Did Jack carry a lantern?

[Bulldog]

I have always felt that the extreme darkness in Dutfield's Yard was the reason that Jack didn't mutilate Elizabeth Stride's body. After all, Louis Diemschutz wasn't able to discern that it was a body lying on the ground, even after prodding it with his whip. He had to step down and light a match.

And yet Buck's Row, where Polly Nichols was found, was just as dark. The two carmen who came upon her couldn't tell whether she was dead or merely very drunk. Even when Robert Paul reached down and touched her face, he didn't notice that her eyes were wide open and her throat deeply cut. Before leaving, Paul pulled her dress back down to her ankles. Again, he failed to see that her abdomen was cut open.

Even though none of Nichols's organs were removed, why would Jack go to the trouble of ripping her abdomen open if his intention wasn't to take one or more of them? And if that were the case, how could he have hoped to accomplish this in the almost total darkness? Surely he wouldn't have been able to see any better than the two carmen. Is it possible that he carried a lantern?

Bulldog

[The Good Michael]

Bulldog,

There used to be a pretty lengthy thread on this, but it is now gone. The idea of a lantern is most of the time discarded by many here. Some proponents of the idea might be those who think a policeman did it, and had access to a bullseye lantern which could be adjusted to little light or no light. The latter was done by closing the door. If lit in advance, the light was easily concealed until needed. It was carried on the belt and I think it was held pretty fast there. Of course, criminals carried these as well.

I think the killer simply had his vision adjusted enough in the darkness to do the things he did. The people coming upon the body would have been temporarily blinded by going into a darkened yard from a more lit street I think. This is a great debate topic, however, and I'm glad you brought it up again.

Mike

[BillieHoliday]

I don't believe he used a lantern.

Maybe we shouldn't presume jack's thrill was in seeing his mutilations. He could have felt his way along - after all, a torso is not that big an area. And in that way he got his kicks.

Sometimes the imagination of what you are doing is more thrilling than the actual visual reality of it.

[Carrotty Nell]

None of the important eye witnesses report seeing a lantern in the suspect's possesion though, so unless it was the kind of police lamp just mentioned, probably not. Has anyone considered that it might have been the lack of light in Stride's case which prevented the mutilations, rather than an interruption?

[Mike Covell]

I have never subscribed to the idea that "Jack the Ripper" carried a lantern, it would look a little out of place especially among the poor lower class inhabitants of the District, who were in plentiful supply.

Its also worth noting that none of the witnesses describe strange men with lanterns, just strange men!!

I do like the idea though....."A Jack R Lantern"

[Dan Norder]

Even though none of Nichols's organs were removed, why would Jack go to the trouble of ripping her abdomen open if his intention wasn't to take one or more of them?

Killers leave deep cuts in their victims all the time without an intention to remove any organs. We don't know when Jack got the idea to remove organs from the bodies. It's not like killers just up and decide they want to remove innards and choose to go out and kill people to do so. These ideas develop and change over time.

Nichols' body had a variety of wounds. Some of them wouldn't have been helpful at all if the ultimate goal were to remove parts from inside. And it's not like there weren't a large assortment of other cuts on later victims that had nothing to do with organ removal either. We know he made cuts for other reasons, so the idea that his sole purpose for making any cut had to have been to take pieces away is already shown to be invalid.

[The Good Michael]

Mike,

The lanterns weren't all that big and could easily have been concealed under an overcoat. I don't think JTR had one, but a case can be easily made for it being so.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mike Covell]

Hi Mike,

I am not ruling out the fact that he could have had one, I am just inclined to think that he didn't.

If the killer had worn one of these lanterns, how would it affect his ability to kneel down?

Were abouts on the belt are they clipped, and would they have been expensive or easy to get hold of.

Its better to have the bigger picture before jumping to conclusions.

(If your the Good Michael, I am changing my name to the Bad Michael )

[Mitch Rowe]

None of the important eye witnesses report seeing a lantern in the suspect's possesion though, so unless it was the kind of police lamp just mentioned, probably not. Has anyone considered that it might have been the lack of light in Stride's case which prevented the mutilations, rather than an interruption?

Perhaps..Lets say the victims were leading JTR to the place where they do business. Lets say Stride leads JTR to Dutfields Yard. Perhaps JTR thought it was too dark and dangerous to mutilate there. Maybe JTR is afraid Stride will think him the Ripper if he backs out of the deal. Maybe JTR only has enough money to pay one victim and needs the money back. So he kills Stride without even wanting to mutilate. He goes on his way to kill Eddowes and mutilate in a much brighter area.

Its a possibility but I personally believe in the disturbance idea. It just fits so well with the events that night.

As far as JTR having a lantern. I doubt very much that he would use one. Its too risky and will cause alarm to a Policeman perhaps. I think JTR picked the times and places that he thought were sufficient. I think JTR made many "Practice Runs" with these girls and other girls before he thought conditions were sufficient.

[Bulldog]

Lets say Stride leads JTR to Dutfields Yard. Perhaps JTR thought it was too dark and dangerous to mutilate there. Maybe JTR is afraid Stride will think him the Ripper if he backs out of the deal.

That's an interesting theory. I've never thought of that.

Thanks,

Bulldog

[Limehouse]

Consider also that we are all probably looking at 'how much light did the Ripper have/need?' from a modern perspective. We have all grown up used to having plenty of light arond to help us accomplish our tasks but in those days people were used to feeling their way round in the dark and they may have needed much less light than we do.

[Cap'n Jack]

There is a quote from a penny dreadful written in 1888 that does state that the killer carried a small lantern, as witnessed by someone in George Yard.
The thread got lost in the meltdown, and I now can't remember the name of this type of lantern, but it wasn't a police lantern, rather something used by thieves of the age.

[paul emmett]

I have always felt that the extreme darkness in Dutfield's Yard was the reason that Jack didn't mutilate Elizabeth Stride's body. After all, Louis Diemschutz wasn't able to discern that it was a body lying on the ground, even after prodding it with his whip. He had to step down and light a match.

Of course, this is the same--DARK--night that he removed Eddowes's kidney in the darkest corner of dark Mitre square, with the nearest lamppost 65' away, and the Mitre street light blocked off by a shop. So I find it interesting to hear about the the types of lanterns he might have had.

[Dan Norder]

Ah, the penny dreadful again. Now please somebody tell us what some comic book said so we can treat that as a reliable source of evidence as well.

[Doctor X]

You mean From Hell is not accurate?

Yours truly,

--J.D.

P.S. Indeed, methinks given the problem with press reports for details, fiction is just that: fiction.