Evidence left behind

[C. F. Leon]

Never a piece of an ear, a whole ear, smudged with oil paint.

.
Bingo! You got it. (I was worried that most readers would make an association with Eddowes). I was a bit stumped on how to make a better connection, but you did better than I did.

There seems to be a controversy on just how much of his ear Van Gogh cut off, his family later said it was just his earlobe, but Dr. Rey and the police reported it was the entire auricle (external ear). The (1930) drawing by Dr. Rey seems to show virtually the entire auricle missing, less a vestige possibly part of the earlobe.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Never a piece of an ear, a whole ear, smudged with oil paint.

[C. F. Leon]

How about these possibilities?

- Key to the Time Machine?
- Loose page from a (Victorian) scrapbook?
- Blueprints for a house in Chicago?
- a cigarette case (from a Gladstone bag)?
- Indian herbs?
- (other) half a kidney?
- Mary Kelly's address written on a bar napkin?
- French papers de identification?
- a penknife with "T. Cutbush" carved on it?
- a Leather Apron? (Oh wait. They DID find one of THOSE.)
- notepaper with "Monty the Ripper", "Aaron the Ripper", "Michael the Ripper", "John the Ripper", "David the Ripper", "Frances the Ripper", "James the Ripper", "Leslie the Ripper", "Stanley the Ripper", "Commissioner Hengues the Ripper", "Jacob the Ripper", "Robert the Ripper", "Martin the Ripper" (and others) all crossed out except "Jack" (which is highlighted)?
- piece of an ear?
- partially-burned recording cylinder, which when played back starts with "Greetings, Mr. Ripper. Your Mission, if you choose to accept it..." in Russian?
- a hangman's noose with "I am J-" written on it in a strong Victorian hand?
- a uterus with "Abby Normal" on the container?
- Robert Anderson's travel schedule?
- other half of an apron (below some graffiti reading "The juws are the men who will be blamed for EVERYTHING")?
- a "Dear James" letter signed by a "Florence Maybrick?"
- a love letter to a "Mary Peasley?"
- an extra arm?
- a yarmulke (tag reading "Made in Poland")?
- a recipe for cat's meat?
- a shawl with 'C. Kelly" written on it?
- a used bar of soap (Ivory, of course)?
- a sieve?
- a maul?
- hops?
- a horseshoe tiepin?
- the Irish Crown Jewels?
- some clothing (worth 3 pounds, 10 shillings)?
- "The Fisherman's Widow"?
- A Violet I Plucked from Mother's Grave?
- multiple Birth Certificates for a "Mary Janet Kelly" with various dates and locations?

(others?)

[Michael W Richards]

I'm far from convinced he carried the killing knife with him all the time, so I think you make a fair point, Abby. In the end, the Ripper didn't use a weapon that he just happened to find where he killed his victims, so bringing his own knife is an organized trait - be that 'very' or otherwise.

I think he carried it on him almost all the time at night, if we are talking about murders by Jack, the killer of random prostitutes while they were out soliciting by themselves. Because I believe its very possible they were killed by a butcher who very often butchered late into the night. Oh yeah, and he was probably the man seen the morning of Annies death in the pub a hundred yards down the street. Bloodied and acting bizarre.

[FrankO]

good talk Frank I enjoy it

We completely agree on that one, Abby - me too.

[FrankO]

his tactic seemed to ruse the victims, put them at ease, pretend he was a regular punter, let them lead him to secluded spot. its actually quite brilliant IMHO. and keep in mind he did eventually kill Mary at her own place so that shows evolution, and if he knew her beforehamnd, and I think the evidence points to that then he engaged in preplanning, targeting, stalking etc. again traits of highly organized killer.

An interesting thing I've come across on several ocasions when reading about organized serial killers is that, typically, 3 seperate crime scenes can be distinguished: where the killer approached his victim, where the victim was killed, and where the victim’s body was disposed of. I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one, Abby, even though our views are not far apart.

I see what your saying(and agree would be highly organized) but would that ruse still work at the height of the ripper scare? wouldnt the victims be more hesitant to go where he led them or where they led him??

As far as the idea of luring his victims to vacant buildings is concerned, I think you’re right. After a couple of victims it is likely that this ruse wouldn’t work any longer. But if he was the charming, manipulative type that some think he was, then he may just have pulled it off. Of course, this wouldn’t go for the other possibility: trying to find more victims like Kelly.

and him bringing them to a place of his choosing or tied to him-couldn't that be risky in itself-as in hes tied personally to the murder scene?

I didn’t propose that those vacant buildings were places that he could be tied to, but if they were, then, yes, that would be more risky. In that case, to reduce the risk of being found out, he would have needed to cut his victims to pieces, clean the place and dump the parts somewhere else. Like I think Torso man had to.

All the best,
Frank

[Errata]

I'm far from convinced he carried the killing knife with him all the time, so I think you make a fair point, Abby. In the end, the Ripper didn't use a weapon that he just happened to find where he killed his victims, so bringing his own knife is an organized trait - be that 'very' or otherwise.

Both knives. It’s sort of extra organized if you have to carry more than your every workaday tool knife with you. And probably have to conceal it as well.

[Abby Normal]

I'm far from convinced he carried the killing knife with him all the time, so I think you make a fair point, Abby. In the end, the Ripper didn't use a weapon that he just happened to find where he killed his victims, so bringing his own knife is an organized trait - be that 'very' or otherwise.

good talk Frank I enjoy it

[Abby Normal]

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

Hi Frank
see what your saying but slightly disagree. I think a disorganized jack would have just attacked them where he found them. his tactic seemed to ruse the victims, put them at ease, pretend he was a regular punter, let them lead him to secluded spot. its actually quite brilliant IMHO. and keep in mind he did eventually kill Mary at her own place so that shows evolution, and if he knew her beforehamnd, and I think the evidence points to that then he engaged in preplanning, targeting, stalking etc. again traits of highly organized killer.

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.

I see what your saying(and agree would be highly organized) but would that ruse still work at the height of the ripper scare? wouldnt the victims be more hesitant to go where he led them or where they led him?? and him bringing them to a place of his choosing or tied to him-couldn't that be risky in itself-as in hes tied personally to the murder scene?

[FrankO]

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.

I'm far from convinced he carried the killing knife with him all the time, so I think you make a fair point, Abby. In the end, the Ripper didn't use a weapon that he just happened to find where he killed his victims, so bringing his own knife is an organized trait - be that 'very' or otherwise.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.