Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence left behind

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evidence left behind

    HI,

    It is common on this board for people to argue that the Ripper was a well organized killer with a sophisticated MO, (sometimes even suggesting he was a highly trained individual) often pointing to the fact that he never left any useful evidence behind.

    Here is my problem, considering 1888 police forensics I am hard press to understand what evidence he could have left behind.

    Would someone like to offer an argument as to what kind of evidence a 19th Century serial killer could have left behind; maybe identify what kind of mistakes you believe Saucy Jacky avoided.

    Short of writing his name on the sidewalk with the victim's blood I can't conjure up what evidence he could have left behind.

    A bloody glove? (OK, bad joke, I know.)

    So the question is: the absence of what mistake makes you believe the Ripper a well organized serial killer?

    I just don't see how this (overused) argument makes any sense. I feel about myself, that with no murder, military experience, or special ops training of any kind, I could have committed those murders (circa 1890) and left no evidence behind as well.

  • #2
    Iíve always thought it was his ability to get quite a lot done in a very little time that made him organized. There was clearly some planning. Iím also never surprised when a criminal doesnít leave evidence. Iím constantly befuddled when a victim doesnít leave evidence.
    The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

    Comment


    • #3
      Would someone like to offer an argument as to what kind of evidence a 19th Century serial killer could have left behind; maybe identify what kind of mistakes you believe Saucy Jacky avoided.

      That is a good question. Maybe something (not sure what it could be) that might identify his trade or profession. Did the doss houses issue tickets or tokens? That would be something else.

      c.d.

      Comment


      • #4
        Does anyone know if the police ever decided definitively what type of knife was used, e.g. butcher, surgical, etc. or did they never get beyond just identifying possibilities?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by APerno View Post
          Does anyone know if the police ever decided definitively what type of knife was used, e.g. butcher, surgical, etc. or did they never get beyond just identifying possibilities?
          I don't think so and I am not sure a definitive answer was possible in 1888.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • #6
            Phillips' testimony infers something like a Catlin.
            Last edited by DJA; 09-27-2019, 12:44 AM.
            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

            Comment


            • #7
              Catlin knife /// amputations - makes me think of someone's earlier post about failed attempts; the lady who was confronted by a man with the large knife pushed up his coat sleeve (witnessed by another fellow who interrupted the event.) A coat sleeve would have hid this knife well enough and it certainly meets all the necessaries to get the 'job' done.

              Comment


              • #8
                IMO one thing that that speaks to the Ripper being an organized killer was his ability to 'never' step in any of the victims blood. It almost seems amazing that there were never any bloody footprints to follow, if even only for a step or two.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Decades of experience.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by APerno View Post
                    IMO one thing that that speaks to the Ripper being an organized killer was his ability to 'never' step in any of the victims blood. It almost seems amazing that there were never any bloody footprints to follow, if even only for a step or two.
                    Iím not totally convinced thatís planning, but one way with these murders to sort of shield from the blood would be to cut from between the victims legs. You would be nowhere near the blood of the throat, and the blood from the abdominal incisions is most likely going to go to either side. Your knees will get soaked, but a black pair of trousers should hide that pretty readily. Thatís where Iíd be. Itís a stronger knife position too, drawing towards yourself.
                    The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So many people want 2019 thinking and forensics in a 1888 case, what clues do you want him to leave behind?
                      G U T

                      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DJA View Post
                        Decades of experience.

                        That's how I see it Dave

                        A butcher, a surgeon or a soldier.



                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by APerno View Post
                          IMO one thing that that speaks to the Ripper being an organized killer was his ability to 'never' step in any of the victims blood. It almost seems amazing that there were never any bloody footprints to follow, if even only for a step or two.
                          The footprints are perhaps avoidable but general blood traces, whether footprints handprints smears or smudges, thereís very little of it.

                          consider MJK and the killers hands and arms afterwards. Quite the feat not to leave any blood traces upon leaving.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                            The footprints are perhaps avoidable but general blood traces, whether footprints handprints smears or smudges, thereís very little of it.

                            consider MJK and the killers hands and arms afterwards. Quite the feat not to leave any blood traces upon leaving.
                            Quite. A trail of bloody footprints would have been very useful. Perhaps fingermarks and other traces were everywhere after all but, since there was little they could do with the information, the police didn't find them noteworthy.

                            The only ones I can think of are the apprent hand print on MJK's leg in the photo, and this mention in the Star's interview with PC Watkins;

                            ""Were there any signs of a struggle?"

                            "None at all. There was perhaps a quart of blood on the stones, but there were no footprints or finger marks, except where the woman's chemise had been caught hold of as if it had fallen down in the way."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                              Perhaps fingermarks and other traces were everywhere after all but, since there was little they could do with the information, the police didn't find them noteworthy.
                              Hi JR

                              The City Police did look for out for blood stains.
                              They thought they had found some bloody fingerprints on the window sill of a shop in Mitre Street, which were closely examined, but turned out to be candle wax.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X