Mitre Square: Take Two?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The standard version of events, which may well be correct, is that Catherine Eddowes got released from Bishopsgate Station at around 1.00 and was next seen talking to a man in Duke Street next to Church Passage by Joseph Lawende and his two friends as they headed home not long after 1.30. At around 1.40 PC Harvey walked along Duke Street and down Church Passage and looked into Mitre Square without actually entering it and seeing that all was well he continued on his beat. The body of Catherine Eddowes was found by PC Watkins at around 1.44. Watkins beat meant that he entered Mitre Square from Mitre Street, walked around the square and left by the same exit and as his beat took him around 12-14 minutes he must have previously lapped Mitre Square at around 1.30.

Shouldn’t we consider all possibilities here though, including that witnesses can be mistaken and even lie? It’s difficult to come up with a reason why Lawende and co might have lied but is it so difficult to think of a reason or two why a Constable might have been a bit economical with the truth? Perhaps he might have been behind time which encouraged him to cut a corner or two? Perhaps he’d been up to something that he shouldn’t have (we know that officers have been sacked for drinking on duty or for ‘consorting’ with women.) Perhaps he had just felt unhappy with his lot and decided to ‘leave out’ a part of his duty because he couldn’t be bothered? Is the idea really so unbelievable? If so, then perhaps we should consider the fact that PC Harvey was dismissed just 9 months after Eddowes murder and although we don’t know why we can be sure that it wasn’t due to his being over-conscientious. Many have no qualms about calling senior officers (like Anderson and Macnaghten) liars so why are we reluctant to view lower ranking officers a bit more critically? I think that it may, in part, be because we worry about being accused of doubting a Constable just to allow for a favoured version of events to ‘fit’ but this doesn’t have to be the case. Three points:

1. If there hadn’t been a murder and we just knew that Catherine had been released at 1.00 we would have assumed that she would have arrived at Mitre Square at around 1.10 - so why was she supposedly still chatting in Duke Street 20-25 minutes later? If she had walked back toward Whitechapel and met her killer on the way why would Mitre Square have been their destination? Surely they could have found a likely spot without walking to Mitre Square? And is it really likely that Catherine would have stood around in Duke Street hoping to meet a man wiling to part with some money or is it likelier that she would have headed for more familiar territory? Whatever was actually the case we have to wonder what Catherine did after being released?
2. Considering the debate that rages on how long it would have taken the killer to murder, mutilate and remove organs, then can anyone believe that Catherine’s body (possibly/probably with her killer) wasn’t in situ in Mitre Square when PC Harvey supposedly stood at the end of Church Passage at 1.40? If she/they were there then how did Harvey not see them? There can only be two explanations, a) she was in an area of deep shadow and so he didn’t see her/them? Or b) Harvey was never there. He didn’t bother going down Church Passage and lied about it for obvious reasons.
3. If we can suggest that Harvey might have missed the body in the shadows or that he simply lied about being there could we ask questions of Watkins too? Might he have a) gone into Mitre Square from Mitre Street, walked up to the top of the square near to Kearley and Tongue and just looked to her right without actually walking into that corner and could he therefore have missed the body in the deep shadows and then kept quiet about this lapse? Or b) might he have just not walked around Mitre Square for whatever reason?

I’m not pushing a theory, I’m just making an alternative suggestion. Considering the 10 minute walk from Bishopsgate Station to Mitre Square and considering that even Constable’s can make mistakes and can lie to cover up for rule-breaking isn’t the following possible…


Catherine Eddowes is released at 1.00 and arrives at Mitre Square at around 1.10. She either met a man just as she was near to the square, or in Duke Street or even as she was walking through the square. By 1.15 she is dead. At 1.30 PC Watkins either has a cursory look into Mitre Square and misses Eddowes (and maybe her killer) in the shadows or he just doesn’t bother entering the square. Around that time a man and a woman stand talking in Duke Street. The woman is of the same build as Eddowes and is similarly dressed (hardly surprising in those days and considering the levels of poverty) Then at 1.40 PC Harvey has a quick look along Church Passage and sees nothing or else he just walks on past it. Then at 1.44 Watkins returns and has a better look around the square this time and he finds the body. Eddowes has been dead for close on 30 minutes.


I’d suggest that this scenario is by no means impossible. Many may find it unlikely but seemingly unlikely things can and do happen. All that we need to consider is a couple of Constable’s who might not have been the most diligent of officers and the fact that poor women at that time hardly dressed in individualistic clothing which would make it easier to mistake one for another, especially when the witness is in the act of walking past across the other side of the street.

[Tani]

This kind of thinking is pretty much exactly where I'm coming from with what I'm going to start calling the Bathroom Hypothesis as in this post #8 https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...isk#post853536

If the constables even just feel that listening has been sufficient, say listening around Mitre Square rather than visiting it, that lowers the risk factor; if the constables decided that 'nothing ever happens there' or 'I can hear it and I didn't hear anything', this significantly lowers the risk for Jack just going in. People often become complacent when they have been doing the same routine for even just a few weeks and start to assume they know more than they do, or that they could hear or see someone or something unusual when in reality they couldn't. This sort of thing also seems to be the case with this example in the IPN,

...He could hear the footsteps of the policeman as he passed on his beat every quarter of an hour, so that it appeared impossible that the woman could have uttered any sound without his detecting it. It was only on the night that he remarked to some policeman that he wished the "butcher" would come round Mitre Square and he would give him a doing; yet the "butcher" had come and he was perfectly ignorant of it.” The Body of Catherine Eddowes is Discovered.

This kind of scenario seems to be quite plausible.

A policeman failing to do his beat properly because he's drinking, tired, or just simply lazy and thinks 'I've been around Mite Square 5 times already, what's the chances that the 6th will turn up anything new?' and then lies about it seems more than adequate to me to help explain why the Ripper was never caught or seen. We know that the public already thought the police were beyond incompetent, as did journalists and apparently the Home Office, so maybe we should start putting more stock in the idea that the police could have simply just been incompetent. That's not to suggest that every single PC was bad at doing his job, but usually when the top brass is bad, that tends to leak downwards. And whilst I'm aware we're dealing with two different forces, the Met and the City Police, I think they're close enough to be compared, even though I'd say City were better by a margin.

[jerryd]

Hi Herlock, and thanks for starting another interesting thread.

"By 1.15 she is dead."

The problem I see with this scenario is this: According to Lawende and company it was raining so hard at 1:30ish that they "could not" leave the Imperial Club. If Catherine had been dead on the pavement in nearby Mitre Square since 1:15 a.m., wouldn't she have been drenched? Why do none of the other witnesses speak of the rain? Was it the rain that kept the constables from performing their duties? Why no mention of Catherine's clothing, hair, etc. being soaked with rain? Was she taking cover on her way to Mitre Square? Maybe it took her longer than 10 minutes to arrive due to the rain?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, and thanks for starting another interesting thread.

"By 1.15 she is dead."

The problem I see with this scenario is this: According to Lawende and company it was raining so hard at 1:30ish that they "could not" leave the Imperial Club. If Catherine had been dead on the pavement in nearby Mitre Square since 1:15 a.m., wouldn't she have been drenched? Why do none of the other witnesses speak of the rain? Was it the rain that kept the constables from performing their duties? Why no mention of Catherine's clothing, hair, etc. being soaked with rain? Was she taking cover on her way to Mitre Square? Maybe it took her longer than 10 minutes to arrive due to the rain?

Hi Jerry,

That’s a good point of course. I’d forgotten the mention of rain tbh. Do we know how long it rained for though? Might it have just been a short shower which occurred just before the men were about to leave the club? What I’m wondering is whether it’s possible that the rain began at closer to 1.30 so that it was a 5 or 10 minute shower which occurred after she was dead and might the location in Mitre Square, with surrounding buildings, have provided some measure of shelter?

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Herlock, and thanks for starting another interesting thread.

"By 1.15 she is dead."

The problem I see with this scenario is this: According to Lawende and company it was raining so hard at 1:30ish that they "could not" leave the Imperial Club. If Catherine had been dead on the pavement in nearby Mitre Square since 1:15 a.m., wouldn't she have been drenched? Why do none of the other witnesses speak of the rain? Was it the rain that kept the constables from performing their duties? Why no mention of Catherine's clothing, hair, etc. being soaked with rain? Was she taking cover on her way to Mitre Square? Maybe it took her longer than 10 minutes to arrive due to the rain?

Hi Jerry,
you make a good point about the rain, and perhaps that was a good reason for Eddowes and her killer to end up at Church Passage - to get out of it until it passed?

If Eddowes was sobering up from a drunk she had to sleep off it makes you wonder what she was thinking her options were.
Was she headed to St Botolphs a known area for prostitutes to hook up with punchers? Doss money? That might make sense.

It could also be that Eddowes met the killer headed towards Aldgate and waited out the rain somewhere other than Church Passage. She met the killer somewhere in the area. There was no mention of her being drenched.

I cant speak for the PCs or if there was any cutting of corners so to speak. I would think that the PCs were on high alert because of Tabrum, Chapman and Nichols. According to Doctor Brown who arrived at 2 am he believed she was murdered within the half hour. So 1:30 to 2pm approximate.

if PC Watkins was on a 14 minute beat he would have hit the Square around 1:30 am. Seems to me he would have seen someone on Mitre Street. Again there is the rain? Did Watkins seek shelter to wait it out?

Did Levy see the man and woman first as he commented to Lawende and Harris about going home with these characters about. And then Lawende takes a closer look? He describes a man about 5 ft 7 inches, salt & pepper coat, peaked cloth cap and red neckerchief, looked like a Sailor? But Lawende could only describe Eddowes clothes eventhough she was against the wall facing the witnesses? Levy saw the man as 5 ft 3 inches or slightly taller than the victim. Eddowes was 5 ft 0.

I guess the only certainty is that Eddowes left Bishopgate close to 1am and was possibly seen by 3 men at Church Passage talking to a man around 1:35 am. Was found by PC Watkins at 1:44 am and Dr Brown at 2 am who thought she had died within the half hour.

Eddowes did not apparently leave Bishopgate Police Station when it was pouring down rain. So the rain must have been a quick shower between 1am and 1:30 am.

Good thought provoking post Herlock!

[jerryd]

Thanks Herlock and Patrick,

Looking at sketches, photographs, etc. of Mitre Square, it appears to be pretty open in terms of having cover or not.

Regarding the rain. We can look earlier into the night (Stride murder) for clues as to how hard or long it may have been raining. I realize it is hard to predict which way the storm was heading or how long it lasted, but below I have included some snippets that indicate the storm was pretty heavy at times.

-Lloyds
Sept. 30, 1888

In London has the most uncertainty prevailed and late last evening the heaviest downpour of the week occurred.


-Packer: "Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open."


-J. Best, 82, Lower Chapman-street, said: I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and a woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out.

There was mention of wet clothes with Elizabeth Stride but I haven't found mention of it with Eddowes. It seems only the Lawende group mentions heavy rain.

Hull Daily Mail
October 1, 1888

The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Patrick. I think there are quite a few options but I wouldn’t bet money on being right on any of them tbh. It’s perhaps likeliest that Lawende and co did see Eddowes with a man and he was possibly, even probably, her killer but maybe not. What if she tried to solicit this guy but he either wasn’t interested or he had no money? Maybe he was someone that she knew and she was trying to borrow cash? They might have parted company and she could have walked into Mitre Square and ran into her killer coming from Mitre Street.

Or, what if she entered Mitre Square with her killer just after Watkins had done his circuit of the square at around 1.30 (maybe they even got to the end of Church Passage and saw Watkins lamp and so held back until he left?) This might have allowed the killer 13 or 14 minutes with his victim although we would have to assume that either Harvey didn’t see them or that he didn’t go down Church Passage. Harvey is easier to doubt than Watkins imo. As Watkins found her at 1.44 i’d suggest that very few, if any, would believe that she wasn’t lying dead at 1.40. So he either missed her or he wasn’t there. Then there’s the fact of his dismissal 9 months later to consider.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock and Patrick,

Looking at sketches, photographs, etc. of Mitre Square, it appears to be pretty open in terms of having cover or not.

Regarding the rain. We can look earlier into the night (Stride murder) for clues as to how hard or long it may have been raining. I realize it is hard to predict which way the storm was heading or how long it lasted, but below I have included some snippets that indicate the storm was pretty heavy at times.

-Lloyds
Sept. 30, 1888

In London has the most uncertainty prevailed and late last evening the heaviest downpour of the week occurred.


-Packer: "Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open."


-J. Best, 82, Lower Chapman-street, said: I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and a woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out.

There was mention of wet clothes with Elizabeth Stride but I haven't found mention of it with Eddowes. It seems only the Lawende group mentions heavy rain.

Hull Daily Mail
October 1, 1888

The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain.

There’s no mention of rain while the police and the witnesses were in Dutfield’s Yard just after 1.00 though Jerry but, as you’ve pointed out, there’s no denying that Lawende mentioned rain which would have been at some point before 1.30. I’m still wondering if it might only have been a short shower though? Maybe her apparent late arrival was due to the fact that she had taken shelter as you suggest.

[Trevor Marriott]

The standard version of events, which may well be correct, is that Catherine Eddowes got released from Bishopsgate Station at around 1.00 and was next seen talking to a man in Duke Street next to Church Passage by Joseph Lawende and his two friends as they headed home not long after 1.30. At around 1.40 PC Harvey walked along Duke Street and down Church Passage and looked into Mitre Square without actually entering it and seeing that all was well he continued on his beat. The body of Catherine Eddowes was found by PC Watkins at around 1.44. Watkins beat meant that he entered Mitre Square from Mitre Street, walked around the square and left by the same exit and as his beat took him around 12-14 minutes he must have previously lapped Mitre Square at around 1.30.

Shouldn’t we consider all possibilities here though, including that witnesses can be mistaken and even lie? It’s difficult to come up with a reason why Lawende and co might have lied but is it so difficult to think of a reason or two why a Constable might have been a bit economical with the truth? Perhaps he might have been behind time which encouraged him to cut a corner or two? Perhaps he’d been up to something that he shouldn’t have (we know that officers have been sacked for drinking on duty or for ‘consorting’ with women.) Perhaps he had just felt unhappy with his lot and decided to ‘leave out’ a part of his duty because he couldn’t be bothered? Is the idea really so unbelievable? If so, then perhaps we should consider the fact that PC Harvey was dismissed just 9 months after Eddowes murder and although we don’t know why we can be sure that it wasn’t due to his being over-conscientious. Many have no qualms about calling senior officers (like Anderson and Macnaghten) liars so why are we reluctant to view lower ranking officers a bit more critically? I think that it may, in part, be because we worry about being accused of doubting a Constable just to allow for a favoured version of events to ‘fit’ but this doesn’t have to be the case. Three points:

1. If there hadn’t been a murder and we just knew that Catherine had been released at 1.00 we would have assumed that she would have arrived at Mitre Square at around 1.10 - so why was she supposedly still chatting in Duke Street 20-25 minutes later? If she had walked back toward Whitechapel and met her killer on the way why would Mitre Square have been their destination? Surely they could have found a likely spot without walking to Mitre Square? And is it really likely that Catherine would have stood around in Duke Street hoping to meet a man wiling to part with some money or is it likelier that she would have headed for more familiar territory? Whatever was actually the case we have to wonder what Catherine did after being released?
2. Considering the debate that rages on how long it would have taken the killer to murder, mutilate and remove organs, then can anyone believe that Catherine’s body (possibly/probably with her killer) wasn’t in situ in Mitre Square when PC Harvey supposedly stood at the end of Church Passage at 1.40? If she/they were there then how did Harvey not see them? There can only be two explanations, a) she was in an area of deep shadow and so he didn’t see her/them? Or b) Harvey was never there. He didn’t bother going down Church Passage and lied about it for obvious reasons.
3. If we can suggest that Harvey might have missed the body in the shadows or that he simply lied about being there could we ask questions of Watkins too? Might he have a) gone into Mitre Square from Mitre Street, walked up to the top of the square near to Kearley and Tongue and just looked to her right without actually walking into that corner and could he therefore have missed the body in the deep shadows and then kept quiet about this lapse? Or b) might he have just not walked around Mitre Square for whatever reason?

I’m not pushing a theory, I’m just making an alternative suggestion. Considering the 10 minute walk from Bishopsgate Station to Mitre Square and considering that even Constable’s can make mistakes and can lie to cover up for rule-breaking isn’t the following possible…


Catherine Eddowes is released at 1.00 and arrives at Mitre Square at around 1.10. She either met a man just as she was near to the square, or in Duke Street or even as she was walking through the square. By 1.15 she is dead. At 1.30 PC Watkins either has a cursory look into Mitre Square and misses Eddowes (and maybe her killer) in the shadows or he just doesn’t bother entering the square. Around that time a man and a woman stand talking in Duke Street. The woman is of the same build as Eddowes and is similarly dressed (hardly surprising in those days and considering the levels of poverty) Then at 1.40 PC Harvey has a quick look along Church Passage and sees nothing or else he just walks on past it. Then at 1.44 Watkins returns and has a better look around the square this time and he finds the body. Eddowes has been dead for close on 30 minutes.


I’d suggest that this scenario is by no means impossible. Many may find it unlikely but seemingly unlikely things can and do happen. All that we need to consider is a couple of Constable’s who might not have been the most diligent of officers and the fact that poor women at that time hardly dressed in individualistic clothing which would make it easier to mistake one for another, especially when the witness is in the act of walking past across the other side of the street.

The problem is that if Eddowes was the female seen talking with a man by Lawende at the entrance to Mitre Square then we have no evidence to show what time they entered the square. The longer they waited the less time the killer had to do all that it is alleged he did.

On another note, there is no mention that her clothes were soaked through so she clearly had not been out in the rain and therefore her body could not have been there any earlier

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Geddy2112]

My question, which might give a clue is why was Catherine out that far West in the first place? What are the incidents leading up to her arrest? Her mutilations must have taken a good amount of time. What were the medical professionals opinions on time of death? Although we all know how accurate they are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem is that if Eddowes was the female seen talking with a man by Lawende at the entrance to Mitre Square then we have no evidence to show what time they entered the square. The longer they waited the less time the killer had to do all that it is alleged he did.

There’s no point in saying that they might have waited a while Trevor, reducing the actual kill time, because we might as well say “..perhaps the couple never entered the square,” or “..if the man wasn’t carrying a knife he couldn’t have been the killer.” All that we need to know and accept is that they could have entered Mitre Square immediately after the three men passed (whatever time that actually was)

On another note, there is no mention that her clothes were soaked through so she clearly had not been out in the rain and therefore her body could not have been there any earlier

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We don’t know when it rain, how heavy it was or how long it rained for though Trevor. What if, for example, Lawende and co intended to go home at 1.00 but the saw (or were told) that it was raining so they sat back down and continued talking, not realising that it had stopped at 1.05 or 1.10, during which time Eddowes had ducked into a doorway for shelter.

Although no one mentioned her clothes being damp but as the police would have known about the rain would they necessarily have bothered mentioning the obvious? Wouldn’t they have been more interested if she’d been completely dry?

[kjab3112]

I’ve an alternative for the delay, she went via Aldgate where she was earlier arrested and met her killer there (perhaps even having arranged to meet up earlier - who was she late for?)

As for the body being present at 0140, this I can believe. I’ve done a simple light level sheet and given the light at the end of church passage, the murder site would’ve likely been fully in shadow - constable walks down, shines light into square, killer freezes and leaves as soon as constable turns back round.

Paul

[Trevor Marriott]

We don’t know when it rain, how heavy it was or how long it rained for though Trevor. What if, for example, Lawende and co intended to go home at 1.00 but the saw (or were told) that it was raining so they sat back down and continued talking, not realising that it had stopped at 1.05 or 1.10, during which time Eddowes had ducked into a doorway for shelter.

But it hadn't stopped that's why they delayed their departure from the club

". He stated that they got ready to leave the club at 1.30 am, but they waited until it had stopped raining. He is specific about the time because he also had a watch, and he checked his watch with the clock in the club, which was in sync with each other. He states that it took them about five minutes to finally leave the club making the time by then at least 1.35 am.

Although no one mentioned her clothes being damp but as the police would have known about the rain would they necessarily have bothered mentioning the obvious? Wouldn’t they have been more interested if she’d been completely dry?

Well, my point is trying to negate that Eddowes had been killed much earlier and the body missed by the police, and the fact that had her clothes been wet from the rain that would have had a bearing on the TOD. I am sure the police would have thought of that point

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it hadn't stopped that's why they delayed their departure from the club

". He stated that they got ready to leave the club at 1.30 am, but they waited until it had stopped raining. He is specific about the time because he also had a watch, and he checked his watch with the clock in the club, which was in sync with each other. He states that it took them about five minutes to finally leave the club making the time by then at least 1.35 am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How long had it been raining for? According to the above it was raining at 1.30 but had stopped before 1.35 - so when had it started to rain? How do you know that it hadn’t started at 1.28.

Was it heavy rain or a light shower? We don’t know but it could have been a light shower of 5 or 6 minutes. So she and her killer could have sheltered and then entered Mitre Square just at the time that Lawende, Levy and Harris left the club. Alternatively shouldn’t we consider Eddowes lying in a corner, fence on one side, buildings on the other, a man leaning over her, in a short shower of light rain?

Im not pushing these as facts Trevor. I’m looking at what might have been possible however unlikely some may see them.

….

The fact that his watch was in sync with the club clock couldn’t really be more irrelevant Trevor. Basically he was in sync with himself. What would be relevant would be how was his watch synced with the clock in Bishopsgate Station and the clocks used by Harvey and Watkins. There could have a 10 minute or more difference between those clocks making any attempt at gauging accurate times futile. When the three men believed that it was 1.30 by another clock it could have been 1.25 or 1.35.

So the time from when the three men saw the couple to the time that Watkins found the body could have been 19 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve an alternative for the delay, she went via Aldgate where she was earlier arrested and met her killer there (perhaps even having arranged to meet up earlier - who was she late for?)

As for the body being present at 0140, this I can believe. I’ve done a simple light level sheet and given the light at the end of church passage, the murder site would’ve likely been fully in shadow - constable walks down, shines light into square, killer freezes and leaves as soon as constable turns back round.

Paul

Thanks Paul. So if it’s possible that Harvey missed the body from Church Passage it’s theoretically possible that Watkins could also have missed it from near St James Passage (but only if he didn’t bother walking all the way around the yard as he said) We have no evidence that he lied of course. Just something to keep in my in my opinion. Stranger things have happened.

Your other suggestion is certainly a possible. Perhaps she’d borrowed money earlier, got drunk then arrested, and on release was off to try another acquaintance to see if she could borrow something.