Author: Diana
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 08:50 pm |        |
| This issue was raised on the profiling board by someone who said they had attended lots of autopsies and shared that once a body is opened there are all kinds of fluids, blood, bile,etc. and that JTR would have had to plunge his hands (arms?) into a mess of goop to extract organs. Consequently he would have had a very incriminating mess on his hands afterwards (pun intended). What were the water sources in 1888 Whitechapel? There has been mention of public sinks. Could he have simply jumped in the Thames or one of its estuaries? Certainly we know how he used the piece of Eddowes apron. Could he have carried a rag with him for the purpose and then disposed of it after Stride, thus requiring the use of Eddowes apron? |
Author: Michael Conlon
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 10:27 pm | |
Hi Diana,
If, for a moment, we suppose the Ripper was someone such as a butcher or slaughterman, is it not reasonable to suppose that underneath a coat he may have worn a butcher's apron, thus minimizing his exposure to gore?
best regards,
Mike |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 12 April 2002 - 12:27 am | |
| my apologies to Raphael Aglietti who suggested this very thing on the Profiling thread. |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 12 April 2002 - 09:18 am | |
This is all top of the head stuff today, so you might want to check a few of these things. My impression is that London’s water supply was much improved by 1888.
At the same time as Joseph Bazalgette upgraded London’s sewerage system, the water suppliers implemented a number of improvements. By the end of the nineteenth century there were eight suppliers of water in London. These included the East London Water Company and the New River Company. The latter began supplying water to London from the hills of Herfordshire (to the north), from 1613. I seem to remember Stewart Evans writing here once that Spitalfields’ water was supplied by the N.R.C. By the 1880s the water improvements were just about complete. From memory parts of the East End were among the last be upgraded, nearby Shoreditch in the 1870s for instance.
Taking the area around Whitechapel, I think the houses on the main streets would have had water connected, but with so many dwellings in that locality in multiple occupancy, not every household would necessarily have had access to it. The connection wasn’t always an indoor one. 29 Hanbury Street had a tap in the back yard, but whether the pipes also ran into what would have originally been the kitchen is open to question. Certainly, the back garden standpipe was a more practical solution because the water was available to all the residents of a sub-divided house like that. The slum alleys and courtyards, such as Miller’s Court, would have had communal taps and sinks in them, which the householders would share.
In addition the main streets contained a considerable number of drinking fountains and water troughs for working animals. Many of these were maintained by the Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association. Overall then, there would seem to have been no shortage of places for the murderer to clean himself up a bit, if he knew where to look.
Regards, V. |
Author: Raphael Aglietti
Friday, 12 April 2002 - 11:31 am | |
Viper, that seems plausable but it seems like a sure fire way to get caught unless Jack was able return to his "dwelling?" with the incriminating blood stained articles and then wash them the next day at a place were such an activity would not be suspicious or in a place where it would not be suspicious.
Seemingly, there are several such places, however washing something at night would certainly arouse suspicion. Unless of course the general populous was well "moronic" and couldn't piece together the strangest of oddities |
Author: Diana
Friday, 12 April 2002 - 08:02 pm | |
| I suppose it's possible he used the tap in the Hanbury Street back yard. In the case of Stride, if we are correct he would have been interrupted, but then he didn't eviscerate her either. Does anybody know about Mitre Square or Bucks Row? |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 13 April 2002 - 05:24 pm | |
Hello all !
Don't you think that "only" someone who already knew beforehand that he could retire to a safe place to clean himself up would commit such bloody mutilations upon their murder victims body?
It is quite evident, from all scene of crime details that the killer took precautions to ensure that he would not be the recipient of random blood splashes or any kind of excessive mess. His hands, most surely would have been exposed to unknown quantities of blood and faecies, and then maybe the killers cuffs and sleave, but I wouldn't think he'd be exposed to much more mess on his person than that.
With the killer of Mary Jane Kelly however, we have no real idea of how much mess the killer allowed himself to get into. I would dare say the killer was infinitely more exposed to blood splashes within the confines of 13 Millers Court. If, as would appear to be the case, Kelly was alive and made a futile attempt to fend off a frenzied knife attack, there could be no way the killer could avoid getting into some mess. A private room provided the necessary privacy to clean up anyway, with the fire to destroy any towelling or cloth used to wipe away blood and other spilled bodily fluids upon the killer. Again, the killer was in full control and knew exactly what he was doing!
The killer must have had lone living arrangements, with ample discrete washing facilities. Knowing how careful and efficient the killer was at identifying, preoccupying, then overcoming, killing and mutilating his victim I can't see him leaving something like clean-up facilities to chance. Whether he had private or used public facilities, I think this point enforces my feeling that the killer had to be a local man, with considerable experience and knowledge of his surroundings and the people.
Kind Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 11:39 am | |
Hi Jeff,
In the cases of the first four Canonical victims I believe Jack probably could have just cleaned off his hands with a damp cloth(maybe in the same cloth that he could have wrapped the organs he took), then all he would need to do is dump the cloth later.(Such as he did with Catherine Eddowes Apron in Goulston Street.) There are many places he could have dumped these bloody cloths throughout the East End.(Whether it be within a slaughterman's, or even in the Hospital's rubbage bin.)
Most people have the misconception that blood is hard to get off of ones hands or clothing. The only cases that this is true, is when the blood is dried. So if Jack cleaned his hands before the blood dried, it would be a rather simple and quick procedure.(If you don't believe this is true, then try cutting up some bloody beef, then wash your hands right afterwards, you'll notice that the blood washes off rather quickly.)
Now in Mary Kelly's case, I have to agree with you that Jack would have been more exposed to the blood. Perhaps not from a blood splatter, due to the death of his victim, but rather because he is moving the body, and the extent of the mutilations. However, it is quite possible that Jack removed his coat, rolled up his sleeves, or maybe even took off his shirt completely. Then whatever blood that would get on him, would be on his skin, so all he would need to clean himself up is a wash basin, which Mary Kelly may have had in the room.
Just a few ideas to tumble about in one's mind.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 09:28 am | |
If it is alright I am posting this message in two threads , the Cleanup thread and the Arbie LaBruckman thread. We have seemed to lost sight of the point I made. The fact is that while working fast in low light the killer would have gotten blood and other bodily fluids on him. There is no way around it. He would not have washed himself at a public tap or sink. He is far to ritualized for that. He would have had to use a private facility. He would have laundry to clean and it would have to be cleaned either by him in private or by someone in which he has deep trust. For instance, this would be backed by Mr. Conlon’s theory of LaBruckman on the cattle ship.
Because of these facts, the killer would have had a steady job and would be sharing the his living quarters with someone he deeply trusted. I also think the killer was a sadist due to his using the knife. If we listen to Douglas et al we would have to think he was not because the victims were not tortured before death. But in the BDSM community there is a faction that finds edge play, death scenarios, and knife play erotic. These practitioners will tell you it is not the physical torture and pain but the emotional and mental aspect that is so erotic. For the submissives it is knowing that they have no safe words and they are putting their lives completely in the hands of someone else. For the doms/dommes it is the thrill of the possibility of actually taking another person’s life and in some cases the drawing of blood. It is also fact that some closet BDSM practitioners will in fact fo to prostitutes to live out their fantasies because they know or feel their significant others will not take part in the role playing. It is also interesting that studies have shown that of all the BDSM practitioners it is those that experiment with edge play and in particular those that seek erotic release with knives are the ones that cross the line between reality and fantasy. When these people cross the line it is usually done with either prostitutes or people they abduct because once again their significant others naturally won’t let them cross that line with them.
I also find it interesting that Conlon’s suspect is French. The Marquis De Sade used his wife to help procure his playmates in his later escapades, especially his last affair with the children (teenagers but still children). Sade also threatened a prostitute with a knife threatening to cut her throat. I have only recently begun reading his writings and find it interesting that is relates to the killings in some manners, of course this can all be coincidental. I know that the Marquis’ writings were banned but were available in the underground markets in Victorian England and France. More interestingly in a conversation I had with Neil Schaffer, a professor of 19th Century French Literature at Columbia, Dr. Schaffer stated that the banned text were more easily found in England and at a far cheaper price than in France.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 10:26 am | |
A piece of apron was found on Goulston Street following the double event. Additionally, there is an unconfirmed report that blood was in nearby wash basin.
It doesn't seem too difficult to imagine the killer scurrying in the darkness for a nearby remote locale to wash up.
Rich |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 10:45 am | |
Once again, what about is clothes.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott Nelson
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 12:26 pm | |
| Mrs. Norah Christmas' laundry. She had at least two at the time. One was on Middlesex Street, the other on Whitechapel Road. Was the ripper a tailor? |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 04:25 pm | |
Or was the Ripper maybe Father Christmas? Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor. . .  |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 07:12 pm | |
Costumier, Spy, and,I don't know why...
Geometer, Porter, or Fisherman's pie.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Diana
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 09:12 pm | |
| This perhaps explains the long delay before the rag turned up in Goulston Street. He was somewhere cleaning up. It would not be possible for him to blend in with the crowds if he was covered with gore. Might this explain the gate motif? Hide on the other side of the gate until you wipe it all off. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 06:08 am | |
DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD!
Christmas=Tree=Spruce=Juwes
The Juwes are not The men That Will be Blamed for nothing.
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 04:44 pm | |
Dear Scott,
Well, lets get on with it! The single crazy Juwe theory struggles to explain away a number of pertinent 'facts'...
(1) Whichever direction witnesses state Jack's
arrival at the murder locations, no witnesses see
him leaving the scene of crimes;
(2) Excepting the Ghoulston St cloth - a deliberate exercise - there is no suggestion he either wiped his knife at the scene of crime or used clothing to clean himself;
(3) The Mary Kelly murder scene was a slaughter- house. Unless he operated in the nude we can assume with some degree of certainty that when he finally left Kelly's room he would have left blood
on the door, and some pretty bloody footprints from the doorway of Kelly's room into Miller's
Court. Either the police were incompetent...or, there simply were no blood traces to be found!
Such is the mystery of "Jack the Ripper".
Rosey :-) |
Author: Raphael Aglietti
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 05:26 pm | |
Hi Rosemary,
I disagree with your third point because it seems to imply that Mary Kelley died as a result of stabbings or throat slashing when it is certainly possible that she was strangled as well.
Since the killer must have been there awhile is it not plausible that the killer had stashed a knapsack with an additional pair of shoes or even perhaps, strange as it may seem, performed the eviseration barefooted?
Remember the Mark Kelly case was committed inside which not only changes the location but can also allow the killer different circumstances whereupon he could bring a medical bag for instance or tuck an apron inside or even shoe protectors.
I think it is likely that the murderer got blood on his clothes but he took measures to prevent excessive blood on his clothes by either having an alternate set or having protective wear which could be stuffed in a bag of sorts. After the deeds JTR could either take it home with him or perhaps drop at an innocuous locale never to be thought of again.
My guess is that JTR took the "bag" home and reveled in the organs seized and who knows what happened from there, but he dispensed of the evidence shortly thereafter. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 07:46 pm | |
Dear Raphael,
The paradox, if we may use such a term, is that
no witness saw "Jack the Ripper" leave that room
and walk through Miller's Court...the only witness
to see a person leave Mary Kelly's room and walk through Miller's Court was Caroline Maxwell who swore she saw MARY KELLY LEAVE THAT ROOM when, officially, she was dead!
You have the rest of your life to think about this
and the time starts now!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 08:31 pm | |
The Middlesex St. laundry was at no. 35 on the west side of the street, two doors down (south) from the crossroads with Stoney Lane. This location is along the suspected route the Ripper took from Mitre Square (City Surveyor Frederick Foster's testimony at Eddowes Inquest). Interestingly enough, next door at no. 36, was the former home (shop) of the butcher Joseph H. Levy, one of the witnesses in Duke Street on the night of the double event. At the time of the murders, Joseph's brother, Jacob, also a butcher, lived there. He was shortly thereafter declared insane and put in the Stone Asylum in Tooting.
The Middlesex St. address numbering was changed in 1889, but in 1888, no. 35 was next door to no. 36 on the west side of the street.
Recall, Thomas Coram found a bloodstained rag wrapped around a knife in front of the Christmas' laundry on Whitechapel Road on October 1st. I haven't determined if Nora Christmas ran the laundry on Middlesex St. in 1888, but she was there in 1894. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 12:38 am | |
Correction to my above post: No. 35 would have been no. 17, between Ellison and Hutchinson Streets in 1889, not the shop shown on the 1887 Fire Insurance map, two doors down from Stoney Lane in the 1888 directory (but it's still close.)
Would the Ripper, if a butcher, have hot-footed it to the nearest known laundry after soiling his clothes with blood and guts? Not Likely. The butchery buisness was a relatively lucrative trade compared to others at the time. He would have likely returned to his shop and discarded his bloodied clothing amongst the heaps of bloodied aprons and clothing left by himself and others who plied their trade over the preceeding days. These would have been burned, not cleaned for re-use. Butchers and shop assistants would simply buy new or unsoiled apparel rather than mess with trying to clean out bloodstains. Thus, if he made it to his shop doorstep after each canonical murder, he would disrobe and drop soiled clothing into a communal pile of butchers' clothing for disposal, thus blending evidence of human murder with the remnants of animal slaughter. So, the Ripper would have acquired other aprons and wearing apparel rather than deal with removing dried blood by a laundering process (I don't think they had anything as strong as Clorox in those days).
But the half of Eddowes' discarded apron in the doorway in Goulston Street may be an indication that the killer didn't want any portion of the victim's clothing, even if meant for destruction, to be found in a butcher's shop. Maybe butchers did try and wash some of their wares, especially leather aprons. So maybe the laundry connection could be valid afer all (?)
Sorry Rosy, I didn't know if you were referring to me or Scott M. |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 12:15 pm | |
I'd like to invite everyone posting here to appreciate Mr. Nelson's two posts above. Nowhere else on these boards do we have someone who treats of the evidence with such thoughtful logical cleanliness as he. He never attempts to read more into the evidence than can be demonstrated to be present in it by reason. Hot-headed leaps of faith are eschewed in favor of calm, purposeful transformations, the logic of which are explicitly demonstrated. If the case is ever to be solved, surely this is the kind of work that will solve it. I don't believe most posters comprehend the positive, inspirational qualities we all can find right here in Mr. Nelson's contributions.
In contradistinction, most Ripperologists are wired into the case through their own psychic needs. Their work is as stable or unstable as whatever aspects of their own personalities sense gratification in whatever theory or news of blood and gore of the moment. Thus they fall prey to the typical schlockmeister Ripperologist, ever-ready to burst into song the minute complications are encountered.
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 03:26 pm | |
Dear David,
How nice to hear from you again. I thought you might have taken a dive with that Anderson business :-) Scott Nelson must have made a momentous contribution to the Casebook for such
praise to be lavished on a mere mortal.Maybe you could enlighten us?
Rosey. |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 08:20 am | |
Hello Everybody,
Was it so neccessary for the killer to clean himself up after completing his deeds? (Bear with me on this one!)
First of all, although there may have been cleaning aids on the street, was the level of personal hygiene in Whitechapel of the fragrant standards of today? In other words, was there perhaps an element of the populace who were so dirty blood and guts could not be discerned upon them. Especially if one considers lighting factors.
Also, if JTR had stopped off for a light bathe, would he not be making himself conspicuous? If he was, say, trying to pass himself off as a slaughterman, would a public display of cleanliness not be a bold statement?
Apologies if this is at all convoluted!
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Raphael Aglietti
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 04:25 pm | |
I think you have a point Jim, and I think it leads to three possible theories
a) Jack the Ripper wore an apron or some other clothing to protect splattering and to keep himself clean
b) Jack cleaned himself up near the murder scene or perhaps was lucky to slip unnoticed to clean up (see c)
c)Jack worked in a profession where he could be bloodied without suspicion.
Arbie La Bruckman (John Francis) is a potential suspect in scenario C
Scenario b) leaves the widest range of suspects but also involves the great amount of luck.
Scenario a) limits the list a bit but still could be fairly wide open. Although this seems to point to a butcher/ fish cutter/ surgeon/ or anyone dealing with organs/blood/entrails.
Sounds as if you've settled on scenario c. If so perhaps Arbie LA Bruckman is now your guy. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 04:56 pm | |
Hi, Raphael and Jim,
La Bruckman would also fit scenario 'a)', insofar as a butcher's apron would be standard for a slaughterman such as La Bruckman.
Best regards,
Mike |
Author: Iasa Duffy
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 05:37 pm | |
| One doesn't have to wash blood off one's hands if one licks them clean. |
Author: maria giordano
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 05:38 pm | |
For me, Arbie is number two with a bullet.
No pun intended,of course.
Maria |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 07:22 am | |
Hiya Iasa,
Cannibalism eh?
'tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise.'
Best Wishes,
Chris H. |
Author: Monty
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 07:45 am | |
Hi All,
I would have thought dark clothes would have hidden the blood and gore pretty well ?
I cant see him fannying around with an apron nor can I see him slipping a coat off before the event and then slipping it back on post. He operated (excuse the pun) in areas that were quite open where speed dominates and a handicapp means capture. He wouldnt be wasting any more time than he needs to.
Do the job and get the feck out of there.
Just Monty...thinking out loud.
|
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 07:56 am | |
Iasa, he would really be a degenerate if he did that!,-- it wasn't only blood that would be on his hands and arms after dealing with poor Kate!!!
Rick |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 08:46 am | |
The dark clothes theory is very plausible. It is what led me to state in the profile that he possessed a dark full length over coat and gloves.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 11:56 am | |
Im not sure that the 'butcher's apron' scenario is the best theory, either, but how long could it possibly take to slip on and off a coat? 3 or 4 seconds?
Regards,
Mike |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 04:01 pm | |
Hi All,
Ahhh, but where is he putting the coat when he takes it off? Did Scottland Yard suddenly decide to put up a few coat racks on the street so Jack wouldn't have to worry about getting any blood on it?
Also one must think that Jack would have to get down on his knees to mutilate his victims. Most of the nights in question it had rained. So Jack would get mud or dirt on the lower half of the coat.(Police may have suspected something seeing a guy who's jacket was soiled on the bottom? Then again they may not?) So maybe he's not wearing an overcoat but rather just a regular coat, possibly a little small for him so the sleeves wouldn't get blood on them? Wouldn't be much different than the dress of the common East-Ender, since their clothing usually wasn't a 'tailored-fit'.
Adios,
Chris H. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 04:28 pm | |
A coat tossed slightly to the side of his 'work' would do the trick. Of course the other point is, once he put his coat back on, the inside would be completely imbrued, and getting a coat cleaned wherein just the inside was a mess would undoubtedly raise suspicion (unless he kept a coat or smock specifically for his killings which he cleaned himself).
Taking Scott M.'s forensic observations into account about the amount of gore JTR was likely to get on him, a small jacket with short sleeves still wouldn't obviate the problem. If Scott is right, one way or another, JTR has got to deal with being blood-covered.
Best regards,
Mike |
Author: Vila
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 08:17 pm | |
Hiya,
Just my two cents worth, but a reversable coat seems in order. Though I really can't see him taking the time to turn it inside out and then get his other clothing blood soaked.
If it were me, throw the coat aside once she was strangled, then pull on big rubber gloves. (Though I suppose leather ones would do almost as well. As long as they went way up my arms.) An apron of some sort would be useful too. Clean up would be easier-- just take the stuff off and roll it up. I assume a coat with a game pouch or big pockets rather than one that reverses is now my best option.
Ain't logic fun?
Vila |
Author: Michael R. Rawson
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 08:35 pm | |
In my opinion the clean up would be as simple as getting to a pump and washing up enough to get home. I dont think a man who just violently murdered a womman in a relatively open area, is going to be concerned about taking a few moments to wash away the tell tale evidence. I also dont think he would of had to wash up to much if he wore dark clothes and stayed in the shadows. Wasnt a water pump located just outside MJKs room?
Randy |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 08:47 pm | |
| Didn't someone describe a suspect, with the appearance of a sailor, washing up at a public pump shortly after one of the murders? |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 11:03 am | |
Maybe this thread needs to be subdivided into cleanup -- hands, and cleanup -- clothing. It does seem to present two different issues.
We know that he at least attempted some kind of cleanup with Eddowes because of the apron. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 11:09 am | |
Hi All,
According to all the inquest testimony, the doctors believed Jack would probably have NO blood on his clothing. Basically just on his hands from placing them inside the victims as he pulled out their organs.(After all look at surgeons' smocks after they perform an extensive surgery, there is very little blood there, and we have to recognize that the doctor is working on someone who's blood is still pumping and spritzing about from the pressure of the heart.)
Also, if Jack does toss his jacket to the side before carving up the victim, he STILL has to pick it up afterwards, so he would smear the blood from his hands on the jacket. So this of course would be useless.
Bloodstains(not to mention fecal matter) are VERY difficult to get off of leather if it has the chance to dry. Also, I'm not entirely sure that one would be able to attain rubber gloves very easily.(I know it was a rarity for people to have rubber on the soles of their shoes at the time.) Besides, why would Jack need the gloves? Fingerprinting was NON-existant. Plus he is reaching about into a body in the relative dark, so gloves would hamper his sense of touch, thus slowing him down. Then afterwards he has to dispose of the gloves as well, which makes it easier for him to be found out, instead of easier for him to get away.
Regards,
Chris H. |
