Did Jack wear gloves?

[AdamWalsh]

I doubt anyone can say for sure - but I just wondered as I was reading a recall of a murder committed by Issei Sagawa who said when removing the innards of a lady his hands stung because of the stomach acid........so I wonder if Jack would've thought about that - although the torn apron would suggest otherwise.......

[JTRSickert]

Adam,

This assumption would have to theorize that the Ripper was probably aware of the new fingerprinting method of identification that was just beginning to be used in criminal cases (if at all). So, he would have had to be a very knowledgable individual to pre-suppose something like that, which I doubt. However, that may not be the only reason for his wearing gloves. Since he knew he was going to be ripping open chests and removing organs and what have you, perhaps he wore gloves for a number of other reasons. Such as: perhaps he was afraid that contact with blood would run the risk of contracting a veneral disease or some other illness the prostitute may have. He may worn them to get a better grip on his trophy organs (after all, blood and other stuff on the organ would cause the fingers to become slippery and his target trophy may have fallen out of his hands otherwise.) Finally, perhaps, after commintting his crime, he would take off his gloves and stuff them in his pockets so he could walk around freely at night and, if a bobby or some other citizen stopped to talk to him, he could show them a pair of clear, blood-free hands.

[dantheman]

Based on the fact that the ripper tore Eddowe's apron to wipe his hands clean, then I have to say no he did not wear gloves. I think if he did wear gloves then that's what would've of been found in Goulston St instead of Kate's apron.


Sincerely,

Dan

[RockySullivan]

If he wasn't wearing gloves, wouldn't his hands have been covered in blood/etc from Chapman..and then why didn't the killer use the pale of water to clean his hands?

[dantheman]

If he wasn't wearing gloves, wouldn't his hands have been covered in blood/etc from Chapman..and then why didn't the killer use the pale of water to clean his hands?

It's possible he used a dry spot on Chapman's clothes to wipe/clean hands.

[jerryd]

If we accept that Alice McKenzie was a ripper victim, there is evidence that shows her killer was not wearing gloves. At least not wearing gloves that covered the finger tips. The night time temperatures wouldn't have warranted a definite need for gloves except on the night of Mary Kelly. But she was also killed indoors.

[GUT]

If we accept that Alice McKenzie was a ripper victim, there is evidence that shows her killer was not wearing gloves. At least not wearing gloves that covered the finger tips. The night time temperatures wouldn't have warranted a definite need for gloves except on the night of Mary Kelly. But she was also killed indoors.

But many don't accept her as a victim.

[RockySullivan]

wouldn't reaching in and pulling out the organs really get the hands messy? wouldn't they still be very stained after just wiping on cloth?

[Jon Guy]

It's possible he used a dry spot on Chapman's clothes to wipe/clean hands.

He could have also taken something of Chapman`s to wipe/ clean hands.

[Michael W Richards]

Wool gloves might have allowed for better grip on the organs even if blood soaked, much better than wet leather gloves for sure, and he may have wiped off his gloves on Kates clothing.

[dantheman]

He could have also taken something of Chapman`s to wipe/ clean hands.

Yes, but with Eddowes he may have felt more rushed to flee the crime scene as he'd already spent a considerable amount of time with the body opposed to Chapman. Thus cleaning his hands while exiting the scene.

[jerryd]

But many don't accept her as a victim.

This is true. Always the spoiler, aren't ya?