|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 2:20 pm: |       |
Hi everyone,
A gory subject, but worth a discussion, The killer surely apart from stride , would have had a certain amount of blood on his person, to rip a abdomen open, as in the cases of Nichols, and more so with Chapman, would surely have soiled parts of the killers clothing, in the case of Eddowes, I would have thought he would have been very soiled.
And as for Kelly, the amount of mutalation, if the killer was fully dressed, would have been substancial, even if he stripped naked , his body would have been heavily bloodstained, and he would have had to wash vast amounts of blood away.
It would not be a case of just washing his hands, I feel that in the case of kelly, he must have left that room regardless of hours of darkness or , in daylight, in a absolute mess.
That is of course if the murders were not planned,
If these murders were premeditated, then of course he could have parcelled up spare clothes , and taken a certain amount of percautions, simply removing bloody garments, and putting new ones on, but that does seem unrealistic.
In the case of Kelly the pilot coat hanging by the window , would have been a good covering, but clearly that was not used.
So to sum up this thread, How much blood would be on his person , taking account of the amounts of mutalation, and how did he leave the scene , without causing suspision, or taking enormous risks, I believe we have not discussed this issue to its capacity.
Regards Richard. |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 18
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
Richard,
The consensus is that Jack would be a lot less besmeared than one would imagine, particulary since the suspicion is great that many of the victims were strangled before hand. This would stop blood flow.
And, remembering that sartorially the folks in Whitechapel were not modern suit, tie, spit-shine and manicured businessmen, a certain amount of staining on garments would go unremarked. And all the more so because he was walking down darkened, ill-lit streets. So long as he simply walked purposely and looked as if he "belonged" without drawing undo attention to himself, he would likely have seemed "invisible."
Still, any blood stains at all on his clothing does raise an interesting issue. Was his occupation such that the later cleaning of his blood-stained clothing would not cause comment, did he have enough privacy to wash the clothes at leisure, or was he actually able to discard and replace stained clothing? All these possibilities would seem to raise flags in one or another way about many of the favored suspects |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 3:28 pm: | |
Don.
I would Agree to a point about strangulation, with Chapman, her tongue was pertruding, but in the case of Kelly, although she proberly had a sheet over her mouth at the time of attack, her defensive wounds show that, she was not unconcious, and made valiant attempts to defend herself, therefore I would doubt, the blood flow would have any restrictions.
I am not an expert on blood splashes, but surely a knife , used with such verocity, and the actual mutalation, with Kelly, and the amount of space offered to him in room 13, would result in a blood bath.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 3:42 pm: | |
Hi Richard and Donald
I should think that he would at the very least have bloodstained hands in the cases of Kelly, Chapman and Eddowes, as he'd actually reached inside these women and removed body parts.
He may of course have used the water sources in the backyard of Hanbury St, and just outside Kelly's door, to wash his hands - we just don't know.
In the case of Eddowes, where there was no immediately available water source, he cut a piece of her clothing to wipe his hands on - the only time, as far as I know, that he was known to do this.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 20
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 4:11 pm: | |
Richard & Robert,
I didn't suggest there would be no staining, only that there would be a lot less on his clothes than might be imagined at first thought. Of course his hands would be bloodied. However, as pointed out, in most cases water for a quick hand rinse was readily available. But then blood is relatively easy to remove from one's epidermis, but as anyone who has ever sliced himself with a carving knife knows, it is bloody difficult to remove from clothing. And that, again, raises the question of what he did with his clothing, even if the stains and smears were few. |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 141
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 4:24 pm: | |
Hi all
I was wondering whether he wore gloves.
I agree with Robert that his hands would have been bloodstained, and maybe after mutilating these women he took the gloves of and put them in his pockets. Otherwise he would be walking the streets with bloodstained hands
Just a thought
Rob |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 4:37 pm: | |
Hi Rob
Yes, if he was careful he could have taken the gloves off without getting much blood on his hands.The other possibility with gloves is that he put gloves on over his hands when he'd finished, to hide the blood - but this would probably apply more to the toff end of the suspect list.
Something I've always wondered : it may sound silly, and even ghoulish, but would Jack have been able to handle intestines with bare hands without being burned? I thought there was some pretty strong acid to be taken account of.
Robert |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 142
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 5:01 pm: | |
Hi Robert
Wouldn't acid be on the inside of the intestines, rather than the outside? but I am no expert, perhaps there is someone on the boards with medical experience who can answer that. Interesting idea though, and I was trying to remember if there was any eye-witness statements which describe Jack wearing gloves. Of the top of my head I don't think there was, but his hands must have been covered with blood.
Rob |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
Hi, Robert and Robert:
I don't believe we have any evidence that Jack wore gloves. But who knows? If he was operating today, perhaps he would use latex gloves. Interestingly, I learned recently on one of the "Cold Case Files" shows on A&E that these days the investigators can get fingerprints from the insides of gloves not just from places an offender has touched when not wearing gloves. One more reason to lament the lack of adequate preserved forensic evidence in this 1888 case. Of course, we could always test some more Ripper letters. . . 
Best regards
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on November 06, 2003) |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 641
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 8:50 pm: | |
"Of course, we could always test some more Ripper letters. . . "
Good one, Chris. Wonder who was the target in that remark... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 3:57 am: | |
Hi Guys,
One thing puzzles me,we all agree that his hands and at least forarms of his jacket , must have been blood saturated, I personally believe,a lot more of his clothing also.
Most of us agree that the murderer had local knowledge,so after killing eddowes, cutting off a part of her apron, to persumably either carry away her kidney, or to wipe his hands, why did he wait till he arrived at Dorset street, before washing his hands?. Surely there were other public wash places en-route, which knowing the area so well, he could have made for. I would have thought the quicker he cleansed himself the more chance of getting clear of the area.
I am of the opinion , and there is conformation .
Read Sir Robert Andersons account, that the blood stained sink was the result of the killer cleansing after Kellys murder, which would make more logical sense to me, for as stated before, this murder,had to result in the killer, being covered in blood, and gore, and he would have simply had to wash himself, for he was so blooded.
Therefore there are two points here to consider,
a] If Eddowes killer,did only stop to wash his hands in Dorset street, the coincedence, that the next murder was to be there is evident.
b]If the killer left the room to wash at the pump outside kellys room, new evidence would have been unearthed.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 1:24 pm: | |
Hi Donald and Richard
Donald, re the killer's blodstained clothing : how about AP's idea of smearing mud over the stains?
Richard, I think he could have washed his hands at the pump outside 13 room after the murder of Kelly. The only scenario I can think of that would make this unlikely, is Joe doing it in broad daylight.
Robert
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 1:44 pm: | |
Hi Robert.
If this did happen, I would have thought it would have been heard in night hours, it seems to me that the residents were all light sleepers, I would plump for daylight, and the killer was lucky he was not seen.
Richard. |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 22
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
Richard:
It was Maj. Smith in his memoirs [From Constable to Commissioner] that mentions the blood-stained sink, not Anderson. Moreover, the account is so muddled as to render it highly suspect. There is no other mention of the incident by a contemporary and the very title of his memoirs can only make you wonder about his veracity -- he joined the force as Chief Superintendent. While Casebook promotion can be swifter, even we exalted posters start out as Constables. If you put any credence in his story you do so at your own peril.
As for pump noises in the night, one quickly becomes innured to common background noise, even if a light sleeper. How many times have we read of someone in 1888 Whitechapel hearing a cry of "murder" and thinking little of it because it happened so often? The working of a pump, only source of water in the area, would not be remarked upon at any hour.
Robert:
In a previous post I independently advanced the ever-present mud and offal to cover the stains. Still, one does not need to feel the guilt of Lady Macbeth to want to be rid of blood stains. So, I continue to wonder how easily Jack eventually cleaned his garments. That he did and how would be interesting to know. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1192
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 5:00 pm: | |
Hi Donald
Re the pump, I think it's quite possible the murderer could have washed there. I agree that the noise, if any, need not have been remarked upon, or even heard.
Of course, the Smith story doesn't add up, but I don't see why we need to reject the idea of Jack's washing at the pump - just Smith's version of it.
It's also possible of course that he just walked off with his bloody hands thrust into his pockets.
Robert |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 5:15 pm: | |
How about the rain? I seem to recall it was raining the nite of the double event. If it was raining hard enough then maybe the rain would have taken care of it? Which other murder nights had rain? How hard can it rain in London? I live on the the gulf coast of the United States and we can get really pelted but I don't know if that would hold true for London. Rain also generates puddles which could come in handy. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 3:09 am: | |
Hi Donald.
I Agree , and disagree on your point about the sink.
Major Smith gives his account,which seems to suggest, that if was after Mitre square, that the killer, had the audacity to wash his hands, at a sink in dorset street.
However I will quote Sir Robert Andersons remarks.
On three occasions, The only three, which I can give reliable details, there was no need to provide the murderer, with hot water , and sunlight soap.
In Berner street, he did not mutalate the woman.
In Mitre square, he used the womans apron.
And in Dorset street, he careful washed his hands at the sink.
Unquote..
So there we have it Donald, the quote in which it was written.
You can see. that he just named three seperate events, in which he believed the killer would not be in dire need of hot water and soap. he did not say 'In mitre square, he used the womans apron, and then washed carefully ay a sink in Dorset street' although I am sure that will be implied in replying to this post, he in my opinion was simply relaying the facts that he knew them, and Major Smith if one analyzes the way his book was written, may have been saying the same.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 4:28 am: | |
G'day,
Maria Harvey said at Kelly's inquest that she left 2 mens shirts, amoung other things. Why couldn't the killer have swaped his bloody shirt with one of these before he parted, and thrown his own shirt in the fire? He also could have taken his pants off!
I believe he cut Catharine's apron to carry her organs away with.
In a neighbourhood full of slaughter houses, blood stained hands and clothes would have been ignored.
RICH: Where could the Ripper have washed his hands in private, when everyone was rushing to Dutfiled's yard and police were searching around.
I don't think Anderson was necessarily talking about Mary Kelly's murder when he wrote about the sink! Notice how he wrote: 'three occasions' not 'three murders'. He didn't even write: 'three SEPERATE events'. Two 'occasions' can happen on the same morning you know!
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 233
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 5:44 am: | |
On the days of the murders it was raining. For the killer to wash the blood off all he would have to do his rub his hands in the nearest puddle or catch a bit of rain and it would almost all be gone. What little that did remain would have been missed as the others were busy holding thier collars against the cold with their eyes downward watching where they were stepping and not who they were passing on the street.
Shannon |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 8:58 am: | |
Richard
Your quotation about carefully washing his hands in the sink comes from Smith, not Anderson.
See this page on this site.
Chris Phillips
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 5:10 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I Cannot let you get away with that one, actually the quotation has nothing to do with Smith, smith had his version, and Sir Robert his, In his ' The lighter side of his life' the quotation I Mentioned , was his words exactly.
if you disagree , please imform me where that quotation appears?.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
we are going to disagree on this point, I believe Anderson was talking about Three seperate events, if one reads the quotation, as it is written, there is no doubt, he was selecting the double event plus millers court, of course we could argue ' Yes but he meant' but we can only take the words used as our interpretation, of course the words may be misleading, but to others not.
We will have to let are readers decide , on that one,
Rich. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 5:46 pm: | |
G'day Rich,
But Anderson wrote: 'in DORSET STREET he carefully washed...' Not: 'in MILLERS COURT he carefully washed...' Yes we are going to disagree I'm afraid!
LEANNE |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 7:09 pm: | |
Richard
Please follow the link I gave in my message, and you'll see that what you quoted comes from Smith's From Constable to Commissioner, Chapter 16.
Smith is arguing against Anderson's assertion (which he starts by quoting) that the Ripper must have been able to clean his blood stains, by claiming that on three occasions he would not have needed to.
To quote the whole paragraph:
Sir Robert says " the Ripper could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret." The criminal, no doubt, was valeted by his co-religionists -warned not to run too great risks, to come home as soon as he could after business, and always to give notice when he meant to cut up another lady ! On three occasions-the only three of which I can give reliable details-there was no need to provide the murderer with hot water and Sunlight soap. In Berners Street he did not mutilate the woman, and probably had very few blood-stains about him ; in Mitre Square he used the woman's apron ; and in Dorset Street he carefully washed his hands at the sink.
Chris Phillips
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 3:08 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I stand corrected,I Jumped the gun.
However to be honest,regardless of me getting the wrong man, that statement, the way it is written does imply three seperate occassions, although words can be misleading, and to be fair it could also imply ' Not only did he wipe his hands on Eddowes apron , but also stopped to wash his hands , in Dorset street.
The biggest wall we face in this case, is trying to decifer, what facts we have, and trying to understand what means what...
Sorry for my doubting your post.
Regards Richard. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
