Did Jack carry a lantern?

[Natalie Severn]

Well, Nats, all that light didn't stop him getting crap on his hands.

I think he just might ,on this occasion,have filled his pants----its a well known thing to happen at crime scenes and he therefore must have had to spend time cleaning himself ,the blood from his hands as well.Something like an hour at least passed before he popped out from his hiding place to place the apron in Goulston Street etc.I reckon he was cleaning himself up.

[Robert]

Surely no need for the pants theory, Nats? Brown said the intestines were smeared over with feculent matter - presumably Kate's.

[Natalie Severn]

Surely no need for the pants theory, Nats? Brown said the intestines were smeared over with feculent matter - presumably Kate's.

I see what you mean----well lets hope so then Robert

[Mitch Rowe]

And a guy named Brown aughta know about such things.

[Natalie Severn]

And a guy named Brown aughta know about such things.

Hi Mitch,I reckon Brown "s the word!

[Suzi]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;10169]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.

Hi Mike
Now look to be honest I'll never go totally with the Liz Stride/Dutfields Yard thing it somehow with all the 'Lipski 'and 'Pipeman' thing is a bit fussy shall we say depite Schwartz et al when combined with Kate in Mitre Square. ...Once you get into the 'er 'faecal matter/apron' now we're into another thing as we all know.... I still can't get over the idea that maybe that may have been done by Kate herself..............another thread and probably wrong!

This morning I looked at 'The Jewes' and thought hang on...... this is written by a Jew saying Hey we're not being blamed for nothing...we''ll do something/ two!................just a thought... Hmmmmmmmmm...The fact that the half of the pinny was the half of the pinny however cannot be denied!!!

Suz x

[Cap'n Jack]

It was not unusual for law abiding citizens of Whitechapel in 1888 to be about their business at night with a lantern, in much the same way that we today might take a torch with us if we were walking to the local countryside pub, as we would know the street lighting would not be adequate in a rural area, much as the street lighting was not adequate in Whitechapel in 1888.
There is witness testimony to this fact, from the Whitechapel Murders.
In fact in some European countries at that time a person out without a lantern at night was considered to be a criminal about his business.
The type of lanterns used by the housebreakers and thieves of the LVP were very different to the normal lanterns employed by good god-fearing folk.
Known as a 'glim' or 'darkee', they were eminently portable, in a pocket, or even under a hat, and could be set up, or collapsed in a couple of seconds, and through a simple series of shutters could shed light in one particular direction without that source of light being detectable from another direction.
I have never suggested that the killer employed such a simple device, but he could have, along with his smoke and mirrors.

[Suzi]

Hi Jeff-

Yes I'm sure that the average folk took some kind of lighting with 'em but not a lantern of the posh type I feel..They cost a LOT of money!!!! and probably the sort of local folk knew their way around those 'orrid courts and passages mind you they didn't know what was lurking around the next corner!!!

...Do you honestly think that Jack used a lantern though??? I Think not...a bit obvious...unless...

...a legalised one......like a policeman.......DONT get me going here!!....just a thought

Let's face it it's ALL Smoke and Mirrors here isn't it.............

[Barnaby]

Does the fire in MJK's bedroom tell us anything about Jack's preference for seeing his work? Even if we assume that the fire served this purpose (this is debatable), what it tells us about Jack's proclivity to use a lantern is debatable:

Argument 1: The fire supports the idea that Jack liked to see what he was doing and, thus, supports the notion that Jack might have carried a lantern.

Argument 2: Jack had no way of knowing that he would be killing in-doors. The fact that he needed to start a fire to see is evidence that he did not carry a lantern.

Of course, one could make the argument that the fire merely served to destroy evidence, or was not started by JTR, making the fire irrelevent to the lantern discussion. But what fun would that be?

[Doctor X]

That and since he had the ability to light a fire for light as well as evidence destruction in the Mary Kelly bedroom, why not?

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Suzi]

Hi all-

'The Fire' is something else again and the substance of a lot of threads past...All this and spouts burnt off and bonnet rims,pieces of clothing etc etc ...... don't really lead us anywhere do they?... The prospect that the fire was lit for illumination always worries me too- especially with the old damp clothes thrown on...Now I suppose it could have been lit just after the 'deed' was done leaving things smouldering away but personally I think that 'The Kettle/spout etc' was an earlier Kelly domestic unpleasantness.

Right-Looking back here Jack must have had some 'illumination' I suppose.......IF the deed was committed in darkness.......BUT if it was committed in the early hrs of Nov 9th at say 7-9 am there would be no need for 'illumination'....[just a speedy method of scuttling away!]

(Oh and shove all the damp clothes on the fire and leave 'em smouldering)...They'd have been out by the time that Mr B took a look!... and certainly by the time that Abberline arrived!

Oh and as to the 'ability' to light a fire....come on anyone could have access to the odd lucifer or two!

Suzi x

[Suzi]

Does the fire in MJK's bedroom tell us anything about Jack's preference for seeing his work? Even if we assume that the fire served this purpose (this is debatable), what it tells us about Jack's proclivity to use a lantern is debatable:

Argument 1: The fire supports the idea that Jack liked to see what he was doing and, thus, supports the notion that Jack might have carried a lantern.

Argument 2: Jack had no way of knowing that he would be killing in-doors. The fact that he needed to start a fire to see is evidence that he did not carry a lantern.

Of course, one could make the argument that the fire merely served to destroy evidence, or was not started by JTR, making the fire irrelevent to the lantern discussion. But what fun would that be?

Argument one- Doesn't really work

Argument two-He may have done and no it doesn't make much sense either.......

A lantern of any shape or form may just be an incidental...IF it was something that the killer habitually carried by profession or whatever- then OK- I may go with that, but the idea of someone purchasing one purely to see more clearly- I cannot go with

[Suzi]

As to Police lanterns/constabulary etc at the time this site may be of interest
www.constabulary.com/mystery/bullseye.htm It's a U.S site which must be borne in mind though... (No offence........but.........)


Interesting that this rather thin site does say that they were carried by police and crooks alike!! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Make's you wonder about Bill Sykes's dog though! (she said flippantly!) ............"Bullseye!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[perrymason]

Since all the Canonicals were killed after midnight, and likely only one killer had any natural light available..the man that kills Annie at daybreak, I would think this Ripper fellow is accustomed to moving about at night on those streets, and with little ambient light.

I believe its likely he did not carry a light source with him, and the darkness in his choice of operating theaters accounts for the sloppy cuts made by someone who also showed potential skill and knowledge.

There is some question though just how bright Marys fire may have been, and if indeed it did melt the kettle spout that night. Its possible that killer wanted, or needed light. By reporting there was a small candle piece found, that doesn't imply that it started out a full candle that night.

Maybe he just wanted a fire, not the light...so he could burn Maria's taken in laundry, which he may have thought was Marys....in which case he didn't know here very well ....one of the items found in the ash was a hat rim, something that Mary wore only infrequently, and perhaps more bonnet than hat.

Best regards.

[Suzi]

Good points Michael- Our man knew the courts/alleys and streets (maybe even the girls thenselves!) and if ..IF he carried a lantern then maybe he was expected too!

Suzi