Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How did JtR see in the dark?

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

  • Batman
    started a topic How did JtR see in the dark?

    How did JtR see in the dark?

    In the Whitechapel murders, we have a problem that requires a solution. A solution which may be a clue. That problem is over poor lighting conditions and how JtR could have operated in darkness.

    First of all, did he, in fact, work in total darkness or was there some available light? Do the weather conditions even provide us with the opportunity of intermittent moonlight? Is the claim he worked in the dark supported by the evidence? Questions like these.

    Tabram's body was probably not even seen by many passersby on the stairwell landing because it was so dark.

    Nichols body was found in such a dark spot that her wounds could not even be clearly seen. However wasn't there a street lamp somewhere nearby?

    Chapman's body was in a back garden. Was there enough light from the houses around to see her? Seems maybe not given the fence and corner where she was found.

    Stride's body was found in darkness and took a candle to see the wounds. Even Diemshutz's match wasn't sufficient.

    Eddowes' body was found in darkness in Mitre sq. Was there enough light from the buildings around?

    Kelly's body was found in a room which had a fireplace which was recently used. Seems JtR found light from this fire.

    The whole light issue is a mystery. What is the best explanation put forward for this fiend with night vision and a healthy diet of carrots for vitamin A?

  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Which only serves to exemplify that a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.
    Yep. (Extra crackers)

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Then your belief mechanism is at an all time low , i suggest you adjust it some what. Seriously.... buildings and Annie crook not being a catholic, my word thats more than enough to send knights works down the **** shoot surely you can do better than that . the whole theory was based on Joseph Sickert telling knight what his father told him when he was 14 in 1939, Walter Sickert died in 1942 that means good old Joseph decided to wait 31 years before he told BBC and knight his story . yer right, if my old man told me that story i wait 30 years and not tell the world too . As i recall Joseph never made himself available to the bbc they contacted him . He had no interest the BBC documentary at the time .Now just for good measure there was another, Florence Pash who was an artist in her own right who new walter sickert very well, who waited 50 years before she told her daughter that ,Walter Sickett had told her the same story . Two different people with the same story without each one of them knowing the other existed. You say knight was a liar who ignored the evidence, well what evidence would the be ? . The ripper files? , inquest?, coroners report?, eyewitness accounts? [not the internet ones] he had access to make a serious case to his claim the murders weren't committed where they were found. Eddows and Chapman dont add up, as far as time of death and witness reports, and police discovering of the body especially with Eddows. As for Simon and others go im glad they met knight it would have been a great experience im sure , but seeings how knights dead i cant put too much truth in what people say about him and his book while his not around to have right of reply now can i .... just as Joseph recanted his claim that he made the whole thing up ive a hunch knight would stand by his work also . for Simon to come out and say knights books wasn't worth the paper it was written on and ill quote him ''i knew it and he knew it'' is just downright disrespectful . So on we go, tell how Gull couldn't be the murderer after after being suspected during the ripper crimes and in 1892 which by the way had nothing to do with Joseph telling knight... that was sixty years before Joseph even heard the story in the first place so my point is this, even if knight didn't write his book shouldn't Gull be at least considered a reasonable suspect ?. Im happy to read Simons book and that chapter you mentioned, ive read many books on the subject as im sure you have i just dont think knights was one of them. its all about the evidence that knight had to prove that Joseph was telling he truth, change the source and the actual evidence and you change the whole outcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    Id be happy to BB , way back in 1973 the BBC in London ran a six part documentary on jack the ripper which is on you tube , i strongly suggest you watch it . The lead researcher on that series was one Stephen knight , his 1976 book JTR The Final Solution is based on the claims of Joseph Sickert who appeared on the finale and told his story about who jack the ripper really was as told to him by his father Walter Sickert. i believe his book offers the only possible explanation as to how the murders were committed AND BY WHO.The motive is very complicated ,which i wont get into on this post ,however its the manner in which the women were killed is that which ill stick too just for now .Now let me clarify something right from the start, for people who didn't do there research it was easy for them to dismiss this story and knights book on the basis that ,1st Joseph Sickert made claims some years later that he made the whole thing up. 2nd that Joseph couldn't be Walter Sickerts son because Walter could not father children. 3rd that the main perpetrator of crimes on all 5 women was a physician who had suffered a minor stroke and couldn't possibly have been the murderer. In 2002 Patricia Cornwells book Ripper The Secret Life Of W.S. Cornwell contacted Joseph to ask him about his father, and if he would like to add something or even proposed they write a book together , when asked about his comments after the knight book he stated ''it was something he had regretted saying and wished he hadn't made that claim''. Walter Sickert had a operation on his parts when his was five years old . In Jean Overton Fullers book Sickett And The Ripper Crimes ,she more than proves that he was certainly capable of fathering children, which by the way he had two sons , all be it just a little more uncomfortable than most men do it. Lastly chapter 11 of knight book the final solution is by far the most comprehensive evaluation the physician and his involvement in the murders that cannot be overlooked simply because of a minor stroke and his age at the time. Bearing in mind it wasn't the first time this physician was accused of being involved. 1888 and 1895 to be precise. Having hopefully cleared up the main reason for people dismissing knight book and i sure there are others i could answer too if needed , i will tell you why i believe his work to be an accurate account of the murders, its because his research back in 1973 to 1976 gave him access to files that were not made available to the public at that time and as far as im aware ive yet to read any book that pre or post dates his that the same inquest and police and witness statements and coroner reports that are from the originals ive read so many different versions of what claim to be from ripper inquest, statements eyewitness reports that are different from knight version and its just small difference but it changes the entire narrative to fit in to what ever the author want people to believe his version of JTR to be the correct one. There cant be 300 jack the rippers for 300 different books, but most authors use unsubstantiated internet versions ,newspaper reports of what claim to be official documents, even the casebook inquest reports slightly differ from the originals . Robin Odells book Jack the Ripper Fact or Fiction and Cornwells JTR Portrait of a Killer . These five book together have solved the JTR murders completely THE HOW , THE WHO, AND THE WHY .
    Iím finding it difficult to believe that this is a serious post? Can you honestly think that posters on here havenít heard of Stephen Knight? There are researchers and writers on here that met him.

    Now let me clarify something right from the start, for people who didn't do there research it was easy for them to dismiss this story
    His theory has very comprehensively been researched and conclusively debunked by Simon Wood. No one has taken it seriously for years. Knight mentions buildings that didnít exist at the time amongst other things. The whole theory was predicated on Annie Crook being a Catholic but it has been shown that without a doubt she wasnít one. If you check out Simonís book Deconstructing Jack it has a whole chapter devoted to debunking this nonsense.

    will tell you why i believe his work to be an accurate account of the murders,
    Its because youíve only read books that have been thoroughly discredited by proper researchers. Knight has been proven a liar. He ignored any evidence that went against his theory.

    Id advise you to take off the conspiracy theorist goggles and read some of the more balanced, properly researched books on the case. Believe me, this theory has been dead in the water for 20 years or more. No one takes Cornwell seriously either. Though Robin OíDell is much respected.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Which only serves to exemplify that a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Id be happy to BB , way back in 1973 the BBC in London ran a six part documentary on jack the ripper which is on you tube , i strongly suggest you watch it . The lead researcher on that series was one Stephen knight , his 1976 book JTR The Final Solution is based on the claims of Joseph Sickert who appeared on the finale and told his story about who jack the ripper really was as told to him by his father Walter Sickert. i believe his book offers the only possible explanation as to how the murders were committed AND BY WHO.The motive is very complicated ,which i wont get into on this post ,however its the manner in which the women were killed is that which ill stick too just for now .Now let me clarify something right from the start, for people who didn't do there research it was easy for them to dismiss this story and knights book on the basis that ,1st Joseph Sickert made claims some years later that he made the whole thing up. 2nd that Joseph couldn't be Walter Sickerts son because Walter could not father children. 3rd that the main perpetrator of crimes on all 5 women was a physician who had suffered a minor stroke and couldn't possibly have been the murderer. In 2002 Patricia Cornwells book Ripper The Secret Life Of W.S. Cornwell contacted Joseph to ask him about his father, and if he would like to add something or even proposed they write a book together , when asked about his comments after the knight book he stated ''it was something he had regretted saying and wished he hadn't made that claim''. Walter Sickert had a operation on his parts when his was five years old . In Jean Overton Fullers book Sickett And The Ripper Crimes ,she more than proves that he was certainly capable of fathering children, which by the way he had two sons , all be it just a little more uncomfortable than most men do it. Lastly chapter 11 of knight book the final solution is by far the most comprehensive evaluation the physician and his involvement in the murders that cannot be overlooked simply because of a minor stroke and his age at the time. Bearing in mind it wasn't the first time this physician was accused of being involved. 1888 and 1895 to be precise. Having hopefully cleared up the main reason for people dismissing knight book and i sure there are others i could answer too if needed , i will tell you why i believe his work to be an accurate account of the murders, its because his research back in 1973 to 1976 gave him access to files that were not made available to the public at that time and as far as im aware ive yet to read any book that pre or post dates his that the same inquest and police and witness statements and coroner reports that are from the originals ive read so many different versions of what claim to be from ripper inquest, statements eyewitness reports that are different from knight version and its just small difference but it changes the entire narrative to fit in to what ever the author want people to believe his version of JTR to be the correct one. There cant be 300 jack the rippers for 300 different books, but most authors use unsubstantiated internet versions ,newspaper reports of what claim to be official documents, even the casebook inquest reports slightly differ from the originals . Robin Odells book Jack the Ripper Fact or Fiction and Cornwells JTR Portrait of a Killer . These five book together have solved the JTR murders completely THE HOW , THE WHO, AND THE WHY .

    Leave a comment:


  • Busy Beaver
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    Phillips arrived at chapman at 6.10 , says time of death was 2 hours probably longer , Richardson was on his step 4.45 just as it was getting light approx 8 to 12 inches from where chapmans body was found at 6ish .. where was chapmans body at 4.10 ? ...... ill tell you were it wasnt, laying right next too richardson . nichols chapman eddows were not killed where they were found end of story. and when people realize that then they will be able to know who jtr was.
    And tell us Fishy, how did those bodies get to their final resting place? Are you able to prove it was Lech and his van, or Bury and his horse and cart?

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Phillips arrived at chapman at 6.10 , says time of death was 2 hours probably longer , Richardson was on his step 4.45 just as it was getting light approx 8 to 12 inches from where chapmans body was found at 6ish .. where was chapmans body at 4.10 ? ...... ill tell you were it wasnt, laying right next too richardson . nichols chapman eddows were not killed where they were found end of story. and when people realize that then they will be able to know who jtr was.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fantomas
    replied
    A butcher, working early hours before a day of business, may have become adept at producing cuts in the dark. Or, to bang on about my fledgling - less than half baked - supposition. I have considered ritual, "muti" style killing in JtR's methods and wonder if a muti practitioner, used to working without any form of light, may also have been possessed of so macabre a talent?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I do not see Harvey's contribution as of any significance.
    He estimated his arrival at the Mitre Sq. end of Church Passage at 1:41 or 1:42 (18 or 19 minutes to 2.00).
    I believe the value of this statement may lie in the possibility that he never actually made that pass through Church passage at that time, and that's the reason he didn't catch the man while he was still by the body.

    Maybe that's what led to his drinking and subsequent dismissal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    I think the killer worked in near darkness and that the victims were killed where they were found. He only had to be able to see what was within a couple of feet of him after all. There was also the added advantage of his own near invisibility. By that I mean that it's much harder to see someone when you are looking from light into darkness than it is to see someone when looking from darkness into light. If the killer can somehow manage to work in a dark place then anyone approaching, even if from somewhere which is only slightly lighter, will be more clearly visible to him than he is to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    It doesn't take much light to rifle through someone's pocket and place any items found on the ground, quite apart from probability that he did so when dawn had broken. As for making sure that Eddowes' apron was clean, it might not have been, one corner of it being wet with blood.

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Tabram-stabbed and clothes rearranged only
    Nichols-throat and mid section gashed only
    Chapman-severely mutilated but in morning light
    Stride-throat cut only
    Eddowes-extensively mutilated but light from two lamps and buildings
    Kelly-extensively mutilated killed indoor-light from fire/candle
    McKenzie-midsection cut only
    I think that is a good summary.

    Only three were seriously mutilated with organs removed and two of those(Kelly and chapman) he had light. the rest didn't need a lot of light anyway for what he did to them (tabram, stride, McKenzie). Only one (eddowes) it even really applies and there were two gas lamps nearby.
    This seems to be the case.

    and besides theres always going to be ambient light, especially in a city. whether from stars/ moon and overall city light reflecting around and off clouds, or indirectly from street lights and interior lights through windows.
    Probably most of the outdoor locations would have had some of that.

    Its never pitch black at night. except if your out camping in the middle of no where and its overcast.

    Add to that that the ripper probably knew his way with a knife and basic anatomy and I think you got your answer.
    I think on the one hand saying that there was some light, helps explain JtR. He obviously needed to have light to be going through items from their pockets and in some cases arranging them in a pile as he put them aside. I think Chapman and Eddowes both displayed some of this going on. He sliced a piece of Eddowes apron and obviously was able to determine it was dry so he could go off and wipe his hands and knife with it.

    On the other hand, saying they had some light does put into question the whole idea that the unfortunates were taking them to a... let's call it 'dark spot', a secluded dark place, where PCs could not see them?

    Tabram's spot in George's yard was certainly a dark spot. Nichols on Buck's row doesn't seem like a dark spot at all. Chapman's spot in a Hanbury St., backyard would be a dark spot at night I would think, but she was murdered apparently with some daylight. So does it meet the criteria for a dark spot, at certain times? Eddowes it seems has some light on around and doesn't seem like a dark spot. Kelly doesn't apply because she had light indoors.

    On the face of it Tabram, Kelly and possibly Chapman could be candidates for this idea that the unfortunates led them to 'dark spots', but overall it doesn't seem like this was a mandatory part of JtR's MO at all. Any darkish corner will work, even those not used for soliciting, as long as they are alone for a bit of time.

    So seems, not really pitch black at all... and maybe not even spots used by prostitutes either. Would that really be the case with Buck's row and Mitre Square though?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    In the Whitechapel murders, we have a problem that requires a solution. A solution which may be a clue. That problem is over poor lighting conditions and how JtR could have operated in darkness.

    First of all, did he, in fact, work in total darkness or was there some available light? Do the weather conditions even provide us with the opportunity of intermittent moonlight? Is the claim he worked in the dark supported by the evidence? Questions like these.

    Tabram's body was probably not even seen by many passersby on the stairwell landing because it was so dark.

    Nichols body was found in such a dark spot that her wounds could not even be clearly seen. However wasn't there a street lamp somewhere nearby?

    Chapman's body was in a back garden. Was there enough light from the houses around to see her? Seems maybe not given the fence and corner where she was found.

    Stride's body was found in darkness and took a candle to see the wounds. Even Diemshutz's match wasn't sufficient.

    Eddowes' body was found in darkness in Mitre sq. Was there enough light from the buildings around?

    Kelly's body was found in a room which had a fireplace which was recently used. Seems JtR found light from this fire.

    The whole light issue is a mystery. What is the best explanation put forward for this fiend with night vision and a healthy diet of carrots for vitamin A?
    Batman
    Its a moot point.
    Tabram-stabbed and clothes rearranged only
    Nichols-throat and mid section gashed only
    Chapman-severely mutilated but in morning light
    Stride-throat cut only
    Eddowes-extensively mutilated but light from two lamps and buildings
    Kelly-extensively mutilated killed indoor-light from fire/candle
    McKenzie-midsection cut only


    Only three were seriously mutilated with organs removed and two of those(Kelly and chapman) he had light. the rest didn't need a lot of light anyway for what he did to them (tabram, stride, McKenzie). Only one (eddowes) it even really applies and there were two gas lamps nearby.

    and besides theres always going to be ambient light, especially in a city. whether from stars/ moon and overall city light reflecting around and off clouds, or indirectly from street lights and interior lights through windows.

    Its never pitch black at night. except if your out camping in the middle of no where and its overcast.

    Add to that that the ripper probably knew his way with a knife and basic anatomy and I think you got your answer.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 11-06-2018, 02:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Harvey judged his timing by the Post office clock and you cannot dismiss his testimony outright
    I do not see Harvey's contribution as of any significance.
    He estimated his arrival at the Mitre Sq. end of Church Passage at 1:41 or 1:42 (18 or 19 minutes to 2.00).
    Watkins arrived at 1:44.
    If the killer was interrupted it was by Harvey, as I mentioned previously, though Harvey couldn't see across the square.

    So, the killer had 11 to 12 minutes max. between the beats of Watkins & Harvey.

    But again none of these witness timings can be proved to be precise, simply because we dont know whether Watkins watch was fast or slow. likewise with the post office clock, or the clock at the club where Lawende and others left from were all in sync.
    Certainly, the usual caveats apply.

    Harvey made reference to the Post Office clock, but that was roughly 15 minutes before he came down Church Passage. In fact his beat required him to patrol Church Passage before he passed the Post Office clock in Aldgate, not after.
    Church Passage was more than 3/4 of his beat after he saw the clock.


    As far as Watkins testimony is concerned the time he stated he found the body was 1.44am.That is the time his watch showed. However in the Times Newspaper he is quoted as saying that it was 1.44am when he looked at his watch when he arrived at Kearley and Tonges after finding the body, a difference of only one minute. But that would mean he came back into the square at 1.43am not 1.44am
    Possibly, but he did say his beat took him 12 - 14 minutes, which would mean 1:42-44, but 1:41-42 was the time window given by Harvey for his arrival at Mitre Sq. So, do you still stand by the time given by Harvey?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X