How did JtR see in the dark?

[packers stem]

The Torso Victims were body parts. They didn’t require someone carrying a fully clothed corpse along a street unnoticed. The question therefore is why would someone do this?
Could someone remove a kidney in that lighting? Apparently yes because it happened. How do you know that the killer was unskilled?
Theres nothing ever straight forward about a conspiracy theory but they’re easy to come up with. Find an error and label it deliberate. Find a coincidence a label it impossible. Find an unknown and fill the gap. Label the obvious as too obvious. Reply to an inconvenient statement with “well they would say that wouldn’t they?” There’s not a shred of evidence that those women weren’t killed were they were found. Nor is there any evidence that The Illuminati were harvesting the organs to bury in the grounds of Rosslyn Chapel to bring on the Second Coming of a messiah called Colin either. Jack the Ripper was a serial killer, working alone, killing women in the street for reasons known only to himself.

i don't believe either Chapman or Eddowes were carried 'down the street' either ... you're just failing to see the obvious option .
Your mind is closed to anything other than a random local of flower and dean street I suspect so you will fail to see it .
"could someone remove a kidney in that lighting? Apparently yes because it happened" says it all really lol
The answer is quite simply that a body was found with a kidney removed .... rather than just accept without thought to the preposterous suggestion that it was done in the dark and move on , I prefer to consider just how it could have happened .

and then you're off giving drivel about God's and stuff , completely irrelevant

Trouble is there is a shed load of evidence showing that they were not killed where found but you choose to ignore it as you did when you said 'it happened'
Find another serial killer who cut out kidneys in the darkness at the roadside in lightening quick time if you wish to give the lone random a smidgen of credibility

[JeffHamm]

...

Trouble is there is a shed load of evidence showing that they were not killed where found ...

There is not one iota of evidence to support that statement. Every detail of the crime scenes indicates all the victims were killed exactly where they were found.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

There is not one iota of evidence to support that statement. Every detail of the crime scenes indicates all the victims were killed exactly where they were found.

- Jeff

Feel free to explain what you think demonstrates your claim

[JeffHamm]

Feel free to explain what you think demonstrates your claim

You first.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

You first.

- Jeff

I have , on numerous occasions .
were talking about it now on another thread with regards to the kidney lol

[JeffHamm]

Hi packers stem (great name by the way):

I have , on numerous occasions .
were talking about it now on another thread with regards to the kidney lol

And so have I. So I guess we're done.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

Hi packers stem (great name by the way):


And so have I. So I guess we're done.

- Jeff

Until the day finally arrives when someone can finally give a convincing argument for the Joe Bloggs book .... kidney removal for dummies and the blind ....
then yep

and cheers .... good ole Mathew and his grapes lol

[Herlock Sholmes]

i don't believe either Chapman or Eddowes were carried 'down the street' either ... you're just failing to see the obvious option .

Then why don’t you simply enlighten me instead of trying to get me to indulge in a guessing game PS? Call me stupid if you like. As you say, I'm failing to see it. The usual solution to that state of affairs is that the proposer actually explains what he’s suggesting?

Your mind is closed to anything other than a random local of flower and dean street I suspect so you will fail to see it .

Of the named suspects the one that I prefer wasn’t a local. I’ve never thought that the ripper had to be a local man. Local knowledge would have helped of course but I don’t feel that it was imperative.

"could someone remove a kidney in that lighting? Apparently yes because it happened" says it all really lol
The answer is quite simply that a body was found with a kidney removed .... rather than just accept without thought to the preposterous suggestion that it was done in the dark and move on , I prefer to consider just how it could have happened .

Has it been categorically proven (or even just to the satisfaction of a majority) that the killer couldn’t have removed a kidney in situ? I’d say that’s a no.

and then you're off giving drivel about God's and stuff , completely irrelevant

Because my toes curl up when people start over complicating purely so that they can jump up and down and say that they’ve discovered something that no one else has ever noticed.

Trouble is there is a shed load of evidence showing that they were not killed where found but you choose to ignore it as you did when you said 'it happened'

Theres a book on the JFK assassination called Best Evidence by David Lipton. It’s a very thick, intricately argued case that Kennedy’s head wounds were surgically altered on AirForce One! It nonsense of course (and the most boring book I’ve ever read by a mile). If you set out to look for a conspiracy evidence tends to fall from the trees.

Find another serial killer who cut out kidneys in the darkness at the roadside in lightening quick time if you wish to give the lone random a smidgen of credibility

A nice Black Swan Fallacy to end with.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Until the day finally arrives when someone can finally give a convincing argument for the Joe Bloggs book .... kidney removal for dummies and the blind ....
then yep

and cheers .... good ole Mathew and his grapes lol

What if the killer had medical/anatomical knowledge?

[Sam Flynn]

What if the killer had medical/anatomical knowledge?

Indeed, what if he just knew roughly where a kidney was? It's not as if this is forbidden knowledge.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed, what if he just knew roughly where a kidney was? It's not as if this is forbidden knowledge.

Exactly. It’s often made to seem as if the killer had to approach the task as a surgeon would have. This wasn’t an operation. It suits a preconception though.

[Hakeswill]

In the spirit of the original question, and since I couldn’t see it mentioned in so far, I’ll throw this in. Apologies for not putting in links, but I’m on the old electric-blower.

Seeing in low light levels relies on having sufficient vitamin a in your diet. Lack of this leads to the condition might blindness, where a person can see normally in day or well lit conditions, but would find it difficult in low light conditions, effectively becoming blind. It’s a problem in many countries still where nutrition is poor.

I can’t find (although I’m sure they exist if I looked harder) specific details about late Victorian London diets, but the nutrient intake of poor East End residents would have been poor for those of limited funds. In a balanced diet, vitamin a is sourced from vegetables, famously carrots, though other fruit and veg also has vitamin a and related nutrients. What I can’t find is the minimal level of vitamin a needed to avoid night blindness, though a modern recommended amount is around 0.9 mg a day. 100g carrots can give you about 40% of this, though in reality. It doesn’t all get absorbed so you would need access to more veg in your diet. I wonder how much the average resident of Whitechapel was getting? Of course, if you were familiar with an area then you could potentially find your way around with less light available. It is plausible though that locals had worse night vision than us.

However, there is are much better sources of vitamin a available if you can access them - dairy, meat and in particular liver, where vitamin a is normally stored. 100g if cow liver would give approximately 700% of recommended daily allowance of vitamin a, if you could get it.

Happy to to be corrected on any of this!

[Herlock Sholmes]

So the ripper had a better diet.

Like Druitt

[Herlock Sholmes]

The killer did what he did. There’s no evidence of conspiracy or bodies being moved around. Therefore whatever happened to Eddowes happened. Simples.

Nothing to see here.....let’s move on.

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, what if he just knew roughly where a kidney was? It's not as if this is forbidden knowledge.

There is a bit more to removing a kidney from a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness, than just knowing roughly where it is located !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk