Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[Wickerman]

........ This would place less of a time constraint on the murder (and Mitre Square isn't a bad spot for a murder - three exits giving the killed options for escaping as soon as he heard a PC’s tread.

Absolutely, if Lawende did see the killer with Eddowes at 1:35, but Harvey saw no-one or heard nothing by 1:40, the killer is required to have escorted Eddowes down Church Passage and across the square then murder & mutilate her and leave the square, all in five minutes.
That is the conventional view, but in my mind it is far too tight.

In this scenario, the killer has no way of knowing if he had time, Watkins had left the square, Eddowes has no idea when he might return.
Whereas, if the 'people' Blenkinsop saw pass through St. James Place at 1:30 were Eddowes & the killer, at least it is possible they saw Watkins leaving the square so Eddowes might have known they would have 15 minutes before he returns.

[Wickerman]

I can’t recall, how long was Harvey’s round? What was the time gap between Watkins 1.30 pass and the previous PC (I assume Harvey?) in Mitre Square.

Harvey's arrival at the end of the passage is only assumed, he had no watch either but checked his timing by the post-office clock. So we have another +/_ of around 1:40'ish, always assuming he did walk to the end of the passage. We have reports from beat constables who admitted to often not walking to the end of a passage when they could see the end. It wasn't his responsibility to check the square, and as there was a lamp at the end of the passage, then he could see the end from a good distance up the passage.
There is a lot of assumptions being made in the Eddowes murder.

[Wickerman]

PC Watkins passed through Mitre Square at 1:30am. Lawende and his companions passed between say 1:33-1:35am. PC Harvey at roughly 1:40am stood at the bottom of Church Passage. At 1:44am the body was found.

Yes, but Lawende exited the club up on Duke St., this has no bearing on whether the killer & Eddowes entered the square on the heels of Watkins exiting.
I'm always intrigued by Blenkinsop's statement in the papers, to the effect that at 1:30 in the Orange Market a respectably-dressed man asked him "if he had seen a man & woman pass through here". He said he had seen some people pass.
I'm suspicious this was Eddowes with her killer.

It is incredibly to difficult to accept that the Ripper and Eddowes entered the square unseen between 1:33am and 1:44am.

Well yes, that is what I am saying, it is unlikely.
More likely the killer passed entered the square between 1:30-1:40, after Watkins but before Harvey.

[Herlock Sholmes]

PC Watkins passed through Mitre Square at 1:30am. Lawende and his companions passed between say 1:33-1:35am. PC Harvey at roughly 1:40am stood at the bottom of Church Passage. At 1:44am the body was found. It is incredibly to difficult to accept that the Ripper and Eddowes entered the square unseen between 1:33am and 1:44am. To complete the killing and mutilations must have taken the Ripper at least 5 minutes. The couple must have been Eddowes and the Ripper. I also believe PC Harvey peering into Mitre Square led the Ripper to panic and possibly wildly slash the face before tearing away a piece of apron. This is often overlooked as well. The reason he took the apron was because PC Harvey had spooked him.

The way I see it is this:

1:30: PC Watkins passed through Mitre Square

1:33am- 1:35am- Lawende and co. see Eddowes and the Ripper conversing at the entrance to Church Passage.

1:36am- 1:37am- Eddowes and the Ripper enter Mitre Square.

1:40am- 1:41am- PC Harvey peers into Mitre Square.

1:41am- 1:42am- The Ripper who has been spooked by Harvey's presence tears off a piece of Eddowes apron and escapes.

1:44am- Eddowes body is found.

This seems the most likely scenario to my mind and in many ways the only scenario that fits the known facts. Attempting to portray the Lawende sighting as doubtful however leaves difficulty in shoehorned Eddowes and the Ripper into the equation.

What if we take into consideration that even Constable’s on the beat can’t always be replied upon for exact times SD? (PC Lamb, for example, didn’t have a watch) So perhaps it might have been a case of:

1.28 - Watkins passes through the Mitre Square.

1.30 - Eddowes meets her killer in the square.

1.33-1.35 Lawende and co. see two people at the entrance of the passage.

1.40 - Harvey looks into Mitre Square - the killer leaves.

That would have allowed the killer 10 minutes with Eddowes.

……

I can’t recall, how long was Harvey’s round? What was the time gap between Watkins 1.30 pass and the previous PC (I assume Harvey?) in Mitre Square.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bare in mind though, Lawende was unable to identify the body of Eddowes because he said he saw the woman from behind, he did not see her face (Insp. McWilliam). Most women wore dark clothing and it was only to that extent that he could make any identification. The point being, the woman may not have been Eddowes to start with.

At 1:35 am (give or take), when Lawende came out of the club, Eddowes and her killer may well have been in Mitre Sq., she may have been dead already. At 1:40 roughly, PC Harvey stood at the bottom of Church Passage but likely couldn't see the body across the square.
The body being discovered about 1:44 am by Watkins, makes it very unlikely that the murderer escorted Eddowes to that corner, murdered & mutilated her all between 1:40 - 1:44.
Swanson was equally doubtful (re: clothing only 'similar') about whether the woman Lawende saw was Eddowes.

I think modern theorists are more inclined to accept the woman being Eddowes as the path of least resistance, but the actual evidence leaves the question open.

Absolutely Wick. It’s a case of taking the ‘surely it must have been Eddowes and her killer’ viewpoint but the streets weren’t entirely deserted so it wouldn’t have been anything extraordinary in Lawende and co seeing 2 people totally unconnected to the case a very few minutes after Eddowes and her kille had entered the square. This would place less of a time constraint on the murder (and Mitre Square isn't a bad spot for a murder - three exits giving the killed options for escaping as soon as he heard a PC’s tread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride and also with Catherine Eddowes the next victim. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case, certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No argument from me on this point Trevor. Caution has to be applied and serious consideration to the above points.

[Sunny Delight]

Bare in mind though, Lawende was unable to identify the body of Eddowes because he said he saw the woman from behind, he did not see her face (Insp. McWilliam). Most women wore dark clothing and it was only to that extent that he could make any identification. The point being, the woman may not have been Eddowes to start with.

At 1:35 am (give or take), when Lawende came out of the club, Eddowes and her killer may well have been in Mitre Sq., she may have been dead already. At 1:40 roughly, PC Harvey stood at the bottom of Church Passage but likely couldn't see the body across the square.
The body being discovered about 1:44 am by Watkins, makes it very unlikely that the murderer escorted Eddowes to that corner, murdered & mutilated her all between 1:40 - 1:44.
Swanson was equally doubtful (re: clothing only 'similar') about whether the woman Lawende saw was Eddowes.

I think modern theorists are more inclined to accept the woman being Eddowes as the path of least resistance, but the actual evidence leaves the question open.

PC Watkins passed through Mitre Square at 1:30am. Lawende and his companions passed between say 1:33-1:35am. PC Harvey at roughly 1:40am stood at the bottom of Church Passage. At 1:44am the body was found. It is incredibly to difficult to accept that the Ripper and Eddowes entered the square unseen between 1:33am and 1:44am. To complete the killing and mutilations must have taken the Ripper at least 5 minutes. The couple must have been Eddowes and the Ripper. I also believe PC Harvey peering into Mitre Square led the Ripper to panic and possibly wildly slash the face before tearing away a piece of apron. This is often overlooked as well. The reason he took the apron was because PC Harvey had spooked him.

The way I see it is this:

1:30: PC Watkins passed through Mitre Square

1:33am- 1:35am- Lawende and co. see Eddowes and the Ripper conversing at the entrance to Church Passage.

1:36am- 1:37am- Eddowes and the Ripper enter Mitre Square.

1:40am- 1:41am- PC Harvey peers into Mitre Square.

1:41am- 1:42am- The Ripper who has been spooked by Harvey's presence tears off a piece of Eddowes apron and escapes.

1:44am- Eddowes body is found.

This seems the most likely scenario to my mind and in many ways the only scenario that fits the known facts. Attempting to portray the Lawende sighting as doubtful however leaves difficulty in shoehorned Eddowes and the Ripper into the equation.

[John Wheat]

For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride and also with Catherine Eddowes the next victim. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case, certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's also important to note that we don't know if any witnesses actually saw Jack the Ripper.

[Wickerman]

Exactly. It is a very good summary of what Schwartz said and ties in well with the press statement. So yeah I won't be going there with Trevor. I think it is something often overlooked the similarities between B.S man and Lawende's suspect. To my mind it's the same person although of course we can never prove it as the killer was never caught.

Bare in mind though, Lawende was unable to identify the body of Eddowes because he said he saw the woman from behind, he did not see her face (Insp. McWilliam). Most women wore dark clothing and it was only to that extent that he could make any identification. The point being, the woman may not have been Eddowes to start with.

At 1:35 am (give or take), when Lawende came out of the club, Eddowes and her killer may well have been in Mitre Sq., she may have been dead already. At 1:40 roughly, PC Harvey stood at the bottom of Church Passage but likely couldn't see the body across the square.
The body being discovered about 1:44 am by Watkins, makes it very unlikely that the murderer escorted Eddowes to that corner, murdered & mutilated her all between 1:40 - 1:44.
Swanson was equally doubtful (re: clothing only 'similar') about whether the woman Lawende saw was Eddowes.

I think modern theorists are more inclined to accept the woman being Eddowes as the path of least resistance, but the actual evidence leaves the question open.

[Trevor Marriott]

I just think that errors can be made when estimating ties and we know that visual identifications can be inaccurate.

For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride and also with Catherine Eddowes the next victim. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case, certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So the unknown makes for any number of different possibilities .?

I just think that errors can be made when estimating ties and we know that visual identifications can be inaccurate.

[Trevor Marriott]

You know where .

There is no written statement from Schwartz and you know it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

It’s possible that he didn’t walk far before turning back. When we have a situation where we don’t know exactly what happened pretty much anything with reason couldn’t happen so Pipeman going say 5 or 10 yards past the corner then turning back isn’t much of a stretch of the imagination. Especially if he was thinking of there ding a woman there potentially susceptible to some attention.

So the unknown makes for any number of different possibilities .?

[Herlock Sholmes]

''Another suggestion….. could Pipeman and Parcelman have been one and the same'' Yes



However given that Pipeman followed Schwartz who ran as far as the Railway Arch but Pipeman didnt follow as far. [ how far is the arch from where Schwartz started his run . ? How far do we estimate Pipeman got befor he stopped? , what problems now come into play if he had to double back to kill Stride ?. Its just possible also that Pipeman never returned to the spot where Schwartz originally saw him after finished following him .

It’s possible that he didn’t walk far before turning back. When we have a situation where we don’t know exactly what happened pretty much anything with reason couldn’t happen so Pipeman going say 5 or 10 yards past the corner then turning back isn’t much of a stretch of the imagination. Especially if he was thinking of there ding a woman there potentially susceptible to some attention.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

None of it is anything that I’m relying on of course but I was just thinking around 3 possibles. 1) that the incident might have been less serious than we’ve assumed, 2) that estimations of times can be wrong, and 3) that identifications can be mistaken/inaccurate.

I don’t think that I could face a whole thread on the subject though

Those are 3 very good possibilities Herlock.

Cheers, George