Lack of blood on No.29 Hanbury Street doors

[moonbegger]

where did that gate in the rear of the yard lead to ? anywhere ? or was it a dead end ? cant understand why there would be a gate to nowhere !

Hello Jason ,

The Killer clearly had a thing about Gates and Doors , Every Victim was found with their head close by a Gate or a Door ..

cheers

moonbegger

[Garza]

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

Caz,

I wonder if the early start on the night of the double murder is a response to the lateness of the Chapman murder.

On the night of Chapman's death he might have realised he left it too late and decided next time to hunt for his victim earlier than usual too give himself plenty of time to acquire a victim - but of course this comes with its own risks to his realisation - more people awake and on the street (but it should be pointed out that the Nichols and Chapman murders were possibly interuppted anyway).

Then for the murder of Mary Kelly it was back to 3am-ish. Maybe he decided it was better to start later after all.

Just an idea.

[GregBaron]

Au contraire Pierre...

The problem with our modern diagnoses of the murderer is we are presented
with a glaring contradiction. On the one hand we think this guy is nutty as
a fruitcake.......he's carving up prostitutes in a back yard where any of
15 or so people could be looking out the window or any number of others
coming into the yard....he's hacking up another woman in the corner of a
square where a night watchman observes and others live and where cops pass
every 15 minutes or so....the list goes on for each murder....even
MJK's room where someone could have been pounding on the door or looking through
the window at any time..........so our conclusion is this guy is a totally unhinged,
disorganized nutter or what we usually today call a schizophrenic...all very well
and good.......until the contradiction..!

He leaves not a trace, nothing is heard, little
blood is evident, nothing is seen, no evidence of a struggle, no one is apprehended.....how can this
nutter suddenly get his act together, clean up and escape unnoticed? This is where we get
our two different camps and it's not an easy solution with the extant evidence...

It seems he was either an incredibly lucky schizophrenic or a cool psychopath...

One caveat, if we consider the possibility or perhaps even the likelihood that the
killer had no other choice on where to kill then perhaps the scale is tipped toward
the cool psycho…

And finally, to further confuse the issue, we have Mr. House’s offering that we may
have a burgeoning schizophrenic who is also psychopathic – it’s called co-morbidity – ouch!

When we throw this in it forces many of us to pound our heads solidly against the wall….


Greg

[Garza]

This thread is fascinating - mainly because it is completely at odds with my own perception of the ripper as a 'classic' serial killer whose atrocities elevate with each killing, becoming more frenzied. Mary Kelly's room exhibits clear frenzy.

Yet no footprints.

I would argue that Mary Kelly's murder was not frenzied at all. The bits and pieces of Mary Kelly were arranged aroung the bed, even beneath her pillow, they were not thrown about randomly.

My own belief has always been that a degrading mental state caused the killer to be apprehended - either for some other crime or possibly just for being stark raving bonkers - and institutionalised. It explains the sudden end of the murder spree.

Yet no footprints.

I have yet to see any evidence that JtR was insane. Insane serial killers tend to be disorganised, they get caught easy because they leave clues, hang about for far too long at the crime scene or end up knocking on someone's door with blood all over their face.

Whoever killed Chapman, had planned ahead (as far as he could). He made sure before he left that yard that he had no blood on his hands, he killed the victim in a way not to he sprayed with blood, he didn't attack his victim right away - but let her lead him to a secluded dark place like a normal punter. He had a plan.


All the hallmarks of an organised serial killer, not an insane person, a pure pyschopath. Whatever happened to "Jack", he didn't end up in a mental hospital I'm pretty sure.

[Garza]

where did that gate in the rear of the yard lead to ? anywhere ? or was it a dead end ? cant understand why there would be a gate to nowhere !

Dead end. The only exit was back out through the front door, or he hopped the fence and went out another front door of another house. But again no blood found on any of these doors.

[JDow]

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.

This thread is fascinating - mainly because it is completely at odds with my own perception of the ripper as a 'classic' serial killer whose atrocities elevate with each killing, becoming more frenzied. Mary Kelly's room exhibits clear frenzy.

Yet no footprints.

My own belief has always been that a degrading mental state caused the killer to be apprehended - either for some other crime or possibly just for being stark raving bonkers - and institutionalised. It explains the sudden end of the murder spree.

Yet no footprints.

<mystified>

J

[ChrisGeorge]

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.

Here's the exact quote from Conan Doyle's story--

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
"The Sign of the Four," ch. 6 (1890)
Sherlock Holmes in "The Sign of the Four" (Doubleday p. 111)

From "Sherlock Holmes Quotes: The Ten Most Famous Quotations from the Holmes Stories" on the The Best of Sherlock Holmes site.

[Jason]

where did that gate in the rear of the yard lead to ? anywhere ? or was it a dead end ? cant understand why there would be a gate to nowhere !

[Monty]

Unless the gloves were put on after.

Monty

[Ginger]

He wipes his hands on his own dark clothes.

People have always speculated as well how it was that the murderer was never spotted escaping in blood-stained clothing. What if he wore a long overcoat (it was autumn, after all), and, having propositioned a victim for sex, took it off and hanged it on a fence or the like a few yards away? None of the victims were likely to have seen anything suspicious in that, or at least I'd imagine not. When he has finished, and wiped his hands as best he might, whether on his clothing, or on a cloth, or on something else altogether, then he has his overcoat to hide his bloody clothing as he walks home.

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

I can't imagine the Ripper wearing any gloves at all during the crime. He liked poking around with his hands inside dead women - that's what he was taking all of these horrifying risks for. If he wore gloves at all, it would have been during his escape.

[Bridewell]

So, how does he do it?

Pretty simple. He wipes his hands on his own dark clothes.

Could he not simply put his hands in his pockets?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Garza]

Chapman's rings were taken from her fingers while she was alive, folks, so regardless if your inability to understand the mind of a criminal (and this seems to plague most), that's how such a mind works. For starters, it's much quicker to get a live person to hand you their stuff than it is to dig around a dead person's pockets. Considering a woman like Chapman would have 30 different places of concealment on her person, her money often in the most obscure one, this would have been the ONLY way to assure he got what he wanted. Secondly (or for the Ripper, perhaps firstly), mugging at knife point would be a method of control to guarantee compliance from the victim until HE was ready to strike.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, your theory makes alot of sense. Serial killers and rapists do hold faux muggings to gain control over their victims. Also it is the only explanation I can think of regarding the items found around the body etc.

But it relies alot on the victim's reaction, it relies alot on the victim being automatically submissive.

No doubt it would work on alot of men/women.... but the women of Spitalfields??? These girls were no shrinking violets, they knew how to take care of themselves and some were armed with knifes/blades/weapons of their own - particularly when the killings started.

It is a big risk, particularly as their are new reports of women screaming the place down and yelling "Ripper" at a man that looks at her funny.

Plus I don't see why he would HAVE to do it anyway. The girl usually turns her back on the man anyway for the sexualy intercourse, it would be easier to strangle a person from behind, that's why you see strangulation done from behind in all those action/spy movies lol. Total surprise.

[Garza]

I agree with David, Queenslander: nice post. We've had lots of talk about chalk here, but it is usually connected to the Goulston Street graffito. An original idea is always welcome.

The thing with chalk is - it leaves a visible residue with whatever it touches. Police would notice chalk marks on doors, handles, walls etc. Plus powered chalk is not the most easy thing to transport.

Nice idea though, outside of the box.

[Garza]

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.

Wiping his hands on dark clothes shows an organised killer anyhow. He had the sense to wear dark clothes, not a nice cream number, he planned ahead.

You could go further and ask why he needed to rip Eddowes apron if he could just wipe his hands on his dark clothes?

With no blood on the door handle of No.29 shows an heightened sense of organisation and forward thinking on the killer's part. He cleaned his hands in that yard kneeling over a butchered women, that is quite a cool calm character. That is why I think we can rule out (as far as we can) suspects with mental disorders like Kosminski

Of course, JtR took risks, all organised killers take calculated risks, that doesn't stop them planning as far as the situation allows - and plan he did.

[The Grave Maurice]

Hi Qlder, good post, good links.

I agree with David, Queenslander: nice post. We've had lots of talk about chalk here, but it is usually connected to the Goulston Street graffito. An original idea is always welcome.