where did 'Jack' go after his slayings?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

All the threads about blood transfer, spatter, and stains on the boards lately has brought me back to one of my original ideas about JTR

.

I've replied on another thread that I totally agree with you Smezenen.

I also almost entirely agree with Ben on his assessment.

Still there is one point raised by Abbe that is very interesting : what if Lawende was wrong ? What if the woman identified by him at the morgue as being the same woman outside Church Passage was an honest mistake ?
(afterall, he saw her for a few seconds in the half light, with no reason to commit her to memory -maybe he was totally convinced by the identification, but still wrong ?).

I agree with Ben, that given the time line, it's very unlikely...but not impossible.

I agree with Phil Carter that it almost beggars belief that Morris, with his door ajar, didn't hear the couple cross the square, and that JtR would walk through the light thrown by the open door , and know that someone was awake in proximity ?

Maybe Morris told the truth -he didn't hear anything, because there was nothing to hear : the couple didn't cross the Square because they came in from Mitre Street and stopped as soon as possible. The Pc on the beat attested that he met no one -therefore no witnesses at the Mitre Street end.

If that was the case, then our description of JtR by Lawende is false. Therefore we can't use this description to determine our thoughts on the social class of JtR.

...and having said that, I think that he went to a lodging house...I don't see a problem with it ..

[smezenen]

All the threads about blood transfer, spatter, and stains on the boards lately has brought me back to one of my original ideas about JTR. He may have had experience hunting/dressing/butchering. A couple of points here: He cuts the neck deeply before he starts working on the abdomen; this is something a hunter does that allows the blood to drain rapidly from the body in one place. This keeps most of the blood in one area and JTR doesn’t have to worry much about stepping in it or soaking his cloths in it as long as he works from the other end. It also means the abdominal cavity will be almost completely void of blood, so not much will get on his hands. I think anyone who has ever hunted larger animals can agree it only takes about 5 to 10 minutes to field dress a deer or hog in the dark if you have a little experience. I have dressed more than a few animals in the dark, and walked away without any blood on my cloths/shoes, and almost none on my hands.

[GregBaron]

Tunnels.......

I don't know about sewers Dream Brother but I believe there
were train tunnels that some have surmised as an escape route........



Greg

[Dream Brother]

In light of recent events in the UK where we had a manhunt for a chap named Raoul Moat. He evaded police for a week (some achievement in the 21st Century) it seems by hiding in a culvert or storm drain.

Could Jack have escaped the same way? If he had local knowledge, did he know of a place he could gain access to the sewers or a storm drain and lay low ? Or did he know where he could disappear into the depths and come up again somewhere else that was secluded and it was there he had his wash or change of clothes or it was near enough to his dwelling to bolt home? We already know he wasn't squeamish so perhaps he knew he was unlikely to be searched for amongst the filth?

I wonder...

Any experts on here know if the police searched the sewers etc? Were Victorian sewers, storm drains, culverts etc accessible to an adult male? Are they any networks of sewers in the area of the killings with escape routes?

[Mitch Rowe]

If its true JTR escaped through the passageway of 29 Hanbury and if its true no blood was seen on the doors or the walls of that passageway and if its true that JTR never used the water available in the backyard then JTR was probably very aware of the blood transer to himself. He could have carried a wet rag and was very careful to not get blood on his clothing.

[GregBaron]

Jack's Methods..........

Good points Ben, I can't really disagree with them...removing
and putting a coat back on just seems incongruous to me for some reason..........

I suppose you must think the apron piece was there for some time before being discovered.....?

One point about indoor murder, what does he do with the body after he's finished? It would seem at some point he
would have to drag out body parts that could result in his capture......just a thought

Greg

[Ben]

Hi Greg,

Would it really be a time-waster to slip off a coat prior to performing the mutilations? This would have taken seconds to acheive, and would have been well worth the non-existent effort in order to prevent fluid seepage on his outer layers. I've no problem at all envisaging an 'Oh let's take my coat off now before I get it too bloodied' mentality on the part of the killer. As for the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murderer, I doubt very much that he did much "wandering". Instead, I rather suspect that he made a direct beeline for home, depositing the apron and/or scrawling a message en route.

Another oft-overlooked point, I feel, is that serial killers with single private accomodation (Gacy, Dahmer, Fish, Nilsen etc) have tended to take them there for the murders, rather than risking capture by playing cat and mouse on the streets. I suspect very strongly that Jack's "choice" of killing venues (i.e. chiefly the streets) was governed by a lack of better options.

Best regards,
Ben

[GregBaron]

Bloodied but Unbowed...........

Interesting points all and perplexing ones too... I don't believe JtR took his coat off prior to going to work as this is a time
waster and except with MJK he was in a big time crunch and he knew it. Also, he wouldn't take his coat off prior to the attack
as I assume his knife was in his right hand pocket. BTW, I saw a documentary where they surmised the type of knife, it was 8
or 9 inches long with a rounded tip, quite thin and with a small handle. Would such a long narrow knife fit into the typical
Victorian great coat? Oh well, that's off topic and I suppose he could have doctored a coat to hold his knife/knives. I think
he only had one knife myself. Anyway, assuming just before assumed sex he put on the chokehold, pulled the knife from his right
pocket after the woman was prone and unconscious and made the death slice. Would he have thought, 'Oh let's take my coat off now
before I get it too bloodied', it seems not, more than likely he went right to work. A coat on though would limit flexibility
but maybe he deliberately wore a loose overly large coat? Who knows? Anyway, previous threads argue that there would be blood
but not that much after the neck ran its course and death took place. The viscera wouldn't be all that bloody from what I understand.
So off he wanders after hearing approaching footsteps, he slides the knife back into his pocket and looks for a trough to wipe
his hands. Here he also cleans the knife and/or wipes clean as much as he can with a small rag he brought in his other pocket. He may or
may not discard this and even though they found the Eddowes rag I'm sure all soiled rags in the East End weren't points of contention.
And in the Eddowes case we can assume he wandered around for some time if the timelines are correct and was unnoticed. Seems odd
but apparently true. So it comes down to this, already mentioned a million times, even after the fould deed he may not have
been all that noticeable or all that bloody.........as to where he lived...Ben makes some good points but for some reason I have
a hard time accepting the doss house...............



Greg

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

Only one witness that I know of-lawende-described a suspect who was poorly dressed.

Mary Cox described a man with a "very shabby" appearance. "Shabby genteel" cropped up twice in connection with the Chapman murder - by Elizabeth Long very close to the scene of the crime, and by James Taylor who was alerted to the presence of an agitated man in Mrs. Fiddymont's pub the following morning, who had dried blood between his fingers and a torn shirt. The men seen by PC Smith and William Marshall were unlikely to have been Stride's killer, in my view, and in any case, contention remains as to whether or not she was a ripper victim. We ought really to prioritize te Lawende sighting since it was clearly accorded precedence by the police. The chances of the couple not being Lawende and the ripper are incredibly slim, in my view, given the timings involved.

Lawende specified "fair", incidentally, which can mean light brown. It meshes up pretty well with other accounts in that respect. If the man was literally blond, it would have been unusual for the witness not to have specified as much.

If Mary Kelly could have afforded her own place then i think its reasonable to assume that someone in regular employment could also.

Although the crucial point about Kelly here is that she couldn't afford the rent on her own.

At night of course, blood would be hard to see, especially on dark clothes, but the sun comes up eventually

But he had no reason to get his outer (i.e. visible) garments sullied with even the smallest amount of blood if he removed them prior to getting busy with the knife.

Best regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,



I'd respectfully beg to differ here. We don't even know that the "he" in question was the actual murderer, and it's far from the case that "most witnesses" described a man of respectable appearance. I'm not sure quite how we get from an acceptance that the ripper was employed in some capacity to a belief that he must have had his own private residence. In fact, private quarters were a comparative rarity for the district in that time period, and the overwhelming majority of working men lived in shared accommodation. I don't think it is quite appreciated just how unusual it would have been for a "local" to have "had his own place" in the area in which the ripper was operating.

Knives can be stored in coats, and innards can be consumed (as opposed to "stored") in doss house kitchens that were not patrolled by night watchmen or doormen during the small hours of the night - thus erasing the validity of at least two objections to the Jack-as-Dosser hypothesis. Some establishments also provided cubicle-cabins to eradicate the problem of prying eyes and nosey neighbours, not that there would have been any huge onus for the ripper to have "cleaned up" after an activity that would not have sullied the outer garments to any appreciable extent.

Cheers,
Ben

Hi Ben
Thanks for the response.

We don't even know that the "he" in question was the actual murderer, and it's far from the case that "most witnesses" described a man of respectable appearance.

Only one witness that I know of-lawende-described a suspect who was poorly dressed. And IMHO i have doubts as to whether he even saw JtR and Eddowes-I beleive he is also the only witness who described a blonde man.

I'm not sure quite how we get from an acceptance that the ripper was employed in some capacity to a belief that he must have had his own private residence. In fact, private quarters were a comparative rarity for the district in that time period, and the overwhelming majority of working men lived in shared accommodation. I don't think it is quite appreciated just how unusual it would have been for a "local" to have "had his own place" in the area in which the ripper was operating.

If Mary Kelly could have afforded her own place then i think its reasonable to assume that someone in regular employment could also.

Knives can be stored in coats, and innards can be consumed (as opposed to "stored") in doss house kitchens that were not patrolled by night watchmen or doormen during the small hours of the night - thus erasing the validity of at least two objections to the Jack-as-Dosser hypothesis

Good points and I concede this is valid and possible explanation.

If you beleive the From hell letter is authentic(I think theres a good chance it was), though, that would mean he would have needed to store it for a length of time.

Some establishments also provided cubicle-cabins to eradicate the problem of prying eyes and nosey neighbours,

Another valid point and i could accept this as so.

not that there would have been any huge onus for the ripper to have "cleaned up" after an activity that would not have sullied the outer garments to any appreciable extent.

I somewhat disagree here. I know this issue of visiblity of blood on clothes and how much attention it would attract is a huge contentious issue here. At night of course, blood would be hard to see, especially on dark clothes, but the sun comes up eventually.

All I can say is that i think anyone with blood spotted on them at that time of the WC murders would have raised major red flags, no matter how many butchers (or people who's occupation caused them to get blood on themselves) worked in the area. As just one example i give the case of miss Fiddymont.

[Ben]

So where did he go?You haven't answered the question.

Calm down, Mycroft. I'm getting there! I was addressing a specific point raised by Abby Normal, but as for my own view, I take the line that the killer returned to shared accommodation of some sort - either a crammed residence similar to #29 Hanbury Street or one of the larger doss houses. If forced to pick, I'd argue that the latter presents the more viable alternative since it would have enabled he killer to become the proverbial face in the crowd; just another grimy addition to the 400 strong occupancy of a lodging house. He wouldn't have had blood on his hands unless we accept that he didn't wipe them afterwards, and in any case, many of the residents would have been engaged in occupations which put them in close contact with animal blood.

He wouldn't have been "spotless" after the event, but then "spotless" people weren't exactly the norm for the district.

We know that the larger doss houses were popular with the criminal fraternity in the district, which would hardly have been the case if all lodgers ad doormen took meticulous notes on everybody. Incidentally, it is the very fact that "there would have been some activity at the doss house" that would have been to his advantage. Such was the irregularity of the various work patterns that men would have been coming and going at all hours of the night and morning. Again, single accommodation was a relative rarity for the district. I fear that those who take the line that if it ain't solitary it ain't safe may be overlooking the proven capacity of other serial killers to "hide in plain sight".

My main problem with your dossers theory is that I think that JtR was a bit snobbish. I think that he looked down on the lower classes, he had contempt for their way of life

That's far from a "problem" as far as I'm concerned, since there's no evidence that the killer either considered himself or actually was of a higher social status than that of the general populace, including his victims. As Garry observed elsewhere, serial killers often target those with whom he has most contact in a non-criminal capacity, so I'd very much envisage him as belonging to the impoverished masses. So we're hardly narrowing down the list of potential candidates, I'm afraid!

Best regards,
Ben

[dixon9]

hi everyone

i see Dr Bond had the notion that 'Jack' "was in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible"

I can really understand that point esp in the Annie Chapman killing with it being just about daylight.Thanks again for all the help.

Dixon9
still learning

[kensei]

Closely related to this question of course is the one about just how much blood Jack would have had on him after each crime. Much has been said about how it wouldn't have to be that much if he positioned himself so that the blood flowed away from him, etc. But I've always begged to differ, and I've shared my thoughts on this here a few times before. If he was actually reaching into the bodies to pull out organs, obviously his hands would be very bloody, and from that point I compare it to having to change a flat tire while wearing clean clothes. Do you really think you could manage to remain spotless in that situation? There are practicalities to it- it's way too easy to have a sudden itch or whatever and transfer grease, or in Jack's case blood, to just about anywhere on you, including even the face.

But having said that, I agree with those who've said that blood on dark clothing doesn't show that much, especially at night, and that if he simply took off the overcoat seen by witnesses before beginning the mutilations he could have easily used it to cover himself afterwards. With Mary Kelly, who would have presented a major bloodstain problem for him, I've always tended to picture him undressing at least to being shirtless while he worked on her since he had the indoor privacy, both for sexual gratification and to avoid bloodstained clothes.

But as for the subject of where he went after the murders, I agree with those who think he had a private home somewhere in the East End, though the area covered by the murders could still have presented him with a quite long and nervous walk to make his way home. (But then the Double Event convinces me that he got off on this and was an adrenaline junkie.) My three favorite suspects are: One, someone never named, a complete wild card. Two, William Bury, who did have a home somewhere with his wife. And Three, James Kelly, who was an escaped fugitive at the time and could have been holed up just about anywhere.

[Mycroft]

To Ben,
So where did he go?You haven't answered the question. I think that in answering this question, people should name their suspect and propose the means of their suspects escape. To me , he wasn't a dosser, he still would have had to pay his doss and pass "the doorman" with blood on his hands.I'm sure that at whatever hour, there would have been some activity at the doss house and the risk would have been to great. He had to have somewhere safe to retreat to, where he knew he was away from prying eyes, where he could transcend from "Ripper" to civilian.My main problem with your dossers theory is that I think that JtR was a bit snobbish. I think that he looked down on the lower classes, he had contempt for their way of life and felt that he wasn't one of them, although he may of had lowly origins. I think that he did have his own place to retreat to, because he had his own business in the area and considered himself to be middle classed(the worst snobs).I don't see, with all the increased police patrols, how he could have evaded capture, without a planned means of local escape and I feel sure that he would have planned somewhere he could contemplate his deeds in a solitary,safe manner.

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

"He was described by most witnesses as being at least respectfully dressed"

I'd respectfully beg to differ here. We don't even know that the "he" in question was the actual murderer, and it's far from the case that "most witnesses" described a man of respectable appearance. I'm not sure quite how we get from an acceptance that the ripper was employed in some capacity to a belief that he must have had his own private residence. In fact, private quarters were a comparative rarity for the district in that time period, and the overwhelming majority of working men lived in shared accommodation. I don't think it is quite appreciated just how unusual it would have been for a "local" to have "had his own place" in the area in which the ripper was operating.

Knives can be stored in coats, and innards can be consumed (as opposed to "stored") in doss house kitchens that were not patrolled by night watchmen or doormen during the small hours of the night - thus erasing the validity of at least two objections to the Jack-as-Dosser hypothesis. Some establishments also provided cubicle-cabins to eradicate the problem of prying eyes and nosey neighbours, not that there would have been any huge onus for the ripper to have "cleaned up" after an activity that would not have sullied the outer garments to any appreciable extent.

Cheers,
Ben