Lack of blood on No.29 Hanbury Street doors

[DrHopper]

Hi all

Interesting thread with some interesting points being made.
Hanbury Street has always intrigued me, such a closed location, only one entrance, people about... odd choice of venue.

Something occurred to me whilst reading this thread, and please note that i am not suggesting this in any 'serious' manner, just that it popped into my head, and as a mental exercise, it is not without merit - certainly, it is thinking 'outside the box'!

Given the discussion re: lack of blood and movement of bodies post-mortem, has anyone given any thought to the possibility that Annie was murdered in the room above and thrown out of the window. If you look at the window above the door, it is off centre - a body dropped out of there would land where she was found, jammed between the steps and fence - a situation I have always considered rather cramped and awkward for a murderer to start butchering. It may also account for the thud that was heard against the fence and the timing of the witnesses.

Who lived there? Any thoughts on the possibility? The upstairs room would have been covered in blood, but may have been empty?

[ChrisGeorge]

No-one saw a person or persons carrying a body shaped blanket to any of the sites. And a horse drawn carriage would make a lot of noise at that time in the morning.

I don't think either of those things happened. More likely she was killed where she was found.

He seems to have had some system for cleaning himself off after each murder so he didn't track blood or have bloody hands.

All the best

Chris

[jason_c]

Hi Phill,
Is it not a possability then ? I dont know myself. what if the body is covered in something first before being tipped out on the spot it is found, also could'nt the organs be carried away, hidden and without leaving dripping blood in said covering ( ie ) blanket? I dont think it likely just feasable.

No-one saw a person or persons carrying a body shaped blanket to any of the sites. And a horse drawn carriage would make a lot of noise at that time in the morning.

[spyglass]

Hi Phill,
Is it not a possability then ? I dont know myself. what if the body is covered in something first before being tipped out on the spot it is found, also could'nt the organs be carried away, hidden and without leaving dripping blood in said covering ( ie ) blanket? I dont think it likely just feasable.

[Phil H]

Is it still not feasable that the victims were murdered else where, or has this theory been completely banished for good ?

Then surely we should expect MORE traces of blood in the passage at No 29, more blood around in Buck's Row.

Dropping a body off, with all the seepages of bodily fluids, blood etc in Mitre Square, the way they had pooled and clotted etc, raises more problems than it had solved.

Why do you think murder elsewhere is a solution, rather than a complication, if not an impossibility?

Phil

[spyglass]

Hi all,
without going down all the conspiracy angles ( you know which one's )
Is it still not feasable that the victims were murdered else where, or has this theory been completely banished for good ?

[curious]

Maybe, but unlikely for the outside doorhandle/knob of the yard door.

Only Henry John Holland ventured out into the yard before the police arrived and his friends were on the top step, likely holding the door open from the inside, hence Holland didn't need to open the yard door from the outside, no-one did at least until the police came.

We know of only Henry John Holland.

That does not mean there were not others who preferred not to involve themselves.

[Garza]

There were a lot of water troughs, fountains, taps and pumps around that he could have used to wash his hands soon after most of the murders – some still exist.
It has occurred to me that the only instance when he took an item of clothing from a victim, possibly to wipe his hands, was on the occasion of a second murder on the same night.

Like I said though, no blood on the door handle/knob of yard door of No.29, there should be blood there surely? Unless he went out of the way to make sure there was no blood on the handle, but why do that? Most logically solution would be he cleaned his hands before he left the yard - for this murder at least.

Perhaps he routinely took out a rag of some sort to wipe his hands, but on the night of the double event, had used his rag up on Stride, needed another bit of cloth and so cut off part of Eddowes’s apron?

Oooo good point, didn't think about that.

Maybe he usually discretely disposed of the rag but on the double event used it to highlight his graffiti? He may have been angry about being disturbed?

Didn't a jew disturb him? Hmmmm.

[Garza]

Was the blood not there or just not reported?

I doubt that it just not reported. The report was very thorough, detailing every spot of blood on the fence for example.

[Garza]

One other possibility - the comings and goings of police and public between "Jack's" departure and any careful police search removed, covered or masked any stains quite naturally - feet in the pasasage scuffing the floor, hands on the doorknob effectively "polishing" it.

What do you think?

Phil

Maybe, but unlikely for the outside doorhandle/knob of the yard door.

Only Henry John Holland ventured out into the yard before the police arrived and his friends were on the top step, likely holding the door open from the inside, hence Holland didn't need to open the yard door from the outside, no-one did at least until the police came.

[Garza]

I do not believe he wore gloves unless he could have afforded skin tight kid ones which implies a "toff".

A "toff" could conceivably have worn golosches or over-shoes, but would have had to remove these and put them in a bag of some kind, before leaving. I find that, frankly, implausible. (The evidence suggests he did not linger around Eddowes corpse.)

I don't know about glovewear in 1888 so will have to take you on your word .

So, we can deduce that "Jack" must have been extremely careful, wiped his hands either on the victims clothing or something of his own, and did not drip, smear or transfer gore in any way.

Hand wiping with bood on cloth is easily detectable, I can't believe the investigators would miss this if it was wiped on Annie. By the looks of the report then went through that yard with a fine tooth comb looking for blood.

[Garza]

Garza,
All interesting points. I've written a number of times here of my thoughts on how much blood the Ripper would have gotten on him and his supposed techniques for avoiding blood spray. In short, I think such techniques might have been well thought out in theory but not always perfectly executed in actual practice. Too many variables- direction of wind, suddenly having to sneeze and moving to stifle it so as not to make a sound but forgetting you have blood on your hands so now you suddenly have it on your face, etc. etc. Any number of variables might have intervened to mess with his best laid plans. He gets an itch- oops, blood transference. Part of his coat droops down as he leans over the body and touches blood- bollocks! He hastily tries to stuff the coat into his pants to get it out of the way- oh bloody crap, I had blood on my hands! You get the point. The analogy I always use is- do you think you could change a tire on your car without getting a spot of dirt on you other than on your hands? So I've always assumed the Ripper owed much to bloodstains not showing so much on dark clothing, especially in the dark of night. With Annie, he would have been fleeing the scene with dawn in the sky and bloody body parts stuffed into his clothing somewhere, so I'd put it down to his first run of sheer dumb luck that he wasn't noticed.

Yeah I would agree with that, but you would also agree that he tried his best to avoid it even though he couldn't 100%. I do agree he was not going to wear his best whites either lol.

But on your points about why no blood inside the house or on the doors- are you sure the back door closed automatically? I just checked two photos of the murder site. On page 67 of Clack & Hutchinson's "The London of Jack the Ripper- Then and Now" it is shown with the door closed, but that picture is from 1961. Another shot of it appears on page 58 of "Uncovering Jack the Ripper's London" by Richard Jones and Sean East, the year not listed, and in that one the door is wide open. I suppose it could be propped or tied open. Just some food for thought there, on how he may not have had to have touched it.

"He (John Richardson) had no need to close the yard door which closed itself (Coroner Baxter refers to it as a swing door) but he did close the street door" (The Complete History of Jack the Ripper by Philip Sugden Pg 95 line 6-7).

The spring mechanism could have been removed by the time the drawing was taken, or propped open as you say, or simple artistic licence.

Actually I find it as strange as you do that no blood traces at all were found inside the house. With what Jack did to the bodies in such close proximity to them it seems amazing he never stepped in blood and left red footprints leading away.

Well there was no footprints at any scenes, he was just that careful. The fact there was no blood on the door handles, has to point that he cleaned his hands in the yard.

[Lechmere]

There were a lot of water troughs, fountains, taps and pumps around that he could have used to wash his hands soon after most of the murders – some still exist.
It has occurred to me that the only instance when he took an item of clothing from a victim, possibly to wipe his hands, was on the occasion of a second murder on the same night.
Perhaps he routinely took out a rag of some sort to wipe his hands, but on the night of the double event, had used his rag up on Stride, needed another bit of cloth and so cut off part of Eddowes’s apron?
Maybe he usually discretely disposed of the rag but on the double event used it to highlight his graffiti? He may have been angry about being disturbed?

[Brenda]

.

It was stated on these boards quite a few years ago (by whom? can't remember!) that the reason Kate Eddowes' apron was cut away was because there was fecal matter in Kate's intestines and the Ripper used the apron cutting to clean his hands. Apparently for him blood and guts were okay, but feces were a different matter.

[The Grave Maurice]

I find this discussion interesting because it's an aspect of the case about which I've never thought before. I'm hampered because I don't know exactly how much blood would be on JtR's hands after Chapman's murder and how the back door was opened. It might have been one of those latches that could be raised with one finger or, if it were a warped wooden door that didn't close properly, it might have been opened by applying slight outward pressure on its exposed edge. Another small smudge on either surface probably wouldn't have been noticed at the time. Like I say, interesting.