|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Why No Footprints?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Why No Footprints?
Author: Diana
Monday, 01 July 2002 - 09:18 pm |        | | I am currently reading a book on forensics. It says that one of the oldest types of forensic evidence is footprint evidence. In fact the author states that even today it is a very viable means of detection. All of a sudden I realized that I have not seen a single account describing footprint evidence. Its absence is puzzling. When you've got that much blood on the ground and you are racing around trying to finish the mutilations before you get caught, isn't it reasonable that at least once out of five times you might get some of it on your shoes? They didn't have DNA or profiling or hairs and fibers in 1888, but surely they looked for footprints. Why do we not read of a trail of prints going down the hall on Hanbury Street, or trailing off down Berner Street or going down the passage outside Mary Kelly's door? This is like the dog that didn't bark in the night. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 01 July 2002 - 09:36 pm | | Diane, it sounds like a reasonable question. But it does seem that JTR was careful in making his throat wounds so that the spray of blood was directed away from him. If he took that precaution, it's not unreasonable to suppose that he would also have taken care not to step in the blood. Also, didn't most of the blood collect beneath the victims and get soaked up by clothing and in MJK's case, mattress? I think the reason we don't find mention of any footprints is because there weren't any.
But I agree--he worked so fast, it seems like he'd slip up at least once, but it looks like he didn't--the detectives were of such calibre that I think they would have spotted such an obvious clue.
Just my two cents,
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 01 July 2002 - 09:38 pm | | Dear Diana,
A distinct lack of footprints! Emm. A puddle-puzzle of a kind I thoroughly enjoy.
(a) Jack the Stiltwalker,
(b) An invisible Jack,
(c) On tiptoe
(d) Jack-in-the-Boots
:-) |
Author: Garry Ross
Tuesday, 02 July 2002 - 09:09 pm | | Hello Diana,
perhaps another reason for no footprints at the scene would also be due to the number of people who were crowded round the bodies too after discovery ? I doubt crime scenes were meticulously cordoned off like today. (excluding the OJ Simpson case of course...tut tut)
take care
Garry |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 11:17 am | | Diana, excellent question.
Several months ago I wondered the same about the scene at Mitre Square. The police did make reference to 'no footprints', so they were 'on-the-ball' in that respect.
It's hard to believe the killer could not have left a print in all that blood but apparently none were seen.
At Millers Court all the blood on the floor was at the far side of the bed (against the wall), where her throat had been cut. This, I suspect, is what Walter Dew slipped in, and I suppose this is another circumstantial piece of evidence that indicates the bed was not pulled away from the wall before the officials arrived. If it had been then 'Jack' would have walked there and left footprints.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
