Location of lamps etc

[kjab3112]

I’ve been trying to work out, primarily for my own head, how dark the scenes were. Using the map in Begg and Bennett’s CSI Whitechapel I’ve created a sketch map for various brightness of lamps for Mitre Square. Is anyone aware of anything similar for Bucks Row or Berners Street? Using the 1870s ordnance survey seems to place no lamp near the board school, but CSI has one on the bridge (I assume from a single newspaper sketch) which seems the wrong location compared to the other lamps in the area, whereas the distances would place the same lamp opposite the board school by the lane adjacent to the railway on the western end, where a lamp is in Richard Jones books photograph.

Thanks

Paul

[Elamarna]

Hi Paul, long time, the above from Inside Bucks Row, may be of help.
The link below is the debate mentioned in the text

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=16979&page=1

Steve

[kjab3112]

Thank you

[kjab3112]

I've (hopefully) pasted below two versions of the light conditions in the general area of Buck's Row, the first is where the 1873 OS has the lights and the second a guess as to where the lamps may have been moved to (namely the removal of the lamp on the wall of 9/10 Buck's Row and the one on the South side of the square in front of the board school with a new lamp outside Schneider & Sons). Personally I suspect the second is more accurate (possibly with the removal of the Brady Street junction light due to brewery buildings).

Paul

[kjab3112]

I should add that the Whitechapel road would have been brighter, but I’ve not added the southern lamps

[Fiver]

I should add that the Whitechapel road would have been brighter, but I’ve not added the southern lamps

Where would the murder site be on these maps?

[drstrange169]

X marks the spot.

[kjab3112]

Correct, the red box surrounding has been lost in the size reduction

Thanks

Paul

[JeffHamm]

These are very interesting and informative. Thanks!

Are the indicated areas of illumination based upon actual illumination cast by gas lamps, or just for illustrative purposes?

Something for people to keep in mind with regards to vision at night with light sources like this around.

If two people are on opposite sides of the light source (so the lit up area is in between them), then both will have a much reduced chance of seeing the other, particularly if the areas they are each in are quite dark as well.

If both are in a lit area, than both will be visible to the other.

If person A is in a lit area, and person B is in a dark area, then Person B will see Person A, but person A will probably not be able to see person B.

That last situation is one that applies in Mitre Square, when PC Harvey walks down Church Passage, because he ends up at the end of the passage where there was a lamp, while JtR may still have been in the dark corner of Mitre Square. So while JtR would see PC Harvey, PC Harvey would not see JtR over the body.

From the lighting diagrams above, if the areas of illumination are close to accurate, then it is entirely possible (for example), that when Paul enters Buck's Row to the east, Cross/Lechmere has passed to the far side of the first lamp, putting the two men on opposite sides of the lamp, making both hidden from the view of the other. Paul would not see Cross/Lechmere until he's entered the area of the 2nd lamp, by which time Cross/Lechmere now entering where that lamp starts to dim, sees the "tarpaulin" at the edge of the lighted area, but can't make it out because it's in a relatively dark area compared to where he is. Hence, he only can make it out as he approaches and the lighting levels equalize somewhat.

Had JtR been at the body while Cross/Lechmere was approaching, JtR could notice him at the first lighting area, and leave, and he would be hidden from Cross/Lechmere's view due to the intervening two light sources. If Cross/Lechmere were at the body, though, and moved towards the middle of the road and into the lighting, Paul would have been able to see him because Cross/Lechmere would be moving into the light.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I got thinking about the two lights along Buck's Row, with respect to visibility. If someone was to the east of the first light source, and the second person in the dark area between the two lights, the 2nd person would probably become visible to the first before entering the 2nd lit area as they would silhouette against the lit area I think, reducing the area where they would be "invisible". Depending upon the distances involved, and other circumstances, the "range of invisibility" could be zero, or it could be large. It's hard to say for sure without recreating the conditions at the time, but the point is, that by taking into account the positions of the light sources, evaluating things becomes that much more complicated (and so interesting, at least to me), opening up a lot of possibilities in many different opposing directions. If we are to even attempt to try and interpret how the lighting situation was, we would have to start with the statements as we have them, and from there, try and work out what the lighting conditions might have been to have led to the witness statements as they presented them. We shouldn't, of course, start with an assumption of what the lighting was, decide then that under our assumed conditions the witness statements could not occur, and then conclude the witnesses must be incorrect! That would be a no-no. If it is possible for the lighting to account for some aspects of the testimony, then we would have to suggest that it appears that the explanation for some bits can be accounted for by the lighting (we would, of course, be suggesting the lighting appears to be in a certain way - a hypothesis that becomes testable, and if shown could not have occurred, then we would show that our suggestion was wrong; that's how things work - if the limited information we have can allows for many possibilities, and under some of those the testimony "works", then we cannot say the testimony must be in error, even if we have to say that "of all the possible conditions, it appears that this subset contains the real events", then ideally we go on to re-create those sub-set conditions, see if indeed they work as we think they would, and if they don't, we go "oops, my bad". Of course, in the process of testing our conditions, we may find the one's we thought worked don't, but ones we thought didn't work do, and so forth. Obviously, recreating the conditions of Victorian London is pretty tricky, given all the modern lighting that exists, so it would have to be done in a mock up of the street, at an expense that makes this just a longer than practical post, but I like research, and like pondering over ways in which one could try and actually test ideas.

- Jeff

[kjab3112]

Hi Jeff,

The way I’ve designed the underlying model allows the illumination level to be adjusted and certain lights to be switched on or off. The assumption I’ve made on these is that each light is giving off a level between 12 candles and a 25 watt modern bulb based on various reported luminance levels, without any direction from the lamp itself. I’ve also assumed that the level of reflection from walls and street would be zero (new brick only reflects 15% and given the level of coal smoke discolouration I doubt the level of reflection would be much more than zero). The yellow matches that of a modern dipped headlight at 10 metres, which is the median distance for identifying a pedestrian in black as a pedestrian, the lightest blue is below a full moon, lightest grey no colour vision. I agree with you on the invisibility issue, but if any killer was near the wall furthest away from the follower, they wouldn’t be highlighted in the same way as you’d have dark clothed individual against dark brick wall.

If you want, I can send you a copy once I’ve tidied a few bits, to play with various combinations of lighting to try to match the descriptions given and make sense of the murder location as I believe the victims chose the street etc and Jack chose the spot within that street.

Paul

[drstrange169]

I'd love to see those too, if you have a mind to share.

The other light source I'd consider is from Browne and Eagle/ Schneider Cap factory gateways, which would have cast some ambient light out onto the street.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

The way I’ve designed the underlying model allows the illumination level to be adjusted and certain lights to be switched on or off. The assumption I’ve made on these is that each light is giving off a level between 12 candles and a 25 watt modern bulb based on various reported luminance levels, without any direction from the lamp itself. I’ve also assumed that the level of reflection from walls and street would be zero (new brick only reflects 15% and given the level of coal smoke discolouration I doubt the level of reflection would be much more than zero). The yellow matches that of a modern dipped headlight at 10 metres, which is the median distance for identifying a pedestrian in black as a pedestrian, the lightest blue is below a full moon, lightest grey no colour vision. I agree with you on the invisibility issue, but if any killer was near the wall furthest away from the follower, they wouldn’t be highlighted in the same way as you’d have dark clothed individual against dark brick wall.

If you want, I can send you a copy once I’ve tidied a few bits, to play with various combinations of lighting to try to match the descriptions given and make sense of the murder location as I believe the victims chose the street etc and Jack chose the spot within that street.

Paul

Hi Paul,

Ah, thanks for the description of the mapping of coloured region to visibility. That's useful to know when considering the diagrams. I agree with you, that people in the vicinity of the body, being up against a dark wall, etc, would not be easily spotted by anyone to the east of that location, particularly when the lit areas are in between the the locations. It is interesting that Cross/Lechmere's testimony, if I recall correctly, has him spotting a shape he took to be a tarpaulin as he passed the gate on the north, which would have him just starting to exit the brightest area of the 2nd lamp, meaning after he's put the light source behind him. That makes sense. And in the scenerio where JtR leaves the scene while Cross/Lechmere is coming down the street, it also makes sense that JtR would see Cross/Lechmere, who is passing through two lit areas, while Cross/Lechmere would not see JtR move off given the light sources are between him and the crime scene, the latter being in the dark and at no point does JtR have to enter a lit zone. Cross/Lechmere might also mistakenly be quite confident he could see someone simply because the area ahead of him was lit up, and it is unlikely a carman would be considering the workings of vision and light sources at night when forming his opinion. From his viewpoint, the street ahead was lit up, so people should be visible. But, the reality is, those light sources are likely to make it harder for him to have seen JtR if he was there at the time.

Anyway, I'm entering a very busy period at work, so I will access your work here on the boards when I eventually get the time. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

It is interesting that Cross/Lechmere's testimony, if I recall correctly, has him spotting a shape he took to be a tarpaulin as he passed the gate on the north, which would have him just starting to exit the brightest area of the 2nd lamp, meaning after he's put the light source behind him. That makes sense.

Hi Jeff, Paul & all,

With regards to the above, it's interesting that the Sunderland Daily Echo of Saturday, 1 September wrote the following.

"The watchman at the wool factory, whose doorway is a few feet below the gateway where the woman was found, and on the other side of the street, says that at exactly three o’clock he spoke to two men who stopped just outside his gate, and they moved on without any trouble. He says that there was no body lying in the stable gateway at the time, and no one in the street."

All the best,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, Paul & all,

With regards to the above, it's interesting that the Sunderland Daily Echo of Saturday, 1 September wrote the following.

"The watchman at the wool factory, whose doorway is a few feet below the gateway where the woman was found, and on the other side of the street, says that at exactly three o’clock he spoke to two men who stopped just outside his gate, and they moved on without any trouble. He says that there was no body lying in the stable gateway at the time, and no one in the street."

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank.

The lack of a body at 3 would be consistent with the fact that PC Neil's didn't find a body when he passed at 3:15. I seem to recall a previous thread which locates the above Watchman in the dark area across and slightly west of the crime scene. So if, as per the diagrams, the crime scene is catching a bit more light, then he would be looking from a darker area into a slightly lighter area, so one might expect him to have been able to see a shape at least had the body been there. I don't think he testifies at the inquest though. There is a slaughterhouse watchman, Alfred Malshaw/Mulshaw, from Winthrop Street, who says he heard/saw nothing of interest, but also said he dozed at times.

Anyway, what is curious about this other watchman is that he doesn't appear to have seen Nichols arrive at the scene, either alone or in the company of anyone, nor does he see Cross/Lechmere and Paul leave the area (well, he doesn't say that he did anyway). So either he had duties that included patrolling the yard and so he wasn't always at the gate or that he too was prone to dozing. In any case, he appears to have missed everything that the other witnesses testify to doing more or less under his nose.

I'm not sure where the reports of this watchman are to be found though? I presume it's a press or police report? I had a quick look through the inquest testimony found on the site, but didn't spot him. Do you know where he can be found to have made the above statements? I wouldn't mind reading the full account.

- Jeff