Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How did JtR see in the dark?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    There's one category of person for whom the amount of light would be irrelevant - a blind man.
    Who starts a fire in Kelly's room.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • #32
      How did she afford the coal!
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Batman View Post
        Who starts a fire in Kelly's room.
        No. Tabram only.

        Comment


        • #34
          Or, could he have used a lantern like a Police one, it wouldn't show light in anything but the direction it was aimed and, wasn't really bright enough to attract attention from a distance when aimed correctly? Mad suggestion or not?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
            The killer was used to the typical lighting conditions of late 19th century London at night. This doesn't seem particularly strange to me.
            Yes, that makes sense.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              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.
              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.
              But of course the star interview report was dated Oct 1st, If Both Brown and Sequeira had been interviewed before the post mortem then they would not have known about any organs being missing, so the time they mentioned 3 & 5 mins respectively could not have included the time it would have taken to remove the organs.

              You have to use Browns expert as a yardstick to how long it would have taken to remove the organs in the same way they were removed from Eddowes. It took him 3 minutes to remove a uterus, and he still manged to damage the bladder, which was not done to Eddowes, add to that the time taken to locate and remove a kidney, I would suggest that it would have taken at least another 2 minutes. So we have a minimum of 5 mins with just the organ removals, add to that the extra time to cut or tear the apron, to murder and mutilate, and to rifle her pockets,

              Did the killer have that much time with Eddowes? In my opinion, the answer is no, and if you want it breaking down as I have done, I would suggest you read the revised chapter on Eddowes which appears in "Jack the Ripper- The Real truth" Now available in paperback as well as kindle

              https://amzn.to/2AF41DK

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                It took him 3 minutes to remove a uterus, and he still manged to damage the bladder, which was not done to Eddowes
                But Chapman's bladder was damaged, and probably under better lighting conditions. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  But of course the star interview report was dated Oct 1st, If Both Brown and Sequeira had been interviewed before the post mortem then they would not have known about any organs being missing, so the time they mentioned 3 & 5 mins respectively could not have included the time it would have taken to remove the organs.

                  You have to use Browns expert as a yardstick to how long it would have taken to remove the organs in the same way they were removed from Eddowes. It took him 3 minutes to remove a uterus, and he still manged to damage the bladder, which was not done to Eddowes, add to that the time taken to locate and remove a kidney, I would suggest that it would have taken at least another 2 minutes. So we have a minimum of 5 mins with just the organ removals, add to that the extra time to cut or tear the apron, to murder and mutilate, and to rifle her pockets,

                  Did the killer have that much time with Eddowes? In my opinion, the answer is no, and if you want it breaking down as I have done, I would suggest you read the revised chapter on Eddowes which appears in "Jack the Ripper- The Real truth" Now available in paperback as well as kindle

                  https://amzn.to/2AF41DK

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Of course, surgeons aren't trained to remove organs at speed.

                  There was a superstar knacker at John Harrison's yard who was apparently able to kill and strip a horse carcase in 20 minutes, compared to the hour or more a less talented slaughtermen would take. His skill made him a wealthy man - his fingers apparently 'dripped with diamonds'. And of course, horse slaughtering was generally carried out at night - by flickering candlelight at least as late as the 1870s.

                  I'm not trying to push a slaughterman suspect here, my point is just that someone who wasn't surgically trained might well have been able to do the job quicker than someone who had been.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    Of course, surgeons aren't trained to remove organs at speed.

                    But in this case clearly Brown was concerned with the times for him to ask an expert to carry out the removal in as quick time as possible. If he was concerned 130 years ago why should we still not be concerned given the results of his expert 130 years on.

                    There was a superstar knacker at John Harrison's yard who was apparently able to kill and strip a horse carcase in 20 minutes, compared to the hour or more a less talented slaughtermen would take. His skill made him a wealthy man - his fingers apparently 'dripped with diamonds'. And of course, horse slaughtering was generally carried out at night - by flickering candlelight at least as late as the 1870s.

                    I'm not trying to push a slaughterman suspect here, my point is just that someone who wasn't surgically trained might well have been able to do the job quicker than someone who had been.
                    It all comes down to how much time the killer would have with Eddowes from walking down Church passage to when he left the square (disturbed by Pc Harvey or otherwise)

                    In my book there is some new medical evidence to support the belief that the organs from Chapman and Eddowes were not removed by the same person.

                    Clearly by the posts of some members here they are never going to accept the fact that the organs were not removed by the killer, which I accept is there prerogative, but they are clearly not prepared to even consider alternatives, and that is a sad fact, and says a lot about the state of ripperolgy on these forums

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      But Chapman's bladder was damaged, and probably under better lighting conditions. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.
                      yes you are right parts of her bladder were cut through to be specific but these were specific cuts to enable the other organs to be accessed and I quote from one of my medical experts on the topic of Chapman

                      "An interesting point is the removal of the pelvic organs. The report states that the uterus and its appendages and the upper portion of the vagina, and parts of the bladder had been entirely removed. To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of a blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite a skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully even by today’s methods especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum. These specific organs are in very close proximity to each other and at post-mortem are removed by a mixture of blunt dissection and sharp knife. Even doing this carefully it is still possible to damage some of the surrounding organs and tissues. There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus"

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Rob1n View Post
                        Or, could he have used a lantern like a Police one, it wouldn't show light in anything but the direction it was aimed and, wasn't really bright enough to attract attention from a distance when aimed correctly? Mad suggestion or not?
                        Nothing wrong with this suggestion at all. It's perfectly viable and also has the additional factor that they know how to subdue someone from experience.

                        In fact, many of the victims could only be seen properly under such lighting conditions.

                        This is probably the easiest explanation of all. That the very type of lighting used to see them properly was the very same one used when the acts were committed.
                        Bona fide canonical and then some.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Batman View Post
                          Nothing wrong with this suggestion at all. It's perfectly viable and also has the additional factor that they know how to subdue someone from experience.
                          How much experience would be required to subdue a small, weak, sickly and/or drunken woman?
                          In fact, many of the victims could only be seen properly under such lighting conditions
                          Eh? Witnesses were perfectly able to see some of the victims from the other side of the street, with no lanterns at all.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            How much experience would be required to subdue a small, weak, sickly and/or drunken woman?
                            Eh? Witnesses were perfectly able to see some of the victims from the other side of the street, with no lanterns at all.
                            How many officers who approached these crimes scenes need the use of a lantern to see the bodies?

                            Tabram, Nichols, Stride and Eddowes.

                            Chapman was discovered around 6 a.m so it appears one was not needed. Kelly in a room with window light.
                            Bona fide canonical and then some.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Batman View Post
                              How many officers who approached these crimes scenes need the use of a lantern to see the bodies?
                              Correction: they used the lanterns to inspect the bodies. Of course they could see them, even if they were lying down dead, and at a distance. Unlike the killer, who first saw them upright and alive, and was right up close to them as he killed and mutilated. He had no need of a lantern to do either.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Batman View Post
                                Nothing wrong with this suggestion at all. It's perfectly viable and also has the additional factor that they know how to subdue someone from experience.

                                In fact, many of the victims could only be seen properly under such lighting conditions.

                                This is probably the easiest explanation of all. That the very type of lighting used to see them properly was the very same one used when the acts were committed.
                                Was it it part of police training to render miscreants unconscious? To prevent them from crying out?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X