How did JtR see in the dark?

[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

[Rob1n]

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

c.d.

😂🤣😂 yes, well done c.d.

[Rob1n]

DCs were not issued with lamps.

Monty

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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.)

[Batman]

What Watkins was doing has no influence on Harvey. I would expect him to be shining his lamp into dark corners and checking all the doors as per this reconstruction -> https://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w...d_Watkins.html

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.

[Busy Beaver]

Eye sight also deteriorates with age. Some of the younger witnesses would be able to see things better than say someone over 40, when sight does start to let you down. And probably only the rich could afford testing if it was available in 1888. Don't know if eye testing was carried out in the Police Force- Monty may be the expert here.

[Wickerman]

What Watkins was doing has no influence on Harvey. I would expect him to be shining his lamp into dark corners and checking all the doors as per this reconstruction -> https://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w...d_Watkins.html

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.

I think the distance across the square at that point, from the end of Church Passage, where Harvey stopped, was about 70+ ft.
There was a lamp at the end of Church Passage but it will not cast any light far enough across the square.
Also, as is often the case, if you stand under a lamp the glow will limit the ability of your eyes to see into the surrounding darkness.
It's the same effect as the surrounding city lights limit your ability to see stars at night. You need to get away from ambient city lights to see any details of the night sky.
So in effect, that lamp at the end of Church Passage would blind Harvey from seeing anyone across the square.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the distance across the square at that point, from the end of Church Passage, where Harvey stopped, was about 70+ ft.
There was a lamp at the end of Church Passage but it will not cast any light far enough across the square.
Also, as is often the case, if you stand under a lamp the glow will limit the ability of your eyes to see into the surrounding darkness.
It's the same effect as the surrounding city lights limit your ability to see stars at night. You need to get away from ambient city lights to see any details of the night sky.
So in effect, that lamp at the end of Church Passage would blind Harvey from seeing anyone across the square.

But of course conversely it would allow the killer to see but not be seen.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

But of course conversely it would allow the killer to see but not be seen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, but realistically, would a killer wait in silence on the opposite side of the square?
Anyone in the square would hear the slow tread of PC Harvey as he approached down Church Passage. Footsteps did echo down that passage, I tested that theory myself back in the early 70's.
So if the killer was in the square I suspect he would leave on hearing footsteps approach, shortly before Harvey came into sight.