Just how bloody WAS Jack

[John Casey]

Hi all, I just wonder what other folk think here. I've always struggled with the idea of Jack being covered in blood from head to toe so to speak, after he'd done the deed.

It seems likely that he used strangulation to murder the women and then did the mutilations, if I've understood correctly. This being the case, the heart would no longer be beating, so there would be no arterial spray (although Mary Kelly, assuming she was a ripper victim seems to be the exception to that rule). I assume desanguination would have been an oozing process rather than an active bleeding. If this is correct, it seems to me Jack could mutilate to his hearts content (for want of a better expression!!) and remain relatively blood free.

Over to you peops....

[Hellrider]

that's the belief I hold as well...consider how little blood was found by and on the dead body of Polly (the legendary wineglass)

[Mitch Rowe]

Dr. Phillips at Annie Chapmans Inquest stated that she died from Syncope. Wich is death by lack of blood in the heart. Therefore Phillips surmised that AC was partially strangled or smothered until unconscious. Then while AC was on the ground JTR cut her throat. She died because ther was no more blood to pump as it spilled from her throat. How much arterial spray there was is debatable as the blood on the palings of the fence are described by various witnesses as splashes or smears. We dont really know wich. Im inclined to believe in the splashes rather than smears as I see no reason why JTR would try to squeeze in between AC and the fence. Perhaps the "splashes" were smeared while JTR was moving ACs arm to remove the rings. If that ever happened.

Soo... At least in ACs case I believe that JTR restricted ACs breathing until she passed out.(The best way would be to press the hand to mouth and nose. Strangulation is a hard thing to do and there are many chances for victim to wrench free and make noise.) Then while AC is on the ground JTR cuts the throat and blood is pumped until death.

I dont know how much less blood there would be in the abdominal cavity by letting blood spill from neck but I suspect there would be alot less.
I suspect JTR only had bloody hands wich he cleaned with a rag of some sort.

[kensei]

I've always thought the actual practicalities of this subject might not quite agree with the theories on how Jack could have stayed relatively blood-free. IF he was the killer of Martha Tabram (a wild stabbing spree) I think it's clear he would have been thoroughly drenched. If not, then with the others even if he avoided arterial spray he was not just cutting the bodies open but reaching his hands in and pulling out organs, in the dark and in a hurry. His hands at least would have been completely red until he was able to wipe them off, and even then only soap and water would have gotten them really clean. It may sound a bit silly but it would be very easy in those circumstances to suddenly have an itch and scratch your nose with bloody fingers without thinking, or other things like that. Then there is the matter of how he transported the organs he took. It would have taken very careful planning to do it without staining his clothing. Basically, I just don't think it would be possible to kill someone and cut them apart and remain entirely squeaky clean. The fact that witnesses described Jack wearing a dark overcoat, and the fact that bloodstains on dark fabric at night would not be that visible, seem to me to be significant.

With Mary Kelly, since he had a fire burning he probably took his coat off, and it would have then covered up any bloody clothing as he left later. I've even seen it suggested (I don't remember where) that with the privacy he had in Miller's Court he may have disrobed entirely. (Who knows?)

[Fisherman]

I think that a pointer to how bloody he was is to be found in the fact that he would have been seen on his way from the murder venues, by an unknown number of people - who never realized that it was the Ripper they saw, for the simple reason that he was NOT covered in blood. He could not vanish into thin air, could he?
Of course, as has often been noted, maybe it was not that big a deal to be somewhat bloodied in districts that harboured heaps of butchers and slaughterers, like Buck´s Row for example - but basically I believe we must accept that the Ripper could walk the streets after his deeds without attracting attention.

The best, all!

Fisherman

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Fisherman!

OK, this sounds far-fetched, but;

What if Jack the Ripper had a spare-overcoat to use after a killing?

All the best
Jukka

[Fisherman]

Jukka asks:

"What if Jack the Ripper had a spare-overcoat to use after a killing?"

Same story, I think - it would have allowed him to take that walk home in peace and quiet.

But I agree it is fat-fetched, since it may have made him stand out on his way TO the murder sites, wearing two coats or carrying one with him ...

The best,

Fisherman

[Billy Bulger]

Was'nt it also believed by many officers at the time that the Ripper wore a cloak or cape? And while we're on the subject, why is it always so readily dismissed that some of the victims were not murdered elsewhere? Just because a conspiracy theorist espoused this view doesnt necessarily make it incorrect.

[Sam Flynn]

why is it always so readily dismissed that some of the victims were not murdered elsewhere? Just because a conspiracy theorist espoused this view doesnt necessarily make it incorrect.

...true, Billy. However, the fact that there were large quantities of blood found pooling next to, or having streamed/jetted away from, each of the bodies blows that notion out of the water.

[Hellrider]

you know of course that carrying a corpse around (be it enveloped in a coat or in whatever) makes it a lot easier to not arouse suspicion

[marloes]

Has anyone ever experienced with how someone in Victorian clothes looks at night drenched in blood?
A Victorian coat could be made of heavy natural cloth, dark colours were very common.
Would you notice blood on a black long dirty coat at night?
If clothes are starched the blood will simply run down, I have worn vintage white starched aprons, these were so hard that any mess would simply roll down and not even cause stains.
I think that someone wearing dark victorian clothing could walk trough the East end without sticking out much, especially if it was dark, foggy or raining.

[Mitch Rowe]

Has anyone ever experienced with how someone in Victorian clothes looks at night drenched in blood?
A Victorian coat could be made of heavy natural cloth, dark colours were very common.
Would you notice blood on a black long dirty coat at night?
If clothes are starched the blood will simply run down, I have worn vintage white starched aprons, these were so hard that any mess would simply roll down and not even cause stains.
I think that someone wearing dark victorian clothing could walk trough the East end without sticking out much, especially if it was dark, foggy or raining.

Yes.. Of course.. I guess the point of how bloody JTR appeared would have to be borne of some practical experiments first.

[marloes]

So what are we waiting for