Lack of blood on No.29 Hanbury Street doors

[curious]

Not necessarily - there are enough people who are fastidious about many things, but extremely careless about others.

very good point. I was thinking fastidious in the manner of Felix Unger

[K-453]

Was the blood not there or just not reported?

Unless Jacky was an extremely fastidious person (which seems opposite to his "work").

Not necessarily - there are enough people who are fastidious about many things, but extremely careless about others.

[curious]

I also consider that Jack could have whipped out a hanky or other rag with which to open the door.

It occurs to me - why should Jack have been bothered about leaving bloodstains on the doorknob?

That would be a pretty sophisticatred thing to do - even more so before the days of finger-printing and DNA.

If blood had been found in the passage or on the door, what would it have told police that they did not know already?

As the apron-piece in Goulston St indicates, "Jack" does not seem to have been concerned about anyone knowing in which direction he was heading. Was he cunning or oblivious to the consequences?

IF (and I emphasise IF) "Jack" was a working class man, or an immigrant, would he have known enough about police procedure to even THINK about wiping handles and taking care?

But the remarkable thing IS, he DOES appear to have avoided picking up too much blood in almost every case.

Phil

I don't see any reason for him to care about blood on the door handle or in the hallway.

The most likely scenario seems to me to be that other hands "cleaned" it off before the police arrived.

Unless Jacky was an extremely fastidious person (which seems opposite to his "work").

The more I look, the more I believe I am seeing a "thinking, planning" killer and lots of people who chose not to get involved.

[Phil H]

I also consider that Jack could have whipped out a hanky or other rag with which to open the door.

It occurs to me - why should Jack have been bothered about leaving bloodstains on the doorknob?

That would be a pretty sophisticatred thing to do - even more so before the days of finger-printing and DNA.

If blood had been found in the passage or on the door, what would it have told police that they did not know already?

As the apron-piece in Goulston St indicates, "Jack" does not seem to have been concerned about anyone knowing in which direction he was heading. Was he cunning or oblivious to the consequences?

IF (and I emphasise IF) "Jack" was a working class man, or an immigrant, would he have known enough about police procedure to even THINK about wiping handles and taking care?

But the remarkable thing IS, he DOES appear to have avoided picking up too much blood in almost every case.

Phil

[curious]

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

Hi, Phil,
I suspect this may be what happened in Hanbury St. for I have begun to believe there were other people in the yard who did not report the murder. Therefore, their coming and going would have at least cleaned off the door knob.

I also consider that Jack could have whipped out a hanky or other rag with which to open the door.

curious

[Phil H]

Hi Sally. Our paths haven't crossed in a while. Good to see you.

I don't know what it implies. Trying to think logically:

We know that the killer knew enough to ensure that the initial spray of blood from the throat was AWAY from him. He either learned that technique in the course of a previous murder (he got blood on him or noticed effects) or by "training" - coincidence won't do here, and he was too consistent for it not to be something he consciously did.

We know he DID manage to keep his feet out of pooling blood in every case.

We know he did not drip blood even in the case of Nichols were he may have had to create distance rapidly, either from his hands or knife.

We know he used a cloth for some purpose - possibly hand cleaning - after Mitre Square.

It seems impossible for him not to have become stained at least in the cases of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly (if a "Jack" killing) as in each case he moved organs and rummaged around inside the body.

Did he wear gloves? We have no evidence either way - I think not.

If he carried rags or cleaning equipment it implies a certain sort of killer - I don't know the technical criminological/psychological terms, but organised, pre-planning, careful and conscious, rather than an opportunist (by which I mean no pre-planning).

He was careful - especially in the passage at No 29 - he would have left traces which could have been found unless he took steps to avoid it.

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

[kensei]

Actually I don't think Holmes spoke of ruling out the incredible, only the impossible. Wasn't the quote something like "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains- however improbable- must be the truth"?

How exactly that applies to the blood trace evidence or lack thereof, I don't know.

[Sally]

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.

Incredible when you think of it.

Which implies familiarity with the process?

Hello Phil, btw

[Phil H]

kensei - as I said in another thread, quoting Conan Doyle, once you rule out the incredible/impossible you are left with the truth.

He managed it SOMEHOW. That is clear.

Phil

[kensei]

I suppose we could always consider the idea that he was a supernatural wraith who "vanished through a trapdoor in the earth."

Just kidding.

[Phil H]

He did SOMETHING - clearly - either ensuring he did not get any blood on him at all - surely impossible when rummaging inside a human body. At least his hands should have been messy.

More interestingly, at no site did he leave bloody footprints - even, it seems in the abattoir that was MJK's room!! I find this amazing that he did not accidentally get the tip even of his boot/shoe near the spreading blood. There was quantities around Eddowes as we know from the drawing.

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.)

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.

Incredible when you think of it.

Phil

[kensei]

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.

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.

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.

[Garza]

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?