Evidence left behind

[APerno]

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.

[Errata]

I’ve 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. I’m also never surprised when a criminal doesn’t leave evidence. I’m constantly befuddled when a victim doesn’t leave evidence.

[c.d.]

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.

[APerno]

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?

[c.d.]

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.

[DJA]

Phillips' testimony infers something like a Catlin.

[APerno]

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.

[APerno]

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.

[DJA]

Decades of experience.

[Errata]

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.

I’m not totally convinced that’s 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. That’s where I’d be. It’s a stronger knife position too, drawing towards yourself.

[GUT]

So many people want 2019 thinking and forensics in a 1888 case, what clues do you want him to leave behind?

[The Baron]

Decades of experience.

That's how I see it Dave

A butcher, a surgeon or a soldier.



The Baron

[Kattrup]

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, there’s very little of it.

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

[Joshua Rogan]

The footprints are perhaps avoidable but general blood traces, whether footprints handprints smears or smudges, there’s 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."

[Jon Guy]

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.