Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[Trevor Marriott]

Give me one half decent reason why the killer couldn’t have worn gloves? This was a killer who remained undetected after all. He wasn’t concerned about fingerprints of course but he wouldn’t have wanted to be seen with blood on his hands. Should we really assume that he couldn’t have considered gloves, or removing an overcoat before mutilating his victim for that matter? Killers often take precautions so why should we assume that the ripper was any different?

1. Difficulty in handling a knife
2, Difficulty in being able to put his hands inside a blood-filled abdomen and take hold of organs to be able to remove them with gloves on

I am sure his ability to remain undetected didn't hang on whether or not he was wearing gloves, so now in addition to the killer walking from the entrance to Church passage to the murder location you have him undressing putting on gloves committing the murder and then dressing again, then taking time to remove his blood-stained gloves and pocket them along with the apron piece and the knife which if he were stopped and searched would have put him in a precarious position.

Come on let's get back to reality

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. Difficulty in handling a knife
2, Difficulty in being able to put his hands inside a blood-filled abdomen and take hold of organs to be able to remove them with gloves on

I am sure his ability to remain undetected didn't hang on whether or not he was wearing gloves, so now in addition to the killer walking from the entrance to Church passage to the murder location you have him undressing putting on gloves committing the murder and then dressing again, then taking time to remove his blood-stained gloves and pocket them along with the apron piece and the knife which if he were stopped and searched would have put him in a precarious position.

Come on let's get back to reality

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you have to resort to exaggeration to dismiss a point it speaks volumes. Since when has wearing a pair of gloves made it difficult to handle a knife? Difficulty of removing organs from an abdomen? Come on. Gloves might have made them easier to grip.

”Undressing?” Taking off a coat is hardly ‘undressing.’
”Taking to time to remove his blood-stained gloves…” Yes, of course, taking off a pair off gloves is a complex and horribly time consuming operation.
“……which if he were stopped and searched would have put him in a precarious position.” The obvious point here being that he’d have been carrying a knife anyway. That was unavoidable. The police would hardly have needed a pair of gloves to seal the deal.

You propose some tosh about sanitary rags and stolen body parts and then mock the suggestion that the killer might have worn a pair of gloves.

A sense of balance is required I think.

[harry]

I see your point Trevor.If the killer could not cut the apron after the mutilations,and there was no reason to cut it before the mutilations began,then an obvious conclusion is that it was not cut at the crime scene?
I have reservations as to whether P.C Long told the truth.He states that he had not heard of the murder in Mitre Square,and could not find any evidence of foul play in or around the building,so why make such an issue of it.Policy was not to disturb a potential crime scene,and beside he had the assisstance of the constable he called to help.That constable could have remained while he,Long,proceeded to the police station and reported his find.
I also find it odd that there is no evidence to show anyone except Dr Brown matched the apron pieces.As police, and not medical evidence,I would expect that at least one police officer would have corroberated Brown's observation.

[Parisi North Humber]

I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibilty that the killer may have worn gloves. If he wore them whilst he was wielding his knife they would offered some protection from accidental self inflicted cuts and as Sherlock suggested would help with grip to avoid slippage. Equally could not gloves have been put on after he did his dastardly deed to mask the bloodied hands and cuffs?
EIther way gloves seem like a practical option for a the killer.

Helen x

[Parisi North Humber]

*Herlock...my bad, sorry Mr Sholmes. Forgive me?

Helen x

[DJA]

Given the knowledge and expertise shown in Mitre Square,it is highly unlikely that Jack the Ripper wore gloves.

Gloves would have hampered his feeling of touch necessary to locate and remove the kidney.

[Trevor Marriott]

Given the knowledge and expertise shown in Mitre Square,it is highly unlikely that Jack the Ripper wore gloves.

Gloves would have hampered his feeling of touch necessary to locate and remove the kidney.

Exactly, I am glad others are applying common sense on this issue of gloves

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

If you have to resort to exaggeration to dismiss a point it speaks volumes. Since when has wearing a pair of gloves made it difficult to handle a knife? Difficulty of removing organs from an abdomen? Come on. Gloves might have made them easier to grip.

”Undressing?” Taking off a coat is hardly ‘undressing.’
”Taking to time to remove his blood-stained gloves…” Yes, of course, taking off a pair off gloves is a complex and horribly time consuming operation.
“……which if he were stopped and searched would have put him in a precarious position.” The obvious point here being that he’d have been carrying a knife anyway. That was unavoidable. The police would hardly have needed a pair of gloves to seal the deal.

You propose some tosh about sanitary rags and stolen body parts and then mock the suggestion that the killer might have worn a pair of gloves.

A sense of balance is required I think.

I think the former is a more viable option to consider than the latter, and either way, it would not prevent blood from being transferred to both sides of the apron piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

*Herlock...my bad, sorry Mr Sholmes. Forgive me?

Helen x

No problem Helen. I’ve been called worse that Sherlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the former is a more viable option to consider than the latter, and either way, it would not prevent blood from being transferred to both sides of the apron piece

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s noticeable that when you talk about exploring other angles it appears to mean that we should explore the other angles that you come up with. I’d suggest that gloves would have been less ‘slippery’ than skin. As we weren’t there we can’t say for certain what the killer did or didn’t do but what we do know is that the killer was never caught. And as he was never caught it’s reasonable to suggest that he might have thought about things and taken some simple precautions against being caught and one of the major risks that he faced was walking through the streets with blood on his hands and clothing. A simple and effective way would have been to wear a coat with a pair of gloves in the pocket. To take off a coat and put on a pair of gloves after strangling his victim would have taken all of 5 seconds.

That the killer only got blood on one side is proved by the fact that there was only blood on one side and we know for a fact that the killer himself dropped the apron in Goulston Street. Like we know for a fact that it was a part of the apron that Kate had been wearing that night.

Either way I’m not pushing the suggestion about the gloves and coat as strongly as you push your theories and mine is more down-to-earth at least.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s noticeable that when you talk about exploring other angles it appears to mean that we should explore the other angles that you come up with. I’d suggest that gloves would have been less ‘slippery’ than skin. As we weren’t there we can’t say for certain what the killer did or didn’t do but what we do know is that the killer was never caught. And as he was never caught it’s reasonable to suggest that he might have thought about things and taken some simple precautions against being caught and one of the major risks that he faced was walking through the streets with blood on his hands and clothing. A simple and effective way would have been to wear a coat with a pair of gloves in the pocket. To take off a coat and put on a pair of gloves after strangling his victim would have taken all of 5 seconds.

Either way I’m not pushing this suggestion as strongly as you push your theories and mind is more down-to-earth at least.

and if he was disturbed by Pc Harvey would he have had time to take his gloves off put his coat back on put his gloves in his pocket along with the apron piece and knife and make good his escape as I previously stated if he had been wearing gloves it would not have prevented traces of blood being transferred to both sides of the apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Scenario:

He cuts the piece of apron before he begins the mutilations with the intention of using it later if he requires a clean up.

He has no blood on him at the time and puts the apron piece into his pocket.

He commences the mutilations.

He gets to Goulston Street, checks himself over and sees that he has blood/faeces on his shoes or trousers etc.

He holds the cloth in hand, it’s bunched up after being in his pocket, and wipes away a few spot/patches of blood/faeces.

Result - cloth not absolutely drenched but with blood/faeces on. That the stains might have looked liked something had be wiped on it is explained by him wiping his shoes or trousers.

[Trevor Marriott]

Scenario:

He cuts the piece of apron before he begins the mutilations with the intention of using it later if he requires a clean up.

Why would he do that? firstly we see no evidence of him doing that with any of the other murders and if he wanted to clean up or wipe his knife he could have done that at the crime scene before he left by wiping his hands and the knife on her clothing and having cut her throat with both hands around the location of her throat he could not have failed to get blood on his hands from the start

He has no blood on him at the time and puts the apron piece into his pocket.

He commences the mutilations.

and with great difficulty caused by the gloves he is wearing he is able to locate organs in a blood-filled abdomen still wearing his gloves and be able to take hold of these organs and remove them, by this time any gloves he might have been wearing would be soaked with blood

He gets to Goulston Street, checks himself over and sees that he has blood/faeces on his shoes or trousers etc.

Why wait till he gets to GS plenty of opportunity to check himself long before he gets to there

He holds the cloth in hand, it’s bunched up after being in his pocket, and wipes away a few spot/patches of blood/faeces.

That would have been difficult because any blood or faeces on him would have congealed making both difficult to remove

Result - cloth not absolutely drenched but with blood/faeces on. That the stains might have looked liked something had be wiped on it is explained by him wiping his shoes or trousers.

I can't believe you have even suggested that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Scenario:

He cuts the piece of apron before he begins the mutilations with the intention of using it later if he requires a clean up.

Why would he do that? firstly we see no evidence of him doing that with any of the other murders and if he wanted to clean up or wipe his knife he could have done that at the crime scene before he left by wiping his hands and the knife on her clothing and having cut her throat with both hands around the location of her throat he could not have failed to get blood on his hands from the start

Have you really missed the obvious fact that the lighting was poor in Mitre Square which might have caused him to miss blood spots or blood staining that he then might have seen later on. Getting blood on his hands is irelevant if he cut the apron and put it into his pocket before beginning the mutilations.

He has no blood on him at the time and puts the apron piece into his pocket.

He commences the mutilations.

and with great difficulty caused by the gloves he is wearing he is able to locate organs in a blood-filled abdomen still wearing his gloves and be able to take hold of these organs and remove them, by this time any gloves he might have been wearing would be soaked with blood

So would his hands. Gloves covered in blood are no slippier than hands covered in blood.

He gets to Goulston Street, checks himself over and sees that he has blood/faeces on his shoes or trousers etc.

Why wait till he gets to GS plenty of opportunity to check himself long before he gets to there.

You’re trying to second guess his thinking and the exact circumstances that night. That’s impossible to do with any confidence.

He holds the cloth in hand, it’s bunched up after being in his pocket, and wipes away a few spot/patches of blood/faeces.

That would have been difficult because any blood or faeces on him would have congealed making both difficult to remove

This is simple stuff. My suggestion, and that’s all that it is, is that he puts the cloth into his pocket before the mutilations. Therefore his hands would have been blood-free at that point.

Result - cloth not absolutely drenched but with blood/faeces on. That the stains might have looked liked something had be wiped on it is explained by him wiping his shoes or trousers.

I can't believe you have even suggested that.

My apologies. I know that you prefer more far-fetched theories.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder what the police would have said if Kate had asked to borrow a knife to cut a piece of cloth from her apron? So how could she have cut a piece?