|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Conviction of the Ripper
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Conviction of the Ripper
Author: Blue Violet
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 05:48 pm |        | What sort of evidence would have been necessary to secure a conviction of the Ripper?
Unless a suspect had been caught red handed or had some of the victim's possessions or parts of their bodies in his possession, I think it would be almost impossible to prove the identity of the killer even if the police had exceedingly strong suspicions about someone. If I remember correctly only Schwartz & Hutchinson claimed to be able to identify the man each saw respectively, but if either had failed to identify a suspect what other evidence could the police use to make an arrest? |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:05 am | | Blue,
You make a valid point. Indeed, Donald Rumbelow has long proclaimed that the only way this killer would have been captured was if caught in the act - due to the lack of technology of the time.
I am not certain that would be the case. I think a more frightening scenario could have happened. Had not murders occurred while certain suspects were in custody, I think a totally innocent person might have been found guilty of these charges.
With the fear and fervor of the time, and as we have seen in history, frequently innocents are caught up in the quest for justice.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:18 pm | | Blue,
Well, it's likely that someone could have been arrested on witness testimony, although I have serious doubts that doing so based upon what Schwartz and Hutchinson reported would have caught the killer. I personally don't think the person Schwartz saw was Jack the Ripper, and I think Hutchinson was making up most if not all of his amazingly detailed description for one reason or another.
If the killer had been questioned by police he might have messed up and been caught in his lies. From there he could have eventually confessed, or perhaps more witnesses could have been found that had seen him at or near the crime scenes but never thought anything of it earlier.
It's also conceivable that police could have discovered incriminating evidence in a suspect's possession, not just an organ but also possibly the key to MJK's room (if indeed a key had been taken), a bloody knife, and perhaps other items.
The officials were certainly motivated to find the killer, so it's likely they could have made accusations stick that today would consider less than legally adequate. And, as Rich says, it's all too likely they could have convicted an innocent person in the process. After all, even today people who should know better are ready to convict their favorite suspects based upon the flimsiest of evidence.
Dan |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 08:26 am | | During the Victorian period- this includes all countries- most people were convicted on the testimony of witnesses, especially that of eye witnesses. As one can imagine, this is incredibly flimsy evidence, and as stated by some of you, led to the conviction and sometimes execution of the wrong person.
If a witness could not be found then all law enforcement could do was hope to catch the perpatrator in the act.
One good thing to come out of the Whitechapel murders was modern police procedures like
pro-active patroling, the early stages of fingerprinting and criminal identification and to some extent the begining of psychological and crime scene profiling.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 09:49 am | | I suspect that if the police had firm grounds for believing someone to be the killer, that fairly intense 'psychological pressure' might have been brought to bear on them with the aim of extracting a confession. In fact, it's noteworthy that this seems not to have occurred, and that those people who did confess (as people always do with high profile crimes such as these) seem to have had their alibis thoroughly checked and then (generally) seem to have been committed to mental institutions where deemed necessary.
I'm not suggesting by any means that 'the coppers would have fitted someone up', but it's certainly interesting to compare the Whitechapel murders with, say, the Guildford Four case, where similarly enormous pressure was put on the police to find the culprit(s).
Regards
Timsta |
|
|
|
|
