Faecal matter on apron piece

[Pcdunn]

Quote 'It probably helped more that in those days the people didn't particularly like or respect the polis and so witnesses were less likely to go to them'

Do you not think those people would have told the Vigilance Committee, if not the Police, had they known anything?

Best regards.

Not meaning to ignore your question, but don't really know enough about the Vigilance Committee (a sort of "Neighborhood Watch" group, or more of the KKK type?) to know if people would trust them.
But my guess is-- no, probably not.

[Rosella]

Blue jackets too! Very smart! I wonder whether that was standard wear in all horse slaughterers though, or just the main ones? The reporter who interviewed Tomkins and co. (of Bucks Row fame) didn't mention jackets, although I'd imagine that aprons were pretty well compulsory in that line of work.

[Joshua Rogan]

People have wondered whether he was in the horse slaughtering or butchering or meat handling trades. Plenty of blood and gore there and no work uniform as such to protect workers' everyday clothing.

Hi Rosella,
I wouldn't have thought there would be a work uniform for slaughterers either, but came across an article today that points to at least some of them wearing one. This is from the Star 1st Oct, as their reporter visits the murder sites the night after the double event;

"There were six people in the square all told, but no one was making any noise. Presently footsteps were heard coming along the narrow passage leading from the other square, and when the newcomers appeared, their blue jackets and white aprons discovered their calling at once, and one could not escape thought that here was evidence that SLAUGHTERERS were not strangers to Mitre-square"

[Fleetwood Mac]

Thanks Fleetwood Mac.
Best regards.

No bother mate.

[wigngown]

Thanks Fleetwood Mac.
Best regards.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I remember when Peter Sutcliffe terrorised Yorkshire. Many people were questioning how he managed to avoid capture and that he must have knowledge of Police procedures and Forensics. Of course the truth was a lot less sensational. The fact that the Police were hamstrung by letters and a tape recorded message which sent them entirely in the wrong direction didn't help. I believe the Killer will be identified at some point, I don't think his name will be new to Ripperology either, and the reason why he managed to avoid identification for so long will probably be a mixture of human error and luck. Once the Met finally open up ALL files on the Killer I believe the information released will finally join all the dots.

Sutcliffe simply had lady luck on his side.

He was interviewed 9 times but given the volume of information the polis simply couldn't cope with the deluge of paperwork in order to see the woods for the trees. The polis didn't realise he had been interviewed 9 times by them. For example, a policeman interviewed him at his home and instinctively felt there was something not right with him and reported this to his superiors who promptly filed the report in a drawer along with the rest of those interviewed with 'something not right' with them.

There were survivors from this attacks and each photo-fit from different survivors turned out to be a pretty good likeness, but then a fella with dark hair and a beard wouldn't have stood out in Yorkshire between 1975 and 1981.

Apart from leaving victims alive to tell the tale, he didn't leave many clues except a footprint, a tyre track, a five pound note and a blood group. The five pound note was significant because it was traced back to one of a few firms in an area of 3,000 people. And so they decided to take blood tests in that area as the Ripper had a fairly rare blood group, 1 in 6 of the population. And, they had the right area, but lady luck shined on Sutcliffe as he managed to get someone else to take the blood test for him, otherwise they would have looked into him a lot closer with him being in an area of 3,000 who were possible based upon the five pound note, and the 1 in 6 blood group would have reduced his possibility to a 1 in 500 chance. Backed up by a size 7 shoe and matching the description he would have really been on their radar.

As for the hoax tape, it made no difference. Sutcliffe simply wasn't on their radar so Sunderland hoaxer or otherwise there was nothing that happened in between the hoax and being caught that meant they would have focused on Sutcliffe. They were relying on polis patrols getting lucky.

As it turned out they got lucky one night with a polis patrol but without the polis turning the right corner and stumbling upon him in a car, he would have carried on for a while.

I suspect Jack was very similar. Luck helped him out and the polis probably came across him but they didn't have enough to put two and two together.

[wigngown]

Quote 'It probably helped more that in those days the people didn't particularly like or respect the polis and so witnesses were less likely to go to them'

Do you not think those people would have told the Vigilance Committee, if not the Police, had they known anything?

Best regards.

[wigngown]

Elamarna
Yes indeed. It was the Geordie accent, or lack of, that eliminated him. He fitted
the description and even had a gap in his two front teeth. His luck ran out when he was caught in a red light area with false number plates on his Rover. He was all tooled up and ready to kill the woman that was in the car with him. The Officers allowed him to urinate and when they returned later found the ball pane hammer and screwdriver, which he'd dropped when urinating. Apparently he'd even managed to hide other items in a toilet cistern back at the Station! If I recall correctly he'd been interviewed on three separate occasions. Best regards.

[Elamarna]

I remember when Peter Sutcliffe terrorised Yorkshire. Many people were questioning how he managed to avoid capture and that he must have knowledge of Police procedures and Forensics. Of course the truth was a lot less sensational. The fact that the Police were hamstrung by letters and a tape recorded message which sent them entirely in the wrong direction didn't help. I believe the Killer will be identified at some point, I don't think his name will be new to Ripperology either, and the reason why he managed to avoid identification for so long will probably be a mixture of human error and luck. Once the Met finally open up ALL files on the Killer I believe the information released will finally join all the dots.

Wigngown

with regards to Sutcliffe, he had been interview by police during the case, but allowed to go on once he gave answers. In the end he was caught more by luck than judgement or detectives skills.
Same may have happened in Whitechapel in 1888, without the final bit of luck to tie it all together.

steve

[wigngown]

I remember when Peter Sutcliffe terrorised Yorkshire. Many people were questioning how he managed to avoid capture and that he must have knowledge of Police procedures and Forensics. Of course the truth was a lot less sensational. The fact that the Police were hamstrung by letters and a tape recorded message which sent them entirely in the wrong direction didn't help. I believe the Killer will be identified at some point, I don't think his name will be new to Ripperology either, and the reason why he managed to avoid identification for so long will probably be a mixture of human error and luck. Once the Met finally open up ALL files on the Killer I believe the information released will finally join all the dots.

[Pcdunn]

Hello, Rippernoob.

I suspect the notion that Jack was a charmed killer with superhuman powers of escape may stem from all the news reports that "no one saw or heard anything"-- but maybe it was simply that people kept their mouths shut when questioned by the police or reporters. Yes, there were house searches, and people complied with those, but that didn't necessarily mean they'd say they had seen anything suspicious even if they had. I agree with the distrust of police idea mentioned previously.

[Rosella]

It depends whether police are around too, doesn't it, to a huge degree? In Australia an actor on the set of a Moby Dick movie several years ago was driving home in Sydney after a long and busy day on the set. He was covered in fake blood, all over face, shirt, hands and upper part of his trousers. He was stopped by the police and taken to the nearest police station and questioned. He wasn't released until the producer of the film was called and confirmed his story.

On the other hand, I've been on a suburban train when a passenger in a torn Teeshirt and bloodstains got on. He'd obviously been in a fight. He was noticed but no one approached him.

I agree that the dark clothing of Victorian times would have covered a lot. However, Nichols (and Tabram) were killed in the summer, hardly overcoat-wearing weather, even if Jack possessed such a thing, and I still believe that he would have got some blood/faecal matter of some description on him anyway, but it wouldn't have been noted by passers by for the reasons in my original post.

[John G]

We don't know any of these things, RipperNoob, (Hi by the way,) though they have been discussed on many threads. People have wondered whether he was in the horse slaughtering or butchering or meat handling trades. Plenty of blood and gore there and no work uniform as such to protect workers' everyday clothing.

I'll just say this. In the 20th and 21st centuries anyone walking around a modern city in a blood spattered condition would attract notice. In Britain's slum districts in the 19th century, not so much. In poor districts men would be lucky to have a Sunday suit (and that was often in the pawn shop!) Men and women wore the same clothing day after day during a working week. If a man got blood splashed clothing through a fight, accident, or following his trade, there was no rushing back home for a fresh pair of trousers or fresh shirt for him or for many of his fellows.

I think that is the reason Jack probably got away with it, because it wasn't unusual for clothing to be stained. In rooming houses there was no bathroom, communal or otherwise, just a bowl that others used. The darkness in these places after nightfall was often intense.

Did Jack's wife wash his clothes? I don't think he was married, but others think that perhaps she did wash them and was suspicious and said nothing. Perhaps she did say something to him but stayed silent as far as the authorities were concerned because of fear. Perhaps she just didn't notice or didn't want to. We just don't know.

Hi Rosella,

An interesting modern comparison is Robert Napper's murder of Rachel Nickell. She was stabbed 49 times, in front of her two year old son, on Wimbledon Common. Napper completely avoided detection, despite the fact that the murder took place in a public park in broad daylight, at a time when it would have been crisscrossing with people, including the Commissioner's own wife, and the fact that Napper, a schizophrenic, would be covered in blood.

[Fleetwood Mac]

We don't know any of these things, RipperNoob, (Hi by the way,) though they have been discussed on many threads. People have wondered whether he was in the horse slaughtering or butchering or meat handling trades. Plenty of blood and gore there and no work uniform as such to protect workers' everyday clothing.

I'll just say this. In the 20th and 21st centuries anyone walking around a modern city in a blood spattered condition would attract notice. In Britain's slum districts in the 19th century, not so much. In poor districts men would be lucky to have a Sunday suit (and that was often in the pawn shop!) Men and women wore the same clothing day after day during a working week. If a man got blood splashed clothing through a fight, accident, or following his trade, there was no rushing back home for a fresh pair of trousers or fresh shirt for him or for many of his fellows.

I think that is the reason Jack probably got away with it, because it wasn't unusual for clothing to be stained. In rooming houses there was no bathroom, communal or otherwise, just a bowl that others used. The darkness in these places after nightfall was often intense.

Did Jack's wife wash his clothes? I don't think he was married, but others think that perhaps she did wash them and was suspicious and said nothing. Perhaps she did say something to him but stayed silent as far as the authorities were concerned because of fear. Perhaps she just didn't notice or didn't want to. We just don't know.

I think whomever killed Tabram would have been covered in blood and presumably didn't go prepared sporting a butcher's apron and so he would have stood out like a sore thumb except it was night and he was probably wearing dark clothing.

Not that I think JTR killed Tabram, I don't, but it's an indication that you could literally get away with murder walking down the street with the evidence all over you in those days. It probably helped more that in those days the people didn't particularly like or respect the polis and so witnesses were less likely to go to them.

[Abby Normal]

And a black wool coat covers a multitude of sins.

and pockets to shove bloody hands in.

also, since there is evidence of strangulation, the victims may have been already dead before the cutting started, so no (or less) pressure for blood spurt.

there is also evidence that any blood spray from the neck cut was directed away from the killer.