Evidence left behind

[Lipsky]

the ripper was a very organized killer. he used a ruse to get victims where he wanted them, always got away in the nick of time and the only clue he left behind was intentional.

Hear, hear!

[John Wheat]

I'm not saying the Ripper was organised or disorganised but isn't it more of a scale between whether a killer is organised or disorganised with more organised killers at one end and less organised killers at the other? Or if not maybe it should be.

[JeffHamm]

As far as what he might have left behind, there are reports that suggest a knife was among the entrails on Marys night table, there is also the clay pipe that was broken. I was always interested by the fact that no garrotes or ligatures were ever found on the women, makes me wonder if he re-used one or if he choked most of them by hand.

Hi Michael,

The pipe from the Mary Kelly scene wasn't the one that was broken, it was identified by Barnett as one he smoked. The pipe that was broken was from Alice McKenzie's murder, which was broken by one of the attendance as they sorted her clothing at the mortuary. At the time, because she was known to borrow pipes from people, it was thought that might lead to her killer (and they were considering her a possible victim by JtR at the time, though later decided against that conclusion). It appears the pieces of the pipe might have been misplaced though.

I wrote up a bit on this years ago, found in the dissertations here if you're interested: https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/brokenpipe.html


- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,
Just wanted to make a quick post on the subject of clues/evidence and the big what if of how would modern forensics have made a difference if it was available at the time.
Then as now, what would we really expect a killer to leave at a crime scene? I have always found it remarkable the killer never left any signs of a struggle, no mess, no footprint or smears. Regardless of the times that doesn't leave any detective much to work with.
Forensically, I suppose nowadays they would check for fluids and fibres, (one of Kellogg's less successful breakfast ranges), but aside from TV crap like CSI, even that doesn,t make for an open and shut case. A good example is Ian Huntley, there was concrete forensics but the police still put the time into building an old fashioned case based on witnesses, motive, opportunity etc. The forensics were important but without the police work it's not enough on its own.
I think that the fact that the killer was able to move unseen, never raising the alarm, never arousing suspicion in himself would make the case difficult to solve today. Unless he took a selfie and plastered it all over social media, which sadly is quite likely.

Hi Al Bundy's Eyes,

I think if this were to happen today, a modern investigation would be testing blood samples and DNA. It is common for the attacker to cut themselves when attacking with a knife, and given the extent of the attacks, it is quite probable that JtR cut himself on at least one occasion.

Also, given what appear to be defense wounds on Mary Kelly's arms and left thumb, etc, it would be important to check under her fingernails for tissue samples (and the other victims as well).

Luminal might be used to locate a blood trail, as there would no doubt be one (allthough potentially lost for Eddowes due to the rain that had fallen making the ground wet and diluting any small drops that might, at least, indicate a direction).

Fingerprints, or DNA, might also be found on some of the victim's items that JtR appeared to search through.

The lack of obvious bloody hand prints when leaving the backyard of 29 Hanbury street seems to suggest he took care to wipe his hands clean, possibly taking a rag from the victim (as per Eddowes') or he carried one with him (if we take Hutchinson's testimony seriously, he does mention a red handkerchief, for example). Wiping down his hands, or using the cloth to open the door when he leaves, seems to be something he probably did (and no mention of blood on the door at Dorset Street either, but again, there he would have had time to clean up a bit before leaving the premises).

But JtR doesn't seem to have dropped anything during the attacks, like a pawn ticket, or anything else that might lead directly to him. But, there would be evidence of some sort that could be used to identify him if a suspect could be located. If they did find a DNA profile, but he wasn't on file already, a large sweep of the population is sometimes conducted. Even if all they can do is rule out some of the usual suspects (i.e. partners of victims), that helps by allowing the investigation to focus on other leads or ideas, rather than spending a lot of time to rule out innocent people (or it identifies the offender of course).

Hair and fiber samples would be looked for (though apparently that type of evidence has been overstated as to how much it can narrow down things and it isn't as strong an identifier as once thought).

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

The pipe from the Mary Kelly scene wasn't the one that was broken, it was identified by Barnett as one he smoked. The pipe that was broken was from Alice McKenzie's murder, which was broken by one of the attendance as they sorted her clothing at the mortuary. At the time, because she was known to borrow pipes from people, it was thought that might lead to her killer (and they were considering her a possible victim by JtR at the time, though later decided against that conclusion). It appears the pieces of the pipe might have been misplaced though.

I wrote up a bit on this years ago, found in the dissertations here if you're interested: https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/brokenpipe.html


- Jeff

Thanks Jeff, seems I cross pollinated evidence.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Jeff, seems I cross pollinated evidence.

Yah, no worries, and not difficult to do with this one. I think it was Anderson, writing in later memoirs, who started the confusion as he too recalls a pipe, thought to be a clue that could lead to a JtR suspect, that was broken by the doctor, and mentally transposes those events from the McKenzie murder (who was initially thought a possible JtR victim, later ruled as not by the police) to the Kelly murder (as he describes the pipe being thrown into a fireplace by the doctor). As I outline in that old essay, he's conflated information from two separate crimes, the pipe and every else comes from the McKenzie murder, and the fireplace from Kelly's (where the pipe was not broken and the owner identified, and ruled out as a suspect after questioning). I think his error, through our own reading of such statements, propagates into our own thinking, which is a real pain when trying to keep things straight! (What was said - what was the error in what was said - what does it tell us - remember what we learn from that analysis but don't forget the erroneous initial statement that was said in the first place, so you can remember how to go through it all again, etc). Ah, the joys.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I think it was Anderson, writing in later memoirs, who started the confusion

- Jeff

I think it's fair to say, Anderson left more questions than answers.

[Losmandris]

Whereas we tend to over think the situation, I believe JtR did not think about it at all. He had a simple MO that he stuck to, the rest be damned. I don't that he really thought about making sure he did not leave any clues, I don't think that he cared if he did. He just managed to get away with it. Of course his simple MO helped but the main thing was that he was so single minded on what he had to do, the prospect of consequences, being caught or even fear did not come into his head or cloud his approach.

Tristan

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that in a few cases its far more likely that the killer was led to the spot he commits the crime, and therefore I see him as careless in that regard. He doesn't try and control the location, or the situation, and that shows either misplaced confidence or ignorance on his part. He gets away with it for one reason....he knows those streets and alleys very well.

[Michael W Richards]

or a sailor !!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What? Sailor on a cattle ship, maybe. Otherwise that's a completely unwarranted line of thought.

[Michael W Richards]

the ripper was a very organized killer. he used a ruse to get victims where he wanted them, always got away in the nick of time and the only clue he left behind was intentional.

Being able to pose as a client isn't in and of itself "organized", its premeditated. And at least Annie likely led her killer, not the other way around, and his miraculous escapes likely have more to do with his knowledge of local lanes and streets than something he had "organized" beforehand. I believe that in C1, there is proof positive he was disorganized, he couldn't have chosen a worse place to mutilate the abdomen of a woman he just killed. If Annie led him, like I believe, then he didn't choose anything about that venue either, or how he would escape from the scene. Marys killer murdered inside a courtyard with one entrance/exit. Very risky, and stupid if one intended to guarantee his escape. Kates killer killed in a square that was looked in upon by 2 policeman from 2 different entrances at 2 different times, if someone was "organized about who they killed, where they killed, and how they would get away, then none of the above would be the case. But it is.

[pwilliamgrimm]

the ripper was a very organized killer. he used a ruse to get victims where he wanted them, always got away in the nick of time and the only clue he left behind was intentional.

it is also reported that he unintentionally left behind a false wig at the scene of the crime of Elizabeth Stride.

[Trevor Marriott]

What? Sailor on a cattle ship, maybe. Otherwise that's a completely unwarranted line of thought.

Well you thought process has always been illogical

Didnt one witness describe a man seen with a victim as having the appearance of a sailor, how would anyone be able to observe a sailor and be able to say what type of boat he was from?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

or a sailor !!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Prolly Hutchinson

[DJA]

Well you thought process has always been illogical

Didnt one witness describe a man seen with a victim as having the appearance of a sailor, how would anyone be able to observe a sailor and be able to say what type of boat he was from?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Smell