Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How did JtR see in the dark?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    It doesn't take much light to rifle through someone's pocket and place any items found on the ground, quite apart from probability that he did so when dawn had broken. As for making sure that Eddowes' apron was clean, it might not have been, one corner of it being wet with blood.

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Tabram-stabbed and clothes rearranged only
    Nichols-throat and mid section gashed only
    Chapman-severely mutilated but in morning light
    Stride-throat cut only
    Eddowes-extensively mutilated but light from two lamps and buildings
    Kelly-extensively mutilated killed indoor-light from fire/candle
    McKenzie-midsection cut only
    I think that is a good summary.

    Only three were seriously mutilated with organs removed and two of those(Kelly and chapman) he had light. the rest didn't need a lot of light anyway for what he did to them (tabram, stride, McKenzie). Only one (eddowes) it even really applies and there were two gas lamps nearby.
    This seems to be the case.

    and besides theres always going to be ambient light, especially in a city. whether from stars/ moon and overall city light reflecting around and off clouds, or indirectly from street lights and interior lights through windows.
    Probably most of the outdoor locations would have had some of that.

    Its never pitch black at night. except if your out camping in the middle of no where and its overcast.

    Add to that that the ripper probably knew his way with a knife and basic anatomy and I think you got your answer.
    I think on the one hand saying that there was some light, helps explain JtR. He obviously needed to have light to be going through items from their pockets and in some cases arranging them in a pile as he put them aside. I think Chapman and Eddowes both displayed some of this going on. He sliced a piece of Eddowes apron and obviously was able to determine it was dry so he could go off and wipe his hands and knife with it.

    On the other hand, saying they had some light does put into question the whole idea that the unfortunates were taking them to a... let's call it 'dark spot', a secluded dark place, where PCs could not see them?

    Tabram's spot in George's yard was certainly a dark spot. Nichols on Buck's row doesn't seem like a dark spot at all. Chapman's spot in a Hanbury St., backyard would be a dark spot at night I would think, but she was murdered apparently with some daylight. So does it meet the criteria for a dark spot, at certain times? Eddowes it seems has some light on around and doesn't seem like a dark spot. Kelly doesn't apply because she had light indoors.

    On the face of it Tabram, Kelly and possibly Chapman could be candidates for this idea that the unfortunates led them to 'dark spots', but overall it doesn't seem like this was a mandatory part of JtR's MO at all. Any darkish corner will work, even those not used for soliciting, as long as they are alone for a bit of time.

    So seems, not really pitch black at all... and maybe not even spots used by prostitutes either. Would that really be the case with Buck's row and Mitre Square though?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    In the Whitechapel murders, we have a problem that requires a solution. A solution which may be a clue. That problem is over poor lighting conditions and how JtR could have operated in darkness.

    First of all, did he, in fact, work in total darkness or was there some available light? Do the weather conditions even provide us with the opportunity of intermittent moonlight? Is the claim he worked in the dark supported by the evidence? Questions like these.

    Tabram's body was probably not even seen by many passersby on the stairwell landing because it was so dark.

    Nichols body was found in such a dark spot that her wounds could not even be clearly seen. However wasn't there a street lamp somewhere nearby?

    Chapman's body was in a back garden. Was there enough light from the houses around to see her? Seems maybe not given the fence and corner where she was found.

    Stride's body was found in darkness and took a candle to see the wounds. Even Diemshutz's match wasn't sufficient.

    Eddowes' body was found in darkness in Mitre sq. Was there enough light from the buildings around?

    Kelly's body was found in a room which had a fireplace which was recently used. Seems JtR found light from this fire.

    The whole light issue is a mystery. What is the best explanation put forward for this fiend with night vision and a healthy diet of carrots for vitamin A?
    Batman
    Its a moot point.
    Tabram-stabbed and clothes rearranged only
    Nichols-throat and mid section gashed only
    Chapman-severely mutilated but in morning light
    Stride-throat cut only
    Eddowes-extensively mutilated but light from two lamps and buildings
    Kelly-extensively mutilated killed indoor-light from fire/candle
    McKenzie-midsection cut only


    Only three were seriously mutilated with organs removed and two of those(Kelly and chapman) he had light. the rest didn't need a lot of light anyway for what he did to them (tabram, stride, McKenzie). Only one (eddowes) it even really applies and there were two gas lamps nearby.

    and besides theres always going to be ambient light, especially in a city. whether from stars/ moon and overall city light reflecting around and off clouds, or indirectly from street lights and interior lights through windows.

    Its never pitch black at night. except if your out camping in the middle of no where and its overcast.

    Add to that that the ripper probably knew his way with a knife and basic anatomy and I think you got your answer.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 11-06-2018, 02:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Harvey judged his timing by the Post office clock and you cannot dismiss his testimony outright
    I do not see Harvey's contribution as of any significance.
    He estimated his arrival at the Mitre Sq. end of Church Passage at 1:41 or 1:42 (18 or 19 minutes to 2.00).
    Watkins arrived at 1:44.
    If the killer was interrupted it was by Harvey, as I mentioned previously, though Harvey couldn't see across the square.

    So, the killer had 11 to 12 minutes max. between the beats of Watkins & Harvey.

    But again none of these witness timings can be proved to be precise, simply because we dont know whether Watkins watch was fast or slow. likewise with the post office clock, or the clock at the club where Lawende and others left from were all in sync.
    Certainly, the usual caveats apply.

    Harvey made reference to the Post Office clock, but that was roughly 15 minutes before he came down Church Passage. In fact his beat required him to patrol Church Passage before he passed the Post Office clock in Aldgate, not after.
    Church Passage was more than 3/4 of his beat after he saw the clock.


    As far as Watkins testimony is concerned the time he stated he found the body was 1.44am.That is the time his watch showed. However in the Times Newspaper he is quoted as saying that it was 1.44am when he looked at his watch when he arrived at Kearley and Tonges after finding the body, a difference of only one minute. But that would mean he came back into the square at 1.43am not 1.44am
    Possibly, but he did say his beat took him 12 - 14 minutes, which would mean 1:42-44, but 1:41-42 was the time window given by Harvey for his arrival at Mitre Sq. So, do you still stand by the time given by Harvey?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Yes, that is intentional.
    Harvey did not know what time he reached Mitre Square.
    Watkins wore a watch, Harvey did not.
    Harvey judged his timing by the Post office clock and you cannot dismiss his testimony outright

    But again none of these witness timings can be proved to be precise, simply because we dont know whether Watkins watch was fast or slow. likewise with the post office clock, or the clock at the club where Lawende and others left from were all in sync.

    That being said we cannot dismiss them because these timings form part of sworn inquest testimony and that evidence was not tested, or ever challenged.

    As far as Watkins testimony is concerned the time he stated he found the body was 1.44am.That is the time his watch showed. However in the Times Newspaper he is quoted as saying that it was 1.44am when he looked at his watch when he arrived at Kearley and Tonges after finding the body, a difference of only one minute. But that would mean he came back into the square at 1.43am not 1.44am

    Unfortunately with regards to Mitre Square 130 years later, minutes are crucial to many of the important issues surrounding Eddowes murder and the aftermath.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Watkins has three procedural reasons for being in that corner.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    But you are not allowing for the timings of Pc Harvey, and no one else was seen in the vicinity and no one else came forward.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Yes, that is intentional.
    Harvey did not know what time he reached Mitre Square.
    Watkins wore a watch, Harvey did not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Well we have to rely on witness testimony and timings as best we can, If you or anyone is going to say he may have lied, then it has to be proven that he lied otherwise we are left with what we have to work with. You cant invent scenarios to suit.

    As I have said many times "What ifs" "Perhaps" and "maybes" are not evidence.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Completely agree, we go with the evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Much of what you write seems to be influenced by the time window.
    My view is the time window is wrong.

    If the woman seen with a man in Duke street at the end of Church Passage was not Eddowes, then the traditional time window with all its complications disappears, and is replaced by the timing of Watkins alone as he passed through the square at 1:30, then returned at 1:44.

    Swanson wrote that Lawende did not identify the body as the woman he saw, and that the clothes of the victim were only 'similar'.
    So I wouldn't place a whole lot of reliance on that couple being Eddowes with her killer.
    But you are not allowing for the timings of Pc Harvey, and no one else was seen in the vicinity and no one else came forward.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    The obvious drawback with this scenario is it casts doubt on Watkins story of him passing through the square at 1:30.
    Did he really check that corner?
    Well we have to rely on witness testimony and timings as best we can, If you or anyone is going to say he may have lied, then it has to be proven that he lied otherwise we are left with what we have to work with. You cant invent scenarios to suit.

    As I have said many times "What ifs" "Perhaps" and "maybes" are not evidence.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    For once I totally agree with you, and would add that the killer would have been able to see the outline of Harvey coming down the passage as there was another lamp I believe at the entrance to the Passage in Duke Street.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    The obvious drawback with this scenario is it casts doubt on Watkins story of him passing through the square at 1:30.
    Did he really check that corner?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Rob1n View Post
    I don't know why I get the feeling, about the the Mitre sq murder that, due to the short time JTR had that he was in the square when Harvey looked in, I feel that Harvey must have seen something but basically chose to not get involved, sounds bad doesn't it but, what if, knowing that jtr was a crazed killer, Harvey took the easy out option and just didn't fancy a tussle with this mad man. Jtr is thought by some to be reckless to the point of not caring if he was caught, I think when cornered and as a last resort, I think Jtr would have stood his ground. I just can't believe that he was not seen by one of the Policemen or even the night watchman, he took an incredible chance in Mitre sq.
    Much of what you write seems to be influenced by the time window.
    My view is the time window is wrong.

    If the woman seen with a man in Duke street at the end of Church Passage was not Eddowes, then the traditional time window with all its complications disappears, and is replaced by the timing of Watkins alone as he passed through the square at 1:30, then returned at 1:44.

    Swanson wrote that Lawende did not identify the body as the woman he saw, and that the clothes of the victim were only 'similar'.
    So I wouldn't place a whole lot of reliance on that couple being Eddowes with her killer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Agreed Trevor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    So what exit did the killer use to leave the Square?
    It could only have been via Mitre Street

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob1n
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    JtR could see him coming all the way down the passage, stopping, looking around, turning, and going back the way he came.

    I wonder why Harvey was fired from the force within 9 months after this.
    I don't know why I get the feeling, about the the Mitre sq murder that, due to the short time JTR had that he was in the square when Harvey looked in, I feel that Harvey must have seen something but basically chose to not get involved, sounds bad doesn't it but, what if, knowing that jtr was a crazed killer, Harvey took the easy out option and just didn't fancy a tussle with this mad man. Jtr is thought by some to be reckless to the point of not caring if he was caught, I think when cornered and as a last resort, I think Jtr would have stood his ground. I just can't believe that he was not seen by one of the Policemen or even the night watchman, he took an incredible chance in Mitre sq.
    Last edited by Rob1n; 11-04-2018, 03:32 PM. Reason: Spelling error.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X