No announcement yet.

Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There is evidence that in two of the murders, the murderer was disturbed before he had the opportunity to excise any organs.

    It is also a fact that organs were excised in the other three murders, with the post mortem of the last victim being conducted before the body was transported to the mortuary.

    Dr Phillips seemed to say that organs were missing when he first examined Chapman:

    [Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.


    • This is a thread about whether Lawende saw Eddowes. It is not a thread to discuss a pet theory about who stole the organs, which has derailed dozens of threads. If this is a topic of interest to anyone other than the person who created the theory, create a thread. Do not discuss the theory further on this thread.


      • Well, let's keep off organs specifically and discuss the significance of Dr Brown's opinions in the context of Joseph Lawende's possible sighting of Catherine and the WM.

        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        In both instances if as you say the coroner is referring to the wounds and the organs removals why did he not say that?
        You don't need to get carried away with the coroner. This is what Dr Brown detailed in his report. We're talking about what Dr Brown intended.

        I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.

        There is only one reasonable way to interpret that, i.e. Dr Brown believed that the crime from start to finish would have taken at least five minutes.

        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        So if that be the minimum time how long would it have taken given the conditions of the body and the lack of light?​
        Dr Brown was asked about this specific murder, at that specific location, in those specific conditions. That would suggest that when he said "at least 5 minutes", he built those factors into his estimate.

        Reasonably, it can't be a case of Dr Brown's "at least 5 minutes" plus time for the conditions/light or whatever else.

        In terms of Joseph Lawende's couple:

        Dr Brown believed that the murderer wasn't necessarily disturbed.

        Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.

        He arrived at the crime scene approx. 2.20am, he believed the crime had certainly been committed within 40 minutes, taking us to approx. 1.40am.

        Based on these statements from the inquest and his post mortem report, you would have to conclude that Dr Brown believed the circumstances of the crime did not preclude Joseph Lawende's couple being the WM and Catherine.

        On the other hand, the authority of his opinion is impeded by this part of his post mortem report:

        I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.

        In the event his reasoning is because 'the lower eyelids were nicked', then he's straying from medicine. And, 'nicking the lower eye-lids' is not evidence that the murderer 'had sufficient time' nor that the whole crime could be done in five minutes. He appears to be suggesting that 'nicking the lower eye-lids' was an incidental after-thought committed only because he had time to do more than undertake the major wounds. He was getting out of his area of expertise when making that judgement.


        • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

          If the Ripper and Eddowes entered the square as soon as Watkins left, there would have been sufficient time to commit the murder and mutilations and still encounter Watkins in the Orange Market square. We don't know if Watkins went down Sugar Bakers Yard before entering the Orange Market square, or if he stopped to chat with the firemen in the hut before walking over to the St. James passage (shades of the Stephen White story). Seven minutes would have been plenty of time between the murder and the possible encounter.

          We do know.

          "And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

          "At about a quarter before two."

          "Had you met any person on your rounds?"

          "Not a soul."

          (The Star, 1 October 1888)