Lack of blood on No.29 Hanbury Street doors

[Wickerman]

I'm not convinced this person planned anything.

Neither am I. Presumably, when this person went out at night he had a particular purpose in mind. We don't know how many women he engaged, nor how many times he turned away, he may have been out every night, or two-three nights a week. Naturally then he will bring his tools with him.
Being prepared should not be construed as 'planning'.

We have a situation where he killed approaching daylight at the back of houses; where he killed in a square and he must have known policemen were walking the beat; where he killed outside of a busy club.

I think its fair to assume almost every street, ally & court was patrolled at some time or another.

This doesn't speak to me of someone covering his tracks and planning in advance; it smacks of someone operating on the hop.

I just don't see how we move from a killer taking a massive gamble to that same killer turning up with cloth to wipe himself.

Murder is a massive gamble no matter where it takes place. I don't see him covering his tracks either, cleaning his hands, assuming that he did, is not the same as wiping his hand prints off everything he touched.
Blood turns sticky as it dries, its a natural reaction to want to wipe your hands.
I would presume that when he carried a knife he would also carry a cloth, perhaps he wrapped his knife in the cloth so it didn't cut his pocket.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Did the backyard door even have a doorknob?, he could handle a catch or latch with fingertips.

I can't see him being bothered about leaving bloody fingerprints on the door, its not as if he could fool the police into thinking he left by another route.

However, at that time of morning, any blood on your hands might have been noticed, so unless you intend to manouver the streets with your hand(s) in your pocket(s), you will wipe them to some extent, while in the yard or descending the passage.

There was a man running away from the scene just after 6:00am, but no mention of him carrying anything.

Garza does have a point..


Because this murder occured only a week after that of Nichols, which considering the mutilations on Chapman, appeared to have been incomplete. The killer must have come prepared to fullfil his 'agenda', and whatever tools & cloths he needed.
I'm sure he was an opportunistic killer, but you cannot take advantage of an opportunity unless you come prepared.

Regards, Jon S.

I'm not convinced this person planned anything.

We have a situation where he killed approaching daylight at the back of houses; where he killed in a square and he must have known policemen were walking the beat; where he killed outside of a busy club.

This doesn't speak to me of someone covering his tracks and planning in advance; it smacks of someone operating on the hop.

I just don't see how we move from a killer taking a massive gamble to that same killer turning up with cloth to wipe himself.

[DVV]

Hi Qlder, good post, good links.

[Qlder]

Drying hands - a quick stab in the dark...

Thinking from a practical point of view, when one's hands have been in viscera, it's not just that they get wet, but slippery. Blood and guts make one's hands very much more slippery than just water. Others here have suggested Jack needed to wipe his hands on a cloth. I will throw into the mix another method used by those needing to dry wet and slippery hands in a hurry. Weightlifters and rockclimbers dip their hands in chalk. If Jack had a small bag of chalk, he could quickly dust his hands then wipe them on a cloth, leaving his hands relatively clean, and the cloth, while dirty, would not soak a mucky wet patch into his pocket.

The idea of the Ripper using chalk may also be of interest to those looking for links to the strange man with snowy white hands encountered by Sgt. Stephen White (discussed in the article posted in Rob Clack's second post on http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=71)
The use of chalk has been canvassed before -
http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4920/10451.html - and if you check the link you will realize that's a terrible pun.

(Please note that I haven't read every post on this thread)

[Wickerman]

What would you do? Walk onto the street with blood on your hands, or take one of a few possible simple steps to wipe your hands?

Did the backyard door even have a doorknob?, he could handle a catch or latch with fingertips.

I can't see him being bothered about leaving bloody fingerprints on the door, its not as if he could fool the police into thinking he left by another route.

However, at that time of morning, any blood on your hands might have been noticed, so unless you intend to manouver the streets with your hand(s) in your pocket(s), you will wipe them to some extent, while in the yard or descending the passage.

There was a man running away from the scene just after 6:00am, but no mention of him carrying anything.

Garza does have a point..

4) He used his own cloth/handkerchief he had prepared for that night. JtR cut his victims throat in the way to avoid bloodspray and prevent stepping in blood himself. He is a killer that is very conscious about blood being visible on his person, therefore it would not be a stretch to say he carried his own cloth/s to clean or at least dry the blood from his hands (and probably another cloth to wrap organs in).

Because this murder occured only a week after that of Nichols, which considering the mutilations on Chapman, appeared to have been incomplete. The killer must have come prepared to fullfil his 'agenda', and whatever tools & cloths he needed.
I'm sure he was an opportunistic killer, but you cannot take advantage of an opportunity unless you come prepared.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I touched this on the Eddowes thread while debating hand cleaning on Kate's apron.

From the literature I have read (correct me if I'm wrong), there was no blood found in No. 29, nor on the doors. This strikes me as odd considering the killer was wrist deep inside Annie Chapman.

There was no alleyway for a back escape, he could have hopped over to the next house, but there would have been blood on the fence.

Blood would only be in the hallway if the killer touched the wall, or blood dripped from hands.

The front door could have been already open when the killer walked out.

However the back door automatically closed itself when opened, therefore if he made his escape through No.29 he would have had to touch the handle/knob.

Therefore his hands had to be clean or blood stained but at least dry.

So how did he clean/dry them? Several options.

1) Used the pan of water under the tap in the yard. However this appeared undisturbed as stated by a member of the household.

2) He wiped them on clothing of Annie Chapman. However there were no smear marks on Annie's clothing other than the neck area, nor was any of her clothing cut off (like Eddowes).

3) He opened the door while having his hands in his coat pockets. Possible, but why? Fingerprints had not come into their own yet. And while you may do this while opening your house door, or any other door to prevent a bloody door handle and getting caught, why the handle at the murder scene?

4) He used his own cloth/handkerchief he had prepared for that night. JtR cut his victims throat in the way to avoid bloodspray and prevent stepping in blood himself. He is a killer that is very conscious about blood being visible on his person, therefore it would not be a stretch to say he carried his own cloth/s to clean or at least dry the blood from his hands (and probably another cloth to wrap organs in).

I think it is option 4 and this is important for two reasons.

It shows that JtR was a prepared and organised killer, he was not random or disorganised at all.

It relation to the Eddowes apron issue. If this killer prepared his own cloth/s for hand cleaning, why would he cut off a large amount of cloth just to clean his hands in Mitre Square?

That's an interesting post.

I would tackle it this way:

Would you step into the street with blood on your hands just after killing someone? I appreciate that he could have been long gone before the body was found, but there was a risk that he wouldn't be.

What would you do? Walk onto the street with blood on your hands, or take one of a few possible simple steps to wipe your hands?

I personally wouldn't have to think too long and hard that the answer was to wipe my hands. I definitely would have done this. Is there anyone on this planet who would have walked onto the street with blood on his hands?

So, how does he do it?

Pretty simple. He wipes his hands on his own dark clothes. The advantage of this being that he can step away from the body and wipe his hands in a more discreet place; the other possibilty is that he steps away from the body in some sort of blood lust and it's only when he's a few yards away that his mind clicks into gear to wipe his hands, with the closest thinmg at hand being his own clothes.

[Wickerman]

It makes more sense that the rings were taken post-mortem as trophies, or perhaps by other people after the fact - I'm sure not all of the onlookers and people wanting to 'have a look at a body' were honest upstanding citizens.

Indeed, can we be sure that Annie was wearing the rings as she was murdered - perhaps she pawned them earlier in the evening?

Annie's left hand was laid, fingers open, across her breast, while her right arm lay parallel to her body.
A killer standing at her right side, and pulling the rings off her left hand would just let her hand drop. It lay where it fell on across her breast.

"The third finger of the left hand bore signs of rings having been wrenched off it, and the hands and arms were considerably bruised."

I'm just not convinced that, even as a means to an end, JTR was a mugger and a murderer.

I know what you mean, but if this killer did use a ligature then he may have been a mugger who evolved to murderer. He could have been a mugger with or without the ligature but muggers did use such a device.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

pawn shops

Hello Red. If I recall properly, the police sent inquiries to various local pawn shops concerning the rings.

If so, it is doubtful that they were found at the scene.

Cheers.
LC

[RedBundy13]

Rings taken, or not?

On page 50 of Donald Rumbelows book The Complete Casebook he states that 2 of her rings the killer had ripped from her fingers along with "some pennies and two new farthings" were placed at Annie's feet as if "in some sort of elaborate ritual".
Further on in his book he then states that the rings were missing... Is there or better yet, could there be any truth to his claim that the rings and some change were first found at the scene?
Maybe the coins and rings were there first and then by chance someone might have taken them before everything was collected and documented.
What I am wondering I guess is how or where Mr. Rumbelow first got the info that rings were found at the scene?

[Wickerman]

Totally and utterly pointless...

[Tom_Wescott]

I did not say JTR was a mugger...

I see I'm going to have to try to speak in even clearer English. I have not suggested that Jack the Ripper was a mugger. I suggested that Jack the Ripper, like many successful murderers, utilized mugging as a mode of victim control.

Think Manson and the La Biancas. Think Zodiac and Lake Berryessa. Now consider all the crime scene evidence I pointed out, namely three successive victims with personal belongings near or in their hand and the fact that at least Stride was known to have money prior to her death and Chapman's rings were wrenched from her hands prior to death. Did the Ripper 'surprise' his victims with attack? Of course, but the method I described allowed him complete control to maneuver himself and his victim into the optimum position, thus reducing variables. This is pretty simple stuff to a criminal, particularly in the late 1800s, which is the period we're discussing, not the 21st century.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DrHopper]

Hi Dr. H... and thank you for your response.

I'm not sure how long the impressions of rings would be left if the wearer had removed them at some earlier point and I doubt that any onlookers would have taken them from a mutilated corpse with the police on the way... but back to the mugging scenerio...

Ring impressions stay for a good long while - weeks even (ask a divorcee or an adulterer!), especially if tight, which seems to have been the case with Annie, as the act of removing them actually caused chafing (the finger does not have to be 'living' per se, only that the skin is flexible).

Also, there is a few minutes between the discovery of the body and the immediate cry of "Murder" and the arrival of the police constable. In that few (say 2 +/-) minutes, any one of a number of people who doubtless gathered round to see what was happening could have taken the rings. It happens even now (emergency teams, good Samaritans, etc - a spur of the moment thing often with the defence of "I don't know what possessed me, I just saw it and took it" and often followed by sincere regret).

Also, I'm not sure that anyone being strangled would carry on holding whatever was in their hands at the time - the natural reaction of anyone being attacked is defence/attack, and in this case it would be to remove the hands/arm that is around your throat strangling you, and in the process drop whatever is being held (i.e. the tissue wrapped cachous in the hand of Stride, and the thimble in Eddowes' hand).

No. The killer took his victims by surprise, strangled them, lowered them to the ground, cut their throats, mutilated them, and then perhaps went through their pockets to get his money back, if any had changed hands that is. It is all about the killing, I think the appearance of mugging/robbery is coincidental or the action of other agents (i.e. not the killer).

[DVV]

DVV,
Maybe the guy with the knife isn't the one who did the strangling. And no, I don't think Mary Kelly was mugged.
Tom Wescott

Oh, I can see (almost) clearly now...
The mugging theory calls for an accomplice.
You'd then agree, I presume, that a "lone mugging killer" isn't too viable.

Dvvvv

[RedBundy13]

Hello All,

So, we have a mugger who murders his victim and then mutilates them? Hmm.

I believe the primary objective of these attacks was to mutilate the victims. These crimes were violence against women. Motive: provide your favorite motive. I believe that any objects taken from the victims were “added value” for the killer. (trophies, retrieving the up front fee for service, etc.) Mugging a live victim before murdering them only complicates the situation and makes the handling of the situation more tenuous and unpredictable.

Surely, the 3rd and 4th victims in a series of murdered women were aware that a serial killer was in their area. Confronted by an aggressor in the middle of a series of murders would elicit a defensive response. Box cutters on an airplane would only work once (the first time). After that, the passengers would react differently. The residents of the East End knew that someone was serially murdering women. It is hard for me to believe that confronted by an aggressive person, they would not raise a ruckus. They would have to figure that they would be killed anyway, even if they complied with the “mugger’s” demands.

Best Regards,
Edward

Totally agree! This just goes to show that each and every victim was taken completely by suprise, they didnt see what was coming at them.
And also if I was a mugger: overweight, older, missing teeth, ratty clothed prostitutes would not be my victims of choice. I mean seriously, how much are you actually expecting to get from them?

[Barnaby]

Hi all,

Not only does this simple scenario fit perfectly with a Victorian criminal, which the Ripper was, but it answers many of the nagging mysteries (personal items near or in hands) better than any other theories put forth. Why concoct numerous different explanations for the personal items of the various victims when a single one does it nicely?

DVV,

Maybe the guy with the knife isn't the one who did the strangling. And no, I don't think Mary Kelly was mugged.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Very interesting. Reminds me a bit of the Old Nichol gang theory. Do you suppose the killer(s) knew the victims and was trying to extract payment or that it was random violence?