Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How did JtR see in the dark?

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

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Sleuth1888 View Post

    Well in Kelly's case she was killed indoors and a poweful fire occurred at some stage.
    Oh, indeed. The fact that the moon wasn't visible was entirely academic in Kelly's case, but I include the data for completeness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sleuth1888
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The only time that would have worked was for Polly Nichols, where a 41% moon was above the horizon. In all other cases, the moon was either a thin crescent, very low on the horizon and/or obscured by cloud. In Kelly's case, the moon was in the Southern Hemisphere, and wouldn't rise in England until well after her death. See my post earlier in this thread for more details and a graphic:

    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...697#post639697
    Well in Kelly's case she was killed indoors and a poweful fire occurred at some stage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Sleuth1888 View Post
    Moonlight. Jacky saw the world with the light of Luna.
    The only time that would have worked was for Polly Nichols, where a 41% moon was above the horizon. In all other cases, the moon was either a thin crescent, very low on the horizon and/or obscured by cloud. In Kelly's case, the moon was in the Southern Hemisphere, and wouldn't rise in England until well after her death. See my post earlier in this thread for more details and a graphic:

    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...697#post639697

    Leave a comment:


  • Sleuth1888
    replied
    Moonlight. Jacky saw the world with the light of Luna.

    Leave a comment:


  • Busy Beaver
    replied
    Jack must have been the right side of forty. As you get older, your eye sight starts diminishing and in Victorian London, doing what Jack did required almost near perfect vision, I would think. There does not seem to be any mention by anyone reporting the deaths in relation to the Ripper's eye sight ie- he must have been blind to have cut this, or it looked as if he could not see what he was doing. Yes the light might not have been good, but Jack's eye's were pretty good- up there with a Rabbit and a Cat. If you take some of the witnesses, they were mid forties and their eye sight might be ok, but probably not as good as a twenty something year old, and may have had problems with seeing distances, which is why we have got hazy descriptions of the Ripper. He may have been a healthy chap- he could murder in the dark and hear when someone was approaching to know when to flee.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    If someone threw a body to the ground with a virtually severed head i would not find 6 tiny dots of blood out of the ordinary .
    The body didn't just have a virtually severed head, but also had the intestines pulled out and draped across the shoulder, another organ removed entirely, and chunks of abdominal flesh cut away and placed nearby. Was this all done before the body was brought to the yard?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    [QUOTE=packers stem;n711355]
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


    . Neither carriage nor cart .
    although having said that , to suggest none were seen is quite ludicrous.
    Why the mystery? Are you simply suggesting that the ‘rippers’ carried a corpse along the street, with people going about their business, completely unseen? Harry just quoted Blade, I’ll quote John McEnroe “you cannot be serious?!”

    I don’t see why no one noticing a cart is ludicrous unless you are making the ludicrous suggestion that the rippers left it two streets away?


    . .They were everywhere , they were just ignored.
    If a cart was parked outside or very near to number 29, and there wasn’t usually one there, wouldn’t the police have been interested? Especially if the same was noticed at other murder sites.

    Maybe the back yard in the case of Hanbury Street was more accessible because of the light and risk of being seen .....
    So now , you should have enough to work it out
    Or maybe it’s simply ludicrous to suggest two men carrying a corpse first in the street and then into an occupied house to dump a body in a yard. Why not simply drive down a deserted street and just chuck the body out?

    Unless of course you’re heading into deep conspiracy territory and that the locations were in some way significant to bunch of black magic practicing Illuminati shape shifters? There’s enough mystery in the case without unnecessarily piling on more.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-29-2019, 01:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    To quote the movie Blade: "Some motherf***ers are always trying to ice skate uphill"

    Everything points to Annie Chapman being killed where she lay. What does arguing that she was dumped achieve other than contorting all logic and reason to fit your own personal theory?

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    ....and just a few feet , or rather yards , makes complete sense once you realise

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n711312]
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post





    I don’t understand why you mean by implicating people unless you are suggesting that the locations were somehow significant?

    If placing a body in the street helps speed of finding how does placing one in a back yard help toward that end?



    Far from easy I’d have thought PS. If the killer(s) felt the need to move the body it seems logical to suggest that they wouldn’t have bothered moving it for the sake of a few feet so this implies that they had a reason to move it some distance. From your previous post you appear to discount a carriage but you might be suggesting something like a cart? If so none were seen. Would they have parked it directly outside number 29 or some distance away? This was at a time when people were out and about. Would anyone really expect to avoid being seen carrying a corpse? To put it mildly this seems unlikely in the extreme.



    It appears that almost everyone has closed their eyes to it then. I see absolutely no evidence for this unless you employ conspiracy theorist thinking where everything is possible.



    So the corpse is being carried holding the wrists and feet? This seems a bit strange. Skirts dragging on the floor? I’d have thought that a more likely method would have been with one person placing his hands under the arms. This puts the hands and arms in bloodied areas and the head resting against the body of one person.

    Then there would have been the serious risk of leaving a trail of dripping blood.

    It seems pretty obvious that these women were killed where they were found. Being transported makes no sense.
    Neither carriage nor cart .
    although having said that , to suggest none were seen is quite ludicrous .They were everywhere , they were just ignored.
    Maybe the back yard in the case of Hanbury Street was more accessible because of the light and risk of being seen .....
    So now , you should have enough to work it out

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    [QUOTE=packers stem;n711306]



    couldn't be left in situ as it may have implicated people when found and placing a body in the street helps speed of finding , terror and most of all news of the event.
    I don’t understand why you mean by implicating people unless you are suggesting that the locations were somehow significant?

    If placing a body in the street helps speed of finding how does placing one in a back yard help toward that end?

    .
    Easily , depends on distance .
    And far less chance of being seen than spending 15 minutes in the back yard of 29
    Far from easy I’d have thought PS. If the killer(s) felt the need to move the body it seems logical to suggest that they wouldn’t have bothered moving it for the sake of a few feet so this implies that they had a reason to move it some distance. From your previous post you appear to discount a carriage but you might be suggesting something like a cart? If so none were seen. Would they have parked it directly outside number 29 or some distance away? This was at a time when people were out and about. Would anyone really expect to avoid being seen carrying a corpse? To put it mildly this seems unlikely in the extreme.

    .
    Yes , at least and sh*t loads if you don't close your eyes to it .
    It appears that almost everyone has closed their eyes to it then. I see absolutely no evidence for this unless you employ conspiracy theorist thinking where everything is possible.

    . Not at all .Legs and wrists were free from blood
    So the corpse is being carried holding the wrists and feet? This seems a bit strange. Skirts dragging on the floor? I’d have thought that a more likely method would have been with one person placing his hands under the arms. This puts the hands and arms in bloodied areas and the head resting against the body of one person.

    Then there would have been the serious risk of leaving a trail of dripping blood.

    It seems pretty obvious that these women were killed where they were found. Being transported makes no sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    The initial discussion was prompted by someone proposing Knight’s theory in which carriages were used.

    So many questions - Why would a killer feel the need to place the body elsewhere rather than where she was killed? How could he have transported a mutilated corpse without being seen? - Doesn’t this rely on two killers and so what evidence is there for any kind of conspiracy? - Wouldn’t carrying a mutilated corpse have increased the likelihood of the killer being covered in blood and therefore drawing attention to himself? - As Sam has said, how else could a body be transported safely?
    Forgive me , I can't be bothered with the quote /unquote malarchy with that many questions lol

    couldn't be left in situ as it may have implicated people when found and placing a body in the street helps speed of finding , terror and most of all news of the event.

    Easily , depends on distance .
    And far less chance of being seen than spending 15 minutes in the back yard of 29

    Yes , at least and sh*t loads if you don't close your eyes to it .

    Not at all .Legs and wrists were free from blood

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    What's the alternative? Should we be looking for two men seen carrying a roll of carpet?
    Couldn’t help thinking of this one Sam

    https://youtu.be/Iv0ibFHnvg4

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    People are obsessed by carriages .
    Who said anything about carriages ?
    The initial discussion was prompted by someone proposing Knight’s theory in which carriages were used.

    So many questions - Why would a killer feel the need to place the body elsewhere rather than where she was killed? How could he have transported a mutilated corpse without being seen? - Doesn’t this rely on two killers and so what evidence is there for any kind of conspiracy? - Wouldn’t carrying a mutilated corpse have increased the likelihood of the killer being covered in blood and therefore drawing attention to himself? - As Sam has said, how else could a body be transported safely?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    People are obsessed by carriages .
    Who said anything about carriages ?
    What's the alternative? Should we be looking for two men seen carrying a roll of carpet?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X