(Adrianus) Morgenstern = Astrakhan Man

[Wickerman]

Hi Richard.

You would think so wouldn't you.

In the other cases though, the killer only need stand over and around the body, neither his body nor clothes, except sleeves?, need come in contact with blood.
In this case though, operating on a body at higher elevation, on the bed, then surely his clothes around waist level would come in contact with the blood as he leaned over to mutilate the body.

Could he have planned for this eventuality?, how likely is it if the killer was 'Jack' who typically murdered on the streets?
On the other hand, if it wasn't Jack, and he planned in advance to kill her in her room, he may have come prepared?

Hard to say..

[harry]

Perhaps Hutchinson bought some spare clothing at Romford market.Mind you,he would have been a little late,as it's said the market was on a Wednesday,and he said he went there on the Thursday.

[Phil H]

Had barnett removed all his gear from the previously shared room at No 13?

I recall no mention of anything that might have been his.

As a Billingsgate porter, I surmise he would have possessed an apron, probably one covering chest and legs. (Canvas Apron doesn't have the same ring as Leather Apron does it?)

But saturated clothing apart, the remarkable thing to me is that we have no mention of a single footprint in the blood on the floor in that room, no mention of stray drips as though the killer had moved around, no mention of a smear on the door handle or a sprinkling on the flagstone outside. The body parts must surely have wept blood, if not dripped, as he moved them. If he did not roll up his sleeves at the least, his cuffs must have been saturated. Yet the police and doctors noted nothing apparently.

Same at Hanbury St - no drips on the steps as he left, no smear on the door handle reported, nothing where his shoulder mighht have rested.

How DID he manage it?

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Whilst it is true that we have no report of the blood in room 13, apart from the wall splashes, and the pool under the bed , also the sheet, but that does not mean that other blood was not on the scene, he may even have placed a garment on the floor to escape the possible footprints, was not her velvet jacket burnt according to the police because of blood stains?.[ that along with the bonnet].
Because of the constant drizzle that morning any possible marks outside the door may have not been obvious, and the amount of people passing through the passage during the daylight hours would have most likely destroyed any possible clues.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Richard: What you say is plausible - I haven't seen the idea of using a garment to stand on before, I think.

Do you perceive the killer as having knelt on the bed? Sttod in one place? or moved around? I must admit to never having been able to visualise what would be required - perhaps the whole idea is so horrific that I don't like contemplating it!

His hands though must have been clean enough to leave no obvious stains on the inside of the door, the latch or the outside when he pulled it to.

Puzzling.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hello Phil,
Yes it is puzzling.
I have wondered how the jacket apparently got bloodstained, but the suggestion that he may have used it to either kneel on or stand on is as you say is plausible,I only had that idea today..and it is original.
The Times Nov 12, clearly states the police were of the opinion that both the jacket and bonnet were burnt because they were blood stained, I have wondered how the former got soiled for ages.
The Ripper is a fascinating killer, we not only know who he/she was, but how the murders were carried out , with the crime scenes apparently free of clues.
The door knob etc, not being bloodied,would have been a simple wiping of hands or using a rag to bind them upon exit.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

Simply telling the police that he saw another man with the victim is not enough to allay suspicion, "no guv'nor, I seen a'nuver man wiv'er - honest".

Like, they haven't heard that one before.

They had, Jon.

Remember Violenia?

[Phil H]

The door knob etc, not being bloodied,would have been a simple wiping of hands or using a rag to bind them upon exit.

What time do you assume for MJK's death?

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil,
You ask the million dollar question there..
What time do I assume Mary Kelly died?
The truthful answer is I must agree with the initially police opinion, that she was killed in daylight. because of this.
There are two scenarios which are likely.
A] Mr A stayed the night, and remained in her room, until he killed her after Maxwell's sighting.
B] Mr A left at dawn, with Kelly asleep and alive, and it was Maxwell's market porter that killed her, around 9AM.
My gut feeling is she was not killed when the medical opinion stated, and in this case they relied.. on to an extent educated guesswork.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

The daylight part of your answer is what I wanted - it makes sense of your point about the killer's cleaning up being "a simple wiping of hands or using a rag to bind them upon exit".

If you had said she died c 3.30am, then i would see cleaning up as a much less simple operation.

Thanks for the clarification.

Phil

[Wickerman]

They had, Jon.

Remember Violenia?

Certainly Garry, and that he collapsed under interrogation.
The lesson should be not to assume the police did not know what they were doing. Especially Abberline who was very familiar with these East End characters and their evasive ways.
Abberline will naturally expect to be fed lies, that is what he is looking for.

[Phil H]

WasAbberline related to you, Wickerman? You seem to share a trait of never being wrong? At least as far as you assert it.

Where do you stand on Abberlineand his views on Chapman-Klosowski as JtR?

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Anything bloodstained at the scene of the crime would have no value in the investigation. All they could determine about blood at that time that would be relevant was that it was human. So, no need to burn anything bloodstained.

We know of the piece of fabric and the hat, (likely because they were added to the fire later and it was no longer hot enough...if it ever was.... to consume the fabric entirely),....what we dont know is what else was burned. Something drew Abberline, Reid and others back into that room Saturday morning to re-sieve the ashes.

My belief is that they were looking for minute fragments of something that could still be identified,....like a corner of a pound note with some numbers on it, partial stamps, letterhead....just as examples.

Cheers

[Stewart P Evans]

Blood

They could not even determine if blood was human or not in 1888, only if it was mammalian (ergo could have come from a rabbit or other slaughtered animal). This was the case well into 20th century.

[Michael W Richards]

They could not even determine if blood was human or not in 1888, only if it was mammalian (ergo could have come from a rabbit or other slaughtered animal). This was the case well into 20th century.

Duly noted Stewart, ...makes one wonder why they didnt at least attempt to use a scientific process that could be of use when prosecuting a felon, even one that was relatively new and not yet adopted for use in this manner....fingerprinting. Surely there were bloodstained fingerprints from the killer on some items or some flesh.

Best regards