Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Aye, but when Joseph L gave his reason for his opinion it was: "at so late an hour". That's not much of a reason.

Seems like a good reason to me, FM.

He was obviously not used to seeing respectable couples at that hour, in that area, and in such poses.

They could have been standing there for a multitude of reasons including: where they'd been, what they'd been doing, where they going to.

The question is: why is the woman active and the man passive?

If they were a boyfriend and girlfriend, why are they not hand-in-hand, or the man with his arm round the woman?

And why, if they were already a couple, would they have stopped at a lamppost at the beginning of Church Passage?

[jerryd]

And why, if they were already a couple, would they have stopped at a lamppost at the beginning of Church Passage?

My guess would be to get out of the rain. The same reason Lawende and company rose to leave at 1:30 yet arrived at Church Passage several minutes later. They waited the rain out.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

My guess would be to get out of the rain. The same reason Lawende and company rose to leave at 1:30 yet arrived at Church Passage several minutes later. They waited the rain out.

I think you have misread Lawende's testimony.

He did not mean that they rose to leave at 1:30 but waited till 1:35 because it was raining.

He meant that they waited till 1:30 because it was raining.

That suggests that it was no longer raining at 1:30 and since the couple were evidently not there before 1:30, they could not have gone there to shelter from the rain.

[jerryd]

I think you have misread Lawende's testimony.

He did not mean that they rose to leave at 1:30 but waited till 1:35 because it was raining.

He meant that they waited till 1:30 because it was raining.

That suggests that it was no longer raining at 1:30 and since the couple were evidently not there before 1:30, they could not have gone there to shelter from the rain.

How would you interpret this?

I was in the Imperial Club, with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. We could not get home because it was raining. At half past one we left to go out, and left the house about five minutes later.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How would you interpret this?

I was in the Imperial Club, with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. We could not get home because it was raining. At half past one we left to go out, and left the house about five minutes later.

I would be interested to know where you found that quote.

The Telegraph reported it as:

It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o'clock, when we left...

I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.

[jerryd]

I would be interested to know where you found that quote.

The Telegraph reported it as:

It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o'clock, when we left...

I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.

That was from Daily News, 12 October 1888

[jerryd]

The same Telegraph article you quoted has Joseph Levy saying this.

Mr. Joseph Hyam Levy, the butcher in Hutcheson-street, Aldgate, stated: I was with the last witness at the Imperial Club on Saturday night, Sept. 29. We got up to leave at half-past one on Sunday morning, and came out three or four minutes later.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The same Telegraph article you quoted has Joseph Levy saying this.

Mr. Joseph Hyam Levy, the butcher in Hutcheson-street, Aldgate, stated: I was with the last witness at the Imperial Club on Saturday night, Sept. 29. We got up to leave at half-past one on Sunday morning, and came out three or four minutes later.

Levy did not contradict Lawende's testimony that they got up to leave at 1.30 a.m. and that by then it had stopped raining.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Seems like a good reason to me, FM.

He was obviously not used to seeing respectable couples at that hour, in that area, and in such poses.

The question is: why is the woman active and the man passive?

If they were a boyfriend and girlfriend, why are they not hand-in-hand, or the man with his arm round the woman?

And why, if they were already a couple, would they have stopped at a lamppost at the beginning of Church Passage?

I wouldn't agree with your conclusion, PI.

Firstly, the two Josephs didn't see any evidence of prostitution. It was simply a gut feel on the part of Levy.

Secondly, lots of 'rough people' would have frequented that area. Maybe not at that specific time, but, as I say, it depends on who they were, where they'd been and where they were going to.

Thirdly, a hand on the chest is a long way from prostitution. I reckon we could all think of instances with our girlfriends or wives when for whatever reason, she was a bit more, shall we say, amorous.

In sum, there's nothing there except Levy's gut feel, and Levy's gut feel is not evidence of prostitution.

There is other information which suggests you could be wrong:

1) A well known area for soliciting was just up the road. Again, principle of least effort to accomplish a task: the best option for a street worker. Had they met just up the road then the decent bet is that the agreement was made there and so there was no need to stand around on view.

2) A man with murder on his mind, is supposedly stood outside of a club with people leaving, advertising his presence.

3) In the event the couple were street worker and client, you'd have to assume that the street worker knew the square, and so Mitre Street would be the option to get in and out unseen: shortest route, walk past unoccupied buildings and no street lamps.

Either way, we're deep in speculation here. I reckon there are pointers towards them not being a street worker and a client and you reckon there are. I don't think we'd get very far discussing this because neither of us can point to significant evidence to refute the other's argument.

[Trevor Marriott]

I wouldn't agree with your conclusion, PI.

Firstly, the two Josephs didn't see any evidence of prostitution. It was simply a gut feel on the part of Levy.

Secondly, lots of 'rough people' would have frequented that area. Maybe not at that specific time, but, as I say, it depends on who they were, where they'd been and where they were going to.

Thirdly, a hand on the chest is a long way from prostitution. I reckon we could all think of instances with our girlfriends or wives when for whatever reason, she was a bit more, shall we say, amorous.

In sum, there's nothing there except Levy's gut feel, and Levy's gut feel is not evidence of prostitution.

There is other information which suggests you could be wrong:

1) A well known area for soliciting was just up the road. Again, principle of least effort to accomplish a task: the best option for a street worker. Had they met just up the road then the decent bet is that the agreement was made there and so there was no need to stand around on view.

2) A man with murder on his mind, is supposedly stood outside of a club with people leaving, advertising his presence.

3) In the event the couple were street worker and client, you'd have to assume that the street worker knew the square, and so Mitre Street would be the option to get in and out unseen: shortest route, walk past unoccupied buildings and no street lamps.

Either way, we're deep in speculation here. I reckon there are pointers towards them not being a street worker and a client and you reckon there are. I don't think we'd get very far discussing this because neither of us can point to significant evidence to refute the other's argument.

But we have no idea where the two met if they were the killer and Eddowes, furthermore, there are no sightings of Eddowes after she left the police station, Mitre Square was a long way off her quickest route back to her lodgings so I think we can draw a proper inference that she was prostituting herself in an around the Mitre Sq area and no just passing through.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

But we have no idea where the two met if they were the killer and Eddowes, furthermore, there are no sightings of Eddowes after she left the police station, Mitre Square was a long way off her quickest route back to her lodgings so I think we can draw a proper inference that she was prostituting herself in an around the Mitre Sq area and no just passing through.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Aye,

Catherine turned left out of the police station, a decent bet would be to the first main road, Houndsditch, which of course would have taken her directly to St Botolph's Church; more or less where she was arrested the previous day.

'Certainly not conclusive, but it looks very much like she wasn't heading home and she was heading towards an area well known for prostitution.

We are feeding on scraps of information, I agree, but it's reasonable to think that a known prostitute, who was heading away from home at 1 in the morning, broadly in the direction of an area well known for prostitution; was in fact heading for that well known area.

It would be interesting to read any contemporary accounts of Duke Street or Mitre Street being known as areas for prostitutes congregating. I've had a good look around and I can't find any accounts: Aldgate High Street and around St Botolph's Church were the places to pick up clients. That would suggest Catherine was heading there and Mitre Square was where she took a client as opposed to found one. So, you're back to the better prospect of Catherine choosing to get to the darkest part of the square by the shortest and more private route.

We do have an idea of where they met, that's not the same thing as 'we know where they were met and there are no other possibilities'.

We have an idea because she was heading towards an area where the known places for picking up prostitutes were Aldgate High Street and St Botolph's Church.

'Not definitive, but an idea beyond pulling a rabbit out of habit.

And, it's likely that the WM had gone to that area to pick up a prostitute also (in the absence of Mitre Street and Duke Street being known as streets where prostitutes congregated).

In the event they didn't meet at Aldgate High Street/St Botolph's Church, then they both separately wandered away from the place that held their best prospect without achieving the objective. 'Seems less likely to me. How long to walk from Bishopsgate Police Station to Aldgate High Street? Say just over 10 minutes? That would mean Catherine made the effort to get to a known area for prostitution, instead of going home, and gave up after about 20 minutes or so; and after giving up, she decided to turn away from home again: for what purpose, given that the reason she didn't go home initially was to head for that well known area for prostitution.

I reckon the better bet is that she went to the known area for picking up a client, Aldgate High Street and St Botolph's church, and found one there.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I wouldn't agree with your conclusion, PI.

Firstly, the two Josephs didn't see any evidence of prostitution. It was simply a gut feel on the part of Levy.

Secondly, lots of 'rough people' would have frequented that area. Maybe not at that specific time, but, as I say, it depends on who they were, where they'd been and where they were going to.

Levy thought the woman was a prostitute; Lawende thought the man was a sailor.

They would not, presumably, have ventured an opinion unless they had been in the habit of seeing prostitutes and sailors in those streets - quite possibly together at times.

The fact that the woman had her hand on the chest of what looked to Lawende like a rough sailor at 1.35 a.m., and the man was doing nothing except stand under a lamppost, suggests she was a prostitute.

Levy was not making an uneducated guess.

And if they were just an innocent couple, is it not rather curious that when they would have come into Harvey's sight about three minutes after Levy had seen them, they were no longer there, and there was no reported sighting of the couple at any other time?

Maybe that is because they were not a couple.

[Scott Nelson]

There is also the two part article
City Beat: Harvey and Watkins Part - By GAVIN BROMLEY from Ripperologist #74 Dec 2006, #75 Jan 2007.


Again outstanding work.

Steve

Thanks for mentioning this, Steve.

Also the article Jonathan mentioned: Neil Bell & Rob Clack’s ‘City Beat: City PC 881 Edward Watkins’ published in Ripperologist Magazine 105 (August 2009)

Posters would do well to read these pieces before becoming too embroiled in their preconceived scenarios.

[Elamarna]

Thanks for mentioning this, Steve.

Also the article Jonathan mentioned: Neil Bell & Rob Clack’s ‘City Beat: City PC 881 Edward Watkins’ published in Ripperologist Magazine 105 (August 2009)

Posters would do well to read these pieces before becoming too embroiled in their preconceived scenarios.

Indeed they would Scott, no one is of course claiming these works are perfect, they do put the beats and their performance into a very real perspective.
I, disagree slightly with the timings mentioned by Gavin, but it's a minor difference, of a few seconds, under a minute per beat(based on the presumed walking speeds used).
In general I am happy to work with the timings suggested in those articles

I do wish more people would read such work.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

All times are estimates as they were not using digital devices. In a scenario like Catherine Eddowes murder all that is needed is 10-15 seconds of difference for the murderer to escape. If it was 1:29am when Lawende and co went to leave then that is one minute and in the grand scheme of things that is a lifetime when one considers the little time the killer needed. Taking things at their lowest estimates- that is to say we take Joseph Levy's three minutes estimate on leaving the club, give around 4 minutes for Dr Sequiera and have PC Harvey entering Church Passage at 1:41am then there is enough time to have committed the deed and got away. In fact in that scenario the killer had ample time.

Even taking Lawende's timing and Dr Bonds say 6 minutes to kill and mutiliate Eddowes the killer could have fled maybe 10-15 seconds before PC Harvey entered Church Passage. I mean all it takes is the killer to have fled at say 1:41 and 15 seconds and PC Harvey to enter Church Passage at 1:41 and 30 seconds and it still works.

How the killer was not caught on the night of the Double Event is incredible, almost inexplicable. I think 50 years after the event Walter Dew still couldn't believe it.

I take your point that a couple of minutes could make a world of difference in this scenario.

Perhaps this is simply personal preference when discussing an issue.

Take Joseph Lawende, he claimed 1.30am according to his watch and the club clock. There is another thread 'Margin for Error,' which attempts to explain why there is no issue with creating a range of time and in no way is that pulling the time one way (the convenient way). I agree that there is no issue with creating a range of time, the objection is the result of how that range is then utilised.

Well, we have 1.30am, let's apply a margin for error of two minutes. Where does that take us? We are told 1.30am, it could be 1.28am, it could be 1.32am. What are we left with? Two times that are a problem (1.32am and 1.30am) and one time that is more convenient (1.28am).

What is the conclusion:

1) We now have a range of time and therefore the stated time is not a barrier because the range makes it work.

2) We now have a range of time, two of them (1.32am and 1.30am) do not support the theory and one of them (1.28am) does. Therefore, on balance, the stated time remains a problem.

I'll go with 2, although I wouldn't necessarily in the event there was corroboration to support the notion that the time was in fact earlier than that stated by Joseph (there is no corroboration in this instance). I go with 2 not because I think the time must have been accurate to the minute, but because we've created a range that does not point towards the earlier time in the range given there are two other times in the range.

In the end, no matter how it's dressed up, a range of 1.28am to 1.32am has been created and the more favourable end of the range (1.28am) is being used to support the theory; while the stated time (1.30am) and the much more inconvenient end of the time range (1.32am) are being ignored.

When I said personal preference when discussing an issue, I suppose what I'm saying is this: we're told 1.30am, it could quite easily have been 1.28am or 1.32am, we have no corroboration or evidence for any time other than 1.30am; therefore I'm not going to say 1.32am which would support my theory, nor am I going to say 1.28am which would not support my theory, I'm going to go with the stated time and discuss from that point as opposed to move it any way.

I reckon that is a more reasonable approach than suggesting 'margin for error' or applying the broad sweep 'the times are estimates', both of which irretrievably involve using one end of a time range to support a theory.

It's worth saying that the times are merely one piece of the information left to us also. I reckon the balance of information suggests that Catherine was already in the square by the time the two Josephs passed Church Passage.

But, a part of that involves an assumption that it was unlikely that Catherine was soliciting in Duke Street, rather she was on Aldgate High Street. I appreciate that Duke Street is not far from Aldgate High Street and she may have wandered off the beaten track a little bit to find a client. I find it the less likely of the two options, however, although I'm still looking around the internet for anything that suggests Duke Street was in fact a known place for street workers to look for clients.