Did the darkness in Buck's Row play a significant effect in the action there?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Something that has always niggled me a little about the murders, which may have been discussed here previously, but I've not seen it.

We know from the evidence given that the murder scene was a dark area of Buck's Row. Lechmere says he thought that Nichols' body was some unidentified object like a tarpaulin. Paul's evidence suggests that he didn't notice any body lying there, just Lechmere standing in the road. Neither Lechmere nor Paul noticed the severed throat or the blood. Furthermore, and I think quite significantly, PC Neil reported that Nichols' eyes were wide open. Despite checking Nichols closely to see if she was breathing etc, neither Paul nor Lechmere seemed to notice her wide-open eyes! Surely that would have been very relevant, but they didn't mention it, and therefore surely they couldn't have seen this. So Buck's Row was so dark that despite being up close to Nichols, neither man noticed the cut throat, the blood, or the wide open eyes. So Buck's Row was very dark indeed. Was it therefore so dark that JtR discovered that he didn't have enough light to be able to disembowel the corpse? His major violent surgery needed some light. Was he possibly not interrupted, but realised he was unable to do what he wanted to do? Did he decide "next time I'll leave it till a bit nearer dawn so I'll have more light"?

At Dutfield's Yard, Louis D saw Stride's body but it was so dark that even alongside it, he was unsure what it was. So, very, very dark again, and again no massive mutilations of the body. Once more, was it just too dark for the desired disembowelling, so that possibly JtR wasn't interrupted, but simply didn't have enough light to perpetrate his desired violence successfully. I would have thought that it would be quite impossible to mutilate a victim in the manner he wished, in near complete darkness. Did he just think "sod it, too dark!", and wandered off to try again shortly afterwards a few hundred yards away, where he had a bit more light?

Kelly was indoors, and JtR (if it was he) was not only not interrupted, but he made a big roaring fire to give himself light to work by. With light and time, maybe he showed what he really wanted to do to his victims.

All comments welcome.

[Yabs]

Hi Doc.

If Letch and Paul were only out in the darkness for 10 minutes or so this wouldn’t be enough time for the eyes to become fully accustomed to darkness.
20-30 minutes is the time it takes for eyes to become accustomed to the dark.
If PC Neil had been on his beat walking the streets for more than this length of time perhaps this might explain why he saw more.
In fact after several hours in darkness, eyes can become very sensitised to seeing in such conditions.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, but PC Neil needed his lamp to see what he saw. And Louis D had been out in the darkness for hours, and couldn't be sure what he saw. We still have the question, how much light did JtR need to carry out his disembowelling and did he lack sufficient light in Buck's Row and Dutfield's Yard?

[Damaso Marte]

Was Bucks Row meaningfully darker than Mitre Square?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Was Bucks Row meaningfully darker than Mitre Square?

The statements of Paul, Lechmere and PC Neil suggest Buck's Row was extremely dark, whereas Dr Sequeira specifically reported at Eddowes' inquest that there was sufficient light in Mitre Square for the murderer to commit the crime without the need for artificial light.

[Mark J D]

If Letch and Paul were only out in the darkness for 10 minutes or so this wouldn’t be enough time for the eyes to become fully accustomed to darkness.
20-30 minutes is the time it takes for eyes to become accustomed to the dark.
[...]
In fact after several hours in darkness, eyes can become very sensitised to seeing in such conditions.

-- Surely neither Lechmere nor Paul would have been going into the dark from a brightly lit domestic interior? They'd have slept and woken in darkness, and had at most a few candles and an oil-lamp around the place as they dressed and breakfasted. I can't imagine their eyes needed half an hour of 'adjusting' when they got outside into unilluminated or badly lit streets.

M.

[Mark J D]

Furthermore, and I think quite significantly, PC Neil reported that Nichols' eyes were wide open. Despite checking Nichols closely to see if she was breathing etc, neither Paul nor Lechmere seemed to notice her wide-open eyes!

I raised this point in another place a few days ago. Someone with experience of corpses then pointed out that eyes may slowly open after death (hence the tradition of placing pennies over them).

Nichols' eyes are partly open in the mortuary photograph.

M.

[Fisherman]

The statements of Paul, Lechmere and PC Neil suggest Buck's Row was extremely dark, whereas Dr Sequeira specifically reported at Eddowes' inquest that there was sufficient light in Mitre Square for the murderer to commit the crime without the need for artificial light.

Lechmere could see Nichols from at least twenty feet away, since we know that he noted her from the opposite pavement. The hat was observed lying beside the body, they saw that the clothing was up over her knees and so on. I don´t think that we should assume it was pitch dark.

As for the assumption that Nichols and Stride were left un-eviscerated on account of the poor lighting, would it not be a tad stupid of the killer to go on seeking out the darkest spots and corners he could find after having experienced that kind of a mishap in Bucks Row? And in Mitre Square, although the deed took place in what was described as a very dark corner, the killer was nevertheless able to extract a kidney from the front, plus he was able to nick the eyelids of Catherine Eddowes. It is of course impossible to say which place was the darkest, Bucks Row, Dutfields Yard or Mitre Square, but my money is on the killer having had to abort in Bucks Row and Dutfields Yard for other reasons than suddenly realizing that it was too dark to eviscerate.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I raised this point in another place a few days ago. Someone with experience of corpses then pointed out that eyes may slowly open after death (hence the tradition of placing pennies over them).

Nichols' eyes are partly open in the mortuary photograph.

M.

My point is really that of the canonical five, all available information suggests that the light in the case of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly was significantly better than it was with Nichols and Stride, and that JtR would have found it difficult if not impossible to disembowel a victim in near total darkness. Therefore, possibly JtR wasn't interrupted, but simply realised he couldn't do what he wanted without more light.

The eyes opening after death is an interesting one, of course, and I wonder if there is any guidance about how long this typically takes. PC Neil reported the eyes to be wide open, and this was just a minute or two after Lechmere and Paul left Nichols, so the eyes may well have already been open when the two left her. However, the eye opening isn't crucial to the issue here, the point being that it was very dark.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Lechmere could see Nichols from at least twenty feet away, since we know that he noted her from the opposite pavement. The hat was observed lying beside the body, they saw that the clothing was up over her knees and so on. I don´t think that we should assume it was pitch dark.

As for the assumption that Nichols and Stride were left un-eviscerated on account of the poor lighting, would it not be a tad stupid of the killer to go on seeking out the darkest spots and corners he could find after having experienced that kind of a mishap in Bucks Row? And in Mitre Square, although the deed took place in what was described as a very dark corner, the killer was nevertheless able to extract a kidney from the front, plus he was able to nick the eyelids of Catherine Eddowes. It is of course impossible to say which place was the darkest, Bucks Row, Dutfields Yard or Mitre Square, but my money is on the killer having had to abort in Bucks Row and Dutfields Yard for other reasons than suddenly realizing that it was too dark to eviscerate.

Lechmere saw a shape which he thought might be a tarpaulin, not a human being, and had to take a closer inspection. Pitch darkness is not being suggested. Nichols was victim number one of the canonical five, so maybe JtR didn't realise until it was too late that he needed more light, or maybe evisceration was an afterthought, not originally planned. The women probably chose where to take their clients, so JtR might well not have realised that Stride was taking him to somewhere too dark to do his evil deed. There is clear evidence from Dr Sequeira at the inquest that there was sufficient light in Mitre Square for JtR to perform all that he did.

The point I am trying to make is simply that of the canonical five, the available evidence suggests that these were the two darkest places of the five, and that JtR would have needed some fair light to be able to do his worst.

[caz]

Hi All,

I think there is an argument for JtR considering Dutfield's Yard unsuitable for his purposes for more than one reason. The darkness, plus the risk of someone entering the yard at any second, from inside or outside the club, could have put him off. Hanbury Street could have been a close enough call for him to be more cautious on his next attempt. But if Stride was unwilling to accompany him somewhere more suited to his plans, he'd have had little choice but to leave her there - alive or dead - and look for a more compliant victim who would take him, or go with him, to a location he could get to work in.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Something that has always niggled me a little about the murders, which may have been discussed here previously, but I've not seen it.

We know from the evidence given that the murder scene was a dark area of Buck's Row. Lechmere says he thought that Nichols' body was some unidentified object like a tarpaulin. Paul's evidence suggests that he didn't notice any body lying there, just Lechmere standing in the road. Neither Lechmere nor Paul noticed the severed throat or the blood. Furthermore, and I think quite significantly, PC Neil reported that Nichols' eyes were wide open. Despite checking Nichols closely to see if she was breathing etc, neither Paul nor Lechmere seemed to notice her wide-open eyes! Surely that would have been very relevant, but they didn't mention it, and therefore surely they couldn't have seen this. So Buck's Row was so dark that despite being up close to Nichols, neither man noticed the cut throat, the blood, or the wide open eyes. So Buck's Row was very dark indeed. Was it therefore so dark that JtR discovered that he didn't have enough light to be able to disembowel the corpse? His major violent surgery needed some light. Was he possibly not interrupted, but realised he was unable to do what he wanted to do? Did he decide "next time I'll leave it till a bit nearer dawn so I'll have more light"?

At Dutfield's Yard, Louis D saw Stride's body but it was so dark that even alongside it, he was unsure what it was. So, very, very dark again, and again no massive mutilations of the body. Once more, was it just too dark for the desired disembowelling, so that possibly JtR wasn't interrupted, but simply didn't have enough light to perpetrate his desired violence successfully. I would have thought that it would be quite impossible to mutilate a victim in the manner he wished, in near complete darkness. Did he just think "sod it, too dark!", and wandered off to try again shortly afterwards a few hundred yards away, where he had a bit more light?

Kelly was indoors, and JtR (if it was he) was not only not interrupted, but he made a big roaring fire to give himself light to work by. With light and time, maybe he showed what he really wanted to do to his victims.

All comments welcome.

Might there not have been enough time, between Lechmere and Paul leaving Nichols to fetch the next copper, and PC Neil's arrival at the scene, for JtR to have come out from the shadows and tried to finish what he had started before he heard Lechmere's approach? Could this not explain the difference between what the carmen thought they were examining - a woman still possibly alive and intact - and the murdered woman PC Neil found when he got there? I realise he had a lamp to help him, but it does seem extraordinary to me that Lechmere and Paul could have been totally unaware of the extreme violence that had been inflicted.

Love,

Caz
X

[Doctored Whatsit]

Might there not have been enough time, between Lechmere and Paul leaving Nichols to fetch the next copper, and PC Neil's arrival at the scene, for JtR to have come out from the shadows and tried to finish what he had started before he heard Lechmere's approach? Could this not explain the difference between what the carmen thought they were examining - a woman still possibly alive and intact - and the murdered woman PC Neil found when he got there? I realise he had a lamp to help him, but it does seem extraordinary to me that Lechmere and Paul could have been totally unaware of the extreme violence that had been inflicted.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,
I think the general consensus is that there could not have been more than about 2 minutes between the departure of Paul and Lechmere and the arrival of PC Neil, and that isn't really enough time for the throat cutting and albeit relatively nominal abdominal slashing, and an escape without being seen. We also have to ignore the evidence of Harriet Lilley which puts the murder time at about 3. 30 am. The raised clothing also suggests the attack had been made already.

I have therefore considered that the slashed wound of the throat was probably not seen because of the darkness - I certainly agree that with any light at all it should have been visible.

[Mark J D]

I think the general consensus is that there could not have been more than about 2 minutes between the departure of Paul and Lechmere and the arrival of PC Neil, and that isn't really enough time for the throat cutting and albeit relatively nominal abdominal slashing, and an escape without being seen. We also have to ignore the evidence of Harriet Lilley which puts the murder time at about 3. 30 am. The raised clothing also suggests the attack had been made already.

I have therefore considered that the slashed wound of the throat was probably not seen because of the darkness - I certainly agree that with any light at all it should have been visible.

Lechmerian that I am, I am not quite able to shake the horrifying mental image of him throttling Nichols for not quite long enough and beginning to mutilate her while she was merely unconscious; being interrupted by Paul and covering up the cuts; and only then rapidly slashing her throat as Paul turned to walk away... Closed eyes, no blood, and that tiny trace of heart or lung movement: all because she was still alive at that point...

Horrible. Someone please show that it can't have happened that way...

M.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Lechmerian that I am, I am not quite able to shake the horrifying mental image of him throttling Nichols for not quite long enough and beginning to mutilate her while she was merely unconscious; being interrupted by Paul and covering up the cuts; and only then rapidly slashing her throat as Paul turned to walk away... Closed eyes, no blood, and that tiny trace of heart or lung movement: all because she was still alive at that point...

Horrible. Someone please show that it can't have happened that way...

M.

Well, I can't prove it, of course, but I am as sure as I can be that Lechmere couldn't have pulled out a knife,slashed Nichols' throat, wiped off the blood, and replaced the knife in hiis pocket in a trice as Paul turned away, totally unaware of the violence. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a cure for Lechmerianism.