Evidence left behind

[FrankO]

I respectfully disagree. the ripper was nothing if not well organized. He planned on the nights he was to go out hunting (having to bring his items-knife, something to carry his trophys in, perhaps a rag to wipe his hands), rused his victims to get them where he wanted them, perceptive enough to always get away in time undetected and the only clue he ever left behind was intentional (the GSG). Also, Probably wrote letters taunting what he did and was going to do (dear boss, from hell-either one). and besides no un organized killer could have pulled off what happened the night of the double event.

IMHO everything points to he was a well organized, intelligent killer.

Hi Abby,

OK, then let me tell you why I think, based on what we know, we can say the Ripper was organized to some extent, but certainly not well organized like, for instance, Patrick Kearney, Joseph D’Angelo or even Ted Bundy.

We don’t have any evidence that the Ripper planned his murders in any way, but I do think that he went out on the nights he killed with murder on his mind and that one of his organized traits was to kill during the nightly hours of lull. Other organized traits that can be ascribed to the Ripper is that he worked quickly & silently and, very likely, in such a way that he didn’t get much blood on him. Furthermore, he was able to not give himself away until it was too late for his victims and he paid enough attention to his surroundings whilst working on his victims that he got away in time. The fact that he brought a knife with him, to me, doesn’t necessarily point to organizedness as he may well have carried the knife with him on a daily basis.

[Abby Normal]

Hi FrankO,

I think, given the nature of the crimes, it's possible JtR could have dropped something that might have led to his identification. The police were following up such leads as the piece of envelope found with Annie Chapman, the pipe found with Alice Mckenzie, and sifted the fireplace at Kelly's looking for clues that he might have burned. While the envelope turned out to be a red herring (it wasn't from her killer) and the remains of clothes in the fireplace (and clothes in the room) were traced to their owners, the pipe's ownership was never determined as it got broken and apparently lost. That too, of course, might not have led to McKenzie's killer, and she is not one of the C5 (though at the time some of the doctor's thought she might have been a victim of JtR), but it goes to show the police were following up every lead they could. In fact, given they did trace ownership of those items, it also shows they were actually good at tracking down connections.

Had JtR pawned Annie's rings, or dropped something from his pockets during the attack, etc, there's a good chance they could have tracked him down. Apparently he didn't, though. But a personal item, let's say the red handkerchief Hutchinson mentions (if that were real of course), was left it behind then that might have been sufficient. If he had a pawn ticket in his pocket, or some other such thing, and that fell out when he pulled out his knife, that would work. Even if it was just something that could be traced back to a particular pub or shop, or something connected with a particular trade (cobblers wax, butcher's string, medical item, etc).

The fact that nothing was dropped either means he had nothing to drop, was lucky, or was careful to remove such items (i.e. the red hankerchief). The former two would be disorganized (unless he purposefully had nothing with him to prevent accidental clue leaving - that would be highly organized), while the latter would be more organized behaviour.

Murder in the open streets, picking random victims, letting victims choose locations, etc, is generally disorganized behaviour, there's no planning of how to control the environment where the murder takes place and just going with the situation however it unfolds. If Stride is a victim of JtR, and Schwartz's description is correct, it sounds like she was attacked by someone just walking down the street who suddenly assaults her. Given there were two potential witnesses (Schwartz and pipe man), that's not even choosing a "safe" situation, which would be highly spontaneous and disorganized behaviour. JtR seems to have been situation aware enough to flee from Nichol's and Eddowes' crimes as others approached, and to have done so soon enough he wasn't noticed, but whether that's because his attention heightens as a result of the excitement he gets from the attack, or points to Stride being a victim of someone else, or Stride being a victim of JtR and he acted uncharacteristically, or our thoughts that he was actually situation aware at all are incorrect, are all avenues worth exploration.

JtR brought a weapon with hiim, took it away, and apparently left no personal items behind. Those point to organization, fore-planning, and such.

He does not appear to have preplanned where crimes would occur, chose to commit crimes in very risky locations (open streets, backyards of occupied houses, etc), and at all hours (late nights through to dawn), suggesting he's roaming the streets at all hours looking for victims (rather than having a victim pre-selected, stalked, and so could control the when and where of the events). These tend to be considered disorganized behaviors.

So, JtR would probably be considered a mix, with some aspects of him being organized, but other aspects being disorganized. He "plans to kill", but doesn't "plan the kill", so to speak.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
great post. I don't necessarily agree and think he was highly organized but this a very good post I especially like the stuff about clues that could have been left.

However-couple bones of contention lol.

"letting victims choose locations". if he knows those locations are not only safe because his victims are prostitutes and would know where to go to do business in a safe location and by letting them choose would make his victims feel more comfortable going alone with him then I see this as a highly intelligent ruse and very organized tactic.

and besides the classic dis organized killer dosnt necessarily let his victims "choose" a location (nor do they themselves choose the location) but usually attack them where they find them.

He does not appear to have preplanned where crimes would occur, chose to commit crimes in very risky locations (open streets, backyards of occupied houses, etc), and at all hours (late nights through to dawn), suggesting he's roaming the streets at all hours looking for victims

one must keep in mind that this is before the automobile. I would imagine if this prostitute killer had been around in the time of a car he would have used one and a lot of these concerns would not apply. modern serial killers use there car not only to stalk there victims, but as mobile bolt hole where they kill there victims in or take there victims to where they were killed.

(rather than having a victim pre-selected, stalked, and so could control the when and where of the events)

.

all the evidence seems to point to that he knew Mary Kelly-which would indicate pre-selected, pre-planning and stalking.

IMHO I don't even think he was mixed type. This is a highly efficient, intelligent, planning and organized killer

[FrankO]

I think, given the nature of the crimes, it's possible JtR could have dropped something that might have led to his identification. The police were following up such leads as the piece of envelope found with Annie Chapman, the pipe found with Alice Mckenzie, and sifted the fireplace at Kelly's looking for clues that he might have burned. While the envelope turned out to be a red herring (it wasn't from her killer) and the remains of clothes in the fireplace (and clothes in the room) were traced to their owners, the pipe's ownership was never determined as it got broken and apparently lost. That too, of course, might not have led to McKenzie's killer, and she is not one of the C5 (though at the time some of the doctor's thought she might have been a victim of JtR), but it goes to show the police were following up every lead they could. In fact, given they did trace ownership of those items, it also shows they were actually good at tracking down connections.

Had JtR pawned Annie's rings, or dropped something from his pockets during the attack, etc, there's a good chance they could have tracked him down. Apparently he didn't, though. But a personal item, let's say the red handkerchief Hutchinson mentions (if that were real of course), was left it behind then that might have been sufficient. If he had a pawn ticket in his pocket, or some other such thing, and that fell out when he pulled out his knife, that would work. Even if it was just something that could be traced back to a particular pub or shop, or something connected with a particular trade (cobblers wax, butcher's string, medical item, etc).

You make a fair point here, Jeff. Perhaps I should have written that, whatever clue he left, it would not prove he did the deed and would not directly or necessarily lead to his arrest.

So, JtR would probably be considered a mix, with some aspects of him being organized, but other aspects being disorganized. He "plans to kill", but doesn't "plan the kill", so to speak.

I totally agree, Jeff, as with the rest of your post (the part that I didn't quote). Well said!

All the best,
Frank

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

OK, then let me tell you why I think, based on what we know, we can say the Ripper was organized to some extent, but certainly not well organized like, for instance, Patrick Kearney, Joseph D’Angelo or even Ted Bundy.

We don’t have any evidence that the Ripper planned his murders in any way, but I do think that he went out on the nights he killed with murder on his mind and that one of his organized traits was to kill during the nightly hours of lull. Other organized traits that can be ascribed to the Ripper is that he worked quickly & silently and, very likely, in such a way that he didn’t get much blood on him. Furthermore, he was able to not give himself away until it was too late for his victims and he paid enough attention to his surroundings whilst working on his victims that he got away in time. The fact that he brought a knife with him, to me, doesn’t necessarily point to organizedness as he may well have carried the knife with him on a daily basis.

hi frankO
oh I think he was as at least as organized as those killers(please see my previous post to Jeff)but I agree with most of your post and you have good points.

re the knife. yes he may have carried the knife with him all the time, but we don't know that for sure and I think that he probably didn't. first, it must have been kind of a big sharp knife(cumbersome?) so not sure he would always have it on him. The timing of the killings(weekends/holidays) tend to indicate he was in regular employ of some type, so don't think he would bringing a rather large with him to work everyday. and secondly the pattern/history of these crimes leads me to the belief that he had usually probably always carried a smaller knife, like a clasp knife with him-the attacks on millwood and tabram used with this smaller knife until he realized it wouldn't do the trick and switched to a bigger knife on nights he was "hunting". just my two cents.

[Abby Normal]

Hi FrankO,

I think, given the nature of the crimes, it's possible JtR could have dropped something that might have led to his identification. The police were following up such leads as the piece of envelope found with Annie Chapman, the pipe found with Alice Mckenzie, and sifted the fireplace at Kelly's looking for clues that he might have burned. While the envelope turned out to be a red herring (it wasn't from her killer) and the remains of clothes in the fireplace (and clothes in the room) were traced to their owners, the pipe's ownership was never determined as it got broken and apparently lost. That too, of course, might not have led to McKenzie's killer, and she is not one of the C5 (though at the time some of the doctor's thought she might have been a victim of JtR), but it goes to show the police were following up every lead they could. In fact, given they did trace ownership of those items, it also shows they were actually good at tracking down connections.

Had JtR pawned Annie's rings, or dropped something from his pockets during the attack, etc, there's a good chance they could have tracked him down. Apparently he didn't, though. But a personal item, let's say the red handkerchief Hutchinson mentions (if that were real of course), was left it behind then that might have been sufficient. If he had a pawn ticket in his pocket, or some other such thing, and that fell out when he pulled out his knife, that would work. Even if it was just something that could be traced back to a particular pub or shop, or something connected with a particular trade (cobblers wax, butcher's string, medical item, etc).

The fact that nothing was dropped either means he had nothing to drop, was lucky, or was careful to remove such items (i.e. the red hankerchief). The former two would be disorganized (unless he purposefully had nothing with him to prevent accidental clue leaving - that would be highly organized), while the latter would be more organized behaviour.

Murder in the open streets, picking random victims, letting victims choose locations, etc, is generally disorganized behaviour, there's no planning of how to control the environment where the murder takes place and just going with the situation however it unfolds. If Stride is a victim of JtR, and Schwartz's description is correct, it sounds like she was attacked by someone just walking down the street who suddenly assaults her. Given there were two potential witnesses (Schwartz and pipe man), that's not even choosing a "safe" situation, which would be highly spontaneous and disorganized behaviour. JtR seems to have been situation aware enough to flee from Nichol's and Eddowes' crimes as others approached, and to have done so soon enough he wasn't noticed, but whether that's because his attention heightens as a result of the excitement he gets from the attack, or points to Stride being a victim of someone else, or Stride being a victim of JtR and he acted uncharacteristically, or our thoughts that he was actually situation aware at all are incorrect, are all avenues worth exploration.

JtR brought a weapon with hiim, took it away, and apparently left no personal items behind. Those point to organization, fore-planning, and such.

He does not appear to have preplanned where crimes would occur, chose to commit crimes in very risky locations (open streets, backyards of occupied houses, etc), and at all hours (late nights through to dawn), suggesting he's roaming the streets at all hours looking for victims (rather than having a victim pre-selected, stalked, and so could control the when and where of the events). These tend to be considered disorganized behaviors.

So, JtR would probably be considered a mix, with some aspects of him being organized, but other aspects being disorganized. He "plans to kill", but doesn't "plan the kill", so to speak.

- Jeff

hi again Jeff
I think somethings fishy about that red hanky. the way hutch emphasizes it. Tom Wescott had brought this up before and I thought was a very clever catch. If hutch was the killer, then I think he may have lost track of his red Hanky and may have thought he left it in Marys room.and emphasizes it Not only to lead credence to his fake story if they found it, but also to attribute it to the fake suspect Aman (and not himself).

if he wasn't the killer and just an attention seeker, then possibly he used the previous "suspect" sailor mans (seen with eddowes) red hanky to bolster his sighting of seeing the ripper.

would hutch even be able to see what color it was at that distance in poor lighting?

I dnt know, but the red hanky has always not sit well with me. and may be a clue

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

hi again Jeff
I think somethings fishy about that red hanky. the way hutch emphasizes it. Tom Wescott had brought this up before and I thought was a very clever catch. If hutch was the killer, then I think he may have lost track of his red Hanky and may have thought he left it in Marys room.and emphasizes it Not only to lead credence to his fake story if they found it, but also to attribute it to the fake suspect Aman (and not himself).

if he wasn't the killer and just an attention seeker, then possibly he used the previous "suspect" sailor mans (seen with eddowes) red hanky to bolster his sighting of seeing the ripper.

would hutch even be able to see what color it was at that distance in poor lighting?

I dnt know, but the red hanky has always not sit well with me. and may be a clue

Apparently he could distinguish eye lash colour. A red hanky should have been no problem. Guess it all comes down to the nature of Hutch's statement, why he made it and why it was so detailed.

[Sam Flynn]

Apparently he could distinguish eye lash colour

He noted the eyelashes by staring directly into Astrakhan Man's face as he passed Hutchinson, who says he was standing under a lamp at the time. As Abby asked, would Hutchinson have been able to notice the colour of a handkerchief at a distance and under poor lighting?

[packers stem]

hi again Jeff
I think somethings fishy about that red hanky. the way hutch emphasizes it. Tom Wescott had brought this up before and I thought was a very clever catch. If hutch was the killer, then I think he may have lost track of his red Hanky and may have thought he left it in Marys room.and emphasizes it Not only to lead credence to his fake story if they found it, but also to attribute it to the fake suspect Aman (and not himself).

if he wasn't the killer and just an attention seeker, then possibly he used the previous "suspect" sailor mans (seen with eddowes) red hanky to bolster his sighting of seeing the ripper.

would hutch even be able to see what color it was at that distance in poor lighting?

I dnt know, but the red hanky has always not sit well with me. and may be a clue

The red neckerchief at that time was strongly linked to Annie Besant ,her followers .
Match girls, Irish home rule etc

Eddowes wore one
Chapman wore one with a red border as did Stride

It was a symbol ,like a badge showing affinity

[JeffHamm]

Hi Abby Normal,

I see where you're coming from, and will just make a few comments that occur to me,

Hi Jeff
great post. I don't necessarily agree and think he was highly organized but this a very good post I especially like the stuff about clues that could have been left.

However-couple bones of contention lol.

"letting victims choose locations". if he knows those locations are not only safe because his victims are prostitutes and would know where to go to do business in a safe location and by letting them choose would make his victims feel more comfortable going alone with him then I see this as a highly intelligent ruse and very organized tactic.

and besides the classic dis organized killer dosnt necessarily let his victims "choose" a location (nor do they themselves choose the location) but usually attack them where they find them.

I see what you're getting at, though the hallmark of a strongly organized offender is that they seem to try and work out every detail, leaving nothing to chance. So, while I agree that posing as a client (which appears to be a highly probable aspect of JtRs methods), does require him to be able to navigate and pull off that ruse, it also means he's not come up with anything better as a way of luring his victim to a more controlled location. It may be he had no better location, or he may just not have been able to work something out. It seems to me he could have easily spent the time specifically looking for victims who did have rooms to go to, like Mary Kelly did. It is possible he did just that, but there's not enough information to know if he did choose her specifically because she had a room, or if she just happened to have one and he wasn't aware of that prior to their meeting (I have no doubt he would have become of aware of that during their meeting and prior to going to the room though). If McKenzie is a victim of JtR (and most think not of course), then that weighs against the more organized interpretation, but without knowing if indoors was situational or a change in his pattern, it just opens up possibilities rather than answers our question.

From the bulk of it, though, the organizational aspects of apparently having some sort of plan on how to gain an interaction with his victims leans towards organization, but the relative simplicity of it and lack of real control over the situation, points towards more disorganized. So, falling somewhere in between the two extremes (which probably the majority of offenders are; relatively few are the obsessively organized like Dennis Radar, or the highly disorganized like Richard Chase).

one must keep in mind that this is before the automobile. I would imagine if this prostitute killer had been around in the time of a car he would have used one and a lot of these concerns would not apply. modern serial killers use there car not only to stalk there victims, but as mobile bolt hole where they kill there victims in or take there victims to where they were killed.

That's true, of course, but there still were options. If the torso murders, or even some of them, reflect a single killer, there would be someone who does show a much more organized pattern, controlling both the location of where the murders occurred and how to dispose of the evidence. Those murders show a very different level of control than the JtR series in my view.

.

all the evidence seems to point to that he knew Mary Kelly-which would indicate pre-selected, pre-planning and stalking.

While I don't dispute that interpretation is not contradicted by what we know, I don't think it is the only interpretation as it is also entirely possible that he only just came across her for the first time and she simply had a room, unlike the other random victims. If his series continued, and they always ended up indoors, then I think we could suggest he's updated his victim selection. If the time between crimes also increased a great amount, that might point towards him taking the time to stalk and locate specific victims. A small increase, however, might just reflect that it takes a bit longer to find a victim as the criterion (have a room, etc) gets more restrictive (meaning, if he's still just randomly picking victims on the night, then it just takes longer to find one with a room, which he could presumably find out during the pre-attack-conversation phase).

I think what you suggest is within the realm of possibilities, but I don't think we have enough to exclude other interpretations at the moment.

IMHO I don't even think he was mixed type. This is a highly efficient, intelligent, planning and organized killer

Again, in my view, that might be possible, but there does seem to be enough disorganization as well to suggest a relaxing of that description. How much it should be relaxed, though, is unclear.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

hi again Jeff
I think somethings fishy about that red hanky. the way hutch emphasizes it. Tom Wescott had brought this up before and I thought was a very clever catch. If hutch was the killer, then I think he may have lost track of his red Hanky and may have thought he left it in Marys room.and emphasizes it Not only to lead credence to his fake story if they found it, but also to attribute it to the fake suspect Aman (and not himself).

if he wasn't the killer and just an attention seeker, then possibly he used the previous "suspect" sailor mans (seen with eddowes) red hanky to bolster his sighting of seeing the ripper.

would hutch even be able to see what color it was at that distance in poor lighting?

I dnt know, but the red hanky has always not sit well with me. and may be a clue

yes, Hutchinson's descriptions are so detailed they do arouse suspicions. Either he spent so much time re-thinking things he's convinced himself of details that he's filled in, or he's making it up entirely (though it does appear he may have been spotted on his vigil), or he's somehow involved.

I only mentioned the red hanky as an example, and like you, I'm not convinced it even existed. If it did, the above is an interesting line of reasoning and well worth considering. My problem with it actually existing, though, is that red is hard a colour to see at night, but again, that would depend upon the lighting conditions, which of course we don't know. If Hutchinson is to be believed, they were close enough for him to hear the conversation, and he was under a lamp, so it may be that there was enough for him to see the colour.

Of course, a red hanky might be just the thing to wipe bloody hands on and use to wrap bits in, to at least minimize the chance of others to see the stains.

Anyway, Hutchinson's evidence does not inspire great confidence as to its accuracy, but I used it only as an example of the type of thing that might have been a useful clue, rather than intending it to be presented as if it really existed.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

yes, Hutchinson's descriptions are so detailed they do arouse suspicions. Either he spent so much time re-thinking things he's convinced himself of details that he's filled in, or he's making it up entirely (though it does appear he may have been spotted on his vigil), or he's somehow involved.

I agree that his detailed descriptions would have aroused suspicions unless the police were complete idiots which is why I think they checked him out thoroughly and determined that he was not involved.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

yes, Hutchinson's descriptions are so detailed they do arouse suspicions. Either he spent so much time re-thinking things he's convinced himself of details that he's filled in, or he's making it up entirely (though it does appear he may have been spotted on his vigil), or he's somehow involved.

I agree that his detailed descriptions would have aroused suspicions unless the police were complete idiots which is why I think they checked him out thoroughly and determined that he was not involved.

c.d.

I think that's a fair conclusion. I believe Abberline (?) was directly involved in questioning him and was, at least initially, satisfied with his account. I'm presuming that part of that must have been a result of his being able to account for his whereabouts on other occasions, so unless he's only responsible for Mary Kelly's murder, he may have been cleared of suspicion that way. Unfortunately, we don't have direct evidence of that, and it's only a hypothesis. He may also just have been a convincing talker, and he seemed sincere enough. But, given how the police tracked down things like the envelope, identified items from Mary Kelly's room as belonging to Barnett (his pipe), the clothing (her friend), and so forth, to presume that they were the keystone cops and didn't check out people like Hutchinson seems a pretty uncalled for view. It would, however, have been really helpful for us if those sorts of details were retained in the files. If nothing else, it would give us a much clearer picture of what was done to satisfy the police of someone's innocence.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

yes, Hutchinson's descriptions are so detailed they do arouse suspicions. Either he spent so much time re-thinking things he's convinced himself of details that he's filled in, or he's making it up entirely (though it does appear he may have been spotted on his vigil), or he's somehow involved.

I only mentioned the red hanky as an example, and like you, I'm not convinced it even existed. If it did, the above is an interesting line of reasoning and well worth considering. My problem with it actually existing, though, is that red is hard a colour to see at night, but again, that would depend upon the lighting conditions, which of course we don't know. If Hutchinson is to be believed, they were close enough for him to hear the conversation, and he was under a lamp, so it may be that there was enough for him to see the colour.

Of course, a red hanky might be just the thing to wipe bloody hands on and use to wrap bits in, to at least minimize the chance of others to see the stains.

Anyway, Hutchinson's evidence does not inspire great confidence as to its accuracy, but I used it only as an example of the type of thing that might have been a useful clue, rather than intending it to be presented as if it really existed.

- Jeff

hi Jeff

Hutch: she said she lost her hanky, then he pulls out a hanky and gives it to her- a red one.

cmon I mean who gives a rats ass what color the hanky is?? I smell a rat.

[JeffHamm]

hi Jeff

Hutch: she said she lost her hanky, then he pulls out a hanky and gives it to her- a red one.

cmon I mean who gives a rats ass what color the hanky is?? I smell a rat.

Yes, that's one of the many details that seem plentiful in his testimony. Without the ability to re-interview him, or read the transcripts of his interview, we are only left with having to consider the possibilities as to what that means. And there's three general lines of thought one could follow.
1) He actually saw something, and over the next few days, went over events in his head trying to remember all the details. In doing so, he contaminated his own memory of events with specifics, basically filled in the missing information and came to believe they were real. If this is the case, then he's a genuine witness, but his testimony is filled with errors of detail. That would suggest he saw Mary Kelly with someone at the time he states, but other than that, nothing he says would be useful.
2) He's involved in the crime, and having heard someone was spotted watching Miller's Court, and that being him, he tries (and successfully) diverts attention away from himself.
3) He's an attention seeker and/or hoping to get some money for assistance. Nothing he says happened.

Unfortunately, any of those lines are plausible and so we're left at a multiple fork in the road. Once we choose one of those, we're speculating.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

if he knows those locations are not only safe because his victims are prostitutes and would know where to go to do business in a safe location and by letting them choose would make his victims feel more comfortable going alone with him then I see this as a highly intelligent ruse and very organized tactic.

The thing is, Abby, that he can’t have known that. Even if he would have staked out the spots where he wanted to kill for a few nights at least, he couldn’t be absolutely sure that the place would be safe. Not the outdoors scenes, anyway. Simply because he had no control over other people who might at any given time and for whatever reason walk into the scene before he realized it.

I don’t think that what you describe above is necessarily highly intelligent. It could just as well have been simply practical. If he saw prostitutes on a sort of daily basis and even used them, then the idea of killing one of them would not need a lot of thinking, but would rather be practical. A very organized Jack the Ripper, to me, would have tried to find possible victims with places of their own (like Kelly) or have (gotten hold of keys of) used vacant buildings to which he lured his victims.

All the best,
Frank