Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kates missing 45 mins

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Hello all,

    Ultimately, of course, as has been pointed out, we will in all probability never know the answer to this conundrum. However, I respectfully disagree as to there being little point in knowing about the missing last 45 minutes of Eddowes life. It may indeed be extremely important.
    Disregarding the "alleged" sighting of Eddowes by Lawende, the last person to 100% positively identify her, was a policeman...the policeman who let her out of custody at 1pm. The next person to see her, at 1.45pm, was also a policeman. Difference being of course, one saw her alive, one saw her dead. In between, normally a roughly 7 minute walked journey took possibly a good 40 minutes. In consequence of rain, wearing men's boots.

    Now, apart from the obvious fact that had she carried on walking, from the police station, directly towards Mitre Square, it would have taken far less time than it did, we are left with only plausible, not even probable. However.

    My point comes back to what we know for certain. And PC Watkins own testimony about the whole evening on his beat, is of crucial importance to those 40 minutes.

    Because... Even if Eddowes walked directly to Mitre Square in 7 minutes.. Watkins, would likely have seen her at 1.15pm when he would apparently be previously in Mitre Square. So clearly, if he didn't see her at 1.15pm, and upon exiting the square saw no person in Mire Street (remember, his own testimony states he saw "no-one all evening", she simply wasn't there at that time, not approaching the square from Mitre Street at that time.

    Which now brings PC No. 2 into the picture. P C Harvey approached Mitre Square via Church passage. His, was a beat which approaches Mitre Square from the opposite direction to Watkins, on another 30 minute beat. But...taking into account the time used by Eddowes in getting to Mitre Square, it brings his testimony to the fore.

    Harvey's beat was as follows.. His route took him from Bevis Marks to Duke Street, into Little Duke Street, to Houndsditch; thence from Houndsditch back to Duke Street, along Duke Street to Church Passage, from which he walked its length, as far as, but not entering Mitre Square. Then back again into Duke Street to Aldgate, from there to Mitre Street, back again to Houndsditch, on to Little Duke Street, again back to Houndsditch, on to Goring Street, up Goring Street and returning to Bevis Marks.
    Estimated 30 mins.

    Right.

    It means that as he had arrived at Church Passage around 1.40pm, and saw nothing, and heard nothing,
    He'd likely have done exactly the same at 1.10pm as well.. 30 minutes earlier. Now because he went from there (Church Passage) on his beat to Aldgate, and from there into Mitre Street on to Houndsditch.. Between 1.10pm and 1.25pm, he obviously did not have see Eddowes on his route, like Watkins, on his.
    Which means.. That at the specific time that Eddowes would have been walking towards Mitre Square either towards, the southern end of it via, Mitre Street, or from the opposite end via Church Passage Duke Street and Aldgate, according to the PC's themselves.. She simply wasn't there at that time. Why?

    Because both PC's saw no one whilst on their beats.

    And the third entrance to the Square, via The Orange Market (St. James Place) was manned by a Met Police Fireman, who did not see Eddowes either.

    So the obvious answer is that when Eddowes entered Mitre Square, she had obviously come from a direction not covered by the policemen, Watkins and Harvey, and that the timing of said arrival in Mitre Square just happened to coincide with no policeman being anywhere near there.. I. E. After 1.15am.

    That is... IF... IF.. Ye Olde PC's weren't having a tea break somewhere during that time. Now.. That's where dear old Morris, the nightwatchman comes in. He stated he normally heard the boots of a policeman enter the square.. But not that night.. Nope. He heard nothing, all night, we, are told. So he didn't hear Watkins, all night, every 30 mins, when he normally did.. Didn't hear Harvey walking down Church passage every 30 mins, and didn't hear Eddowes in men's boots enter the square, nor any other person, for that matter.

    Makes you wonder if there was a sudden time warp of deafness that affected Morris, where Morris doesn't hear one policeman, Watkins, at least 8...EIGHT times that night.. And another, Harvey at least 9.. NINE times that night. When he "normally hears the policeman's footsteps".

    And all of the above, happened in those 40 minutes.



    Phil
    Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


    Justice for the 96 = achieved
    Accountability? ....

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
      ...

      And the third entrance to the Square, via The Orange Market (St. James Place) was manned by a Met Police Fireman, who did not see Eddowes either.
      We don't know that Phil.

      James Blenkingsop, who was on duty as a watchman in St. James's-place (leading to the square), where some street improvements are taking place, states that about half-past one a respectably-dressed man came up to him and said, "Have you seen a man and a woman go through here?" "I didn't take any notice," returned Blenkingsop. "I have seen some people pass."
      Star, 1 Oct. 1888.

      As both Watkins & Harvey make no mention of seeing a man & woman, or woman alone (whom they had been given orders to look for) anywhere in the nearby streets, then the only witness who was vague, but did see someone, but was not sure who he saw, then this must surely be the one broken link.
      I prefer to believe the 'people' seen by Blenkingsop were possibly Eddowes & her killer, but he clearly admits to not paying sufficient attention.
      So, we can't rule out Eddowes entering Mitre Square from St. James Place.

      Hope you are keeping well Phil.
      Last edited by Wickerman; 03-11-2021, 04:30 AM.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        We don't know that Phil.

        James Blenkingsop, who was on duty as a watchman in St. James's-place (leading to the square), where some street improvements are taking place, states that about half-past one a respectably-dressed man came up to him and said, "Have you seen a man and a woman go through here?" "I didn't take any notice," returned Blenkingsop. "I have seen some people pass."
        Star, 1 Oct. 1888.

        As both Watkins & Harvey make no mention of seeing a man & woman, or woman alone (whom they had been given orders to look for) anywhere in the nearby streets, then the only witness who was vague, but did see someone, but was not sure who he saw, then this must surely be the one broken link.
        I prefer to believe the 'people' seen by Blenkingsop were possibly Eddowes & her killer, but he clearly admits to not paying sufficient attention.
        So, we can't rule out Eddowes entering Mitre Square from St. James Place.

        Hope you are keeping well Phil.
        Hello Jon,

        I'm as well as.. Etcetera etcetara.. Thank you for asking. Hope you are yours, are well too?

        Ok.. I'll accept the Orange Market possibility. But of course, again, we cannot be sure.. Because it reflects on the sworn statements of Watkins and Harvey. Why?

        Well.. If Blenkinsop, the fireman on duty said "I have seen some people pass".. Then they have a 50% chance of passing into Mitre Square, and a 50% chance of coming out of Mitre Square... Which again asks the question... If Blenkinsop saw "some people".. How come Watkins saw "no one" all night long? It simply makes those three statements, by Watkins, Harvey and Morris, look like outright lies..
        Why?
        Because if "some people" passed Blenkinsop INTO Mitre Square, the chances of each and every person not being seen by either policeman in or around Mitre Square are small as they entered and then exited up Church passage or into Mitre Street.or the reverse...

        ​​​​​​.. . Not to mention Morris, who normally heard the police footsteps every night... He heard absolutely nothing ALL EVENING.. At least 17 visits by 2 policemen and also "some people" either entering or exiting the square nearest his back door! Those chances are truly astronomically small. Was he conveniently deaf that night?

        Best wishes

        Phil
        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


        Justice for the 96 = achieved
        Accountability? ....

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          What do you think she had in mind to use as money?
          How can you be certain she had none or any means to? How do you know if she didn’t have an arrangement with certain public houses or with people who frequented them?

          It is clear the police thought that was exactly what she was going to do:


          "What time is it?" she asks Hutt.
          "Too late for you to get anything to drink." he replies.
          "I shall get a damn fine hiding when I get home." She tells him.
          Hutt replies, " And serve you right, you had no right to get drunk."
          Hutt pushes open the swinging door of that station.
          "This way missus," he says, "please pull it to."
          "All right'" Kate replies, "Goodnight, old ****."
          Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
          JayHartley.com

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by erobitha View Post

            How can you be certain she had none or any means to? How do you know if she didn’t have an arrangement with certain public houses or with people who frequented them?

            It is clear the police thought that was exactly what she was going to do:


            "What time is it?" she asks Hutt.
            "Too late for you to get anything to drink." he replies.
            "I shall get a damn fine hiding when I get home." She tells him.
            Hutt replies, " And serve you right, you had no right to get drunk."
            Hutt pushes open the swinging door of that station.
            "This way missus," he says, "please pull it to."
            "All right'" Kate replies, "Goodnight, old ****."
            Can you name any of those public houses that offered credit to alcoholic street women?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Can you name any of those public houses that offered credit to alcoholic street women?

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Yes Trev. I have intimiate knowledge of each public houses across Whitechapel and surrounding areas credit policies from September 1888. Sarcasm detector should have gone off there.

              It is the least likely of the scenarios, but still more likely than your sanitary towel one. We cannot rule out she had money when she was in the police station and spent it as soon as she could at pub that she knew was open. She may have then been on the lookout for business to pay for her next drink. We also cannot rule out arrangements she may have or may not have had people in pubs for buying her drinks if she performed favours.

              This is the mind of an addict.
              Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
              JayHartley.com

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

                Hello Jon,

                I'm as well as.. Etcetera etcetara.. Thank you for asking. Hope you are yours, are well too?

                Ok.. I'll accept the Orange Market possibility. But of course, again, we cannot be sure.. Because it reflects on the sworn statements of Watkins and Harvey. Why?

                Well.. If Blenkinsop, the fireman on duty said "I have seen some people pass".. Then they have a 50% chance of passing into Mitre Square, and a 50% chance of coming out of Mitre Square... Which again asks the question... If Blenkinsop saw "some people".. How come Watkins saw "no one" all night long? It simply makes those three statements, by Watkins, Harvey and Morris, look like outright lies..
                Why?
                Because if "some people" passed Blenkinsop INTO Mitre Square, the chances of each and every person not being seen by either policeman in or around Mitre Square are small as they entered and then exited up Church passage or into Mitre Street.or the reverse...

                ​​​​​​.. . Not to mention Morris, who normally heard the police footsteps every night... He heard absolutely nothing ALL EVENING.. At least 17 visits by 2 policemen and also "some people" either entering or exiting the square nearest his back door! Those chances are truly astronomically small. Was he conveniently deaf that night?

                Best wishes

                Phil
                Hi Phil
                I know I keep saying this but much of the witness testimony we are asked to accept as being the gospel does not stand up to close scrutiny, time and time again we see conflicts between witnesses that were never expanded upon and should have been at the inquest when the witness testimony was first given. Then to add to the confusion we then see newspaper reports of the inquests which also then print conflicting accounts not just about the inquest, but accounts that we see which then conflict with other newspaper reports which now leaves the door open for researches who have their own theory, to adopt whichever report or witness testimony that suits.

                Now I am not going to lay the blame firmly at the feet of the coroner because his role was simply to ascertain the cause of death, but I believe the police having taken these statements, and then someone of a more senior rank having read them before putting them before the coroner should have identified these conflicts and ambiguities and taken steps to clear them up. This clearly did not happen and now 130 years later we are left trying to establish what was the truth and where that truth lies..

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                  Yes Trev. I have intimiate knowledge of each public houses across Whitechapel and surrounding areas credit policies from September 1888. Sarcasm detector should have gone off there.

                  It is the least likely of the scenarios, but still more likely than your sanitary towel one. We cannot rule out she had money when she was in the police station and spent it as soon as she could at pub that she knew was open. She may have then been on the lookout for business to pay for her next drink. We also cannot rule out arrangements she may have or may not have had people in pubs for buying her drinks if she performed favours.

                  This is the mind of an addict.
                  Dr Brown
                  "I removed the contents of the stomach, there seemed very little in it in the way of food or or fluid"


                  Doesn't seem like she had been consuming alcohol, perhaps we should rule out that explanation as to where she went and stick with the sanitary towel theory? Because recent debates on the apron piece, and now debates on where she went after release add even more weight to that theory.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Dr Brown
                    "I removed the contents of the stomach, there seemed very little in it in the way of food or or fluid"


                    Doesn't seem like she had been consuming alcohol, perhaps we should rule out that explanation as to where she went and stick with the sanitary towel theory? Because recent debates on the apron piece, and now debates on where she went after release add even more weight to that theory.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    She had been ‘banged up’ most of the day which explains that - but I never said she was successful in obtaining drink either - she may have spent 45 minutes looking for it. Or even soliciting to raise money to buy it.
                    Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                    JayHartley.com

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                      She had been ‘banged up’ most of the day which explains that - but I never said she was successful in obtaining drink either - she may have spent 45 minutes looking for it. Or even soliciting to raise money to buy it.
                      Equally she could have made her way home putting herself in close proximity to the Goulston Street archway

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                        How can you be certain she had none or any means to? How do you know if she didn’t have an arrangement with certain public houses or with people who frequented them?
                        Speculation on top of speculation. What is a fact is that her list of possessions still exists, everything she carried on her self as she was admitted at Bishopsgate station. She had no coins, no money.

                        It is clear the police thought that was exactly what she was going to do:
                        Not at all, Hutt was being sarcastic. He knew she may still attempt to earn some money by prostitution, but all the pubs were closed, just a simple fact.


                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Dr Brown
                          "I removed the contents of the stomach, there seemed very little in it in the way of food or or fluid"


                          Doesn't seem like she had been consuming alcohol,......
                          Trevor, I think you know that alcohol is absorbed by the stomach very quickly, and the post-mortem was only conducted about 13 hours after her murder. Plenty of time for any alcohol to be absorbed, I'm also sure the doctors will have known that too, which is why I don't think the doctor was meaning specifically alcohol when he said fluid.

                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Trevor, I think you know that alcohol is absorbed by the stomach very quickly, and the post-mortem was only conducted about 13 hours after her murder. Plenty of time for any alcohol to be absorbed, I'm also sure the doctors will have known that too, which is why I don't think the doctor was meaning specifically alcohol when he said fluid.
                            But does the body still continue to absorb alcohol when a person dies, To mind mind the body functions cease at the time of death.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Speculation on top of speculation. What is a fact is that her list of possessions still exists, everything she carried on her self as she was admitted at Bishopsgate station. She had no coins, no money.



                              Not at all, Hutt was being sarcastic. He knew she may still attempt to earn some money by prostitution, but all the pubs were closed, just a simple fact.

                              Speculation that Hutt was being sarcastic.
                              Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                              JayHartley.com

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Hi Phil
                                I know I keep saying this but much of the witness testimony we are asked to accept as being the gospel does not stand up to close scrutiny, time and time again we see conflicts between witnesses that were never expanded upon and should have been at the inquest when the witness testimony was first given. Then to add to the confusion we then see newspaper reports of the inquests which also then print conflicting accounts not just about the inquest, but accounts that we see which then conflict with other newspaper reports which now leaves the door open for researches who have their own theory, to adopt whichever report or witness testimony that suits.

                                Now I am not going to lay the blame firmly at the feet of the coroner because his role was simply to ascertain the cause of death, but I believe the police having taken these statements, and then someone of a more senior rank having read them before putting them before the coroner should have identified these conflicts and ambiguities and taken steps to clear them up. This clearly did not happen and now 130 years later we are left trying to establish what was the truth and where that truth lies..

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                                Hello Trevor,

                                Here's a little, tiny goodie to consider.

                                When Eddowes was released from police custody, the last part of the conversation went as follows..

                                Hutt pushes open the swinging door of that station.
                                "This way missus," he says, "please pull it to."
                                "All right'" Kate replies, "Goodnight, old ****."

                                Now I'll ask a daft question. According to Hutt, he PUSHED the "swinging door" of the station, open.
                                But he asks Eddowes to "PULL IT TO" as she leaves.

                                According to the first line then, the door to the station opens outwards.
                                Yet in the next line, it clearly opens inwards, as Eddowes, is, asked to PULL the door to, not Push the door to, behind her.

                                Why is this little tint bit important?

                                Firstly, because the way the door opens means that if it was Eddowes pushing the door open, she would be in front of the policeman, Hutt, when exiting. If an inward facing door, it would possibly be Hutt opening the door for her. But... And here's the but..
                                Eddowes was asked to "pull the door to" upon exiting, which indicates Hutt was nowhere near the door when she walked out, as he asked her to pull the door to after her.

                                Also, because, I'm very unsure how a person can see which direction a person walks away from the door if the door is an inward opening door, unless there was a window in said door.. Something I'm unsure about.
                                And if Hutt was nowhere near the door.. He'd have to be near a window to see which way she turned. (unless the door had glass windows in).

                                Hutt makes no mention of from where he saw Eddowes leave, only mentioning the direction she walked. How did he know?

                                Best wishes

                                Phil

                                ​​​​​​
                                Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                                Justice for the 96 = achieved
                                Accountability? ....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X