Was Eddowes Already Dead, When Seen By Lawende & Levy?

[lynn cates]

We're #2--we try harder.

Hello Phil. Good thinking.

I see possibilities with #2.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Hello DJA.

1. No signs of strangulation on Kate.

2. Why move her from #6?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn

Clenched hands?

Gwyneth

[Wickerman]

Where do you reckon Eddowes' other kidney was?

Not sure what you mean by that.

Harvey was actually employed and equipped to look.

If you are meaning he carried a lamp, well yes, but the range of those lamps was merely a few feet, perhaps 5-6 ft or thereabouts.
The lamps were for close inspection, not intended as a torch to see any great distances.
There was also a wall-lamp hanging off the corner of the Kearley & Tonge Whse right at the bottom end of the passage, which would tend to limit his sight across the square.

[Phil Carter]

5 or 6 ft.

Hello Jon,

Forgive the diversion ... but 5 or 6 ft..close inspection...means Harvey is severely limited in seeing anything 25 yards away.
It also means though..that anybody seeing a policeman carrying said lantern..would see the immediate vicinity around the holder of the lantern and person holding it very clearly.

And it raises interesting thoughts about Long and his "close inspection" of what must have been every identical entrance in Goulston St.
Most interesting. ☺

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hi
What you have failed to highlight is the fact that had the killer been in the process of committing the murder, and from where he would have been in the square, he would have been able to see and hear Pc Harvey coming down the passage towards him, and would have been able to quickly exit the square via Mitre St without ever being seen by Harvey.

Trevor.
Harvey estimated his time from passing the Post Office clock, more than 10 minutes walk away.
His estimation of being at the end of Church Passage, "18 or 19 minutes to 2 o'clock", is 1:41-42. Watkins arrived at 1:44. Harvey may have scared him off.
This still provides the killer with 11-12 minutes with his victim.

If you were the killer and looked up and saw a uniform Pc walking down the passage in your direction would you stop the killing, front it out and just hope that the pc would not carry on down the path and walk right up to you. no you would you would be out of there like a jack rabbitt soon as you saw him.

No doubt, this is true, but PC Harvey did not carry a watch, Watkins did.
Therefore, Harvey's is a rough estimate.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

Forgive the diversion ... but 5 or 6 ft..close inspection...means Harvey is severely limited in seeing anything 25 yards away.

Hi Phil.
Where did 25 yds come from?

It also means though..that anybody seeing a policeman carrying said lantern..would see the immediate vicinity around the holder of the lantern and person holding it very clearly.

Yes, but the constable did not always carry their lamp lighted.

And it raises interesting thoughts about Long and his "close inspection" of what must have been every identical entrance in Goulston St.
Most interesting. ☺

The lamps were provided for close inspection, what "interesting thoughts" came to mind?
Isn't that exactly what PC Long said he did with it?

If it was 10 feet, would that change the argument?

I do recall Stewart providing some details on this issue many years back, I know the range was very limited.
PC Harvey would not be able to see across Mitre Square with his lamp.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.
Where did 25 yds come from?


Yes, but the constable did not always carry their lamp lighted.



The lamps were provided for close inspection, what "interesting thoughts" came to mind?
Isn't that exactly what PC Long said he did with it?

If it was 10 feet, would that change the argument?

I do recall Stewart providing some details on this issue many years back, I know the range was very limited.
PC Harvey would not be able to see across Mitre Square with his lamp.

Hello Jon,

Was it not 25yards from the end of the passage to the murder area? (Not the far end where Lawende observed the couple)..perhaps I am mistaken..I have not got my notes in front of me.

In order to do his job..when standing at the direct entrance to the square at the end of the passage..In order to actually see anything..even 5 or 6ft ahead...He would have to have his lamp on...no? We cannot assume Harvey didn't have his lamp on..surely? And therefore. .He. .The carrier..and the immediate surrounding area..would be seen easily by the killer.

I don't want to go into the Long process and derail the thread..suffice to say that he would have had to enter every single entrance and inspect it all along Goulston St. He would not turn said lamp off every few seconds to relight it seconds later. And 10ft would make a difference in terms of what is he managed to see from the pavement he walked on in Goulston St.
If he didn't physically HAVE to walk into every entrance to gain sight..that changes things a lot re what Long actually did.

Thanks for the reply.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor.
Harvey estimated his time from passing the Post Office clock, more than 10 minutes walk away.
His estimation of being at the end of Church Passage, "18 or 19 minutes to 2 o'clock", is 1:41-42. Watkins arrived at 1:44. Harvey may have scared him off.
This still provides the killer with 11-12 minutes with his victim.

To be correct his estimation was twenty minutes to two so we have to give or take several minutes. And as we are only talking minutes,and minutes are crucial in respect of this murder are they not?

Now I know I have highlighted issues with Victorian Doctors and their guesswork with regards to estimating times of death, but in this case if Watkins and his timings are to be believed they are almost spot on with death occurring around 1.45am, of course we know that would be wrong but they cannot have been so wrong.

Because if Lawende did see Eddowes and the killer at approx 1.35am, then death could have been as as late as 1.40am, giving the killer no time to do anything other than kill and mutilate before being disturbed by Harvey.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Phil, by close inspection we mean if something needs to be inspected.

The constable doesn't need to shine his light in every dark corner.
PC Long saw the piece of apron and the blood stains, his suspicions made him use his lamp to inspect for blood spots on the wall.
He didn't need his lamp "on" to look inside every entrance, only if he noticed something that required close inspection.
Also, the lamp could be "on", but there was a shield which slid across the lense which prevented the light from being seen by others.
I understand the lamps would get quite warm if they were "on" for any length of time.

PC Harvey didn't need his lamp "on" while walking down Church Passage.

[DJA]

Hello DJA.

1. No signs of strangulation on Kate.

2. Why move her from #6?

Cheers.
LC

A "near naked choke" which restricts the blood flow to the brain need not leave any signs.

Stage hypnotists sometimes used a couple of digits to the same end.
Melvin Powers described the technique in one of his books circa 1960.

If Jack owned or was leasing those premises,it was a good night to move Eddowes out of the house.
Might have been in a family member's name.

[Wickerman]

To be correct his estimation was twenty minutes to two so we have to give or take several minutes. And as we are only talking minutes,and minutes are crucial in respect of this murder are they not?

How do you mean, "to be correct"?

The Court version spells it out:
By the Jury: I go as far as to the end of Church Passage I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.
By Mr Crawford: I can only speak with certainty as to time with regard to the Post Office clock."

Crawford, apparently also added:
"That is assuming the clock was right? - yes."
Morning Advertiser.

Because if Lawende did see Eddowes and the killer at approx 1.35am, then death could have been as as late as 1.40am, giving the killer no time to do anything other than kill and mutilate before being disturbed by Harvey.

Which is your preference, it serves your theory, obviously.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"If we eliminate Lawende's sighting, we see 12-14 minutes available to the killer between Watkins leaving the square about 1:30, and his return at 1:44."

And if we eliminate Watkin's story because he was having a cuppa?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

I prefer to make allowances for something if there are indications in that direction.
Lets not just invent a possibility and then as a result, call the PC a liar.
That, is the Hutchinsonian approach.

[Harry D]

G'day Natasha

Do you mean it was her they saw, and she was dead, but perhaps being held upright

Reminds me of that urban myth about the girl on the train.

[Trevor Marriott]

How do you mean, "to be correct"?

The Court version spells it out:
By the Jury: I go as far as to the end of Church Passage I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.
By Mr Crawford: I can only speak with certainty as to time with regard to the Post Office clock."

Crawford, apparently also added:
"That is assuming the clock was right? - yes."
Morning Advertiser.

Which is your preference, it serves your theory, obviously.

Try page 236 Sourcebook what he states is ambiguous and Page 201 A-Z

It is not a preference it is a strong possibility based on actual times from witnesses. Whatever my theory I cannot change those times. But you are attempting to remove some of those witness timings to suit your own theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Try page 236 Sourcebook what he states is ambiguous and Page 201 A-Z

Why would I do that when we have the Court Record, plus, the Times, giving the same detail, just as I quoted above.

It is not a preference it is a strong possibility based on actual times from witnesses.

Haven't I been using the actual times from the witnesses?

Whatever my theory I cannot change those times. But you are attempting to remove some of those witness timings to suit your own theory.

Myself, and Swanson you mean?
I guess I'm in good company then.

So long as Lawende did not identify the woman, due to him not seeing her face, no-one can safely rely on his encounter being with Eddowes - that only stands to reason.
I don't require any theory to make that observation.
Would any ex-policeman disagree with that?