Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's an old worn out tune

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

It's not a tune.

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

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Timing.

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

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.

I reckon the likelihood is that they entered from Mitre Street and he left the same way ...

Watkins entered Mitre Square at 1.30 and checked all its exits.

He must have left Mitre Square at about 1.32 via Mitre Street.

That hardly gives the murderer and Eddowes time to enter the square via Mitre Street as early as 1.33.

Levy thought the sighting could have been as early as 1.33.

In that case, the time difference between the two couples' arrivals in Mitre Square could be minimal.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

How do we know he looked at his pocket watch?

[Wickerman]

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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[Fleetwood Mac]

How do we know he looked at his pocket watch?

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.