Lack of blood on No.29 Hanbury Street doors

[Tom_Wescott]

No Hop-picking, or not nit-picking Dr. Hopper, but...

The arterial spray on the fence proves beyond a doubt that Chapman was killed while lying on her back in the spot in which she was found. But I otherwise like Dr. Hopper's suggestion. Very imaginative, and there's a dearth of imagination in the field these days.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Psst...
The spots of blood were on the house wall, the fence carried blood smears, ie; suggesting a swiping contact of a bloodstained object/hand?

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

No, it was arterial spray. Some was smeared, but it's still arterial spray.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Hi Hopper

Hanbury Street has always intrigued me, such a closed location, only one entrance, people about... odd choice of venue.

It's no more intriguing than Berner Street, and less exposed than Bucks Row or Mitre Square.

I don't believe the ripper could have been caught red-handed, as I've often read. I believe people underestimate the killer self-confidence, here, which one of his distinctive features.

Dvvvv

[DrHopper]

Yup, these were along my thoughts too... especially the noise a falling body would make.

And DVV - intriguing simply because he is there, in the back yard, among so much domestic dwelling - he is literally surrounded by people. I live in a Victorian stone-built terrace with adjoining back gardens, overlooked on either side... I cannot conceive of doing anything in the garden that would not be seen by someone. Plus, he had one way in and out - like Berner Street, but that at least was largely commercial, not residential - he knew he had more of a chance to do his business undisturbed at night/early morning.

However, although at Hanbury Street, Jack's placing of the murder and subsequent activity (closer to the building) is clever, because at least he cannot be seen by people on either side, nor from above - if he murdered Annie further out in the garden, he would have been on display. But I still say that shows breathtaking cool - that time of the morning, people already up and about, residential...

And back on topic, although the weather the day before Annie's murder was generally fine, it did have occasional showers of rain, so perhaps it may have rained a little before the murder took place - a wet fence will not retain blood spatters as well as a dry one.

[DVV]

It's more likely Chapman who chose the spot. What was convenient enough for those women and their clients was convenient enough for JtR. That's what the story tells us.

[Malcolm X]

It's more likely Chapman who chose the spot. What was convenient enough for those women and their clients was convenient enough for JtR. That's what the story tells us.

yup, all that JTR has to do is to look up at the windows before he kills.... even so, this is one risky place to kill, he did so, so we just have to accept it, full sunrise back then was at about 5.25 am, flipping heck this is close, because you would still have had some light at 5am...... there's not a lot you can say is there.......sunrise last year at this same date was about 6.14am

he's a very risky bloke isn't he, because this is when most people are starting to wake up... what the bloody hell is he still doing looking for a victim this late, cant the guy sleep !

this is also a bit too similar to GH wandering around all night...... very similar

[DrHopper]

It's more likely Chapman who chose the spot. What was convenient enough for those women and their clients was convenient enough for JtR. That's what the story tells us.

Agreed, but it was Jack who decided to kill Annie at that point, there and then - he could have simply wondered off if he decided it was too risky. And that, I think, is what intrigues me - he wanted to do it then, he had built himself up to do it, and he was going to do it no matter the risk. Yeah, ok, the back garden was safe enough for a prostitute to use with her client, but being caught in flagrante delicto in the midst of a 'knee trembler' is one thing, being caught knife in hand in the middle of cutting someone's throat is an entirely different matter.
Jack really doesn't care, does he? At least not when he has the urge.

It was getting light, it was late in the day - perhaps the 'urge' overcame Jack at that point, although I suspect that Annie was, unfortunately for her, a final choice, a last attempt. My suspicion is that Jack had been wandering round the area looking for a suitable candidate all night and then, at this late point, and with the sun starting to peek through the night, he happened upon Annie and saw his opportunity.

[DVV]

Jack really doesn't care, does he? At least not when he has the urge.

Well, problem is that he was also prudent (no clues left except purposely, no good witnesses).
I'll stick to my "if good enough for a ****, good enough for a kill" as part of his method, to which I would add a good deal of self confidence in case he'd be caught in the act.
A complete bad man with street-knowledge in my book.

[caz]

Hi All,

If the risky time and location show the killer's determination to repeat and build on the Nichols murder, it makes sense that three weeks later he would be even more determined not to give up in the wake of a botched job in Berner St.

Mitre Square tells such a tale only too well.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

Jack really doesn't care, does he? At least not when he has the urge.

Personally, I think that he did care -if he was someone careless he would have been caught, and he obviously didn't want to be.
However there are so many things that we don't know :
-if the murder took place earlier than we assume, and Cadoche & Long are red herrings
-if Jack knew the house & yard (if he had dossed there before & never been caught)
-if Jack was confident that he could knife anyone walking into the yard
-if Annie told him that she had used the yard before and never been disturbed
-if Jack knew the yard and knew a way over a back fence should he hear anyone in the corridor
-if the thrill of the risk was what he sought as much as the actual murder
(but it was a calculated risk)

[Barnaby]

I really enjoyed this thread. I have always been of the mindset that Jack was neither dripping in blood nor blood free after the murders. I agree with others that the dim lighting and dark clothes would have allowed Jack to escape undetected even with some blood on him. However, what I really never considered was the complete lack of a blood trail away from the scene, particularly the lack of bloody footprints. Here we have a killer kneeling over a body that is bleeding out, working in the dark or in very low light for at least several minutes, and not once does he step in blood. How did he do this? I get that maybe the blood may have flowed in the opposite direction, but the blood collecting under Nichols suggests this wasn't necessarily the case. Was Jack just lucky in this regard?

[RedBundy13]

Blood at 25 Hanbury?

I was just wondering how come no one has brought up the little girl who found strange "marks" on her fence at 25 Hanbury three days after Annie was murdered? The little girl immediately got a policeman to look at it and he then brought the rest of the crew to have a look. Their determination was that it was dried blood. The marks were 5 to 6 feet long leading toward the back door of another lodging house. The conclusion was that the Ripper had left the blood as he was hopping over or cutting through the rickety part in the fences that separated the yards. And when he needed to remove some of the blood from his jacket, he took it off and knocked it against the back wall of 25 Hanbury St.. That explains the bloody smear and sprinkle they found.
The police then found a bloody piece of crupmled paper that they believed the killer used to wipe the blood from his hands. After he wiped them both he crumpled and threw the paper on the ground.
I know i've read in one book the blood, the author thought, could have been mud on the fence but to me that would be a long shot. I just dont think police, being professionals who deal with blood all the time, would make that kind of mistake.
I wish I could remember which books I got this info from but I just have it written down in my notes. I'm sure someone else knows the 2 or more books that contain this information. If not, I can back track and find it for anyone that would like to read it?

[Wickerman]

Hi Red, this might be one of the news articles you read, there are several versions.

"A discovery, which may prove of importance, was made yesterday afternoon in connection with the recent murder in Whitechapel. A little girl happened to be walking in the back garden, or yard, of the house, 25 Hanbury street, the next house but one to the scene of the murder, when her attention was attracted to peculiar marks on the wall and on the garden path. She communicated her discovery to Detective Inspector Chandler, who had just called at the house to make a plan of the back premises of the three houses, for the use of the Coroner. The yard was then carefully examined, with the result that a bloody trail was found distinctly marked for a distance of five or six feet in the direction of the back door of the house. The appearances suggested that the murderer, after his crime, had passed through or over the dividing fence between Nos. 29 and 27, and thence into the garden of No. 25. On the wall of the last house was a curious mark, between a smear and a sprinkle, as if the murderer, alarmed by the blood soaked state of his coat, had taken it off, and knocked it against the wall. Abutting on the end of the yard of No. 25 are the works of Mr. Bailey, a packing case maker. In the yard of this establishment, on an out of the way corner, the police yesterday afternoon found some crumpled paper, stained, almost saturated, with blood. It is supposed that the murderer found the paper in the yard of No. 25, wiped his hands with it, and threw it over the wall into Mr. Bailey's premises. the house No. 25, like most of the dwellings in the street, is let out in tenements direct from the owner, who does not live on the premises, and has no direct representative therein. The back and front doors are always left either on the latch or wide open, the tenant of each room looking after the safety of his own apartment. The general appearance of the trail of blood and other indications seem to show that the murderer intended to make his way into the street through the house next door but one, being frightened by some noise or light in No. 29 from retreating by the way which he came. On reaching the yard of No. 25, he made for the back door, and then suddenly remembering his blood stained appearance, he must have stopped, and, catching sight of the pieces of paper lying about, he doubtless retraced his steps to the end of the yard, and then performed his gruesome toilet. He might have had some thought of retreating by way of Bailey's premises, but the height of the walls made such a course somewhat perilous, and he finally made his way into Hanbury street through the house. He could have met with no difficulty, as both back and front doors were open, and he could wait in the passage if any one was passing down the street. These matters suggest that the murderer was alive to the risk of detection, and acted with so much circumspection as to dispel the idea that he was a reckless maniac."
Evening Standard, 12 Sept. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Red,

The 'marks' on the wall were determined to be urine, but I think these might have given rise to the rumor of the Ripper having left graffiti. Combined with the bloody newspaper, and the other rumor circulating the day of Chapman's murder (that the Ripper had killed another woman) foretell the events of Sept. 30th and I'm not convinced that's coincidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott