How did JtR see in the dark?

[Sam Flynn]

Why did Watkins need to have been able to see Eddowes body from afar?

He wouldn't have been sweeping his lamp around, scanning the pavement immediately in front of him like a metal detectorist.

(I didn't say "from afar", by the way. A few metres' visibility would have sufficed.)

[Observer]

"Why did Watkins need to have been able to see Eddowes body from afar? He was checking the corners as part of his route. He said he didn't see her body there before."

If he claimed that he didnt see her body there before, then surely this means that there was enough light to see the body.

[Batman]

No. There was sufficient light according to Dr Sequeira, and Watkins must have been able to at least see Eddowes' body before shining his lantern on it.

PC James Harvey went down Church passage when the murderer and Eddowes were likely in the corner next to him in Mitre Square. He did not see them.

https://youtu.be/OsO7n_rrxSA?t=3305

Why did Watkins need to have been able to see Eddowes body from afar? He was checking the corners as part of his route. He said he didn't see her body there before.

[Sam Flynn]

Eddowes had to have been killed in pitch black darkness.

No. There was sufficient light according to Dr Sequeira, and Watkins must have been able to at least see Eddowes' body before shining his lantern on it.

[Batman]

Eddowes had to have been killed in pitch black darkness.

PC James Harvey went down Church passage when the murderer and Eddowes were likely in the corner next to him in Mitre Square.

https://youtu.be/OsO7n_rrxSA?t=3305

One of the gas lamps was malfunctioning also.

[Fisherman]

You can also turn this question around. How did his victims see in the dark? Were they able to navigate freely or were they somehow reduced to taking baby steps with both hands outstretched so they wouldn't bump into something? If conditions were such that his victims could see then it stands to reason that so could Jack.

c.d.

The circumstances surrounding how Polly Nichols was found says it all. Here, we have two men testifying to how it was too dark to see any blood, although they both were crouching over the body of Nichols and feeling her for warmth, touching her chest, etcetera. They will have been inches away from the blood, no more than so.
This has given rise to a belief that it was pitch dark in the street. But what is forgotten is that if the blood and wounds were hidden and no blood had pooled or streamed in such a manner as to allow for it being seen from the vantage point of the carmen, then regardless of how bright it was, they could not have seen the blood anyway!
But wasn´t it pitch dark, then?
No, it was decidedly not. Charles Lechmere could see the shape of the body of Nichols lying outside the stable door from across the street, some 20-25 feet away. Admittedly, he could not specify what he was looking at (or so he says) from that distance, but it only took his steeping into the middle of the street to decide that he was looking at a woman lying on the pavement.
It wasn´t any darker than that.
As for feeling your way along the walls, that never happened - Robert Paul was hurrying along the street since he was in a rush.

All in all, if it had been as dark as some will have it, there would have been no prostitution at all. Why would the unfortunates go out onto the streets if the punters could not even make them out in that complete darkness?

[Rob1n]

Yep, spot on.

Only uniformed beat constables on night duty would be issued with lamps. They would pick them up at the beginning of their beat shift at 9:45pm and hand them in at 6:00am upon completion of their duty.

The lamps would be taken to the lamp room ready to be refilled and, if required, repaired by the lampman who would do this in the morning.

Monty

Yes, i see that but, isn't it possible he had his own lamp, would've thought anyone could buy their own lamp.

[Rob1n]

DCs were not issued with lamps.

Monty

Well, couldn't he have bought his own, many people must have had their own.

[Rob1n]

Thanks, Sam. Even the sun shines on a dog's ass some days.

c.d.

😂🤣😂 yes, well done c.d.

[Monty]

Nor, I would imagine, PCs in plain clothes? Not a lot of point in dressing in muffti and carrying a bullseye, I'd have thought.

Yep, spot on.

Only uniformed beat constables on night duty would be issued with lamps. They would pick them up at the beginning of their beat shift at 9:45pm and hand them in at 6:00am upon completion of their duty.

The lamps would be taken to the lamp room ready to be refilled and, if required, repaired by the lampman who would do this in the morning.

Monty

[MrBarnett]

DCs were not issued with lamps.

Monty

Nor, I would imagine, PCs in plain clothes? Not a lot of point in dressing in muffti and carrying a bullseye, I'd have thought.

[Wickerman]

To my mind, the difference might be that for the most part victims knew the streets and alleys in daylight, so can walk them at night without stumbling.

Whether this also applies to the killer will depend on whether he was a local or not.

Where I have reservations is the lamp theory. That the killer might have used one.
I can't imagine the killer having a free hand to hold the lamp while he strangles & mutilates a victim.
If he puts the lamp down on the ground while he opens the abdomen, the lamp will not cast light into the abdomen. It needs to be held above the body to cast light down.
He needs a third hand, and if he hangs it from his jacket (buttonhole?) he'll burn his face.
It's another non-starter theory in my view.

[c.d.]

Thanks, Sam. Even the sun shines on a dog's ass some days.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Brilliant observation, CD, and a point well made.

[c.d.]

You can also turn this question around. How did his victims see in the dark? Were they able to navigate freely or were they somehow reduced to taking baby steps with both hands outstretched so they wouldn't bump into something? If conditions were such that his victims could see then it stands to reason that so could Jack.

c.d.