daylight?

[dixon9]

sorry if this has been done before, but i was clogging up the liz stride threads on this matter so thought i had better get on the right thread.
Please could i have people's opinions about wether it was daylight or not when 'Jack' did for AC.I am of the opinion it was probably just about daylight going by the witness statements of Long,Richardson and Cadosch.
Is there any reason not to come to this conclusion?

Thanks for any help

Dixon9
still learning

[Scott Nelson]

The sun had just risen. So there would be sufficient light for the killer to effect his surgically-precise incisions.

[lynn cates]

to market, to market

Hello Dixon. Well, if Richardson, Long, and Cadosch were all correct, it was daylight plus 7 minutes. Of course, that means Jack was a good deal braver that some of us give him credit for. It was a market day and the streets were already becoming populated.

Cheers.
LC

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Call me a skeptic but Long and the boot-cutting dude whose name I've forgotten seem a little convenient to me, or at least their witness statements do.

You gotta correct me if I'm (probably) wrong, but didn't Long only come forward a day after? I can kinda understand how she might've realised the man seen in Annie's company may have been 40ish and foreign if she saw he had grey hair at the back and his 'Will you? was pronounced 'Vill you?' or something. But going by memory, she seems more like a person who was looking for her five minutes of 'fame' (can't think of a better word). Was she and the boot-cutter paid for their stories or anything? And talking of the latter witness, what are the odds that he'd be sat right at the spot of the murder scene a matter of minutes before Annie gets whacked by the Ripper?

Okay, I probably am being a bit too skeptical, but still. It's something that keeps niggling at me. As eerie as the ripping at dawn scenario is, especially in that very atmospheric backyard, I just would'nt've thought that Jack would've risked doing his business there unless it was at night and was dark. I mean, that really is taking the piss and being chancey. Then again, he may very well have been like that (hell, assuming he was the man seen by Lawende, he still went about ripping Eddowes after he'd been spotted; for all he knew those witnesses could've followed them into Mitre Square just to be on the safe side).

I'm not really sure what I'm getting at or even if I have a point on the matter, but it just seems more likely to me that Jack killed Annie earlier in the night (I should probably duck for cover right about now ).

[dixon9]

thanks everyone,M+P Long's first statement to the police i believe was on the 12th September.

[kensei]

I think the Ripper had probably been trolling for a victim for much of the night, hadn't found just the right one and was pretty keyed up by the time he encountered Annie and knew that dawn was fast approaching so this was his absolute last chance. He probably had many nights like that in which he failed to find a safe target and loathed the feeling of having to go home unsatisfied (like an alcoholic who fails to make it to the liquor store before it closes). It must have been hard for him to stay calm as he talked to Annie before going into the back yard, and as the sun painted the sky as he was attacking her he may have been thinking- "Well, if someone sees me, I've got a knife and I'll slash my way out of this place if I have to!" I think the subsequent Double Event and the dragnet and Goulston Street business that followed it show that in addition to his compulsion to kill, Jack was also a bit of an adrenaline junkie.

Of course, calming down long enough to arrange Annie's belongings on the ground as he did before his departure is hard to understand in that light, just one more indication that the Ripper was a most mysterious individual.

[Fisherman]

Kensei writes:

"I think the Ripper had probably been trolling for a victim for much of the night, hadn't found just the right one and was pretty keyed up by the time he encountered Annie and knew that dawn was fast approaching so this was his absolute last chance."

Exactly my take on it too; initiated in the last darkness and performed hastily in the arriving daylight.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I form the opinion that after the slaying of Nichols, the killer knew he needed the assistance of light to commit the mutilations he desired, therefore he struck at daybreak with Chapman which gave him enough light for the full treatment.
Stride was manhandled with the intention to force her to a better lit spot, but when she resisted, and knowing that she could identify him , dragged her into the darkness of the yard and slit her throat.
Mitre square had another light for the murderer to cut Eddowes up, which he succeeded in doing.
Mjk was infact killed in broad daylight, and the killer was able to act out his full fantasies, the fire was proberly a red herring to suggest that it was lit to afford the killer light.
Mary would never have burnt clothing which was a valuable asset, and proberly was washing belonging to others, so the killer lit the fire.. but when?
Regards Richard.

[kensei]

Hmmm... not so sure. How could he have possibly planned to kill Annie just at daybreak when he had enough light to work by but also enough time to escape before there were people everywhere and had any reasonable expectation of it going exactly according to plan? Also, hasn't it been written that Eddowes was killed in the very darkest part of Mitre Square?

[lynn cates]

if you start, finish

Hello Fish. You said:

"Exactly my take on it too; initiated in the last darkness and performed hastily in the arriving daylight."

If Long is to be believed, he initiated it at 5:32 AM. Sunrise was at 5:23 AM.

Perhaps initiated 9 minutes after sunup? Finished, say, 15 minutes after?

LC

[dixon9]

taking it on a touch,if we do believe the witness' and 'jack' came out again the front way of 29,may god he was tempting fate that day.

[lynn cates]

dissertation

Hello Dixon. You might have a go at this.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

Cheers.
LC

[dixon9]

thanks very much lynn will read that now.

Dixon9
still learning

[dixon9]

well a very interesting read,will go through most aspects again,as i was (until reading that) of the opinion you could not write all three witness' off.
At present i am still of that opinion but it is food for thought.
Thanks again lynn

Dixon9
still learning

[claire]

Mjk was infact killed in broad daylight, and the killer was able to act out his full fantasies, the fire was proberly a red herring to suggest that it was lit to afford the killer light.
Mary would never have burnt clothing which was a valuable asset, and proberly was washing belonging to others, so the killer lit the fire.. but when?
Regards Richard.

Don't know about this, Richard. Seems to me that it was perfectly plausible for him to start his work by candlelight, realise that it didn't afford sufficient light for him to admire his 'work,' and then chuck the clothes on the fire to get it blazing. Three things argue for this scenario rather than her having been killed during 'broad' daylight: one, broad daylight would have been quite well into the morning, given the time of year and the weather; two, wasn't the fire quite cold by the time the room was examined (could be my memory failing me here)? and, three, Mary's room was the first in the yard, passed by by anyone coming in and out; it would be too simple for someone to take a quick look through the window, even if that meant pushing aside whatever it was that she presumably used to shield it.

Just thoughts.