Organised or Disorganised?

[Mutt]

Anything that would identify him, leaving his wallet behind, leaving his knife behind, looking strait at a withess and running. Unorganized

If the killer had left those items because he simply did not care, or say the crime was rushed or spur of the moment. If the crime was well planned, and he had a whole in his pocket that caused him to drop an incriminating laundry ticket or his wallet, that is not evidence of disorganization, just bad luck for the killer... and a lucky break for the police.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Frank,

You said finger, palm or footprints? I'm sure they wouldn't, as there was no fingerprinting or forensics.

The origin of finger-printing
By Sir William J Herschel

Finger-Printing has been around sense 1858
This was a known science for years before the
Killing in Whitechappel, however it was not used
Because it was not an excepted science at the time.

BW

[FrankO]

Hi BW,

Thanks for info about the origin of finger-printing. For some years I know it existed in 1888 but wasn't in use yet, so I should have written down that quote differently, but that's beside the point.

All the best,
Frank

[perrymason]

Fingerprinting was widely known by 1888, and not adopted or used by London Police until 1903 in trials.

Whats really puzzling to me is why each crime scene wasnt photographed....that was certainly viable evidence at that point.

As far as their being able to analyze anything but blood, I dont think Scotland Yard even had a crime lab until the late twenties or thirties.

Cheers all.

[Shelley]

Hi Perrymason,
I think Mary Kelly's room with her body was the only one they photographed, all the rest were just drawings and gazette artworks etc, but they did photograph the bodies in the mortuaries. Still it is a bit of a mystery as to why they only photographed Mary Kelly in her room and no photos of the other victims in the streets. However, having said that i heard from a PC once that a lot of stuff regarding the Whitechapel murderer has been lost through people pilfering items along the way, wasn't there something about an item turning up at Scotland Yard or Metropolitain Police in the 1980's and i seem to connect it with the maybrick diary for some reason, along the lines of something written in the Maybrick Diary, then hey presto something turned up after it was thought lost to one of the police departments. It's all a bit vague my recall, but something sparks that.
Generally i always understood that the Whitechapel Murders attributed to JTR were classed as disorganised, as for the friday or weekend connection it could be stoppage of work, or when stress became high for the killer, such as heavy drinking from one or both parents and they let all thier stress out on the offspring ( offloading), violence in the family can be at weekends as well, also the winter period can be a stressful period for many, huddled up indoors, dark and depressing nights and some day-time when it's dark, possible for all contributary factors.

[perrymason]

Hi Shelley,

Mike or Michael.....The argument is that the access to Millers Court and the room offered that lock-down scenario the best...and she was the most savaged victim. To me that is negated by the fact that in Hanbury and Dutfields Yard they would have had the same opportunity.

Between London Blitz destroying some files, and the moving them about caused some to go missing, and that for many years almost any London policeman with some rank could browse through the materials... for decades....its remarkable that we have anything of the investigations aside from press clippings.

Occasionally items are found, some quite meaningful like the Littlechild letter....but I seriously doubt that anything physical evidence wise that ever made it to a private collection will resurface again soon.

Cheers Shelley.

[Shelley]

Hi BW,

Yes, but what physical clue would actually identify him back in those days? I don't think his knife would, as there was no fingerprinting or forensics yet back then. His wallet maybe, if he even had one and didn't put it in a 'safe' place on his body. But I'm sure there were no ID or credit cards and stuff like that in it. Hairs, fibers, semen, finger, palm or footprints? I'm sure they wouldn't, as there was no fingerprinting or forensics. Personal items like gloves, a shawl, a paper clipping, a bag or whatever? I don't believe so. Maybe (some of) the stuff found around Eddowes' and Chapman's bodies was really his. The police did follow up on some of those items, but it didn't get them anywhere. They seem to have assumed the items were personal belongings of the victims.

So, the fact that he quite probably didn't leave any physical thing behind other than the bodies, in my view doesn't necessarily point to 'organizedness', because he could have left a lot of things behind without the police being any the wiser. Back in those days the police either had to catch him in the act, fleeing the scene or as a result of a confession. Like I said earlier, in my view the Ripper was organized in the sense that he saw to it that he left the scenes before anyone walked into him, that he probably wasn't all covered in blood and that he wasn't noticed between the crime scenes and his home.

All the best,
Frank

I think Frank makes a good point here, as with all the items that were found with Eddowes body, would she really have been able to store all those items between her petticoats so to speak? Also how many people knew in the East-End at that time about whether the police could fingerprint or how reliable it was at the time? Even though JTR knew to get away before someone spotted him and it's likely that he may well have been disturbed with Nicholls and fled before mutilating her properly, i'm not sure that for a ' disorganised ' description means that you have to be completely leaving a trail of bread crumbs and hanging on so someone can spot and catch you red-handed to fit that bill, as with any psychoses there are different levels of it, so it would be safe to say that it is possible to have a disorganised killer that has some wits about them. Also there were many different killings in London around that time, as well as before and after and the killers of some of those victims were never caught, some of which could be classified as just manic thugs that wouldn't have the brains to be a pornbroker.

[Shelley]

Hi Shelley,

Mike or Michael.....The argument is that the access to Millers Court and the room offered that lock-down scenario the best...and she was the most savaged victim. To me that is negated by the fact that in Hanbury and Dutfields Yard they would have had the same opportunity.

Between London Blitz destroying some files, and the moving them about caused some to go missing, and that for many years almost any London policeman with some rank could browse through the materials... for decades....its remarkable that we have anything of the investigations aside from press clippings.

Occasionally items are found, some quite meaningful like the Littlechild letter....but I seriously doubt that anything physical evidence wise that ever made it to a private collection will resurface again soon.

Cheers Shelley.

Ay, all the good stuff already gone. I still rest that Mary Kelly was a Nasty Domestic case and not attributed to the Ripper, as with Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes there was little or no blood, Chapman & Eddowes were indeed mutilated and Nicholls an attempt at mutilation, but all dead before mutilation occurred by cut to the throat, all were in the same age groups with similarities in features including height, however with Mary Kelly she was a different age group, some of her features were different, the blood spattering all over her room indicates that she was alive when horrific blows were metted out before her throat was cut, someone wanted her to suffer first, i also beleive that if the cry of ' O Murder ' is to be believed from two witnesses Prater & Lews who heard a female cry this out was Mary Kelly herself after recieving some blows ( adding weight to her being alive when her killer attacked her), the fact that Cox as a witness for Kelly stated that she was awake all night and could'nt sleep, heard Kelly singing earlier but did not hear a cry of ' O Murder ' suggests to me that the cry ' O Murder ' came from within Kelly's room, as Prater was situated just above Kelly on the first floor and closer as a neighbour to Kelly than Cox or Lews anyway. I have never heard a killer change thier Mo in this way and swap from an already dead victim before mutilation, to that of a live victim at mutilation. It is possible that Mary Kelly's throat was cut after sadistic blows were given that mutilated the body, maybe as a cover up to look like it was the Whitechapel murderer who cut his victims throats, the killer would not have realised the difference between the Blood spattering from a live victim and the no-blood spattering from a already dead one.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Michael,

During the Whitechapel crimes, there were no police photographers, just commercial photographers that were taking portrait photos for customers at the time, the police would have to hire one to take pictures, sense the crimes were in the middle of the night it was hard to find one available to take pictures.

BW

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Shelley,

That was a really nice response to Michael about Mary.

BW

[perrymason]

Michael,

During the Whitechapel crimes, there were no police photographers, just commercial photographers that were taking portrait photos for customers at the time, the police would have to hire one to take pictures, sense the crimes were in the middle of the night it was hard to find one available to take pictures.

BW

To jump ahead a post...I think that Shelley did illustrate some good points....I happen to agree with her that Mary was killed by a lover.

On the above though BW, it is said that "the photographer(s)" were sent for to take pictures of Mary, and that implies to me that they likely did have some men on call. Maybe not "staff" as you say.

Cheers