A night walk around Mitre Square (PC Watkin's route)

[Parisi North Humber]

To pour over Mary Kelly's face.

Hi Dave,

I posited in another post that boiling water could have been used on MJK as the bottom sheet she was lying on looked sodden (but not with blood) and her exposed right femur looks exceptionally clean and white. Hadn't thought about the boiling water being used on her face though so thank you for food for thought.

Helen x

[Curious Cat]

To pour over Mary Kelly's face.

A change of methodology?

[DJA]

For what purpose would the boiling water be for?

To pour over Mary Kelly's face.

[Curious Cat]

Seems he was boiling water.

Once that was done, the fire was smothered with clothing.

For what purpose would the boiling water be for?

[Curious Cat]

Not sure why that has been bought up!

My only assertion here is that during the murder the killer was doing the task in 95% darkness and the other 5% was hindered by his fleeting glances into the light flares of the surrounding lamps.

I bring it up as the suggestion here is that the killer can apparently do everything in near total darkness but it has also been suggested elsewhere that the killer fuelled the fire in at Miller's Court in order to see what they were doing. It seems the killer can and the killer can't see in the dark.

Unless, of course, the killer was a different individual in each instance.

[DJA]

In which case, what is the argument for the killer's need to fuel the fire at 13 Miller's Court in order to see what they doing when carrying out the murder and mutilations there?

Seems he was boiling water.

Once that was done, the fire was smothered with clothing.

[richardh]

"In which case, what is the argument for the killer's need to fuel the fire at 13 Miller's Court in order to see what they doing when carrying out the murder and mutilations there?"

Not sure why that has been bought up!

My only assertion here is that during the murder the killer was doing the task in 95% darkness and the other 5% was hindered by his fleeting glances into the light flares of the surrounding lamps.

[Curious Cat]

I fancy that corner of the square (ripper corner) was in almost complete darkness (Pitch dak IMO) during the murder. The lights from the lampost and the George Morris doorway would not have reached into that corner. Without a source of light on his person, the ripper would have been working (slashing) in total darkness. Also, while carrying out the deed, he would be taking fleeting glances into the light (the bright lamp at Duke street passage and the brightness of the lampost. this would mean he would be glancing from light to pitch black dozens of times during the attack. His eyes would constantly have to get acclimatized from light to dark as he worked. the darkness of that corner would be 95% - 97% dark.

I live in an area that has almost zero light pollution at night (live in the countryside). We have a single lamp in the area and that throws enough light to see a bit. But if I move 20 feet from the lamp and look at my feet I cannot see them. I can see my hands because the skin colour reflects a bit of the lamplight. but dark colours, clothes etc are not visible. If I look at the light of the lamp and then back down at my hands it takes a few seconds at least for my eyes to acclimatize and see the vague outline of my hands.

I think he was working almost entirely blind.

In which case, what is the argument for the killer's need to fuel the fire at 13 Miller's Court in order to see what they doing when carrying out the murder and mutilations there?

Another point about the light from the door is that it's a shifting feature. In that, the lamps and their reach are fixed throughout but the light from the door is an addition that occurs within the situation. It's not there at the start but is there at the end. The scene of the crime, however small, changes within the space of time the murder happens. Not before or after the discovery of the body, but in between.

[richardh]

Well that's not entirely true, is it? The killer did not carry out the murder and mutilations in absolute darkness. Yes the act was done but the square, even that corner, was not pitch black to point of zero visibility. How much light from the door George Morris opened brought into the square and in which direction the light fell could be important in determining if it was enough to disturb the killer in that corner or even aid the killer in seeing what they were doing.

I fancy that corner of the square (ripper corner) was in almost complete darkness (Pitch dak IMO) during the murder. The lights from the lampost and the George Morris doorway would not have reached into that corner. Without a source of light on his person, the ripper would have been working (slashing) in total darkness. Also, while carrying out the deed, he would be taking fleeting glances into the light (the bright lamp at Duke street passage and the brightness of the lampost. this would mean he would be glancing from light to pitch black dozens of times during the attack. His eyes would constantly have to get acclimatized from light to dark as he worked. the darkness of that corner would be 95% - 97% dark.

I live in an area that has almost zero light pollution at night (live in the countryside). We have a single lamp in the area and that throws enough light to see a bit. But if I move 20 feet from the lamp and look at my feet I cannot see them. I can see my hands because the skin colour reflects a bit of the lamplight. but dark colours, clothes etc are not visible. If I look at the light of the lamp and then back down at my hands it takes a few seconds at least for my eyes to acclimatize and see the vague outline of my hands.

I think he was working almost entirely blind.

[Curious Cat]

"but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed"
This is a non-statement.
The deed was committed. The perp might have been totally blind (literally or due to lack of light) but the deed was still committed. The light has no bearing on the perp committing the act. If he'd had a bag on his head he still committed the act. Hack and slash is the same whether it's done in broad daylight or pitch dark.

Well that's not entirely true, is it? The killer did not carry out the murder and mutilations in absolute darkness. Yes the act was done but the square, even that corner, was not pitch black to point of zero visibility. How much light from the door George Morris opened brought into the square and in which direction the light fell could be important in determining if it was enough to disturb the killer in that corner or even aid the killer in seeing what they were doing.

[richardh]

"but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed"
This is a non-statement.
The deed was committed. The perp might have been totally blind (literally or due to lack of light) but the deed was still committed. The light has no bearing on the perp committing the act. If he'd had a bag on his head he still committed the act. Hack and slash is the same whether it's done in broad daylight or pitch dark.

[Curious Cat]

Is there a source for this statement? I don't recall it in the inquest testimony. It seems to me that Sequeria would have made the lighting assessment at the time of the murder with the warehouse door closed.

In bold...


Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.
By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.
[Coroner] Can you account for the absence of noise? - The death must have been instantaneous after the severance of the windpipe and the blood-vessels.
[Coroner] Would you have expected the murderer to be bespattered with blood? - Not necessarily.
[Coroner] How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived? - Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour.


I'm saying Dr Sequeira would have made the assessment of the available light in the square while that door was open. George Morris says he opened it slightly before the discovery of the body. The question is what difference the light from the door made to the darkness of the square? Would it have reflected around or was it a single line one of light on one direction?

[Scott Nelson]

Dr Sequeria said the square was dark but not so much that killer could not see what they were doing. This assessment was done after the door at Kearley & Tonge had been opened by George Morris, providing an extra source of light.

Is there a source for this statement? I don't recall it in the inquest testimony. It seems to me that Sequeria would have made the lighting assessment at the time of the murder with the warehouse door closed.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yep. I put a 'disclaimer/apology' on the video description about me referring to it as a 'bulldog'!

No worries

[richardh]

Superbly atmospheric, Richard.

I tend to agree that in reality the viewers eyes would adjust to the darkness and give better vision, at least when a light source isn't shining directly into them. Is it possible to model shading your eyes?
Other than that, the only (minor) criticism I have is that in the commentary you kept referring to your "bulldog" lantern, rather than bullseye.
Although, having just googled it, they do seem to be a thing!

Yep. I put a 'disclaimer/apology' on the video description about me referring to it as a 'bulldog'!