Bloody Footsteps? Bloody Doorhandles?

[Chava]

So far as I can make out, the Ripper didn't transfer any blood onto the doorhandles of 13 Millers Court. Likewise no bloody footprints were found inside or outside that location, and no footprints were found leading from the Chapman killing and the Eddowes killing.

I find this really surprising. I can account for no handprints--he could have carried a pair of woollen gloves or some-such with him. But I'm amazed he didn't track blood out on his shoes. Especially from Millers Court. I can't explain it at all except to wonder whether he fastidiously took his shoes off and put them somewhere very out of the way! It looks like he leant or knelt over both Eddowes and Chapman, but he managed to keep his shoes clean both times.

[Limehouse]

Hi Chava,

It seems the killer strangled or smothered the women first, then cut their throats. This action would have reduced the amount of blood actually pumping out. The blood then trickled out, to be soaked up by their clothes.

In the case of Kelly, there was a lot of blood on the floor, but mainly under the bed. It is certainly possible that he removed his shoes (and maybe some of his clothes) in Kelly's room.

[Mitch Rowe]

The blood was in the far corner but Thomas Bowyer said he could see a pool of blood but I personally dont think there was any that JTR could have stepped in. I would think if there were any kind of bloody footprints on the floor they would be noticed and reported. Its possible JTR just kept wiping his hands on the clothes he burned. Or on the bedsheet.

[kensei]

Wiping bloody hands on cloth without soap and water after rooting around inside an eviscerated body could never get his hands completely clean. I've always thought that the statements about how Jack could have avoided getting blood on himself sound good in theory but wouldn't have worked so well in actual practice. Ever tried to clean up a mess, change a tire on a car, etc. while wearing nice clothes and tried your best to stay clean? Not an easy job. It's way to easy to get a sudden itch or whatever, or go to pick something up, and forget just for an instant what's on your hands. There probably were a few bloody handprints or even footprints here and there. They would have been incidental since the forensics of the time were not yet geared toward making very much use out of them. Unless of course there had been a complete trail of bloody shoeprints leading straight to Jack's door, which needless to say would have been unlikely. The best it could have done would have been to indicate which way he'd first gone after the murder.

[Chava]

The thing is, there's never any blood! We don't hear about bloody footprints or handprints in any of the murders. Some smears on the fence at Hanbury Street, and that's about it. Given the level of violence shown those bodies, even though the women were dead beforehand, I'm amazed he managed to get out of there and leave so little trace of himself. I know the police were basically ignorant of forensics and crime-scene deportment at the time. I can imagine that footprints might be obliterated by the Size 10s of PC Plod as he pranced around the murder site. But there's nothing!

[KatBradshaw]

It does seem odd that there is so little mention of blood tracks. In the case of Eddowes and Kelly especially give the increased nature of the wounds.
If he used the piece of apron to wipe his hands in the case of Eddowes how did he negotiate his way around 13 Millers Court without leaving a trail. Or is the assumption that there was just no record made of this.

[Sam Flynn]

In the case of Kelly, there was a lot of blood on the floor, but mainly under the bed.

Indeed - and, in addition, both Drs Bond and Phillips report that a significant amount of blood had "saturated" the bedclothing and mattress at the top right-hand corner of the bed nearest the partition. (This sheds an interesting light on Walter Dew's claim to have slid in the "awfulness" on the floor, incidentally.) As to the other murders, much of the blood was shed from the left side of the throat which, assuming a right-handed killer, would have been on the opposite side of the corpse to where his feet were likely to have been planted.

[KatBradshaw]

Surely in the case of the major mutilations the killer would have had bloodstained hands though. It is probably not an important issue really.