Casebook Forums

Casebook Forums (https://forum.casebook.org/index.php)
-   Scene of the Crimes (https://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Miller's Court - The Fire (https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9582)

Geddy2112 04-13-2016 09:06 AM

Miller's Court - The Fire
 
I've always had 'issues' with how well Jackie Boy (or girl) was able to perform his deeds in such darkened conditions with such speed. Of course we are led to believe he really went to town in Miller's Court and I presume the 'illumination' from the fire helped.

My question is how bright would the fire have been? Would it still have been enough (with a candle perhaps) to see well enough? (The photos tell us it was.)

Just I struggle getting up in the night to go to the loo without kicking the cat :lol: etc... how did JtR manage in such gloomy conditions?

Errata 04-13-2016 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geddy2112 (Post 376973)
I've always had 'issues' with how well Jackie Boy (or girl) was able to perform his deeds in such darkened conditions with such speed. Of course we are led to believe he really went to town in Miller's Court and I presume the 'illumination' from the fire helped.

My question is how bright would the fire have been? Would it still have been enough (with a candle perhaps) to see well enough? (The photos tell us it was.)

Just I struggle getting up in the night to go to the loo without kicking the cat :lol: etc... how did JtR manage in such gloomy conditions?

The fire was probably bright enough, but what just occurred to me is that he would be unlikely to position himself so that he was between the fire and the body. He would block most of the available light. Which means he was likely up near her head and shoulders, not at her side or between her legs.

John G 04-13-2016 11:34 AM

I would ask why he needed a fire at all. Eddowes, for example, was killed and mutilated in what might have been the darkest part of Mitre Square, and yet, according to the Victorian doctors, significantly more skill was demonstrated than in the case of Kelly, who was virtually butchered.

Joshua Rogan 04-13-2016 11:40 AM

Agreed, the fire could definitely cast enough light, but not necessarily in the right direction. The highest flames would be roughly the same height as the bed, so I suspect he would have needed the candle as well, to fill in areas of shadow.

Either that, or he ate a lot of carrots.

Also, depending on the fuel being burned, he may well have had to keep breaking off from his 'work' to throw another item on the fire. Newspaper burns brightly enough, but not for very long, so it would take an awful lot of fish and chip wrappers, unless he was a very fast worker.

Joshua Rogan 04-13-2016 11:45 AM

John, you forgot the rest of Doctor Sequeira's observation;

"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."

John G 04-13-2016 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan (Post 376988)
John, you forgot the rest of Doctor Sequeira's observation;

"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."

Hi Joshua,

Yes, Dr Sequeira was, of course stating the obvious, as the deed, was indeed, perpetrated in the Square-unless it's to be argued that the murder took place elsewhere and the body dumped.

However, the point is Kelly was probably killed later in the morning than Eddowes-possibly much later-when it was presumably significantly, or even substantially, lighter. So, considering much less skill appears to have been exhibited at the Kelly murder scene, why would the perpetrator, assuming he was JtR, have required the assistance of artificial light?

Pcdunn 04-13-2016 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan (Post 376988)
John, you forgot the rest of Doctor Sequeira's observation;

"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."

Right, so how much is "sufficient"? Where did the light come from? The stars?

And, "miscreant"--really? Sounds like a light word for what Jack did to Kate.

Joshua Rogan 04-13-2016 12:11 PM

Mmmm, it's hard to tell from his words if the doc was just stating the obvious, or whether he was making a judgement on the lighting level in that corner. However, since he was said to be familiar with the court, I'd plump for the latter. Although maybe he ate lots of carrots too.

Joshua Rogan 04-13-2016 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pcdunn (Post 376991)
Right, so how much is "sufficient"? Where did the light come from? The stars?

And, "miscreant"--really? Sounds like a light word for what Jack did to Kate.

I believe there were two gas lamps inside the square which would have thrown at least some light into the corner, and one in the Mitre St entrance (which wouldn't).

You're right, though, he should have found a stronger term than "miscreant" for the naughty rascal.

Errata 04-13-2016 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan (Post 377001)
I believe there were two gas lamps inside the square which would have thrown at least some light into the corner, and one in the Mitre St entrance (which wouldn't).

You're right, though, he should have found a stronger term than "miscreant" for the naughty rascal.

miscreant is actually a pretty strong word. It just doesn't carry much weight anymore because it just sort of sounds bland. It's been overthrown onomatapoetically by tougher sounding words like "animal" and "monster". But in truth "miscreant" means depraved and vile. So fair usage, it just sounds mild to our ears.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.