| Author |
Message |
    
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 12:48 pm: | 
|
I have read numerous discussions regarding the handicaps under which the police operated. I am also aware that they bungled some of the things they did. But was there anything that they could have done which they failed to do?
If we assign them an overall grade from A to F what would it be?
c.d. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Hi C.D,
A very good point but also very hard to grade.
My main suggestion is once it became apparent ie after the Chapman killing that a murderous lunatic was rampant, they should have made it unlawful that no lodging house master should ever allow a regular female habitant if unable to pay her nights payment refusal, also a curfew should have been enforced that no female should be out on the streets after a certain hour.
It also should have been a strict ruling that no drunken female should be released out on the streets [ as in the case of Eddowes] until at least daylight .
I realize easier said then done but handbills and visiting lodging houses to emphizise that point would have been credible.
I also feel that interogation of witnesses was very primitive proberly understandable at that period.
But for eg,
In the case of George hutchinsons statement questions of Kellys attire at his sighting should have been asked,in order to confirm that the person he claimed to have seen was the murdered woman, also Maurice Lewis after making his statements to the press regarding his sightings should have been traced and a statement taken, and in the case of Eddowes the nightwatchman Bleinkensop should have been called at the inquest but never was.
Hard task you set us C.D, but it is basic procedures that could have been carried out that appear not to have been which irritates me.
Regards Richard. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 490
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Good intentions, Richard, but unenforceable even today and certainly back then.
I agree though that the witnesses could have been questioned more carefully.
If I could choose one thing that should have and could have been done better it would be documenting the crime scenes. Photos of all the victims in situ . To give them their due,though, those photos probably would be more help to us than to them.
Given what they knew and what they had to work with, I'd say they deserve a solid "B" .
Mags
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 52
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
The prostitutes themselves were probably the best source of information. I think I would have paid a few of them to be informants. Have them go around to pubs and talk to their "sisters" and report back any rumors or suspicions. I am sure this would have had to have been handled very discreetly on the part of the police.
I am withholding a final grade for the moment till I get some more feedback but I am thinking maybe a B-.
c.d |
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
No poster is qualified to "grade" police performance during the Ripper scare, let alone hold an opinion. If Stewart Evans is reading this thread, he's probably blowing a few gaskets. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Hi Scott,
It goes without saying that the police in 1888 did the very best they could in extremely difficult circumstances, i agree one can not grade their performances, but i disagree with you in the attitude that we have not the experience to at the very least hold a 'Opinion'
We are now living in a vastly different era then L.V.P and police abilities were lacking procedures that are in evidence today.
But no right to hold a opinion steady now Scott.
Regards Richard. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 804
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Scott,
By definition one does not need qualifications to hold an opinion. That said, I have often tried (without any luck so far) to turn the question around and have people come up with examples of modern police procedures that have quickly solved serial killings.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 71
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 10:11 pm: |
|
I am also aware that they bungled some of the things they did Apart from the graffiti what did they 'bungle' exactly?
My main suggestion is once it became apparent ie after the Chapman killing that a murderous lunatic was rampant, they should have made it unlawful that no lodging house master should ever allow a regular female habitant if unable to pay her nights payment refusal, also a curfew should have been enforced that no female should be out on the streets after a certain hour.
Policemen do not make laws.
That said, I have often tried (without any luck so far) to turn the question around and have people come up with examples of modern police procedures that have quickly solved serial killings.
There is not one Don. Most serial killers make mistakes and that is how they are caught.Besides walking around a corner and catching him in the act, it is difficult to see what more the police of the time could have done.
As you so correctly state,even modern police forces struggle to stop motiveless murders because as any self respecting officer will tell you,most crimes are solved by grasses and hard graft.The serial killer,as we all know,is more often than not a loner with no reason to do the things he/she does other than the ones inside his/her own head.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 527
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Hi all,
One thing, perhaps, they could have done better was to put out some actual female decoys with backup at close hand. This, however, would have required a change in policy (and attitude) since they had no police women to put on the street. This might have upped their odds unless Jack was only targeting women who he'd "seen around". In that case it would have made no difference. As a rule, I think they did a pretty good job and I put their conclusions about the murders at the top of my "most likely" list. Considering that they were dealing with, to them, a new type of killer, their insights were actually quite remarkable.
Stan |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 54
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 10:44 pm: |
|
Steve,
I am also aware that they bungled some of the things they did.
When I wrote that statement, I was merely echoing what a number of other people on the boards had stated. As for myself, I can think of the following:
1. They assumed that Jack was responsible for the double event and therefore failed to adequately investigate Michael Kidney in connection with Liz Stride's death.
2. They let an inordinate amount of time pass before they entered Mary Kelly's room.
3. They let Tumblety escape to America.
Those are some things I can think of off the top of my head. Don't get me wrong. I do think that the police did a very good job overall given the constraints under which they operated. But yes, they were human and did make some mistakes.
c.d. |
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 75
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 1:07 am: |
|
Hello again C.D 
1. They assumed that Jack was responsible for the double event and therefore failed to adequately investigate Michael Kidney in connection with Liz Stride's death.
Personally I do not think they assumed anything, I think the medical evidence & the attack point towards Stride being a Ripper victim. Also,just because no written statement exists from interviews with Kidney does not mean he was not interviewed at all.
2. They let an inordinate amount of time pass before they entered Mary Kelly's room.
I'm not really sure this was a mistake,at the end of the day I cant really see it made a difference one way or another given the Police Surgeons method for establishing time of death.
3. They let Tumblety escape to America.
Did they? And for what were they supposed to hold him under arrest? He had already been bailed to appear on charges totally unrelated to the Whitechapel murders & indecency hardly warrants a watch on all the ports does it?
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 203
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 4:02 am: |
|
The biggest mistake was by Aberline.He should have checked the elements of Hutchinson's statement before advising superiors of his belief that it was true.
If ever a policeman made a presumption that was unwarranted at the time,it was Aberline.It wouldn't happen today. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 29
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Absolutely, Harry.
Abberline would have been prudent, for example, to inquire of Hutchinson how precisely he was able to discern the bushiness of a man's eyebrows, the colour of his boot-buttons, and "American cloth" on a drisly November night under a gas lamp.
It would have been equally prudent if Abberline had gone to pains to ascertain the identity of the policeman who, upon learning of Hutchinson's alleged sightings, "did not take the matter any further".
It is often said of Hutchinson that his JTR candidacy is weakened because the police did not consider him a viable suspect at the time. But I have to wonder; does this reflect more on Hutchinson or the police? |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1974
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 7:29 am: |
|
Harry, Ben,
How do you know that Hutchinsons statement was not scrutinised and checked by the Police?
That each ID detail was questioned, that each time and location checked and checked again.
Abberline himself clearly states that Hutchinson was 'interrogated'. This, to me, indicates a more thorough grilling than your usual witness statetement giver normally receives.
Regards,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3093
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 7:34 am: |
|
Hey everyone (i mean yo!)
we can't rate the police we don't know all the facts, the files are missing.
and anyway as someone said its totally unfair
""
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 30
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
"How do you know that Hutchinsons statement was not scrutinised and checked by the Police?"
We don't, but unfortunately, George Hutchinson's name cannot be satisfactorily cleared on such assumptions. Hutchinson's candidacy for Jack the Ripper is, in my opinion, unfairly negated for the same reason that Montague John Druitt's is unfairly bolstered. It is easy to "assume" that the police were thorough in their investigations into GH, just as it is easy to "assume" that MacNaughton's "private info" concerning Druitt was watertight.
In so reasoning, we fail to take into account that the police may be at fault - that THEY may have erred.
For my part, I'm disinclined to think that Abberline conducted any more sleuthing into Hutchinson that we already know. If we scrutinise Abberline's language for a moment; "I believe it to be true". Here we have nothing more than an opinion - a simple statement of belief, based no doubt upon Hutchinson's apparent picture of integrity.
If Abberline had said, "GH can only be telling the truth because..." I'd be less suspicious, but he didn't. He just "believed" Hutchinson without revealing any factors upon which his "belief" might be based.
(Message edited by BenH on November 04, 2005) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1977
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
Yes, very true. They may have erred. May being the crux word.
I think Abberlines belief in Hutchinsons statement is based on more than Georges integrity. I wouldn’t be surprised if Abberline had cross examined this statement with Cox’s statement and medical evidence.
That said, at the end of the day, and it’s a game of two halves Brian, I agree to a degree with your view that Abberline (or whoever) didn’t conduct any extra investigating into Hutchinson himself. However, I think there is more to his belief in Hutchinson than just accepting Georges integrity.
Cheers
Monty
It begins.....
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 56
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Steve,
You are right that the police had no legal right to hold Tumblety and that charges of indecency were no reason to watch all the ports. But we know that at least Littlechild considered him a serious Ripper suspect. I don't think that Littlechild was operating in a vacuum. We know that Scotland Yard cabled the New York police to request that they watch Tumblety. They also dispatched detectives to America. I don't think there concern was that he would now be committing indecent acts across the pond. Scotland Yard had a file on Tumblety. They knew or should have known that he had a history of jumping bail. The bottom line is that he should have been watched closely after being bailed. Either the police failed to do so or they did a very poor job of it. It was a major screw up and I don't see how it can be viewed in any other way. Just my opinion.
c.d |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Hi All
Jack the Ripper was a Serial Killer way ahead of the times. The Police didn't really look at all the clues he left behind. Most of the clues, they probably didn't know were clues. Out of the hundreds of letters that were sent to the newspapers and Police, I wonder how many were really written by the Ripper. And how many of them did he actually put the clues into. We found one that looks like he gave them the name of the city where he came from. But the way it is worded, you would never figure it out unless you had the knowledge about the way Serial Killers acted. Police didn't have the knowledge about the minds of these Serial Killers. Today, I'm sure he would have been caught quite easily.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 805
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Eddie,
Today, I'm sure he would have been caught quite easily.
Just the way Bundy, Dahmer, Sutcliffe, BTK et al. were easily caught, right?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 76
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
I dont suppose we've considered the possibility that Abberline may have known Hutchinson then?
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 49
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Hi Donald,
Yeah, you're right. I take that back. They didn't catch the Zodiak either and he left plenty of clues too.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 204
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 2:56 am: |
|
Monty,
Aberline forwarded his opinion of Hutchinson soon after the interview.Now would he have been able to check his movements of that day and night,interviewed any contacts Hutchinson had made,and of course checked what Robert has pointed out.Unlikely given the time and manpower.
Steve,
Knowing Hutchinson,and checking his story are two different things.He couldn't know the truth untill he checked. |
Rodney Gillis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 61
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Could Abberline have been thrown off track because Hutchinson comes forward with his information? Perhaps Abberline was only suspicious (if at all) of Hutchinson from a "15 minutes of fame" point of view instead of an actual suspect who was volunteering information because he was afraid that he had been spotted.
I think it is impossible to grade the police. This is a lot like comparing sports figures from different time periods. I for one believe that Jack was very intelligent and had a very good idea of his surroundings at all times. I don't believe Jack knew the victims (with the possible exception of Kelly) but he had the times and locations well planned in advance. Tough on any police force.
Rod
(Message edited by Srod on November 05, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Its hard to fault the police. The prostitutes were enablers for the Ripper....just like modern day prostitutes are for the modern s.k. |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
I agree with some of the above suggestions of what could have been done.One of the foremost things that comes to mind was,at least after Eddowes,the victims came from Flower and Dean rookery and Dorset St.,they should have had these streets watched as a basic procedure by plainclothes cops from 12:00 a.m.-6:00 a.m. or
even at all times.Although easier looking back,as is known the next victim again came from one of these streets. |
