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

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Actually, a mere suggestion. Wouldn't DREAM of calling anyone a liar--without evidence.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
Certainly, I know you don't do that.
It's the premise, that lends itself to that interpretation.
Had Morris given any indication that this practice happened from time to time then it is something to consider.
If it's just guesswork in order to cast doubt on Watkins, then I would object to the suggestion.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

The point being seen walking around between
1.00am and 1.30am..not earlier pre arrest etc.
Nobody saw her then..as far as I am aware.(after her release. .With certainty)



Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I take your point Trevor, excuse me if I find it amusing that you argue for common sense from a killer who murdered & mutilated women right under peoples noses.

That said, as the wounds to the body appear consistent with a right-handed assailant, and in order to conduct those mutilations the killer must take his stand at the right side of the body. Then it is quite possible that the killer had his back to Church Passage, and was engrossed in his business when Harvey appeared at the foot of the passage.
Taken by surprise his only option was to freeze, and wait for the intruder to make the first move...

The intruder as you put it was already making the first move he was walking down the path in Church Passage, which had he kept walking on that same path he would have fallen over the killer if as you say the killer stopped and waited.

Escacpe as quick as possible is what anyone would do if they were in the process of committing a murder and looked up and saw and heard a police man coming in their direction. Even a raving lunatic would not stay around.

You clearly have not read one of the updated chapters in my book from another forensic pathologist who states that it is almost impossible to tell left handed killers from right handed killers and again states that this was guesswork by Victorian Doctors, and sadly like times of death have been wrongly accepted by researchers for many years. If you read that perhaps you might want to view some of the murders in a different light.

In case you have not purchased the book as yet here is the link

http://amzn.to/1GejU2c

[Wickerman]

The intruder as you put it was already making the first move he was walking down the path in Church Passage, which had he kept walking on that same path he would have fallen over the killer if as you say the killer stopped and waited.

But, you are assuming the killer heard Harvey's footsteps, which he may have done. In that case yes, he would flee. However, there is no guarantee that he did hear Harvey approach, in which case we should consider another alternative.
If he didn't hear Harvey approach, then why attract attention to himself by making a sudden movement?

Escacpe as quick as possible is what anyone would do if they were in the process of committing a murder and looked up and saw and heard a police man coming in their direction. Even a raving lunatic would not stay around.

And thereby attract attention, fleeing footsteps across the cobbles would alert Harvey, and a chase would ensue.
The killer is after all in the darkest corner of the square, why attract attention?, just remain still and see what happens.
Remember, the killer is the one who is armed, not the constable.

You clearly have not read one of the updated chapters in my book from another forensic pathologist who states that it is almost impossible to tell left handed killers from right handed killers and again states that this was guesswork by Victorian Doctors, and sadly like times of death have been wrongly accepted by researchers for many years. If you read that perhaps you might want to view some of the murders in a different light.

In case you have not purchased the book as yet here is the link

http://amzn.to/1GejU2c

Very thoughtful of you, however, I have the benefit of a previous Casebook member named Dr. Thomas Ind. who's title was, "Senior Registrar in Gynaecological Oncology Surgery at the Royal Hospitals Trust in London (Barts & the Royal London Hospitals)."
He was kind enough to give us the benefit of his experience in January 2000, whereby he concluded:
"I would say that the gynaecological evidence points to him being right handed not left."


Added:
By the way Trevor, did you happen to tell your forensic pathologist that Annie Chapman was laid with her left side up against a fence?
Do you think the Victorian doctors might have used a dash of common sense?

[Observer]

PC Robinson identified Eddowes body. Scott is spot on.

Monty

Indeed. Furthermore, He stated that he had seen Eddowes several times in the neighbourhood of Aldgate high Street. I believe he was referring to a time previous to the night she was murdered.

I brought this up some time ago.

I, like the police of the time, believe she was picked up in Aldgate High Street on the night of her murder, and then took her murderer to Mitre Square. If this is the case, what struck me some time ago as it does now, is why she decided to halt in Duke Street, at the entrance to Church Passage, and converse with her companion. Was she having second thoughts, doubts as to the real intentions of the man who had just picked her up?

[DJA]

"I would say that the gynaecological evidence points to him being right handed not left."

Thanks for that,made my day

Incidentally the Police sketch of Mitre Square shows the Church Passage lamp at 57 feet from Eddowes's corpse and the Kearly and Tonge lamp at 52 feet.

Harvey was possibly 45 feet away with only a Police lantern.

Watkin's beat would appear to define the mutilation time.

We do appear to be dealing with a well trained individual who can operate in complete darkness.
Knowledge of a choke hold would be handy with any dangerous client.
Never had to use more than a simple headlock myself.

[Garry Wroe]

If this is the case, what struck me some time ago as it does now, is why she decided to halt in Duke Street, at the entrance to Church Passage, and converse with her companion.

Perhaps doing what Lawende and party had been doing until a few seconds earlier - sheltering from the rain.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

If Watkins was in the square at 1.30, Does he check properly? I mean how long would it take him to check? Did he poke his head in, did he look over every inch? I would like to know because it's funny that he never sees the couple and Lawende & Levy.

So if the killer knew roughly the route the police took, then he knew he only had so long to mutilate the body. The killer must have known it was safe for him to proceeded to kill Eddowes, because he must have been watching the police.

So this is my scenario: the killer as DJA says was inhabiting a house on Mitre square, he has killed Eddowes. As Jon says the police may have checked the surrounding houses on the square. So he knows it would be risky to kill & mutilate Eddowes in the house. He watches the police patrolling around the square. He then, seeing as Watkins has left drags Eddowes into the square, to mutilate her.

If you think about it, what better way to commit some form of crime then in an area that a policeman has just deemed uneventful, crime free.

Though I'm too sure about how accurate the police's timekeeping was.

But the doctors said she was killed where she was found !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But, you are assuming the killer heard Harvey's footsteps, which he may have done. In that case yes, he would flee. However, there is no guarantee that he did hear Harvey approach, in which case we should consider another alternative.
If he didn't hear Harvey approach, then why attract attention to himself by making a sudden movement?

But he could not have failed to see or hear Harvey at some point when he was coming down the passage.Harvey would have been outlined by the light from the lamp


And thereby attract attention, fleeing footsteps across the cobbles would alert Harvey, and a chase would ensue.

Did the police give chase to every man who on seeing them ran away? of course not.

Surely any sounds of footsteps the killer would have made in escape would have been masked by the sounds of the footsteps of Harvey

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

But, you are assuming the killer heard Harvey's footsteps, which he may have done. In that case yes, he would flee. However, there is no guarantee that he did hear Harvey approach, in which case we should consider another alternative.
If he didn't hear Harvey approach, then why attract attention to himself by making a sudden movement?




And thereby attract attention, fleeing footsteps across the cobbles would alert Harvey, and a chase would ensue.
The killer is after all in the darkest corner of the square, why attract attention?, just remain still and see what happens.
Remember, the killer is the one who is armed, not the constable.




Very thoughtful of you, however, I have the benefit of a previous Casebook member named Dr. Thomas Ind. who's title was, "Senior Registrar in Gynaecological Oncology Surgery at the Royal Hospitals Trust in London (Barts & the Royal London Hospitals)."
He was kind enough to give us the benefit of his experience in January 2000, whereby he concluded:
"I would say that the gynaecological evidence points to him being right handed not left."


Added:
By the way Trevor, did you happen to tell your forensic pathologist that Annie Chapman was laid with her left side up against a fence?
Do you think the Victorian doctors might have used a dash of common sense?

Hello Jon,

Trevor's latest expert is a forensic pathologist. With the greatest of respect to Dr Ind, I would submit that this is a far more relevant speciality, to the issues under consideration, than Gynaecological Oncology.

I suppose it's the case with most professions. For example, if I wanted advice on an aspect of property law I wouldn't consult a family or criminal lawyer, although they may be able to provide basic advice.

[DJA]

But the doctors said she was killed where she was found !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That was Sequeira's version.

Prefer Brown's.

[DJA]

Hello Jon,

Trevor's latest expert is a forensic pathologist. With the greatest of respect to Dr Ind, I would submit that this is a far more relevant speciality, to the issues under consideration, than Gynaecological Oncology.

I suppose it's the case with most professions. For example, if I wanted advice on an aspect of property law I wouldn't consult a family or criminal lawyer, although they may be able to provide basic advice.

Given that an attempt appeared to have been made to take Chapman's head off and an actual forensic pathologist's examination revealed TB there,Gynaecological Oncology is worth consideration.

[Monty]

Indeed. Furthermore, He stated that he had seen Eddowes several times in the neighbourhood of Aldgate high Street. I believe he was referring to a time previous to the night she was murdered.

I brought this up some time ago.

I, like the police of the time, believe she was picked up in Aldgate High Street on the night of her murder, and then took her murderer to Mitre Square. If this is the case, what struck me some time ago as it does now, is why she decided to halt in Duke Street, at the entrance to Church Passage, and converse with her companion. Was she having second thoughts, doubts as to the real intentions of the man who had just picked her up?

Absolutely Observer,

Earlier is not a specifically precise time.

I'd say she was lingering to wait for Watkins to sweep through at 1.30am.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Given that an attempt appeared to have been made to take Chapman's head off and an actual forensic pathologist's examination revealed TB there,Gynaecological Oncology is worth consideration.

But if the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scene the argument is academic

[DJA]

But if the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scene the argument is academic

The killer was acknowledged as attempting to decapitate Annie Chapman.

Nothing academic about that.

It is stated fact.

She had TB of the head.

Fact.

By academic,I surmise you mean "theoretical" as against "scholarly activities".