Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How did JtR see in the dark?

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

  • DJA
    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.

    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?
    Perhaps "we" seek a pathologist who was sufficiently skilled that he could operate by touch alone.

    Hmm ..... first two murders were near the London Hospital,probably on his way home along "Hanbury Street" past Dr Phillips residence.

    Probably carrying chalk at the start of the term.

    Four of the CV5 within his expertise.

    Explains the cashous and lack of "post mortem" due to a Stride's genetic disease.

    The attempt at Chapman's head removal.

    Too much to list ..... again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    How could he see the things he was taking out of their pockets?

    A macabre discovery awaited them near the palings and close to where the feet of the dead woman had rested. It comprised a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb and a pocket comb in a paper case. These articles appeared to have been the contents of the dead woman’s pocket and Dr Phillips did not think that they had been casually cast to the ground. ‘They had apparently been placed there in order,’ he would tell the inquest, ‘that is to say, arranged there.’ Near the head position was a portion of an envelope containing two pills. The back of the envelope bore a seal and the words ‘Sussex Regiment’ embossed in blue. On the other side was a letter ‘M’ in handwriting and, lower down, ‘Sp’ as if someone had written ‘Spitalfields.’ The rest of the envelope was torn away. It bore no postage stamp but there was a postmark in red: ‘London, Aug. 23, 1888.’

    Sugden, Philip. The Complete History of Jack the Ripper (Kindle Locations 2165-2172). Little, Brown Book Group. Kindle Edition.

    He even arranged stuff on the ground as he rooted through her pockets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
    The killer was used to the typical lighting conditions of late 19th century London at night.
    Indeed. I used to struggle reading by the light of those energy-saving lightbulbs, but I've adjusted to them over time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Well he did just that, he omitted any reference to the organs being removed
    Not if they're included in the injuries to which he did refer. He was unlikely only to offer his opinion on the external wounds without also including the most important injuries of all, namely the removal of the organs.
    he is even quoted in the Star as stating it would have only taken 3 minutes. Which for the killer to have done all that he is alleged to have done is impossible.
    Not beyond the bounds of possibility. I'd put it at a comfortable 4-5 minutes, but I don't think Sequeira was too wide of the mark; he might even have been right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Again, I think Sequeira was smart enough not to omit anything, and was referring to the totality of the injuries, including organ removal - an act of injury in itself.
    Sam

    Well he did just that, he omitted any reference to the organs being removed, he is even quoted in the Star as stating it would have only taken 3 minutes. Which for the killer to have done all that he is alleged to have done is impossible.

    These reports that relate to timings etc are all over the place and totally unsafe to rely on with any accuracy.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Damaso Marte
    replied
    The killer was used to the typical lighting conditions of late 19th century London at night. This doesn't seem particularly strange to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    That pool of blood you mention in the sketch is considerably smaller than you believe.
    It was just one side of the neck and ran under the neck because of the pavement. A wine glass full would make that pool
    Secondly you have to question the accuracy .
    Eddowes was wearing three skirts and a petticoat according to the itinerary, so where are they ?
    There is blood all around the upper part of her body except maybe the top of her head.

    What is written on the lower blood pool which even extends to legs?

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    So, how did JTR see in the dark?

    (We're only on page 2 of this thread, and we're already straying off-topic.)
    I was responding to a question by the OP regarding a pool of blood .If the OP wishes his post to stray surely that's his/her choice .

    Lighting ..... in answer to your question

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    Eddowes was wearing three skirts and a petticoat according to the itinerary, so where are they ?
    So, how did JTR see in the dark?

    (We're only on page 2 of this thread, and we're already straying off-topic.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    Been through this so many times .
    He can't give a persepective on lighting if he wasn't there
    He was there, and furthermore very familiar with the locale.
    He also was a GP and not a surgeon
    I'm sure GPs are just as capable on assessing the level of lighting and the practicalities of (crude) organ removal as a surgeon would have been. Sequeira came from a long line of distinguished medical practitioners, and was no fool.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Note the term "infliction of the injuries" no mention of the organ removals or the time needed to effect the removals
    Again, I think Sequeira was smart enough not to omit anything, and was referring to the totality of the injuries, including organ removal - an act of injury in itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    But there is no conclusive evidence to show she was killed at that time. Phillips suggests otherwise.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    We know that, but that's a whole other topic. If we are to keep this thread focused on the murders as a whole, rather than disappearing down a Chapman rabbit-hole, it would be better to accept the usually accepted timings, if only for the sake of argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    So this explanation has them being murdered under some lighting conditions elsewhere and then deposited away from that place later. However wouldn't JtR have been able to carry out everything he wanted from Nichols onwards? Surely operating on Eddowes would have resulted in far less smash and grab and less facial cut randomness to his art? Half ears cut off?

    This image suggests Eddowes was found in a considerable pool of blood around here.

    Also, why carry Chapman through a house to dump her in the backyard?
    That pool of blood you mention in the sketch is considerably smaller than you believe.
    It was just one side of the neck and ran under the neck because of the pavement. A wine glass full would make that pool
    Secondly you have to question the accuracy .
    Eddowes was wearing three skirts and a petticoat according to the itinerary, so where are they ?
    Last edited by packers stem; 11-01-2018, 03:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    But there is no conclusive evidence to show she was killed at that time. Phillips suggests otherwise.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I agree
    I believe she was killed earlier and elsewhere or Richardson couldn't have failed to see her
    Last edited by packers stem; 11-01-2018, 03:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    I'm sure Sequeira was smart enough to take that into account. Besides, he was very familiar with the location:

    "Crawford: You are acquainted with this locality, are you not?

    Sequeira: Yes, very well; where the body was found would be the darkest corner. There would have been sufficient light, though, to admit of the infliction of the injuries without the aid of any additional light."
    Been through this so many times .
    He can't give a persepective on lighting if he wasn't there .
    He also was a GP and not a surgeon , and of little experience .I doubt his knowledge of difficulty of kidney removal in that lighting was high up.the list .
    How often would he have walked throuh the square with no moonlight and stood in that corner .
    It means absolutely nothing .
    It's Morris he should have asked not Sequeira .... oh wait .... Morris went back in to get his lamp ... because he knew how dark it would be .
    Strange that

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X