Evidence left behind

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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!

[DJA]

HI,

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.

According to Phillips ...... Strides' heart's "Right ventricle full of dark clot;left absolutely empty" means she died of strangulation.

Lack of blood spray confirms that.

There was no blood spray in Mitre Square either.

Was Eddowes strangled and moved?

Given the uncanny timing between beats,can we explain some of the missing half hour?

Three posters have good credentials on death by strangling,etc.

Errata,Abby,Joshua....

[Abby Normal]

Having looked up the formal definition of "organized" and "disorganized" serial killers, I believe Jack the Ripper belongs in the disorganized category, but recall these are just terms of art in criminology and don't have the same meaning as the common, everyday usage of these words.

That said, it is a common talking point of mine that the evidence strongly suggests a killer who took steps to prevent getting caught. I further infer from this that the Ripper knew that what he was doing was seen as wrong by society, and so he was probably sane, at least for certain legal definition of the word sane.

Why do I think the evidence suggests a killer who took steps to prevent getting caught? For one, the stealth and silence that I see as the hallmark of a Ripper killing. He first and foremost avoided leaving behind any eyewitness evidence to his crimes. We don't even know for sure if anyone saw him, though I personally believe that Lawende and 1-2 other people did. All of the killings were done in near silence as well. Except for Cadosch, who heard indeterminate sounds, and the possible cry of "Murder!" with MJK, there are no ear witnesses, even though there were families sleeping above the Eddowes and Nichols murder scenes. I don't think silently taking down a victim is luck or bad policework, I think this is something the killer strove to do (and succeeded). Likewise, there are no blood trails from the scene of the crime, and things like no blood on the door out of the Chapman murder scene suggest he may have taken an effort to stay as clean as possible while butchering people on the street (though not so in Mitre Square, apparently). He also clearly worked fast.

I think today they'd probably get him on fibers he left at the crime scene, or perhaps he may have left some blood of his own on Eddowes.

a disorganised killer dosnt typically stalk victims
or brings his own weapon
or uses a ruse in the MO to entrap his victims
or never leave a clue or evidence
or intentionally leaves a clue
or leaves messages
or writes letters
or who escapes in the nick of time
or who astounds police and the public with his elusiveness
or kills quickly and efficiantly without a sound
or leaves no blood trace
or who can pull off the double event/ gsg
and leave everyone, police press experts scratching there heads to this day.

im sorry but you are quite wrong.

[Damaso Marte]

Having looked up the formal definition of "organized" and "disorganized" serial killers, I believe Jack the Ripper belongs in the disorganized category, but recall these are just terms of art in criminology and don't have the same meaning as the common, everyday usage of these words.

That said, it is a common talking point of mine that the evidence strongly suggests a killer who took steps to prevent getting caught. I further infer from this that the Ripper knew that what he was doing was seen as wrong by society, and so he was probably sane, at least for certain legal definition of the word sane.

Why do I think the evidence suggests a killer who took steps to prevent getting caught? For one, the stealth and silence that I see as the hallmark of a Ripper killing. He first and foremost avoided leaving behind any eyewitness evidence to his crimes. We don't even know for sure if anyone saw him, though I personally believe that Lawende and 1-2 other people did. All of the killings were done in near silence as well. Except for Cadosch, who heard indeterminate sounds, and the possible cry of "Murder!" with MJK, there are no ear witnesses, even though there were families sleeping above the Eddowes and Nichols murder scenes. I don't think silently taking down a victim is luck or bad policework, I think this is something the killer strove to do (and succeeded). Likewise, there are no blood trails from the scene of the crime, and things like no blood on the door out of the Chapman murder scene suggest he may have taken an effort to stay as clean as possible while butchering people on the street (though not so in Mitre Square, apparently). He also clearly worked fast.

I think today they'd probably get him on fibers he left at the crime scene, or perhaps he may have left some blood of his own on Eddowes.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

[APerno]

Hi AP
with all due respect-"jump from the shadows"?!? cmon. Of course a ruse was used. multiple witnesses saw the ripper chatting up the victims before they were murdered. they were prostitutes actively soliciting and or out on the town having fun. he let them lead him to a safe spot for business or simply to hook up. I concede he may have come across tabram when she was dozing.

and re Kelly-she either led him to her room under the ruse of business or hook up, or he knew she was single (and perhaps also the hand through the window trick to unlock her door) which would indicate stalking behavior. and either of these scenarios is indicative of an organized killer.

and besides, no disorganized killer could have pulled off the double event and GSG/apron.

OK - thanks for the reply

Re Polly. I do believe that he did just step out of the London Fog (coal dust) and she had no choice but to walk up to him, and into his strangling hands. Same is probably true of Catherine. Annie was chatting to someone, but taking a whore into a backyard is not a ruse, she likely led him there.

Kelly is no doubt an enigma (in many ways, and again here) some elements do suggest a planned attack, but again she could have led him home as nothing more than one more trick to turn. Again he need not have (he could have had) any deliberate plan in mind to get inside that room; had Mary Kelly led him to an alleyway she would have likely died there. (He was probably overjoyed when he realized he would be operating indoors.)

Warning conjecture: Re the locked door. It well could be that Mary used the 'broken window reach' to lock the door when she left earlier that evening and when returning with the Ripper, used the same manner to unlock the door in front of him, thus teaching him how to re-secure the door without him having to previously stalk her. He could have met her that night and learned the simple trick.

I don't agree with the double event; I blame Coroner Baxter for forcing Stride's murder into the Ripper investigation and souring any chance of the police properly investigating Liz's murder. Baxter's mommy and daddy were theater people but they forced their little darling into medicine; this was his time to wow an audience and he couldn't let it go. He couldn't bare the thought that his murder (Stride's) would draw no crowds. It was a rush to judgment on his part driven by a desire to stay publicly relevant.

How short was Kate Eddowes inquest? How many days did Baxter prolong the Stride (and earlier inquests)? Compare the two. Baxter became seduced by the limelight and went far beyond his charge.

I believe people like the 'double event' for two reasons: one it makes the Ripper almost supernatural; two, Baxter held so many unnecessary days of testimony and filled the newspapers with ink, that Ripper historians just can't bare the thought of just trowing all that information out, especially when compared to the dearth of information available regarding Eddowes.

Take out Stride's murder and we are left with one very weak eye witness for Annie, one very suspect eye witness for Mary, and the back of a head for Eddowes. But include Stride and we not only have eye witnesses (plural) we even have a conversation. People just don't want to let all that go.