Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?

[Sunny Delight]

I am sorry to have to disagree with your second paragraph, Sunny, because I agree with your first paragraph and, if Levy's estimate was correct then the murderer was less pressed for time than in your hypothetical schedule.

I do not agree that Lawende's description matches Israel Schwartz's description of the attacker he saw very well.

Schwartz's suspect had dark hair and a brown moustache, whereas Lawende's had a fair moustache.

Schwartz's suspect was stout and broad-shouldered, whereas Lawende's was of medium build.

Schwartz's suspect was drunk, loud, and aggressive, whereas Lawende's was sober, quiet, and passive.

Schwartz's suspect was wearing a black cap, whereas Lawende's wore a grey one.

Considering both sightings were from different ranges with different lighting conditions it is inevitable there will be differences. You have selected differences which are not in my opinion significant. They are quite pedantic.

- The significance is that the man had a moustsche. Colour differences are not that significant. If one had a moustache and other didn't then that would be hard to explain away.

- The colour of the cap again is irrelevant. Far more significant is the fact that both men wore a peaked cap. The style is the significant factor. Again if one wore a peaked cap and the other wore a wideawake then again very hard to explain away.

- Again aspects like build is very subjective. It also depends on the angle you view someone. I don't see a medium or well built description as really significant. If one was thin and the other well built well again such a disparity would be hard to explain.

- Granted the disposition was different. Maybe that could be put down to the fact the victims presented different personas. Stride did not seem to be interested in conversing. Eddowes has her hand on the man's chest- presumably in a flirtatious manner.

The similarities are much more important in my opinion.

Both men were aged around 30, between 5ft 5in and 5ft 7in, both were fairly in completion, both had a moustache, both wore a peaked cap, both wore a dark jacket (again lighting issues could be at play- Lawende described a salt and pepper colour jacket). For two pretty fleeting views of someone these descriptions are remarkably similar.

[Wickerman]

I am sorry to have to disagree with your second paragraph, Sunny, because I agree with your first paragraph and, if Levy's estimate was correct then the murderer was less pressed for time than in your hypothetical schedule.

I do not agree that Lawende's description matches Israel Schwartz's description of the attacker he saw very well.

Schwartz's suspect had dark hair and a brown moustache, whereas Lawende's had a fair moustache.

Schwartz's suspect was stout and broad-shouldered, whereas Lawende's was of medium build.

Schwartz's suspect was drunk, loud, and aggressive, whereas Lawende's was sober, quiet, and passive.

Schwartz's suspect was wearing a black cap, whereas Lawende's wore a grey one.

Yes, and lets not forget the BS-man in Berner St. was staggering around, as if drunk. Yet theorists have him sobering up enough to stagger across to Mitre Square and make a surgical extraction that would put a skilled surgeon to shame.
Really?

[Fleetwood Mac]

One thing we can be sure of his on the night of the double event the Ripper was extremely lucky.

Very much so.

I don't go along with the 'knowing the police beats to escape' line of thinking.

In the event he knew the police beats then going into that square was a huge risk given the police beats, and this is someone who is going to have his head put in a noose.

You could argue that they changed the police beats for the very reason that criminals took notice of them, but still, that's putting yourself in a position knowing you'll hang unless you can get in and out of there like clockwork, which is a bit of an operation. And then, how could he keep track of the time in the dark with his most likely non existent watch. How did he know he was 4 minutes in or 6 minutes or sufficient minutes in to know he needed to leave. I'm not well versed in this, but I'd imagine that you'd have a job on your hands to keep track of time when you're carving up people and you don't have a watch or a clock to rely on. Assuming the two Josephs could lose a minute or two in between getting up to leave and actually leaving, then the WM had a job on his hands to keep the time together when he's busy relieving poor Catherine of a kidney in the dark and he doesn't have a clock and more than likely doesn't have a watch.

I'd go with he didn't have a clue on the police beats and relied on approaching footsteps to leave and the dark to give him cover.

Then again, you could argue it was a combination of the two.

The luck would seem to be that when he heard approaching footsteps or a lantern or something else that disturbed him, it caused him to leave at a time when no policeman was nearby.

That has led some people to speculate that somebody missed a beat, probably Watkins, or someone encountered him and bottled it. I have a bit of sympathy with that line of thinking because it all seems too good, or more to the point bad, to be true.

But, I reckon human beings have an innate desire to control and understand. We don't like things that are beyond our comprehension. When we don't understand something we err on the side of some conspiracy has taken place. That way we can say the only reason we don't understand it is because some people conspired to prevent our understanding.

I'd say it's just the same old relying on being able to hear someone approaching and using the dark as cover. That's the way it always is in some form or other. When did the police ever bottle it in the face of a murderer, or a policeman missed a beat, or murderers watched police times, wrote them down and diligently worked to them; or some police gang was sat in a warehouse having a cup of tea when they should have been working outside, while a murder takes place a few yards away in the corner, or the murder didn't actually happen in that part of the square and the body was dragged there, when all of the medical evidence suggests otherwise.

The simplest solution: somebody disturbed him and it just happened to be at a time that was in his favour, i.e. there was no approaching policeman when he left the square.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am sorry to have to disagree with your second paragraph, Sunny, because I agree with your first paragraph and, if Levy's estimate was correct then the murderer was less pressed for time than in your hypothetical schedule.

I do not agree that Lawende's description matches Israel Schwartz's description of the attacker he saw very well.

Schwartz's suspect had dark hair and a brown moustache, whereas Lawende's had a fair moustache.

Schwartz's suspect was stout and broad-shouldered, whereas Lawende's was of medium build.

Schwartz's suspect was drunk, loud, and aggressive, whereas Lawende's was sober, quiet, and passive.

Schwartz's suspect was wearing a black cap, whereas Lawende's wore a grey one.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

Lawende's time was an estimate. He checked his watch at 1:30am and then estimated they left the club at 1:35. Joseph Levy felt it would have been 3-4 minutes. Again however say it was exactly 1:35am that the sighting was made of Eddowes and her killer, then they entered Mitre Square at 1:37am and if Dr Sequiera was correct then it was around 4 minutes all in to kill and mutilate Eddowes. That would be a time of 1:41am. If PC Harvey who estimated he entered the passage at 1:40am had actually entered at 1:41am then it could have been mere seconds since the killer had left the scene. Don't forget for the killer to flee he needed about 5-10 seconds. So although extraordinarily tight the killer did not need much time to be out of Mitre Square.

I think we can be fairly sure although not certain that Lawende saw Eddowes and her killer. His description matches Israel Schwartz description of the attacker he saw very well. We also have the sighting of a man with an appearance of a sailor cleaning his hands in a place seemingly on route to Mitre Square that the killer would take. Although that is a problematic sighting as it is uncoroborated. One thing we can be sure of his on the night of the double event the Ripper was extremely lucky.

[Trevor Marriott]

This photo looking down Church Passage, everyone is familiar with, must have been taken close to the time I was there. The white buildings at the far end are the houses in Mitre Street, the houses that form the west side of the square have been removed.
What we have is a tunnel that can echo sound, and amplify the footsteps into the square, almost like a trumpet.


The photo seems to have been taken from about half way down the passage.

Line of sight ! This shows how the killer would have been able to see and hear harvey long before Harvey had any chance of seeing or hearing the killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks so much, FM.

As I suspected, Lawende meant that he looked at his pocket watch at 1.30 a.m.

It seems that his timing of 1.35 was an estimate, which means it is no more reliable than Levy's estimate of 1.33 or 1.34.

The fact that Lawende checked his watch and its time matched that of the club clock does suggest that clocks and watches did not disagree to the extent some have suggested.

If Lawende had set his watch to agree with the club clock, why would he have bothered to look at it?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I cannot see it in the Telegraph's report.

Do you have a link to the Times' report and would the other newspapers you mean include Lloyds Weekly?

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Times [London] - 12 October 1888

I can't remember which other newspapers reported it but feel free to have a dig around. There were a few.

I'm pretty sure a book included the deposition also, but can't remember which one. Somebody else may be able to help with that. If I get time, I'll have a dig around.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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 reckon it's worth pointing out why newspaper reports don't all carry the same weight in relation to Catherine's case.

You probably could argue that an interview with a witness, i.e. the one reported by The Star, is a primary source.

But, we do have depositions from the actual event/inquest and several newspaper reports, from more credible newspapers than The Star. There are inconsistencies and there are inherent problems associated with transcribing, but they do corroborate one another to a degree and that corroboration adds weight to the quality of the source.

Furthermore, an article by say the Telegraph, would carry more weight than an article by The Star, given what we know of both newspapers. You would have to consider the purpose of the author, and The Star holds dubious credentials.

Long story short: newspaper reports are to be viewed with healthy scepticism but there are degrees of scepticism, and an uncorroborated report from the The Star would be at the wrong end of the scepticism spectrum.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It was in several newspapers' reporting of the inquest, including The Times.

I cannot see it in the Telegraph's report.

Do you have a link to the Times' report and would the other newspapers you mean include Lloyds Weekly?

[Wickerman]

Do you mean that the removal of those buildings exposed to view buildings in Mitre Street which had not previously been visible?

Here is a view towards where the body was found (between the black van and the first scooter), from the St James Passage corner.
You see a wall behind the scooters, the houses have gone.
The houses you do see are on the opposite side of Mitre Street.


Courtesy of Stewart Evans.


This photo shows the houses before they were removed.


Source - unknown.

[Wickerman]

An historian would not give much weight to an uncorroborated report in The Star.

Quite the contrary actually, in most cases it is press reports that are all we have to investigate past stories.
Inquest & trial papers are often picked apart and in many cases no longer exist.

That's because of its purpose, lack of corroboration and it's not primary source material. Add in that The Star had demonstrable form for making up a few things and all round Sensationalism, and that reduces the quality of this source even further.

Yes, but you are equating Blenkingsop's story with 'sensationalism', but you've just admitted there is no detail in the story - you can't have it both ways.
What, exactly is 'sensational' about what Blenkingsop said?

Historians are in the business of analysing source material, sifting the quality from the questionable, and arriving at a reasonable conclusion.

Of course, and this is done with all press sources as well as inquest papers, those which have survived.

We see it differently, that's fine, but it's not a tune: it's the discipline of historical analysis and the robust method applied to assessing source material.

And, the historian treats both sources the same way. Neither gets a free pass from confirmation.

[Fleetwood Mac]

How do we know he looked at his pocket watch?

It was in several newspapers' reporting of the inquest, including The Times.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

This photo looking down Church Passage, everyone is familiar with, must have been taken close to the time I was there. The white buildings at the far end are the houses in Mitre Street, the houses that form the west side of the square have been removed.

Do you mean that the removal of those buildings exposed to view buildings in Mitre Street which had not previously been visible?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

Allow me to amend my statement as follows:

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