Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?

[Wickerman]

so if the couple lawende saw wasnt eddowes and the ripper, not only did he have to be mistaken and see a different couple, but he also just happened to mistakenly see the correct type of hat on the man. This is like the absurd reasoning on the other thread where everyone has to be incorrect in just the right way. insanity continues.

What makes the hat correct?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

For me, the simplest solution and the pivotal piece of information, is that when PC Harvey began his walk down Church Passage with his lantern; the WM left via the closest exit, which of course means that Lawende's couple were not Catherine and the WM.

Why does the fact that Mitre Street was the closest exit to the scene of the murder preclude the woman seen by Lawende having been Eddowes?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The problem with that line of thinking is that you'd have to believe that Catherine didn't know the area either. In the event one of them did, then the path of least effort is to walk in via Mitre Street, the shortest distance to the darkest part of the square, pass a few unoccupied buildings; in contrast to the north west part of the square with activity late at night, and back out again the way they came (or so they both thought).

I don't know whether you are suggesting that Eddowes did enter the square via Mitre Street, but what would be more natural than for a prostitute meeting a prospective client in Church Passage to suggest to him that they go into Mitre Square and walk straight ahead to the very part of the square where she was found?

Why indeed was she standing at the end of Church Passage unless she was planning to go with someone to the other end of it?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have been arguing for about the last year that it is likely that the murderer left the square via Mitre Street, both because that would have afforded him the most logical route to Goulston Street and because it is unlikely that he would have followed Harvey, so to speak.

I have also argued that the reason Harvey did not see the couple from about 1.38 a.m. is that they had indeed moved on - to Mitre Square.

I asked the additional question: why did he not see them together after leaving Church Passage?

If one had murdered the other, that would certainly explain it.

I have also asked the question: if Watkins encountered the murderer after leaving Mitre Square, why did he not mention it to his superiors or at the inquest?

If no such encounter had occurred, that would certainly explain that too.

I agree with you on PC Watkins.

On whether or not you believe Lawende and associates saw the WM, it would depend on your conclusion with regard to the pivotal piece of information.

For me, the simplest solution and the pivotal piece of information, is that when PC Harvey began his walk down Church Passage with his lantern; the WM left via the closest exit, which of course means that Lawende's couple were not Catherine and the WM. That's the starting point for me because it is based upon researched human behaviour and that for me is of more importance than our speculation on who saw whom when.

In my view, the simplest and most reasonable solution is that's what happened and the reason PC Harvey didn't see the unrelated couple is because they'd moved on by the time he got there.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have been arguing for about the last year that it is likely that the murderer left the square via Mitre Street, both because that would have afforded him the most logical route to Goulston Street and because it is unlikely that he would have followed Harvey, so to speak.

I have also argued that the reason Harvey did not see the couple from about 1.38 a.m. is that they had indeed moved on - to Mitre Square.

I asked the additional question: why did he not see them together after leaving Church Passage?

If one had murdered the other, that would certainly explain it.

I have also asked the question: if Watkins encountered the murderer after leaving Mitre Square, why did he not mention it to his superiors or at the inquest?

If no such encounter had occurred, that would certainly explain that too.

The only reasonable explanation I can think of for the WM leaving by the St James Place exit, or Church Passage for that matter, is that he didn't know the area and they came in by St James Place.

In that event, that would be the path of least effort for him given he wouldn't know where the other exits would take him to. It involved running across the square, but he'd know where the St James Place exit would take him to and beyond: his best option in terms of least effort to accomplish a task, which was escaping and getting home.

It's not a given that he knew that area. It depends on who he was, e.g. what trade he was in, his associates and so on.

This is purely anecdotal: I grew up in the 1980s in a working class community and there were villages a few miles from me that I didn't know existed until I was about 30 years old. There were villages a mile from me and I didn't know anyone from those villages and I'd never been to them except passing through on a main road. The reason being that we went to different schools and when we were old enough to drink, they went west and we went east. We didn't know anyone from there and so no reason to go.

When you add in that until say the 1950s everything that you needed was in your local area, then there's no real need to travel that far unless business or work or some such takes you that way. In the event your work takes you in the other direction then it really isn't a given that he knew the area and that question would be an interesting conversation/thread in itself.

The problem with that line of thinking is that you'd have to believe that Catherine didn't know the area either. In the event one of them did, then the path of least effort is to walk in via Mitre Street, the shortest distance to the darkest part of the square, pass a few unoccupied buildings; in contrast to the north west part of the square with activity late at night, and back out again the way they came (or so they both thought).

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Whatever else happened that night, whichever reports we favour, whatever speculation we apply: the WM leaving the square via the Mitre Street exit as PC Harvey approached, is a pivotal moment dictated by evolutionary factors that govern human action.

PC Harvey didn't see the couple because they had moved on. That's not much of a stretch.

I have been arguing for about the last year that it is likely that the murderer left the square via Mitre Street, both because that would have afforded him the most logical route to Goulston Street and because it is unlikely that he would have followed Harvey, so to speak.

I have also argued that the reason Harvey did not see the couple from about 1.38 a.m. is that they had indeed moved on - to Mitre Square.

I asked the additional question: why did he not see them together after leaving Church Passage?

If one had murdered the other, that would certainly explain it.

I have also asked the question: if Watkins encountered the murderer after leaving Mitre Square, why did he not mention it to his superiors or at the inquest?

If no such encounter had occurred, that would certainly explain that too.

[Wickerman]

Hi PI1,

Macnaghten memorandum - "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square)".

New York Times Oct 2 1888:
The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watch boy who saw a man and a woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good description of him. . . . a policeman swears he was not absent over 15 minutes from Mitre-Square, and must have been watched by both man and woman as he went through, they following

Cheers, George

That was one of the few errors made by Macnaghten between the two murders.
His PC was PC Smith in Berner St.

[Abby Normal]

so if the couple lawende saw wasnt eddowes and the ripper, not only did he have to be mistaken and see a different couple, but he also just happened to mistakenly see the correct type of hat on the man. This is like the absurd reasoning on the other thread where everyone has to be incorrect in just the right way. insanity continues.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And I wonder why Harvey did not see them either.

Whatever we believe happened that night, it takes some amount of speculating to put it all together, and there are problems all over the show with any and every scenario put forward.

I do think, however, that in the event the basis for any scenario is: why didn't this person see that person, and so on, then it's a case of the tail wagging the dog.

In my view, whatever the scenario put forward, it should begin from the basis of the WMs likely action, the evolutionary principle of least effort governing human action, when PC Harvey began his walk down Church Passage.

PC Harvey didn't see the couple because they had moved on. That's not much of a stretch.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

The evolutionary principle of least effort, which governs any and every human action to accomplish a task, in this case escaping the hangman's noose; suggests that upon seeing Harvey begin to walk down Church Passage, the WM would have left and he would have chosen the nearest exit.

Indeed, when Morris went for help, he chose the nearest exit: the natural and evolutionary human principle of least effort in order to accomplish a task.

A criminal would only step back into the shadows when his options are severely limited i.e. cornered and that's the only cover he has, and it follows it's his best option at that moment. In this scenario, providing the WM left as PC Harvey begins to walk down Church Passage with his lantern, then he has time to escape. Waiting would risk being cornered with nowhere to go.

Running across the square to St James Place, is not the principle of least effort, that would increase the risk of being seen by the approaching PC Harvey given the direction the WM would have travelled.

It would explain why he wasn't seen by the three watchmen at the fire station also.

Whatever else happened that night, whichever reports we favour, whatever speculation we apply: the WM leaving the square via the Mitre Street exit as PC Harvey approached, is a pivotal moment dictated by evolutionary factors that govern human action.

[GBinOz]

Thanks for the information, George.

It seems that Jeff Leahy was the first to post that report on this forum.

In response to it, Joshua Rogan, in Best sighting of the Ripper AFTER a murder?, suggested that the man may have walked the woman home.

Perhaps you are aware of his suggestion?

As for Macnaghten, I don't know why he overlooked Lawende.

Hi PI1,

Thank you for nominating the thread Best sighting of the Ripper AFTER a murder?. Not only did I find it very interesting, but it linked to other very interesting dissertations regarding Spicer and Robert Lees.

I wasn't aware of Joshua Logan's suggestion, that "it's the timing of this incident that makes it seem 'fishy'", but this is what was being suggested, by me among others, on the Chapman threads regarding Long and Cadosch.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI1,

Macnaghten memorandum - "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square)".

New York Times Oct 2 1888:
The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watch boy who saw a man and a woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good description of him. . . . a policeman swears he was not absent over 15 minutes from Mitre-Square, and must have been watched by both man and woman as he went through, they following

Cheers, George

Thanks for the information, George.

It seems that Jeff Leahy was the first to post that report on this forum.

In response to it, Joshua Rogan, in Best sighting of the Ripper AFTER a murder?, suggested that the man may have walked the woman home.

Perhaps you are aware of his suggestion?

As for Macnaghten, I don't know why he overlooked Lawende.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Scott,

While I regard this as a viable alternative, the reservation I have with this hypothesis is that on the night in question Watkins was patrolling a left hand beat. This means that after he left Mitre Sq he walked up Mitre St, turned right into King St and thence to St James Place. This doesn't appear to leave sufficient time for Jack to have accomplished his task and be making his escape. I'd appreciate your comment.

Watkins beat shown here:

https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVPMy6zMo=/

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

It's good to know that Watkins inadvertently solved the case.

It's just a pity that he did not mention his encounter with the murderer to his superiors, or when giving evidence in court, or even in some marginalia somewhere.

I wonder why Watkins did not run into the woman who was dressed in similar clothing to that worn by Eddowes - including a bonnet - and the rough sailor.

And I wonder why Harvey did not see them either.

Hi PI1,

Macnaghten memorandum - "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square)".

New York Times Oct 2 1888:
The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watch boy who saw a man and a woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good description of him. . . . a policeman swears he was not absent over 15 minutes from Mitre-Square, and must have been watched by both man and woman as he went through, they following

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It's good to know that Watkins inadvertently solved the case.

It's just a pity that he did not mention his encounter with the murderer to his superiors, or when giving evidence in court, or even in some marginalia somewhere.

I wonder why Watkins did not run into the woman who was dressed in similar clothing to that worn by Eddowes - including a bonnet - and the rough sailor.

And I wonder why Harvey did not see them either.