quoting. The purpose of it is to show HO that they're making 'progress' with the investigation, and illustrating that the City Police - with only one murder on their books - have produced a more viable witness than the Met would probably not be an observation that Swanson would want his superiors to make.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Lawende describes the man as 30 years old, 5 foot 7 inches tall, fair complexion and mustache with a medium build. He is wearing a pepper and salt colored jacket which fits loosely, a grey cloth cap with a peak of the same color. He has a reddish handkerchief knotted around his neck. Over all he gives the appearance of being a sailor. Lawende will later identify Catherine Eddowes clothes as the same as those worn by the woman he saw that night.

this suspect description is quite good, compared to the others, so it's fair to say that he got a good look at the suspect......

Yes Malcolm, but that is our assumption, Swanson had a different opinion at the time, he wrote:

"I understand from City Police the Mr Lawende, one of the men, identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man".

Meaning, even Swanson was not convinced the couple were Jack & Eddowes.

Subsequently Swanson made further comments:

"...... even Mr Lawende states that he could not identify the man, but also the woman stood with her back to him, with her hand on the man's breast, he could not identify the body mutilated as it was, as that of the woman whose back he had seen, but to the best of his belief the clothing of the deceased, which was black was similar to that worn by the woman whom he had seen, and that was the full extent of his identity."

So Lawende did not get a good look at Eddowes, and as Swanson was not wholly convinced of the value of Lawende's sighting it serves us no credit to put more faith in Lawende than Swanson did.

Incidently, the Sadler "witness" was never identified by name, and the result was of no value either.

Regards, Jon S.