Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?

[Scott Nelson]

When Lawende and friends passed the couple at the entrance to Church Passage, the Ripper was already busy with Eddowes in the dark corner of Mitre Square. Watkins would run into the Ripper a few minutes later after the killer exited St. James passage into the Orange Market.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Do you think he heard Watkins coming and exited via Church Passage?

I reckon that whatever else happened that night, most of us would agree that the WM was in the square when Harvey began walking down Church Passage.

There is a lot of information to discuss, but I reckon some of it is more important than other bits.

The most likely scenario to me is that when PC Harvey began walking down Church Passage with his lantern, towards the WM, the WM didn't stay put and he left via the closest exit.

It's not without its problems, however.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You have to believe that the WM was fortuitous in that he chose not to exit into Mitre Street, which was the closest exit to him.

Do you think he heard Watkins coming and exited via Church Passage?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Lawende was able to identify Eddowes by her clothing, including her bonnet.

Neither Chapman nor Kelly was wearing a bonnet.

Watkins arrived in Mitre Square at 1.30 a.m. and checked its exits.

If he left Mitre Square at 1.32 a.m., then if the woman seen by Lawende was not Eddowes, and had been chatting with the man for a couple of minutes, then Eddowes and the murderer would have had to enter the square at about the same time that the other couple were chatting in Church Passage, and had they entered via Church Passage, then there would have been two couples in Church Passage at the same time, and that raises the possibility that Lawende would have seen two couples.

The fact that the woman had placed her hand on the man's chest suggests that they were not about to split up.

Harvey was in Church Passage at 1.40 and could reasonably have expected to see them there at around 1.38 had they still been there.

If they did conclude a deal, why would the woman have taken the man somewhere other than Mitre Square and in that case, why would she have been soliciting so close to Mitre Square?

It must be one of the most hotly debated aspects of the case over time.

Whichever way you go, there are leaps of faith involved.

It could quite easily be argued the other way.

I don't believe the WM knew the police beats, but it is often argued that he did: then why stand idly at Church Passage with so little time before Watkins came back 'round and why go in that place at all knowing Harvey's and Watkins' beats. Leaving aside the police beats, it's convenient to think that the couple 'concluded a deal' just at the right time to make it work and just at the right time to be seen by Lawende and associates. And, in the event he didn't know the police beats, then the WM had an enormous and implausible slice of luck.

It all has to work like clockwork and the WMs judgement has to be fortuitous.

They 'conclude the deal' just at the right time to make it work. It has to go smoothly for the WM, i.e. he has to be able to get Catherine in the position he wants her very quickly.

When PC Harvey walked down Church Passage, you have to believe that the WM made a very bold decision to stay put when a policeman was walking towards him with a lantern. It is debatable how far that lantern would have reached, but Watkins saw Catherine's body from say 25 feet. At the bottom of Church Passage, Harvey would have been approximately 70 feet away. 50 feet is not far. P.C Pearce said he could see the body clearly from his bedroom window, so it might not have been as dark as we imagine. The doctors weren't surprised the WM was able to carry out his work in that corner, suggesting it wasn't altogether pitch-black.

You have to believe that the WM was fortuitous in that he chose not to exit into Mitre Street, which was the closest exit to him.

You have to believe that the suggested minimum time for undertaking the mutilations was that which happened, which again would be a huge slice of luck in order to make it all fit, i.e. working as quick as he possibly could which unknown to him would enable him to avoid Watkins (unless he knew the police beats and was working to that time, but even in that event it takes some believing that he was able to do what he did while keeping his eye on his more than likely non-existent watch).

You could take the points one by one and reason them out with a decent argument to suggest otherwise, but putting them all together: it is an implausible scenario.

There's no easy answer for this one, leaps of faith whichever way you go.

I reckon there are fewer leaps of faith involved in believing Lawende and associates did not see Catherine and she was already in the square at that point.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Lawende was able to identify Eddowes by her clothing, including her bonnet.

Neither Chapman nor Kelly was wearing a bonnet.

Watkins arrived in Mitre Square at 1.30 a.m. and checked its exits.

If he left Mitre Square at 1.32 a.m., then if the woman seen by Lawende was not Eddowes, and had been chatting with the man for a couple of minutes, then Eddowes and the murderer would have had to enter the square at about the same time that the other couple were chatting in Church Passage, and had they entered via Church Passage, then there would have been two couples in Church Passage at the same time, and that raises the possibility that Lawende would have seen two couples.

The fact that the woman had placed her hand on the man's chest suggests that they were not about to split up.

Harvey was in Church Passage at 1.40 and could reasonably have expected to see them there at around 1.38 had they still been there.

If they did conclude a deal, why would the woman have taken the man somewhere other than Mitre Square and in that case, why would she have been soliciting so close to Mitre Square?

[Bridewell]

Of course if that be the case then they would have been talking which would have been heard in the square. Would the killer have risked carrying out the murder with known persons in close proximity especially if the door was ajar and a light on perhaps the killer would have been able to see the police man if that had been the case.

Two sides to every argument !

Trevor, how do we know (a) that they would have been talking and (b) that, if they were, they would definitely have been heard at the far side of Mitre Square?

[caz]

Hi Caz-

I wasn't trying to imply or infer anything. Just my random thoughts. No offense intended.

Edward

And certainly none taken, Edward. Apologies if I gave that impression. I was merely clarifying my own thoughts.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Hello All –
The fact is, the punters were up to no good themselves and wouldn’t want to be disturbed or observed. I doubt that any of them would want to do the deed in front of an audience, so two people (the client and the victim) would each have to miss noticing Jack the Lurker. Eddowes was said to be found lying in the darkest corner of Mitre Square, so a lurker would have to be hiding in the next-to-the-darkest spot.

In the Hanbury Street case, a lurker would have to be present in the yard before the victim and client entered the yard (unlikely) or the lurker would have to pass the punter in the passageway in order to get to the victim. The Jack the Lurker idea may have some merit, but it raises other problems/questions. Talk about superhuman powers of invisibility …

On the other hand, it is quite possible that a John would not come forward no matter what he saw. He would have to “out” himself if he became a witness. Then, there is the observations of the medicos that no 'connexion' had occurred.

The lurker notion may fit some of the murders, but is highly improbable in a couple of them.

Edward

A very valid point dear sir our killer did not have superhuman powers it is quite possible he was seen by somebody or even disturbed in the middle of his gruesome work by somebody who was up to no good themselves and didn't come foward.

[Edward]

Lurker

Hi Caz-

I wasn't trying to imply or infer anything. Just my random thoughts. No offense intended.

Edward

[Scott Nelson]

Taking a cue from Frankie Goes to Hollywood..

[caz]

Hi Edward,

I wasn't suggesting Jack the Lurker followed Chapman and a customer through to the backyard, merely that he could have seen her talking to a man (eg the couple Mrs Long saw) out on Hanbury St, that man could have carried on his way, then Jack could have engaged with her when nobody else was around and enticed her to the backyard.

All I'm really saying is that when Jack was on the prowl for a prospective victim, she wouldn't necessarily have been on her own when he first saw her. This could have been to his advantage if there were other witnesses around, who would naturally suspect whoever she was talking to when they heard she had been murdered. All he had to do was wait for everyone else to depart before making his own move. If it didn't work out, it would be on to the next opportunity.

I'm not sure that no signs of sexual activity is that relevant. Sex wouldn't have taken place in front of witnesses, as you say, but any of the victims could simply have been chatting, or trying to ply their trade without success, or even being mistreated when Jack first saw them.

In any case, I suspect many sexual encounters consisted of a simple hand job, which need not have left any evidence on the woman.

Love,

Caz
X

[Edward]

Jack the Lurker

Hello All –
The fact is, the punters were up to no good themselves and wouldn’t want to be disturbed or observed. I doubt that any of them would want to do the deed in front of an audience, so two people (the client and the victim) would each have to miss noticing Jack the Lurker. Eddowes was said to be found lying in the darkest corner of Mitre Square, so a lurker would have to be hiding in the next-to-the-darkest spot.

In the Hanbury Street case, a lurker would have to be present in the yard before the victim and client entered the yard (unlikely) or the lurker would have to pass the punter in the passageway in order to get to the victim. The Jack the Lurker idea may have some merit, but it raises other problems/questions. Talk about superhuman powers of invisibility …

On the other hand, it is quite possible that a John would not come forward no matter what he saw. He would have to “out” himself if he became a witness. Then, there is the observations of the medicos that no 'connexion' had occurred.

The lurker notion may fit some of the murders, but is highly improbable in a couple of them.

Edward

[caz]

Hi GM,

And of course it needn't have happened like that every time. But when unfortunates are involved, or at least women who gave the appearance of being willing to earn a few pence from any passing stranger, who knows how many innocent men engaged with them in one sense or another (hoping for a sexual encounter, or just some conversation, or even to be abusive) in the hours, minutes and seconds before it was their killer's turn?

By all accounts these women were not out to "keep themselves to themselves".

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

We have similar situations with Chapman and Stride, where the last man allegedly seen with each victim need not have been the man who killed them. The killer could have been following, watching and waiting in the wings, with the aim of striking as soon as the woman was alone and any witnesses had departed.

You know Caz, I like this thought. JTR was a lurking opportunist. Perhaps he got his sexual gratification (or his rage build-up) from lurking in dark places, watching the women do the deed, and then pouncing on them, making them pay for their (and his) act of carnality. The idea is he would put himself through this punishment of watching the sexual acts and then do what he felt he had to do. I am pretty sure that the regular punters would just button up and go home once they were finished. I doubt there was any romantic walking back somewhere arm and arm...not there...not then. Still, this would require perfect luck and perhaps explains why there weren't more frequent murders. The situation would have had to allowed for a sexual act, a dark hiding place, and the departure of the John, leaving the woman in isolation. This is of course just a cursory look at this concept.

Mike

[caz]

On that basis how do you explain how they finished up in the murder location ?

The victim must have walked on her own steam to that location.

Yep, Trev. But Eddowes was already in Mitre Square, whether she arrived with her killer, or with some other innocent man. The ripper could have followed the couple and waited for them to go their separate ways. He would have needed to wait until Lawende and co were out of sight and earshot in either scenario - so time enough for anyone with Eddowes to have taken his own leave and the ripper to strike.

Stride got to Dutfield's Yard under her own steam, and Chapman presumably went willingly with her killer to the backyard. But we don't know she didn't speak to any other men in Hanbury Street beforehand.

Love,

Caz
X