How did JtR see in the dark?

[packers stem]

Indeed. I used to struggle reading by the light of those energy-saving lightbulbs, but I've adjusted to them over time.

Nonsense

https://www.ucalgary.ca/pip369/mod3/brightness/darkadaptation

[Sam Flynn]

If you want to know what dark is , take a walk in the country , miles from any main road lightening the night sky when there's no moonlight

Not the same as a gas-lamp lit square, however dodgy the gas-lamp, in the largest city in the Victorian world.

And, as Sequeira said, he was very familiar with the locale and believed there was sufficient light for the killer to complete the injuries.

[packers stem]

Not really, as the "one sweep of the knife" and "avoiding the rectum" bits came from the writer of a somewhat sensationalist Lancet editorial rather than Phillips himself. What does undermine Phillips' analysis of the perpetrator's skill is that he himself notes that neither the bladder nor the colon escaped unscathed, and Chapman's abdomen was opened rather inefficiently in the form of three pieces of flesh, rather than a single, long cut.

Phillips described it as the work of "an expert" .
I think that's good enough .
Still waiting for the evidence regarding the three pieces you mention .
Can't find that in the transcripts

[Sam Flynn]

Nonsense

https://www.ucalgary.ca/pip369/mod3/...darkadaptation

No, it's perfectly true. I couldn't stand reading under those low-energy bulbs a few years back, but I have got used to them over the years. That's all I'm saying - it's not like I'm claiming my physiology has changed or anything; I've just become accustomed to these dimmer lightbulbs. FACT.

[packers stem]

Not the same as a gas-lamp lit square, however dodgy the gas-lamp, in the largest city in the Victorian world.

And, as Sequeira said, he was very familiar with the locale and believed there was sufficient light for the killer to complete the injuries.

Those lamps gave no more than a puddle of light below them .... they weren't like today's streetlights .
Your faith in Sequeira is astonishing despite the glaring issues pointed out .
It's your choice but it's got nothing going for it .
Not sure why Morris went back in for his lamp despite Watkin having one already ..... maybe he was unaware of how excellent the lighting was in that corner

[packers stem]

No, it's perfectly true. I couldn't stand reading under those low-energy bulbs a few years back, but I have got used to them over the years. That's all I'm saying - it's not like I'm claiming my physiology has changed or anything; I've just become accustomed to these dimmer lightbulbs. FACT.

Tell science its wrong then.....

[packers stem]

"Alot blood" is what is written there or "xxxx of blood"

No
It's
Clot blood
Says the same in the inquest notes

[Sam Flynn]

Phillips described it as the work of "an expert"

No, that was the Lancet editorial.

Still waiting for the evidence regarding the three pieces you mention .
Can't find that in the transcripts

"Dr. Phillips (continuing) in the course of his evidence, some of which was unfit for publication, said: The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusting these three flaps of skin it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting. I removed the intestines in the same manner as I found them in the yard on the morning of the 8th. The necessary vessels supplying them were severed. The larger intestine remained in situ. Part of the bladder and other portions of the internal organs were absent, and could nowhere be traced. The womb had been cut away and was missing. It was certain that these absent portions, together with the division of the large intestine, were the result of the same excision, hence my opinion that the length of the weapon was from five to six inches, probably more."

The People, 23 September 1888. There are other sources that say much the same, I seem to recall, but that report is fairly representative.

[Batman]

No
It's
Clot blood
Says the same in the inquest notes

Ah, my bad. That's much better. Well done. (I think this is another good example of where I admit I am wrong, which I have done before not so long ago either. I am keeping track of these because they come in handy later.)

However, it is still lots of blood.

Looks exactly like you would expect if someone had their neck's sliced while lying on the ground like that.

[Sam Flynn]

He was not there when there were no lamps in the square , or was lit up like Blackpool when he arrived

He was very familiar with the square, and intelligent enough to make any necessary adjustments for (decidedly non-Blackpool) bullseye lamps, if required.

I doubt your average thirty something GP had much experience of removing kidneys

Whether he had or not, it wouldn't have affected his judgment to the extent that he couldn't tell the difference between pitch darkness and workable light.

[packers stem]

He was very familiar with the square, and intelligent enough to make any necessary adjustments for (decidedly non-Blackpool) bullseye lamps, if required.Whether he had or not, it wouldn't have affected his judgment to the extent that he couldn't tell the difference between pitch darkness and workable light.

You stick with your inexperienced GP who didn't see the square at the appropriate time .
I see it's important to you
In the same way as I'll stick with reliable publications like the Times and Lancet ahead of the Sunday People

[Batman]

I suppose if JtR did murder in total darkness, we would have witnesses claiming that it was so dark they couldn't really see anything.

Tabram is one.

Nichols is another.

Chapman, we don't know because it was the morning.

Stride is another.

Eddowes is debatable.

Kelly is a non-debate because it was indoors with a fire.

In a way, Kelly could be the measure of how light conditions constrained JtR. He wasn't very constrained here and his escalation is clear. Yet does he display much difference than if things weren't lit? I don't know about that. He did work the heart out by going through the upper ribs. You wouldn't expect that from a smash and grab but I also understand that he was picking at the upper ribs so could have sliced down from there.

Still, with all that light was he any more skillful then when in the dark?

[Rob1n]

How did jtr see in the dark?

But if he was a PC, he surely wouldn't be in uniform?

Not necessarily, there were plenty of plain clothes Police around, and if he were a Policeman in plain clothes, he'd also have issue equipment, whistle, truncheon, lamp etc.

[Batman]

Not necessarily, there were plenty of plain clothes Police around, and if he were a Policeman in plain clothes, he'd also have issue equipment, whistle, truncheon, lamp etc.

Good point. I forgot about this one. Drafting in more officers and plainclothes could have had the opposite effect of catching JtR and instead introduced him onto the streets more often, with more cover. JtR on the beat looking for himself.

[Scott Nelson]

Hey! You guys would make a good team.