Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But Nichols, Stride, Eddowes, even Tabram & Coles for that matter all wore black bonnets - must have been very common don't you think, maybe even as common as flat peaked caps for men?

But Chapman, Kelly, McKenzie, and Mylett were not wearing bonnets of any colour.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And that conclusion opens the door for the statement by Blenkingsop, and those people he saw in St. James Place.

Can you see how that conclusion was reached?

I cannot.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Scott,

I was thinking that encountering the man in the Orange Market square after 7 minutes doesn't leave much time to finish the beat, but Langdon states "Presently - exactly seven minutes after he had been in the square previously - the policeman entered it again, and started to walk round it. Suddenly he came upon a human form huddled up in a corner. It was a woman lying dead", so this adds up to the 14 minute beat. It also fits quite well with the watchboy story.

There is a similarity with the Stephen White story, in that White said that he "stood aside to let the man pass", and it fits with "at the end of the cul-de-sac, huddled against the wall, there was the body of a woman" and being "just behind the Whitechapel Road". However, "a certain alley just behind the Whitechapel Road" also fits Castle Alley and McKenzie, although that was not a cul-de-sac. White's description of the man puts me in mind of Francis Thompson. In the end, neither locations fit the description of "could only be entered from where we had two men posted in hiding".

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

What makes the hat correct?

the peak. you know that by now i hope

[Abby Normal]

But Nichols, Stride, Eddowes, even Tabram & Coles for that matter all wore black bonnets - must have been very common don't you think, maybe even as common as flat peaked caps for men?

maybe peaked cap man was targeting black bonnet women
? are we on to something here wick??

[Fleetwood Mac]

And that conclusion opens the door for the statement by Blenkingsop, and those people he saw in St. James Place.
Was it a couple, and were they headed towards St. James Passage?
The journalist felt the sighting was important, I think, because they were headed towards the passage, I suspect that detail was left out for want of space.
Sometimes when we try to be brief in a comment we leave out a pertinent bit because it was so obvious, that could be the case here.

I reckon the likelihood is that they entered from Mitre Street and he left the same way, so that doesn't do much for Blekinsop's statement as reported.

I'm generally wary of newspaper reports, particularly when they are not supported by any other statement including at the inquest.

I'd take into account the authors of the source and their purpose. This isn't an investigative organisation, the purpose was to sell newspapers in an age when people loved reading about sexually motivated crimes. Any bit of detail helps, no matter the veracity of the report.

Any historian, whose business is to study source material and arrive at a reasonable conclusion, would not place a great deal of store in this report.

Even in the event we accept this report as it was in The Star, it doesn't really say a great deal as to whether or not Catherine and the WM went in that way. It merely states: "I didn't take a great deal of notice, I saw some people pass".

This report is of no real value when attempting to put the pieces together, at least to me anyway.

The reason for that is not to do with personal preference or a 'pet theory' or anything like that. It's because as source material it has all sorts of problems including: the purpose of the author, unsupported by any other source.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If the killer was still with Eddowes when Harvey came down Church Passage shining his lamp the killer would have seen him coming and would have had time to make his exit via Mitre Street long before Harvey had any chance of seeing him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'd say so.

PC Watkins saw Catherine's body only when he shone his lamp in the corner, he was what, say 20/25 feet away.

As PC Harvey began his descent down Church Passage, he was say 100 feet away or something like that.

He has time to slip away unseen.

Admittedly PC Harvey not hearing footsteps is problematic.

Then again, he was in a passage. Walls absorb and reflect back sound.

And, his own footsteps in a passage would have impaired his ability to hear what was happening outside of the passage.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

Excellent post. I think it must be considered that Eddowes knew the Police beat or at least was aware of the time required to complete the business. Maybe she chose the darkest corner of the Square in the knowledge that if a Police beat did pass through there would be ample time to cover up whatever activity they were engaged in. Whatever occurred I believe it was Eddowes who likely led proceedings and the killer struck very quickly, also in the knowledge that his deed need take no longer than the length of time a 'normal' transaction would be with a prostitute having sex in the open. Of course Peter Sutcliffe was caught in the way most imagine the WM would have been- with a prostitute in the process of leading up to an attack. There is no doubt Mitre Square was probably the night that the WM got extremely lucky.

I think on the balance of probabilities it is very likely that Lawende and his companions saw the WM before entering the Square with Eddowes. He did identify her clothing which is of course as much as we could expect. Eddowes had her back to him also so he didn't get a particularly good look at her. We can't be sure Lawende saw the WM but on the information we have it is seemingly the only real possibility.

I do believe the WM was likely just gone as PC Harvey walked down Church Passage. It would be extraordinarily tight- maybe a few seconds, say up to 30 seconds but there is just about enough time for the WM to have just left the scene. If he was still there it was an incredibly bold risk to take, granted we know the killer was not averse to taking great risks. Again for me in the balance if probabilities the killer was gone. A timeliness similar to this:

1.32am/1:33am- Killer and Eddowes seen by Lawende and co.

1:35am- Eddowes and killer enter Square. Killer attacks and takes around 5 minutes to kill and mutilate Eddowes.

1:40am- Killer leaves Mitre Square.

1:40am/1:41am- PC Harvey enters Church Passage.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I do not see why, if the murderer left on sensing Harvey's approach, he could not have been the man seen by Lawende.

Timing.

I think we'd all agree that the interval between Lawende and associates and PC Harvey walking down Church Passage, was not sufficient.

[Wickerman]

But Chapman, Kelly, McKenzie, and Mylett were not wearing bonnets of any colour.

Is that a colourless bonnet, or a bonnet of unknown colour - which also could have been black?

[Fleetwood Mac]

The thing that didn't occur to me at the time was if Harvey could have heard fleeing footsteps from his position in the lower half of the passage.

It's a fair point about PC Harvey not hearing footsteps, one that can't be ignored.

Having said that, I'm not convinced with your conclusion that PC Harvey was 'in the lower half of the passage'. It would be interesting to hear the logic behind that view. I believe that the corner of the square was very slightly set off from the top of Church Passage, but not sufficient enough to prevent the WM seeing a lantern at the top of the passage.

Anyway, PC Harvey was going down a passage. Walls block sound and reflect it back. In addition, PC Harvey's own footsteps in a narrow passage would have bounced off the walls.

That's not an attempt to sweep under the carpet an obvious problem, but more an explanation for why PC Harvey might not (as opposed to definitely wouldn't) have heard an escaping WM.

[Wickerman]

Can you see how that conclusion was reached?

I cannot.

Easier than you might think.
It isn't necessary to prove anything Blenkingsop said, it is only necessary to demonstrate that the timing required by the Lawende sighting is not workable, and never has been.
Presently we have 4 minutes for the killer to escort Eddowes from the Duke St. end of the passage, all the way to the far corner of the square, subdue her & mutilate the body, then escape out of sight. Desperation might cause a few to accept it, though in the real world there are too many things that can delay him from keeping to this tight timeline.
That leaves the door wide open for some other couple to have entered the square from another direction, and Blenkingsop's story is the only one we know of, plus with his story the killer gets an extra 5 minutes.
That's not to say we couldn't invent a third couple, but that is an even worse argument than the present choices.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Excellent post. I think it must be considered that Eddowes knew the Police beat or at least was aware of the time required to complete the business. Maybe she chose the darkest corner of the Square in the knowledge that if a Police beat did pass through there would be ample time to cover up whatever activity they were engaged in. Whatever occurred I believe it was Eddowes who likely led proceedings and the killer struck very quickly, also in the knowledge that his deed need take no longer than the length of time a 'normal' transaction would be with a prostitute having sex in the open. Of course Peter Sutcliffe was caught in the way most imagine the WM would have been- with a prostitute in the process of leading up to an attack. There is no doubt Mitre Square was probably the night that the WM got extremely lucky.

I think on the balance of probabilities it is very likely that Lawende and his companions saw the WM before entering the Square with Eddowes. He did identify her clothing which is of course as much as we could expect. Eddowes had her back to him also so he didn't get a particularly good look at her. We can't be sure Lawende saw the WM but on the information we have it is seemingly the only real possibility.

I do believe the WM was likely just gone as PC Harvey walked down Church Passage. It would be extraordinarily tight- maybe a few seconds, say up to 30 seconds but there is just about enough time for the WM to have just left the scene. If he was still there it was an incredibly bold risk to take, granted we know the killer was not averse to taking great risks. Again for me in the balance if probabilities the killer was gone. A timeliness similar to this:

1.32am/1:33am- Killer and Eddowes seen by Lawende and co.

1:35am- Eddowes and killer enter Square. Killer attacks and takes around 5 minutes to kill and mutilate Eddowes.

1:40am- Killer leaves Mitre Square.

1:40am/1:41am- PC Harvey enters Church Passage.

I reckon with this one, we could all poke holes in any theory put forward given the contradictory nature of the information and of course a very tight window.

On that basis, I think of that which is least difficult to believe, and which sources are authoritative and therefore carry most weight.

I like Lawende as a witness. He is supported by other people who were there.

I don't see anything contradictory in Levy's and Lawende's times.

Lawende said they rose to leave at 1.30am and would have passed the man and woman at 1.35am.

Levy said they rose to leave at 1.30am also and came out three or four minutes later. The Imperial Club was approximately 15 feet from Church Passage so that would have them passing the man and woman at very close to 1.35am.

There is nothing contradictory in those two statements. The only difference is that Levy felt it expedient to state that they didn't leave the club immediately whereas Lawende didn't mention that, but Lawende did imply it given the distance between Church Passage and the Imperial Club: they couldn't have left the club at 1.30am and be at Church Passage 1.35am.

In the end, they agree that they rose to leave the club at 1.30am and agree that they were at Church Passage at 1.35am or very close to that time.

The problem with pulling their times forward is that we get into the waters of bending the times to make it fit, and in the event they had their times wrong they could just as easily have been wrong the other way. It follows that bending the times has no real value unless it can be corroborated with something concrete, which in this case it can't.

In fact, Lawende gauged the time from his pocket watch and the club clock, and so two sources of time there.

That's not to pour scorn on a difference of opinion as to what happened. As I say, any theory on this is going to have holes and so for me it's a case of what takes least believing in light of the authoritative sources we have.

[Wickerman]

I reckon the likelihood is that they entered from Mitre Street and he left the same way, so that doesn't do much for Blekinsop's statement as reported.

We're not inventing a third couple are we?

I'm generally wary of newspaper reports, particularly when they are not supported by any other statement including at the inquest.

That's an old worn out tune, there are just as many errors and omissions in the inquest record. The real facts are the press often provide more information than the inquest.

I'd take into account the authors of the source and their purpose. This isn't an investigative organisation, the purpose was to sell newspapers in an age when people loved reading about sexually motivated crimes. Any bit of detail helps, no matter the veracity of the report.

The police used the press as an assisting body, we have internal reports that prove this. Logic shows that the press have more journalists making inquiries to extend the long arm of the law. The City police acknowledged this, but Scotland Yard tried to fight it, much to their detriment.
Selling newspapers would also involve fabricating football scores, inventing parliamentary speeches, or stories of sinking ships that never sunk, or burning buildings that never caught fire. Yet we don't seem to have anything like that in the papers.
Yet, some still persist in trying to suggest the press invented witness stories, and criticizing the very same sources they use to support their own theories.

Any historian, whose business is to study source material and arrive at a reasonable conclusion, would not place a great deal of store in this report.

We don't have to, as I said before, we only have to admit 4 minutes is not enough time, which means there had to be another couple.
I mean, we don't even know if the couple seen by Lawende even went down Church Passage - thats an assumption.
Yet we are not permitted to make any assumptions over the story by Blenkingsop, but rather assume there was a third couple?

Even in the event we accept this report as it was in The Star, it doesn't really say a great deal as to whether or not Catherine and the WM went in that way. It merely states: "I didn't take a great deal of notice, I saw some people pass".

This report is of no real value when attempting to put the pieces together, at least to me anyway.

The reason for that is not to do with personal preference or a 'pet theory' or anything like that. It's because as source material it has all sorts of problems including: the purpose of the author, unsupported by any other source.

It's down to at most, 4 minutes, we can either try to stretch it to suit an assumption, or accept it is likely not enough time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Easier than you might think.
It isn't necessary to prove anything Blenkingsop said, it is only necessary to demonstrate that the timing required by the Lawende sighting is not workable, and never has been.
Presently we have 4 minutes for the killer to escort Eddowes from the Duke St. end of the passage, all the way to the far corner of the square, subdue her & mutilate the body, then escape out of sight. Desperation might cause a few to accept it, though in the real world there are too many things that can delay him from keeping to this tight timeline.
That leaves the door wide open for some other couple to have entered the square from another direction, and Blenkingsop's story is the only one we know of, plus with his story the killer gets an extra 5 minutes.
That's not to say we couldn't invent a third couple, but that is an even worse argument than the present choices.

But how long would the killer have needed to simply murder and mutilate?

Lawendes sighting must not be ignored and as has been stated before if the couple seen were Eddowes and the killer we have no evidence to tell us what time they left the location and entered the square, the later they moved off the less time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done/ leaving the window of opportunity only short enough for nothing more than murder and mutilation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk