|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Tim Garner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | 
|
Hello everyone,
Im currently doing my GCSE's and my teacher posed us a question to answer,
'do you think the police were to blame for not capturing Jack the Ripper?'
Now you all seem extremely knowledgable, and ive been told i need to gather outside kowledge as well as using information provided. I thought the best place to come would be here and here some decent arguements from you lot,
Thanks in Advance,
Tim |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 2:20 pm: |
|
hi Tim,
i remember doing my GCSE's but i was never asked this question, it might even have been interested in it!
i will now recomend some books you might find at your library,
hold that thought,
my opinion, i do not think the police were nec to blame, one thing is that it was not a usual case esp relatively new media. i would add it involved two police forces which cannot have helped, however i do think that there are instances, such as the removal without the photographing of the grafito.
i will try and remember those books, my mind has gone blank
jp
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 2:32 pm: |
|
yes books
i remeber,
the one i was thinking of was sugden the complete JTR. you could try others. don't forget to look on the links on casebook.
good luck with your studies!
jp |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 453
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Hi Tim
If you click on "Dissertations", there's an essay by Brian Schoeneman you might find helpful.
And don't forget that some Ripperologists believe that the police actually did capture Jack the Ripper!
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 190
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Tim,
I also suggest you try Brians essay.
Monty
 |
Tim Garner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 10:44 am: |
|
Thanks all for your input, im still working on this!
Thanks Robert, i was wondering if you have any links to pages that detail these assumptions? (That the police did capture JtR) Adding something about this may get me a few extra credit marks
Thanks again
Tim |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 654
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Hi Tim
Well, there's "Jack the Myth" by AP Wolf (the book can be read on this site - just put "Jack the Myth" into the search engine here).
Material on Martin Fido's David Cohen theory can be found in the Dissertations section, but it would be a very good idea to read his book "The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper".
Good luck with your project!
Robert |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Tim,
I hope you find my dissertation useful.
The police take a lot of crap for not finding the Ripper, but like I said - they were burdened with a new kind of crime (motiveless, at least from their perspective), a complete lack of any modern forensic techniques (save plaster of paris and photography), and their inability to recognize early on the significance of the crimes.
I really don't think that there was anything, save the dogs and more cooperation with the media, that would have given them a better shot at the case.
B |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 3:00 am: |
|
Hi Brian,
One thing the police are certainly guilty of , is allowing a woman of prostitute appearence to leave the cells and venture out alone at 1am in the morning, at the height of the murders, I accept that they would not at that time heard of the Stride murder, but Nichols and Chapman were very much in there minds.
The fact that police policy to release drunken people of harmless character, during the night, rather then have them pay a fine the following morning was thoughtful, but on this occasion was to result in tragic circumstances.
I am surprised the press did not have a field day, when this fact emerged.
Having said the above, it remains a possibility as I have said in the past , that Eddowes may well have been followed, pure speculation, but the nightwatchman in orange place was approached by a man who asked' Have you seen a man and woman pass this way?. could he have been an out of uniform police officer, who bungled his following attempt.
There could have been two Double events that night
1] the murders of stride and eddowes.
2] the release of eddowes at 1am. followed by a blunder by a officer,
No wonder the press were kept in the dark after these murders, tight lipped indeed.
Regards Richard. |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 105
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 6:48 am: |
|
Hello Tim,
I hope I'm not to late to add my Australian six cents worth.
I think that when Sir Robert Anderson was Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard, he underestimated the impact of the Ripper murders.
You should be aware some imitaters and one-off murderers committed crimes around that time in a looser geographical area, hence press reference to the "East End murders" or " the Whitechapel murders" as opposed to the five Ripper murders.
I believe, Anderson's strict religious attitudes led him to regard the slaughter of gin-sodden middle-aged prostitutes in the dockland slums as little more than Biblical retribution.At least, early on.He could not be seen encouraging vice.
So he may have been slow to recommend the full allocation of sufficient resources. Also, he was absent much of the time, overseas, convalescing.
When it became clear the series of murders were
like some kind of political campaign, unleashing fear in more respectable electorates; the Home Secretary urged Anderson to become more pro-active.
Perhaps I am being too unkind on poor old Anderson, but I believe it was a mind-set on his part rather than any general police bigotry which impeded more satisfactory early progress. |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 8:29 am: |
|
Hi there Tim,
Like John Ruffels, I hope I'm not too late either to be of any assistance, but here's what I have to offer.
Of course, the police force did make mistakes, like not having the Goulston Street graffito photographed, and maybe not having considered George Hutchinson as a suspect, but important detective tools weren't at hand yet or were in it's infancy, like forensics, finger printing etc. and another thing is that they didn't have any experience with the type of killer Jack the Ripper was.
I quote from John J. Eddleston's "Jack the Ripper An Encyclopaedia":
"Who was Jack the Ripper, and why wasn't he captured? Let us consider the second question first.
I do not believe, like some of my contemporaries, that the police of the day were incompetent. There may well have been some officers who did not perform their duties as well as they should have, but on the whole, the detective force and the constables on the beat did their very best. The reason they did not capture Jack was that they were looking for the wrong type of man.
These crimes were something new. The were not committed as a result of robbery or rape, so the police did not understand them. The idea of someone killing for nothing more than the pleasure of the deed was previously unheard of, and when the police realized that this was indeed the case, they looked for a slavering maniac whose mind was diseased and whose emotions were out of control. The murders were inhuman, so the killer had to be inhuman too. He had to be mad or foreign, or preferably both.
I contend that although extra constables were drafted and at times the streets must have been crawling with officers, they were all looking for someone who stood out in the crowd, someone whose behaviour was suspicious or erratic, whereas Jack simply didn't behave like that. The police probably also believed that the murderer would be reeking with blood, but the method Jack usually employed was to kneel to cut the throat of his victim while she was lying on the ground and to cut in a direction away from himself. Thus, in most cases he would have escaped almost unmarked. True, he would have had blood on his hands - but how easy to thrust one's hands into one's pockets.
In summary, the police failed to catch Jack the Ripper because they did not recognize the man they were looking for. I draw parallels with the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper, in which Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed nine times before a chance encounter led to his arrest. The police believed that the Yorkshire Ripper had a Geordie accent; Sutcliffe didn't have a Geordie accent; ergo, Sutcliffe wasn't the killer. Exactly the same kind of thinking may be seen in London in 1888."
Again, I hope I'm not too late, but otherwise you can consider this a piece of easy and free information.
All the best,
Frank
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 9:51 pm: |
|
John,
I don't believe that Anderson's strict religious beliefs were the problem here. The problem was simply that Anderson was not a police officer. He had absolutely no experience for the position that he was in. I know that I'm stomping on Paul and Martin's toes to a certain extent here, but I believe, and have always believed that Anderson's role in the case has been overblown.
First, the man wasn't a detective. I gave him too much credit in my dissertation. He was a spy handler and a bureaucrat. And he wasn't very good at either of them. He completely failed to recognize the significance of the Nichol's murder - a significance that wasn't lost on the press, who were already claiming that Nichol's was the Whitechapel murderer's third victim. I cannot forgive him for leaving the country in the midst of a crisis that he was responsible for working on. Imagine the FBI Director leaving the country for a month's long vacation after 9/11. And Anderson wouldn't have even returned had he not been begged to.
Anderson was in a position to know some things for the last three canonical murders, but he missed the first two, and an argument can be made that having only been on the job for less than one month and with no practical detective experience, he was next to useless during the rest of the investigation. Thank God Warren appointed Swanson to handle the on-the-ground portion of the investigation, or who knows what wouldn't have been done.
So don't give Anderson credit for the police failing to catch the Ripper - it's not his fault. Then again, I don't give him credit for much at all, really.
B |
selina
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 11:06 am: |
|
Hey Tim
I am also doing this question and I was led here for help! I have an extension on this question but it has to be hardest of all, I have read through the information given to you and thank the people who posted useful information on here.
Selina |
bob flob
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 1:09 pm: |
|
hi, i just wanted to agree with selina, im doing that coursework now, and have found the points mentioned on here very helpful. i would never have known most of them without reading this, as they are not mentioned in my information booklet.
thanks. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 6:32 am: |
|
G'day,
If I had to write an essay on this topic, I'd look at the lack of forensic technology, the lack of fingerprint analysis (they only just found out that no two people had the same prints), the fact that they lacked knowledge of the behaviour of serial, (apparent motiveless), murderers and the development of photography, (crime scenes).
To study forensics, (get exact dates of discoveries etc.), just type forensic / finger prints / criminal profiling and whatever into your search engine!
All the best,
LEANNE |
hannah wootton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:20 pm: |
|
im currently doing my course work on. OH MY GOD ITS SOOO BLOODY HARD!!!!!!! q$ from my own knowledge i know that they tried to capture jtr by methods of...... HELP
hannah |
Damson Futon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 10:35 am: |
|
Hope this helps hannah (I'm doin the same c/w now)
they tried to catch jtr by using sniffer dogs (although this wasn't helpful) increasing police patrol in the area, and used 'rewards' to appeal to the public to come forward (although some say this did more harm than good)and they even got police to dress up as women to trick jtr - this also failed.
good luck too
Damson |
Damson Futon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 10:40 am: |
|
hope this helps hannah
they tried to catch him by using sniffer dogs -that didnt work, increasing police patrol in the area, used rewards to appeal to the public (which some say did more harm than good)and they even got police to dress up as women to trick jtr! - this also failed.
good luck too
Damson |
Kelle Warr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Heya. Im just adding the final perfections (haha) to my GCSE essay, and one point my teacher said i should talk about is how the two police forces complicated matters.. How exactly, im kinda confused... Help would be most appreciated..Kellie x |
nics
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Hiya, there was the met and the city police. They didn't share info so they couldn't help eachother. Only one of the murders was in the city, but the others were on the met's teritory.
I'm doing this coursework 2 at the moment! thanks for all your help people! u r lifesavers!!
 |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 6:01 am: |
|
Nics,
Hiya,
Yes, there was the Met and the city police . They DID share info. Infact they liased regularly.
The myth that the twain never met lives on I see.
Monty
Prince Charming, Prince Charming,
Ridicule is nothing to be scared of
|
daisy chain
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 6:12 am: |
|
HI, I too am doing this coursework, and am on the final question which tim stated at the top of the page. I would just like to say, thank you for the information you have allprovided it will be very helpful when i come to write my awnser.
thanks again for your help and to tim for asking the question.
ally |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 609
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 12:40 am: |
|
Daisy,
Glad you found our site helpful. Remember to consult major authors and, if possible, primary sources. Do I sound like your prof???
Andy S. |
sam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
im also doin this cw and i got quite a few reasons for why the police were NOT 2 blame, however i cannot think of a lot of reasons why the police were to blame....help!!!!! |
Dolphin21
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
Need major help as I am doing coursework as well.. Like Sam I seem to have few reasons why the police were to blame...and I am rapidly filling up my word limit, if someone could point out the specific most important details I would be in MAJOR debt to them.... |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 326
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
Are you saying that you have "blamed" the police, and are now looking for supporting evidence? that seems rather a biased approach.
What is blame, anyway?
The state of forensic science, the novelty of a serial killing of this sexual type, even (at least according to Sir Robert Anderson) the restrictions imposed by English law, all militated against apprehending the killer.
Were the police to "blame" that modern techniques, such as finger-printing, or DNA profiling etc were in their infancy in 1888 or not yet invented? I would argue that in using blood-hounds, in a major house-to-house search of the area, and in other ways including the first crime scene photographs (don't quote me on that), The Met were actually being very innovative.
A senior police official of the C20th said in a TV documentary that really, unless Jack had been caught red-handed with a body, or found with a knife on him, or had dropped his wallet at the scene, it would in 1888, have been extraordinarily difficult to catch the killer and prove his guilt.
Maybe one of the reason why you have little supporting evidence of why the police were to "blame", is that they were not.
This probably won't be very helpful to you, sorry.
By the way, if he did say "how the two police forces complicated matters.. " he should be ashamed of himself, as he clearly does not know his facts, and seems to be pushing you towards conclusions that suit him. Highly unprofessional, IMHO.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 610
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
As it sounds like coursework, it's probably the old debate format: find points to argue for/against the statement that the police were to blame for the continuation of the Ripper killings, or something along those lines. In a situation like that you don't really need to believe in all arguments, just be able to come up with some. It's actually not a bad way to let students know that there aren't always clear cut answers on things.
If you need arguments for why someone could blame the police (without decided of course whether they are all completely valid complaints or not), here are a few:
Poor police/community relations: One of the most important things in trying to track down a bad guy, get evidence and tips, and so forth is to foster a good working relationship between the residents and the officials. If you don't, people who might know something important can be afraid of going to the police. Not even a full year before the murders, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Charles Warren ordered (under command of higher ups, granted) the attack and dispersal of thousands of protesters (a large percentage of which probably lived in the East End here the murders later took place) on what became known as Bloody Sunday. Thanks to this and other incidents, many newspapers and citizens were openly hostile to the police and more interested in trying to make them look bad than helping them out.
Wasted time investigating dead ends: On the one hand, officials at the time did not know as much about serial killers as we do now, but on the other hand sexual serial killers, contrary to what many people will till you, were an entirely new phenomena either. Regardless of the level of their expertise in this area, there were several steps they did that just do not make sense by the logic of the day or now. One of the best examples of this is that they investigated the cowboys and Indians in a popular touring Wild West show to see if they had anything to do with the murders. Yeah, pretty crazy.
A force fighting against it itself: Higher officials spent a lot of time during the murders locked in power battles. Charles Warren eventually resigned over it. It's hard to do your job when you have to worry about infighting.
And for a grab bag of others, how about Anderson being on vacation during the murders; the police releasing some letters claiming to be from the killer to the press so that they were swamped with hundreds if not thousands more hoax letters, which wasted a lot of time just sorting through it all; allowing details of the methods of the murders to be discussed at the inquests (and thus reported in the press) so that they couldn't tell if someone writing a letter or making a confession and giving details was really the killer or not because everybody knew exactly what he did (except with the Mary Jane Kelly murder) and also potentially inspiring copycat killers (murders increased around the country at the time, many of them suddenly involving massive mutilations; and so forth and so on...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 329
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 2:06 am: |
|
You are very charitable Dan. I just think it encourages the students to be prejudiced and sloppy.
Phil |
Bethan Collins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Hey,
This is an extract of a piece of Jack the Ripper coursework i have just finished on Why did the whitechapel murders attract so much attention in 1888, not the same question but i think u'll find it helpful.
TO ANY ONE READING THIS - DO NOT COPY!!!!!!!!!!!!
U CAN USE IDEAS BUT DO NOT COPY!!!!!!!! THANKYOU!!!
In 1888 the police forces in London were still in their infancy, had not set up good working relationships between themselves and had not much clue about how to deal with minor crimes let alone a serial killer on the loose. Police work was mostly concerned with the prevention of crime using officers on the beat - but even very regular patrols could not stop a determined criminal.
One of the main problems was that the city and metropolitan police did not work together. If they had combined their efforts they might have had a chance of catching jack the ripper.
An example of not working 2gether was shown near the Kate Eddowes murder. There was some writing on the wall saying that " the Juwes are the man that will not be blamed for nothing" - could have been the evidence they neede to catch the ripper by comparing handwriting - if the words were a genuine clue. It couldn't b photographed because the commisioner of the metropolitan police, sir charles warren, ordered them to be obliterated.
{See above in other posts about kate eddowes not dying if she had been on met force, arrested by city police etc etc}
Another stupid thing the polic did to try and catch the ripper was to jog the memories of the public by publishing the dear boss letter - caused more panic about the murders. The ineptitude of the police was shown when one of the murders took place in mitre square - right in front of a police mans house!
The police chose to ignore many statements given to them by witnesses - perhaps if they had chosen to listen to them instead of arresting any odd looking characters theywould have had an increased chance of catchng the ripper. Inspector Abberline took the descriptions given to him by William Hutchinson following mary kellys murder very seriously and had it circulated to all police stations 'helping' to catch the murderer. In fact it is almost too good a description, particularly the later information handed to him . Many people thought he might have been trying to avoid any suspicions to be turned on him. However the police didn't investigate this at all.
A further stupid act the police did during 1888 was to send out sniffer dogs to search for jack the ripper. They got lost resulting in the police having to put up reward posters for thei return - they never came back.
*
*
*
*
I hope this helps!!!
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 367
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 2:14 am: |
|
Well, Bethan, your essay certainly patronises the Victorian policeforce. Shame they didn't have you there in 1888 to assist with all the knowledge you have now!!
Just joking - but 20/20 hinsight is a wonderful thing. Are those who run Casebook to blame if what it offers and the way it does it are not up to the standards that WILL be prevalent in 100 plus years time?
You criticise them for apparent lack of imagination, then also criticise them for using dogs which was highly innovative. Isn't that inconsistent? the experiment didn't work, but you seem to blame the police for trying "new technology".
Then we have what you say about the "letters":
Another stupid thing the polic did to try and catch the ripper was to jog the memories of the public by publishing the dear boss letter...
Why was that stupid? (Actually why do you need to use such words, rather than letting your points speak for themselves?) Are you saying that if release might have helped jog memories of identified a suspect, the letter should not have been publicised?
...caused more panic about the murders.
Did it cause panic, really? Wasn't it worth the risk? On what grounds would you have made the deciion, knowing what the police new then, not with hindsight (which seems to infect all your judgements).
I would link with this the graffito problem. If warren had not ordered its removal and ant0semitic rioting had broken out, would he not now be rightly criticised for exactly the opposite reason. You have to see Warren's decision in context and without hindsight.
The police chose to ignore many statements given to them by witnesses...
Can you be precise about which? Without citations the argument is useless. Surely any policeforce, even today, has to decide which statements or leads have potential substance, and which may be misleading, wilfully so perhaps?
...perhaps if they had chosen to listen to them instead of arresting any odd looking characters theywould have had an increased chance of catchng the ripper.
Which should they have listened to? It seems to me that Abberline, from what we know, went to huge lengths to follow up leads and to check things out. Again, precision would help us to understand your point.
Inspector Abberline took the descriptions given to him by William Hutchinson following mary kellys murder very seriously and had it circulated to all police stations 'helping' to catch the murderer.
Isn't this inconsistent with the point you just made - Abberline WAS in this case doing precisely what you advise should have been done!!
In fact it is almost too good a description, particularly the later information handed to him .
Was this a contemporary view? I think you'll find it is a more recent interpretation. Writers even 20 years ago, as I recall, took Hutchinson quite seriously, merely questioning why he wasn't called at the inquest.
Many people thought he might have been trying to avoid any suspicions to be turned on him.
Who is the "he" here, Abberline or Hutchinson? Who were the "many people" in either case? I don't think that was in 1888.
However the police didn't investigate this at all.
We don't know that as the records are incomplete. At least an "apparently" in their might have done some good.
Sorry to be so negative, but I don't find this well-argued or accurate. It has all the hallmarks as I feared in an earlier post of seeking to justify a position adopted ahead of the evidence.
Oddly, you miss two of the key issues that might support your case, (a)the question of whether a reward should have been offered earlier and the reasons for not doing so; and (b) the question of relations between press and police which led to little accurate information getting to the public and much speculation and inaccuracy in reporting. But there is a case for the met having taken the line they did too.
Finally, why is in "inept" for the Mitre Square murder to have taken place adjacent to a policeman's house? What does that imply - that the policeman should have been watching 24/7? It might be more pertinent to say that the square was regularly patrolled, but that there are doubts about whether the policeman was doing his job that night.
Believe me Bethan, when I say I am not getting at you, but the inaccuracies in your essay had to be corrected rather than to be left standing to potentially mislead others. perhaps my critique may even be helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 433
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
Bumped to link with another current thread on a similar subject.
Phil |
Gooch
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Hey
Does anyone have any knowledge that isn't well...ususally found in the books? I have gotten everything from them but still need 'own knowledge' any info would be appreciated, GSCE's suck!!
Thanking you in advance  |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Hi Gooch,
This site is full of information that you will not find in any of the books,so have a look around and I am sure you will find something, and if you have any specific questions there is usually someone here who can point you in the right direction.
Good luck with your exams,
Rgds
John |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 459
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Bethan...
The police weren't dealing with just any killer. They went to extremes to try and apprehend him. In other nations in the 19th Century,the police and powers-that-be wouldn't have taken some of the measures the British police did. Almost everyone who has an opinion on the graffiti,pro or con,agrees that it should have been removed after being photographed.
I don't know if you are from the USA [as I am] or not, but there have been crimes committed with 5 times more victims than there were in this series of murders here in the USA and only after it reached a certain person,a certain class,or someone exposed it from the inside,did John Q. Public even hear about it.
A real quick example is the serial killer at work in Philadelphia....right now. He's up to 5,maybe 6, and little has been said or done about the case,either in the press, with no comments from the cops. Same number of victims [ if you consider the generally accepted view that 5 were killed by the same person]..117 years later.
HowBrown
|
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Why, oh why is JtR suddenly UK exam fodder?? it seems highly unsuitable to me.
I know the answer - it's attractive to kids because of the macabre element; it's cool; and it allows research and gives insights into social history etc.
I still don't think those are good enough reasons.
Phil |
Hollie246
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi
doing GSCE cw here and i was wondering when robert said that some ripperologists think jtr was caught who did they mean?
thanks
Hollie |
Matthew Sumpter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
hey guys, ive just finished my history coursework on Jack the Ripper and am here to vent some rage. The AQA exam board, or is it the OCR, anyway, have placed word limits on the essays, and will penalise if you go more than ten percent over. they seem to assume that i can fully explain why the murders attracted so much attention in just 450 words, and why the police were unable to catch them in only 600 words. i mean come on, this entry is about 200 words. urgh!!! Anyway, i feel better now. lets just hope i get full marks.
matt |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5098
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Hollie, perhaps I should rather have said "found by accident." Such might include David Cohen (lunatic incarcerated at the end of 88), Aaron Kosminski (lunatic incarcerated 1891) and Thomas Cutbush (lunatic incarcerated 1891).
Matthew, it could be worse - they could have made you write it in chalk on a wall in the dark.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4087
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
I think this question about the ability of the police is difficult to get one answer to.
Dan has already pointed out most of the important things to consider but let me just add that:
In their favour: they were dealing with a type of crime (motiveless, serial murder) they were quite inexperienced in and were not well equiped for. Crime scene investigation methods were in its infancy and as Phil says, you practically needed to catch the guy red handed in order to get evidence against him.
Then we have the very unfair treatment they received from the press and the pressure they were under from the media, the authorities and the general public, a pressure that sometimes can lead to unpleasant results and influence the investigation in a bad way.
The police worked hard with door to door searches (a rather insufficient method in these types of murders but the only way they knew) and they brought in hundreds of suspects; the workload must have been terrible and they clearly had all their odds against them.
But they weren't blameless, as far as I am concerned. It is a total misconception that much material is missing. It is not. All the official files and reports to the Home Office are virtually complete; what is missing is the officer's personal note books and the original witness statements. (I personally am not that impressed by Abberline as some tend to be.)
However, all of importance that was conducted during the investigation, is displayed in the official reports and from those it is suggestive that they did several serious mistakes and missed the boat on a couple of occasions, especially in connections with how the witness statements were taken. A lot of normal police procedures seems to have been overlooked or sloppily done. But again, even on this point, their approach didn't differ that much from other police forces in other parts of the world at the time.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
