Location of lamps etc

[drstrange169]

Hello Jeff,

The significance of the Browne and Eagle watchman's claim, is that he was in, more or less, the same spot as Cross when he claimed to have first seen what he thought was a tarpaulin. Thus, backing up Cross's claim that the murder site could be seen from that distance, albeit indistinctly. Marked "A" on my map.

You might be confusing the "watchman" west of the murder scene with the railway policeman stationed further up the road. Marked "B" on my map.

[FrankO]

Hello Jeff,

The significance of the Browne and Eagle watchman's claim, is that he was in, more or less, the same spot as Cross when he claimed to have first seen what he thought was a tarpaulin. Thus, backing up Cross's claim that the murder site could be seen from that distance, albeit indistinctly. Marked "A" on my map.

You might be confusing the "watchman" west of the murder scene with the railway policeman stationed further up the road. Marked "B" on my map.

Thanks, Dusty.

[FrankO]

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

Hi Jeff,

As Dusty has pointed out, the watchman in the newspaper snippet I posted was the one at Browne & Eagle's, a little east of the crime spot. The one you mention above must have been the night-watchman at the Schneider factory, but I haven't been able to find anything more about him than that he said he heard nothing and that the night was an unusually quiet one, or words to that effect. The one at the Great Eastern Railway yard was located further to the west than the one at the Schneider factory - he was some 90 yards from the crime spot - and was mentioned by inspector Spratling, but the only thing mentioned about him was that he heard notihng particular either.

The best,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

The significance of the Browne and Eagle watchman's claim, is that he was in, more or less, the same spot as Cross when he claimed to have first seen what he thought was a tarpaulin. Thus, backing up Cross's claim that the murder site could be seen from that distance, albeit indistinctly. Marked "A" on my map.

You might be confusing the "watchman" west of the murder scene with the railway policeman stationed further up the road. Marked "B" on my map.

Ah, yes, confusing B for A is exactly what I had done!

And, as you say, it adds weight to Cross/Lechmere's statement that he could see well enough into the area to spot the "tarpaulin." Thanks.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

As Dusty has pointed out, the watchman in the newspaper snippet I posted was the one at Browne & Eagle's, a little east of the crime spot. The one you mention above must have been the night-watchman at the Schneider factory, but I haven't been able to find anything more about him than that he said he heard nothing and that the night was an unusually quiet one, or words to that effect. The one at the Great Eastern Railway yard was located further to the west than the one at the Schneider factory - he was some 90 yards from the crime spot - and was mentioned by inspector Spratling, but the only thing mentioned about him was that he heard notihng particular either.

The best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Yes, I had indeed confused the watchmen. I stand, or should I say sit, corrected.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Yes, I had indeed confused the watchmen. I stand, or should I say sit, corrected.

- Jeff

Sitting sounds better, Jeff.

[Fiver]

I noticed something in PC Neil's testimony.

"police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas Street to Brady Street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then. the first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath. It was dark, but there was a Street lamp on the opposite side some distance away. The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to Mr. Brown. - 3 September 1888 Daily News

That fits the second map better than the first, but even there it seems odd that Neil wouldn't mention a street lamp slightly west of the body if that lamp was present and working.

[Elamarna]

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

Hi Jeff, missed the follow up on here after I posted the estimated lamp positions in 1888.

Maybe I am misreading your post, but you talk of a 2nd lamp in Bucks Row. But in 1888 the 2nd lamp is probably to west of the murder site.
I suspect people are mixing up the two images Paul has produced.
This is how it very likely was in 1888.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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 could I have a copy too please

Steve

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, missed the follow up on here after I posted the estimated lamp positions in 1888.

Maybe I am misreading your post, but you talk of a 2nd lamp in Bucks Row. But in 1888 the 2nd lamp is probably to west of the murder site.
I suspect people are mixing up the two images Paul has produced.
This is how it very likely was in 1888.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Ah, ok. I think I was thinking of the other version, which had the westerly lamp to the east of the murder location. If the "2nd" lamp was more likely to be west of the crime scene as in this version, then JtR would have to pass through what looks to be a fairly lit up zone, so no slinking away through only darkness with intervening lights helping to mask his exit.

Of course, if the murder took place around 3:30ish (as some news reports suggest), then the point is moot as JtR would have left the scene long before the arrival of Cross/Lechmere and Paul.

Thanks for that.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Ah, ok. I think I was thinking of the other version, which had the westerly lamp to the east of the murder location. If the "2nd" lamp was more likely to be west of the crime scene as in this version, then JtR would have to pass through what looks to be a fairly lit up zone, so no slinking away through only darkness with intervening lights helping to mask his exit.

Of course, if the murder took place around 3:30ish (as some news reports suggest), then the point is moot as JtR would have left the scene long before the arrival of Cross/Lechmere and Paul.

Thanks for that.

- Jeff

We also have the unknown issue of how well, if at all the light to the west was working.

Neil, as mentioned early appears to talk of a lamp some distance away at the end of the row, which does not on the surface seem to fit the light which would be behind him as he walked East along Bucks Row.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

We also have the unknown issue of how well, if at all the light to the west was working.

Neil, as mentioned early appears to talk of a lamp some distance away at the end of the row, which does not on the surface seem to fit the light which would be behind him as he walked East along Bucks Row.

Steve

True, if the western lamp was not functioning then that entire area would be dark until one was well past the board school. On the other hand, while it's suggested Neil appears to mention the lamp to the east, even the lamp to the west is at the end of the row (to more or less the same extent as the eastern one is to its end of the row), and given by the point one reaches the crime scene the light from the western lamp is pretty minimal, it wouldn't be inconceivable that would get described as "some distance away" to indicate that the crime scene was not quite out of range of the lamp. Clearly the eastern lamp, even if working at full capacity, is not going to make one whit of difference to the light at the crime scene. From Fiver's post above, Neil says "It was dark, but there was a Street lamp on the opposite side some distance away.", it seems to me he's indicating that there was some light in the immediate vicinity, if not a great deal of it. The eastern lamp is too far away to provide any illumination to the area but the western one is close enough to cast some minimal light on the crime scene (which would account for how Cross/Lechmere spots the body in the first place). I think one could argue that it would seem odd of Neil, when discussing the crime location, to mention the eastern one at all given it is clearly not in the vicinity of the crime scene and would have no impact upon it. As such, if the western one was not functioning, it seems he would be apt to describe the area as being without lamps at all, rather than mention a lamp that has no bearing on the area.

I'm just mulling some thoughts here, and as with all ambiguous descriptions, I can't say I know what Neil was referring to for sure, but I think there's good reason to at least consider he may have been indicating that the western lamp because it would cast minimal light on the crime location while the eastern lamp would have no effect on the crime scene lighting.

Of course, if we have statements clearly indicating the western lamp was not functioning, than all my above reasoning can be dismissed.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

True, if the western lamp was not functioning then that entire area would be dark until one was well past the board school. On the other hand, while it's suggested Neil appears to mention the lamp to the east, even the lamp to the west is at the end of the row (to more or less the same extent as the eastern one is to its end of the row), and given by the point one reaches the crime scene the light from the western lamp is pretty minimal, it wouldn't be inconceivable that would get described as "some distance away" to indicate that the crime scene was not quite out of range of the lamp. Clearly the eastern lamp, even if working at full capacity, is not going to make one whit of difference to the light at the crime scene. From Fiver's post above, Neil says "It was dark, but there was a Street lamp on the opposite side some distance away.", it seems to me he's indicating that there was some light in the immediate vicinity, if not a great deal of it. The eastern lamp is too far away to provide any illumination to the area but the western one is close enough to cast some minimal light on the crime scene (which would account for how Cross/Lechmere spots the body in the first place). I think one could argue that it would seem odd of Neil, when discussing the crime location, to mention the eastern one at all given it is clearly not in the vicinity of the crime scene and would have no impact upon it. As such, if the western one was not functioning, it seems he would be apt to describe the area as being without lamps at all, rather than mention a lamp that has no bearing on the area.

I'm just mulling some thoughts here, and as with all ambiguous descriptions, I can't say I know what Neil was referring to for sure, but I think there's good reason to at least consider he may have been indicating that the western lamp because it would cast minimal light on the crime location while the eastern lamp would have no effect on the crime scene lighting.

Of course, if we have statements clearly indicating the western lamp was not functioning, than all my above reasoning can be dismissed.

- Jeff

Perfectly sound reasoning Jeff, my concern, and it's no more than that, with the "and of the row", is that given Neil came from the west, the lamp before might be called the start, rather than the end. however, that's far from conclusive.

Steve

[Elamarna]

And of course we must allow for the possibility that the level of illumination was different from the figure Paul has used.

Great bit of work by him

Steve

[Fiver]

We also have the unknown issue of how well, if at all the light to the west was working.

Neil, as mentioned early appears to talk of a lamp some distance away at the end of the row, which does not on the surface seem to fit the light which would be behind him as he walked East along Bucks Row.

Steve

Agreed. If the western light was functioning, why would Neil even mention a light at the other end of the block?