Blood Trace Evidence

[Fleetwood Mac]

Didn't Victorian men wear white shirts? Not sure it would have been wise to remove your jacket and make it easy for people to see you with your white shirt!

I reckon jacket on.....and will go with those who suggest that the blood wouldn't be seen on a black jacket and in the event it was it couldn't have led to a conviction due to the nature of the East End and its inhabitants.

I think it's fair to say that blood smears due to bloodied boots would have been included in police accounts of the state of the room. Doesn't mean boots were off though.....as he could have simply taken a piece of clothing and used it to wipe the floor and wipe his boots...would have taken a few seconds. And perhaps that's why the clothes were burned in the fire. It would mean he would have spent a fair bit of time in there....so must have been confident in the knowledge that he would not be disturbed.....but then again why would he be? It's not often you get a knock at the door at 3 in the morning....why would 1880s East End be any different?

[Hunter]

Good points all. I would just add that in relation to Eddowes, Dr. Brown's sketch of the scene may be helpful. It can be found on this site. It is listed as a Frederick Foster drawing.

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=7

If the murderer stayed between Kate's legs while mutilating her, he wouldn't have tracked blood when he left.

[Abby Normal]

The point about the hunters/butchers is well taken. I can believe a hunter can dress an animal without getting blood all over him. And animals in abattoirs are hung to drain blood.

However hunters hunt in rural terrain. Butchers butcher in terrain specifically designed to channel blood away A hunter is killing and dressing an animal on some kind of top-soil/grass/bush area. The blood may pool a little bit but it's likely to be absorbed by the soil quite quickly. Chapman was killed in terrain such as this, in the back garden. No matter how sparse and clay-y the ground was, the blood would likely not spread out too far. Especially if the area is slightly depressed around the foundations of the house. In Chapman I'd expect blood trace more from the hands than the feet. I don't know the terrain in Dutfield's Yard. It was likely some kind of gravel, so again, whatever blood there was probably didn't go out too widely. Nicholls was not as extensively mutilated and it's possible the area around her was also gravelled, as she was found outside the stable gates. MJK was killed in circumstances that allowed the killer time to clean up before he headed out.

But Eddowes was killed on the flagstones in Mitre Square. And those flagstones were hard, unnabsorbant and unpredictably uneven. There would have been a considerable spread of blood on that site, and I humbly submit it would have been very very hard to get away from it unscathed. Which it appears that he did. With the exception of whatever went on with the bloodied cloth.

There would have been a considerable spread of blood on that site, and I humbly submit it would have been very very hard to get away from it unscathed.

Hi Chava
Most of the blood could have been absorbed by their clothes and also it was raining that night so maybe that affected the amount of "spread" ?
Also, If the killer thought he had alot of blood on his hands and feet he could have quickly and easily wiped either before leaving the scene.

[Chava]

The point about the hunters/butchers is well taken. I can believe a hunter can dress an animal without getting blood all over him. And animals in abattoirs are hung to drain blood.

However hunters hunt in rural terrain. Butchers butcher in terrain specifically designed to channel blood away A hunter is killing and dressing an animal on some kind of top-soil/grass/bush area. The blood may pool a little bit but it's likely to be absorbed by the soil quite quickly. Chapman was killed in terrain such as this, in the back garden. No matter how sparse and clay-y the ground was, the blood would likely not spread out too far. Especially if the area is slightly depressed around the foundations of the house. In Chapman I'd expect blood trace more from the hands than the feet. I don't know the terrain in Dutfield's Yard. It was likely some kind of gravel, so again, whatever blood there was probably didn't go out too widely. Nicholls was not as extensively mutilated and it's possible the area around her was also gravelled, as she was found outside the stable gates. MJK was killed in circumstances that allowed the killer time to clean up before he headed out.

But Eddowes was killed on the flagstones in Mitre Square. And those flagstones were hard, unnabsorbant and unpredictably uneven. There would have been a considerable spread of blood on that site, and I humbly submit it would have been very very hard to get away from it unscathed. Which it appears that he did. With the exception of whatever went on with the bloodied cloth.

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"One more thing to add to Fisherman's point about Stride... No matter who killed her I can't see him stepping in blood as there was only the throat wound and the blood was contained in the gutter. Any contamination of that scene was likely by someone else, possibly someone coming out of the side door and approaching the body from that direction ( the blood flowing towards that door). "

That is my take on things too, Hunter. But it is no certainty - especially not if Jack was not the killer - and I thought it needed to be pointed out in response to your earlier post.

the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

In reply to Chava and as indicated in Hunters post, I think the odds are very good that JTR had experience hunting/dressing/butchering. Another thing I would point out here is that just like a hunter he cuts the throat deeply before he begins to "dress" his kill. That alows most of the blood in the body to drain quite rapidly. I have many times dressed a deer or hog in the dark, usually takes less than 10 minutes, isnt all that messy, and i cant remember ever getting blood on my shoes.

I am so happy that other people think this ! -I 've long thought that 'Jack' was a person used to killing and butchering animals -although not a professional butcher.

The idea that he was from a rural background and knew how to hunt and dress a 'kill'...or how to poach and quietly dress a kill at night, 'fits'.

I have been a sheep farmer in rural France, and have never seen a hunter (of which I've seen many) with blood on them -and the same goes for farmers slaughtering a sheep in a field.

What's more, I have had to kill a sheep before (horrendously savaged by a stray dog in a lonely spot), and I know that it is
difficult to cut firmly and deeply if you don't have experience, and not just sever the windpipe ; JtR knew very well what he was doing to be as quick and as clean as possible (and yes, I dispatched the sheep, and no, I wasn't covered in blood spots).

There is also the possibility that he had worked with animals ( Once again, Claire, I'm mentioning 'Hutch the Groom', don't intend to go off subject here, and I will be away for a few days now, and so not turning this into an H discussion).

I read the job description of a Victorian groom working on a stud, and part of it was working in the stables at night birthing foals and nursing sick horses in bad light. It is not difficult to imagine that the need for caesarians would occur, and horses would need to be 'put down'. We don't have 'phones, vets with antibiotics, laws on disposing of 'bodies' for sanitary reasons ( on signature and by lorry, and there are no fridges) -therefore, I think that one would cut the horses throat, and then butcher it quickly on the spot to feed the dogs. So I think that a Groom would know how to kill and eviserate an animal, in nearly no light, without getting 'bloody'.

The same would apply to any people keeping farm animals, of course..

[smezenen]

In reply to Chava and as indicated in Hunters post, I think the odds are very good that JTR had experience hunting/dressing/butchering. Another thing I would point out here is that just like a hunter he cuts the throat deeply before he begins to "dress" his kill. That alows most of the blood in the body to drain quite rapidly. I have many times dressed a deer or hog in the dark, usually takes less than 10 minutes, isnt all that messy, and i cant remember ever getting blood on my shoes.

[Hunter]

In reply to Smezenen's comment:

I debated this topic with Trevor Marriott a few months ago on the anatomical skill thread concerning the killer's ability to eviscerate and remove organs quickly in the dark so I am being redundant here, but I agree with you entirely. I have field dressed deer in the dark, removed the liver and bagged it and gotten no blood on me other than my hands... and done it all in about 5 minutes. I do not think that this killer would have experienced anything different and the medicos stated as much at the inquests.

He did not necessarily have to be a butcher, doctor, slaughterman-etc... Many folks moved from rural homes to the city and would have been familiar with slaughtering and preparing animals for consumption; let alone the other inhabitants that bought live animals from the markets and took them home with them. People in lodging houses were known to split the cost of whole animals. A good percentage of males at the time would have had the experience to do what was done to these women.

One thing Trevor couldn't comprehend, despite his 'experiments' was that once an animal is dead, there is no blood in the abdominal cavity unless there was a wound there before death. A major artery has to be severed to cause post mortem bleeding; removing a kidney would be such a case.

In Eddowes' case, her large intestines were ruptured. The killer likely got faecal matter on his hands and he cut Kates' apron to clean that off; so he walked away from that scene with some pretty messy hands.

He appeared to have performed the mutilations while kneeling down between their legs ( Kelly's situation would be different of course). Unless he walked around his victims there would be no reason to get blood on his shoes.

One more thing to add to Fisherman's point about Stride... No matter who killed her I can't see him stepping in blood as there was only the throat wound and the blood was contained in the gutter. Any contamination of that scene was likely by someone else, possibly someone coming out of the side door and approaching the body from that direction ( the blood flowing towards that door). Whether Lamb mentioned it or not, the most incriminating evidence, from his perspective at that moment would have been blood on someone's hands or a person in possesion of a bloody knife. If there was sign of someone stepping in blood at the scene, bloody shoes on an onlooker would not be incriminating by itself. Whether justified or not, Baxter wasn't too pleased with the way Lamb handled the crime scene.

[Chava]

How many of you are hunters? Of those that are, how many times have you field dressed a deer, hog, or other large animal? I have done it many times and never gotten my shoes bloody in fact if done right there is very little blood to even get on your hands. Certainly not enough to make it hard to clean off with a little water and a small rag. I dont see JTR having a difficult time getting cleaned up quickly with just a small rag and some water in a storm drain or public sink.

What are the chances that the Ripper is a hunter? Now I'll grant you that he could very well be a butcher. In which case he has all the expertise a hunter would have in dressing a carcass. But there are just a couple of little wrinkles here:

- Whatever he's doing, he's doing in very restricted light.

- Whatever he's doing, he's doing it at speed.

In those circumstances, I think I'd expect a little blood around the place. And I'll bet there was. But he gets away without dropping any blood spatter. And don't forget he's not just cutting them up, he's taking souvenirs. He's making sure those don't spatter either, and I'll bet they were pretty bloody. He's being hyper-careful in some ways while being hyper-bold in others. If he was a butcher, he'd have ample excuse for wandering around London late at night with a knife or two and blood on him. If he was a cook coming off a late shift, same thing. I'm not making a case for a middle-class Monty-Druitt type suspect. But I think our guy might present as a sailor or a clerk or a shop-worker or a docker rather than a butcher or abbatoir-hand. He's keen on keeping clean.

[smezenen]

How many of you are hunters? Of those that are, how many times have you field dressed a deer, hog, or other large animal? I have done it many times and never gotten my shoes bloody in fact if done right there is very little blood to even get on your hands. Certainly not enough to make it hard to clean off with a little water and a small rag. I dont see JTR having a difficult time getting cleaned up quickly with just a small rag and some water in a storm drain or public sink.

[Fisherman]

Hunter writes:

"That was probably from the onlookers. P.C. Lamb mentioned having trouble keeping everyone back and that there was much confusion."

Statistically and numerically you would be right, Hunter. But there is no way to be sure, I´m afraid. Please remember that Lamb also checked the bystanders for blood on their clothing without finding any. I do not know whether that check stretched all the way down to the soles of their shoes, but if it did, and if Lamb did find the man/men who had trodden in the blood, he certainly does not mention it afterwards.

As you know, I do not place Jack in Dutfield Yard, and therefore, even if Strides killer did step in her blood, I think it will tell us nothing about how cautious/lucky Jack was in this respect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

Those who are in favour of Stride being Jacks may not agree, for in that case it was testified that the blood on the site had been trodden in.

That was probably from the onlookers. P.C. Lamb mentioned having trouble keeping everyone back and that there was much confusion.

[Fisherman]

Chava writes:

"blood trace would likely still be hanging around enough to give a certain...texture to those door handles even if they were opened with cleaned-off hands. Blood just doesn't clear up easily"

Todays forensics would certainly look closely for such traces, but I am not equally sure that this applied to the Met. If they saw no blood on, for example, the doorknob, I do not think that they would have pressed on any further.

"more interesting to me is what we might possibly infer from the fact that one way or another he cleaned up after himself"

I´m not sure that we may establish such a thing.

"And Our Boy didn't leave any recorded footprints"

Those who are in favour of Stride being Jacks may not agree, for in that case it was testified that the blood on the site had been trodden in.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chava]

Chava writes:

"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..."

Of course, Chava, you are correct that neither handle nor tap was reported as being bloodied in 29 Hanbury Street or in Millers court. But I do not think that should lead us to believe that he wiped away blood on either of these items. Why would he? It would not make for any clue, fingerprinting was not in use, and it would only slow him down.
Is it not more feasible that he used a rag or something like that to wipe his hands, and then opened the doors without leaving any discernable trace of blood?

The best,
Fisherman

Absolutely! But blood trace would likely still be hanging around enough to give a certain...texture to those door handles even if they were opened with cleaned-off hands. Blood just doesn't clear up easily. However more interesting to me is what we might possibly infer from the fact that one way or another he cleaned up after himself. Fingerprint evidence was unknown but boot-print or shoe-print or even foot-print evidence was a factor in investigations then I doubt they took a plaster cast of such prints--although they may have--but even a photograph or a scale drawing might help to pin down a murderer with the relevant foot or footwear print. And most people down the East End only had one pair of boots. It's possible that he was in a line of work where questions might arise if he was found with blood on or near him. It's possible he had a suspicious wife who examined his clothes and stuff minutely looking for traces of infidelity. It's possible that he had a very distinctive nail or wear pattern on his shoes or boots. He might limp or favour one part of his foot over another. Any and all these things are possible. And Our Boy didn't leave any recorded footprints. In the MJK murder and the Eddowes murder I believe that would have been hard to do...

[Fisherman]

Chava writes:

"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..."

Of course, Chava, you are correct that neither handle nor tap was reported as being bloodied in 29 Hanbury Street or in Millers court. But I do not think that should lead us to believe that he wiped away blood on either of these items. Why would he? It would not make for any clue, fingerprinting was not in use, and it would only slow him down.
Is it not more feasible that he used a rag or something like that to wipe his hands, and then opened the doors without leaving any discernable trace of blood?

The best,
Fisherman