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

[Natasha]

Nats.
It is not mad, on the contrary it is quite conceivable that the couple seen by Lawende & Co. were not Eddowes & her killer.
Lawende never identified the body because he told police he did not see the woman's face, only that the clothes looked similar.

There has always been a rather controversial timing issue between Lawende's sighting at about 1:35, and Watkins discovery of the body at 1:44.
This controversy is resolved if we recognise that Lawende had not necessarily seen Eddowes, but another woman and her client.

Swanson also acknowledged this possibility.

The attack in Mitre Square was already in progress when Lawende & Co. stepped out of the Club.

Hi Jon,

It is plausible, but why didn't the couple come forward? I know that the papers stated that the identification of the man Lawende saw was withheld. Even in the inquest papers, the solicitor said only say if the jury want to hear it. Could that mean that man was someone of importance? But that still doesn't explain why the woman didn't come forward. As we know we have many controversial witnesses who came forward, perhaps for a bit of attention, like Mary Malcolm. So why didn't anyone come forward and claim to be the couple.

G'day Natasha

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

She was dead and they saw another couple?

G'day Gut,

I do mean the crazier idea of the two, that she was dead and being held upright.

OP is not making the run-of-the-mill suggestion that the couple seen by Lawende was not Eddowes with her killer. He appears to be making the more extraordinary suggestion that Eddowes was killed while standing.

I do not believe there is any forensic basis for such a belief. In fact, I believe the evidence suggests that Eddowes was cut on the ground, and therefore killed on the ground. But, Eddowes was somehow subdued before her killer placed her on the ground. We have no idea how that happened. The evidence provides no suggestion.

Hi Damaso,

First thing first, I am a she

I didn't say she was hacked up at this point, as you say the blood in Mitre square proves this.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

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?

Correct me if I am wrong but you have taken out the Lawende sighting in your equation which is fine?

So that leaves us with
Watkins 1.30am
Harvey 1.40am-1.42am approx
Watkins 1.44am

So you suggest that the killer could have had as long as 10-11 mins which I don't disagree with. But on the other side, again taking out Lawende. The killer may have had only a few minutes with the victim because the killer and Eddowes could have come into the square via Mitre Street at any time after Watkins left the square and before Harvey came down the passage.

The simple answer is we do not know and we can only take calculated guesses based on what we do know coupled with using a common sense approach.

That common sense doesn't stretch to the suggestion that the killer on seeing or hearing Pc Harvey coming down the passage stopped and remained silent until he had left and then carried on with his murder etc.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Natasha]

Surely there would be even less light inside the empty houses than out in the open air, dark though it was? Wherever the murder and mutilations were performed I think Jack must have had incredible night vision!

Didn't Lawende, Levy et al see the couple apparently amiably chatting? IMO it would be incredibly difficult to hold up a dead person's head as well as their body, unless the murderer rested the head on his chest. I'm reminded of post mortem Victorian photos of dead children and the like. There were braces and stands used by the photographer in aiming for a natural look.

Hi Rosella,

No in actual fact, he heard no talking whatsoever. Lawende was even asked about the placing of her hand on the man's chest saying it was placed there quietly.

It would be very difficult to hold someone up to look natural, but remember the woman had her back to Lawende & co, she could have been leaning on him, and he may have moved her hand. Also the area was not well lit according to Levy.

[Natasha]

Eddowes leaves Bishopsgate Police Station at 1.00am. It normally takes 8-10 mins to get to Mitre Square.
Watkins' beat would normally place him there 1.00pm, 1.15pm, 1.30pm..roughly speaking. No policeman sees or notices Eddowes during her walk. Nor any other person with her for that matter. She could arrive after Watkins' 1.15pm patrol round. But she was not seen at 1.30pm because the body was not there then..according to testimony. The night watchman was taking his nightly smoke, we are told, usually around 1.00pm onwards. He hears and sees nothing.
The other policeman. .who walks the entire length of the passage, sees nothing on his previous rounds either.

The testimony of the two doctors here is critical. They estimate the time of death to have been around the 1.40-1.45 mark.
It is unlikely both would be so far out in estimate if the body was there around 1.20pm. So the likelihood is that she was dead sometime after 1.30pm..Watkins next patrol. The windows of opportunity can only be relaxed and if two things occur..
1. The doctors are both mistaken in their estimated time of death.
2. The policemen's accounts of their times and movements and testimony are erroneous.



Phil

Hi Phil,

I don't think it possible to ascertain a time of death right down to the exact minute of death. Is there any special indication that can tell you either way that someone had in fact expired 10 minutes either side of 1.45?

With the police accounts, they do say it was approximately 1.45 that they found her. So if one copper couldn't tell you exactly what time it was, what does that tell you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Phil,

I don't think it possible to ascertain a time of death right down to the exact minute of death. Is there any special indication that can tell you either way that someone had in fact expired 10 minutes either side of 1.45?

With the police accounts, they do say it was approximately 1.45 that they found her. So if one copper couldn't tell you exactly what time it was, what does that tell you.

Hi Natasha

Well according to Watkins the body was not in the square at 1.30am. He then found the body at 1.44. The doctors attended a short time later and their estimates put the time of death between 1.30 and 1.45am.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha

Well according to Watkins the body was not in the square at 1.30am. He then found the body at 1.44. The doctors attended a short time later and their estimates put the time of death between 1.30 and 1.45am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Scott Nelson]

Daily Telegraph 1 October 1888:

"...indeed one of the policemen who saw the body in the mortuary expressed his confident opinion that he had seen the woman walking several times in the neighborhood of Aldgate High Street...The police theory is that the man and woman, who had met in Aldgate, watched the policeman [Watkins] pass round the square, and then they entered it for an immoral purpose."

[John G]

I

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.

Hello Natasha,

But if he considered it too risksy to kill and mutilate Eddowes at his own residence, applying the same logic, wouldn't he also consider it risky too risky to leave the body in Mitre Square, I.e. in the immediate vicinity? Isn't it more likely that he would seek to target victims a reasonable distance away from the locality where he lived? Or, at the very least, like the Torso Murderer he would have chosen a dump site some distance away from his residence?

[Phil Carter]

Daily Telegraph 1 October 1888:

"...indeed one of the policemen who saw the body in the mortuary expressed his confident opinion that he had seen the woman walking several times in the neighborhood of Aldgate High Street...The police theory is that the man and woman, who had met in Aldgate, watched the policeman [Watkins] pass round the square, and then they entered it for an immoral purpose."

hello Scott,

Can this policeman and his story be verified at all? If not it is just another newspaper comment that flies in the face of official comment.

The only connection I can see quite this is the comment by ? Macnaughten? About a policeman having seen the killer pre the murder. If the pair me were seen wandering around Aldham High Street..then that puts the Lawende story to bed.

Hello Natasha,

Watkins can never have seen Lawende nor Levy. Both were at the other end of Church passage on the other side of the road when observing the couple talking. I think you might mean the other policeman on duty at that end of the vicinity.

Phil

[Monty]

PC Robinson identified Eddowes body. Scott is spot on.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It is plausible, but why didn't the couple come forward? I know that the papers stated that the identification of the man Lawende saw was withheld. Even in the inquest papers, the solicitor said only say if the jury want to hear it. Could that mean that man was someone of importance? But that still doesn't explain why the woman didn't come forward. As we know we have many controversial witnesses who came forward, perhaps for a bit of attention, like Mary Malcolm. So why didn't anyone come forward and claim to be the couple.

Hi Nats.

The man may have been wanted by police on other charges, or he could have been married, or he might have had a responsible position in life and not wished this liaison been made public.
No shortage of reasons.

We do not even know if that woman was a prostitute, and so those same reason's given above could equally apply to the woman.
What if her husband, or boyfriend, or employer, found out?
Some women who had responsible factory jobs by day took to the streets by night to make up their pay.

[lynn cates]

in the clench

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

Dr. Brown claimed that her hands were palms up, fingers slightly bent.

Seems to preclude clinching.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Correct me if I am wrong but you have taken out the Lawende sighting in your equation which is fine?

So that leaves us with
Watkins 1.30am
Harvey 1.40am-1.42am approx
Watkins 1.44am

So you suggest that the killer could have had as long as 10-11 mins which I don't disagree with. But on the other side, again taking out Lawende. The killer may have had only a few minutes with the victim because the killer and Eddowes could have come into the square via Mitre Street at any time after Watkins left the square and before Harvey came down the passage.

The simple answer is we do not know and we can only take calculated guesses based on what we do know coupled with using a common sense approach.

That common sense doesn't stretch to the suggestion that the killer on seeing or hearing Pc Harvey coming down the passage stopped and remained silent until he had left and then carried on with his murder etc.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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...

[lynn cates]

new skill

Hello DJA. Thanks.

Did the assailant learn this skill in the 3 weeks between Annie's death and Kate's?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mendax

Hello Jon. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC