Blood Trace Evidence

[Chava]

Is there any record of blood trace evidence being noted at any of the crime scenes? I have a feeling there isn't, and I would expect the Victorian version of SOCO to have at least noted blood smears/handprints/fingerprints/footprints at the scene of the crime. Fingerprints were not being used to ID criminals yet, but fingerprints and handprints would at least give an indication of hand size and so could be used in some way as informative evidence. And blood is sticky and congeals, so would be noticed on door handles etc even hours after the killing.

The absence of blood-trace suggests to me that the killer took time to wipe his hands before leaving the scene--I'd expect blood on the outside handle of the door to the backyard at 29 Hanbury Street. I'd also expect blood on the handle or whatever at Millers Court. Our boy does wipe his hands on the famous piece of apron, but to me that looks like he cut himself and wound the cloth around his finger or hand to stop the bleeding. He didn't cut off any other victim's clothing to make a wipe out of it, so he came prepared with a nice big handkerchief or whatever and spent precious time making sure he didn't have any blood on his hands before he left. Which is a bit interesting, because he's not squeamish. He takes some nasty souvenirs. So why does he make sure he doesn't have anything on his hands before he leaves the scene of the crime? Could it be that his hands are noticed in his line of work? Or that he is in work that does not bring him into contact with blood so questions might be asked? Or is there something else (and I can't think of it) that is so important that he has to take care of it immediately? After all, he could easily wipe his hands off as he walks down the street. He doesn't need to do it before he leaves the immediate area.

[cappuccina]

...On the night of the "double event" sisn't a police constable also find freshly "washed off" blood in a public sink near one of the murder sites??

I've also wondered if he brought a pair of clean gloves with him each time, and after washing/wiping off as much as he could just put the gloves on 'til he returned home, or got to another public sink...

[GregBaron]

Fastidious killer..........

Mitre Square was a bloodbath yet no traces......perhaps the apron was used because the regular clean up towel was soaked.?....considering a possible pre-mutilation routine(removing of the coat) and a post clean up(wiping the knife and hands, possibly the bottom of the shoes, putting the coat back on, hiding the organs) etc....and given the max time possible in Mitre Square(let's say 8 or 9 minutes).....under extreme duress even......... the act seems calm, cool, collected and calculated, even practiced.........?


Greg

[c.d.]

I'm not sure that blood wipes off as easily as you might think. I mentioned this before but last year I cut my thumb on my umbrella (the little metal piece that you use to retract it). It really took a slice out of my thumb and it bled a lot. I was in downtown Washington, DC at lunchtime and felt extremely conspicuous. I attempted to wipe my hand off on my pants but that only helped a bit. Blood was still evident on my hand until I was able to wash it.

c.d.

[Mitch Rowe]

Yes.. Dried blood is hard to clean off skin unless one has water or something. We dont really know what the victims had on them and what JTR took from them. So its possible JTR took a wet rag with him or grabbed something from the victims items. In the Case of 29 Hanbury JTR could have taken a rag from Annie and dipped it in the pail of water and wiped his hands before leaving.

[Mitch Rowe]

...On the night of the "double event" didn't a police constable also find freshly "washed off" blood in a public sink near one of the murder sites??

As far as I know that is a myth.

[c.d.]

I have always wondered how much Jack had to fear from possibly being stopped on the street and searched. If there was a more than a reasonable degree of probability that this could happen, he might (and I emphasise might) have put some thought into possible places where he could wash up.

c.d.

[cappuccina]

In the case of MJK, he obviously burned her clothes and a teakettle in the fire; maybe he burned some of his clothes there too and changed??

[GregBaron]

Searched??????????

An interesting point about being searched c.d.....were police and/or vigilantes searching suspicious characters.......? If the ripper was searched, obviously a knife, rags, and possibly organs would be found........did he ditch these? or was he comfortable enough he could make it home to save his trophy's & tools.........?


Greg

[tnb]

An interesting point about being searched c.d.....were police and/or vigilantes searching suspicious characters.......? If the ripper was searched, obviously a knife, rags, and possibly organs would be found........did he ditch these? or was he comfortable enough he could make it home to save his trophy's & tools.........?


Greg

Obviously being found with organs, and arguably a knife, would have been pretty incriminating; but apart from that the whole idea of blood traces is pretty redundant when talking about the LVP. They wouldn't even have had the technology to tell whether any blood, dried or otherwise, was human or not, never mind to tie it to a particular victim or crime scene. If found on anyone with even the most tangential reason to account for blood being found on them (even handling fresh meat, for example, not necessarily being involved in its slaughtering) it would have been nothing more than circumstancial.

Also, bear in mind that if the theory that the killer strangled his victims first is correct, the blood splatter would have been seriously reduced, as the heart would no longer be actively pumping.

[cappuccina]

You are correct; the first presumptive test for blood based on benzidine, was not until 1904.

[Chava]

At least two of the murders--Eddowes and MJK--were absolute bloodbaths. Yet he doesn't get a smidgen on his boots. I can see how he did it in Millers Court. I believe he stripped down and left all his stuff in the far corner of the room. But Mitre Square wasn't so easy. He couldn't have taken his boots/shoes off. That would have been risky as hell. Even if he did, how does he get near enough to her to carve up her face without getting any blood on himself. There is no mention of blood drops or anything.

I assume he knelt behind her head for the facial stuff and then moved round to carve up the abdomen. Or vice versa. Either way he has a large pool of blood to deal with and one which is likely spreading. I agree. It's a very very slick way of doing things. Maybe he took a few practice turns with an animal. Maybe he did this elsewhere in the country or abroad and we haven't picked him up at it yet. Because from Chapman forward he does a lot of damage without leaving any trace behind at all. And whoever said blood isn't easy to clean up or off is right. It's sticky and it only gets stickier.

Nicholls wasn't as expertly treated. But for some reason there wasn't a big blood pool there, and he may have been disturbed before he could do the kind of stuff he did with Chapman. I can see him getting away from Buck's Row without leaving much evidence. But he needed to open two doors in Hanbury Street, one door in Millers Court, and avoid a large pool of blood in Mitre Square...

[Abby Normal]

He probably just wiped his hands and knife on their clothes, and/or stuck his hands in his pockets until he could get safely away from the crime scene and then get cleaned up.

Also, I don't think he would have had time to remove and put back on jacket/gloves etc during the outdoor murders. He probably was wearing a dark jacket/clothes and at night was not too worried about being seen with blood on his clothes, providing he had a safe and private place to clean up after.
Also, keep in mind, if he were to remove any of his clothes he would need to put them back on when he was finished, which would also involve him having to put down his knife momentarily to do this (and then pick back up).

It probably went something like this:
1. Strangles victim to death, lays body on ground
2. Cuts throat (less blood-victim already dead)
3. performs mutlations,puts organs in pocket
4. wipes knife/hands and places knife in pocket
5. exits murder scene with hands in pocket

at any time during the murder/mutilation process if he hears someone coming he could quickly leave unnoticed by just dropping the knife/organs in a pocket
and walking away while putting his hands in his pockets.

[c.d.]

I have a question -- What kind of identification (if any) did people carry back then? If it was the norm not to have any identification, Jack could have given any name and address if stopped. As it has been pointed out, simply having blood on you did not make you highly suspicious. If you could give a plausible reason for having it on your person, I imagine you could give a fake name and be on your way.

c.d.

[Chava]

He probably just wiped his hands and knife on their clothes, and/or stuck his hands in his pockets until he could get safely away from the crime scene and then get cleaned up.

Also, I don't think he would have had time to remove and put back on jacket/gloves etc during the outdoor murders. He probably was wearing a dark jacket/clothes and at night was not too worried about being seen with blood on his clothes, providing he had a safe and private place to clean up after.
Also, keep in mind, if he were to remove any of his clothes he would need to put them back on when he was finished, which would also involve him having to put down his knife momentarily to do this (and then pick back up).

It probably went something like this:
1. Strangles victim to death, lays body on ground
2. Cuts throat (less blood-victim already dead)
3. performs mutlations,puts organs in pocket
4. wipes knife/hands and places knife in pocket
5. exits murder scene with hands in pocket

at any time during the murder/mutilation process if he hears someone coming he could quickly leave unnoticed by just dropping the knife/organs in a pocket
and walking away while putting his hands in his pockets.

Yeah, he probably did. I only suggest he stripped off in Millers Court. But the fact remains that no one reported blood on the handle of the back door in Hanbury Street, and if I recall correctly, he would have had to pull it towards him to get back into the passage. And no one reported blood on the handle or latch or whatever at 13 Millers Court. And he would have had the same problem there. The door opened into the room. Likewise no one reports bloody boot/shoe/footprints leaving the scenes of crime. It's really not easy to get rid of all traces of blood without a thorough washing. It's possible that he washed his hands in Hanbury Street. In fact I remember some reference to a basin of water of a tap. But then there'd be trace on the tap...

What seems to have been the likeliest is that he killed barehanded and then put gloves on. Although those gloves would have become very unpleasant and smelly very quickly. Either way, gloves or not, he's prepared in a way that most murderers were not then and are not now. Our boy is hyper-organized I think...