|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Policemen... What did they know?
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Policemen... What did they know?
Author: Ashling
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 06:08 am |        | Hi Bob C, Jon, Mark and ....
Check out:
http://www.gendocs.demon.co.uk/police
"The CID began in 1844, when Sir James Graham, successor to Sir Robert Peel, gave a dozen police sergeants the right to work in plain clothes." In an earlier paragraph it mentions cops uniforms' included top hats! Ummmm, wonder what year they changed to the bell-shaped hats.
If JtR was a cop, there's no reason to assume he killed while on-duty. Even cops got off days. Some worked day shift & had every night off. The police increased the number of beat cops, private cops were hired, the vigilance committees paid men to patrol the streets after midnight ... An off-duty beat cop or a sergeant "patroling" the streets on his own wouldn't raise eyebrows - he might even be praised for acting "above & beyond the call of duty."
A high ranking officer would be noticed on the streets - but a beat cop or a sergeant stood a chance of being considered part of the scenery - and might not be mentioned by witnesses who saw the victim. And contrary to a popular scenario -- instead of the victim solicting JtR -- the cop could "bust" the prostitute & then "allow" her to talk him into releasing her, in exchange for a quickie in the alley. If JtR spotted witnesses or the cop walking that particular beat - he could send the prostitute on her way after a scolding, or take her on to jail. Either way, she'd never know how narrow her escape was (or reprieve - Jack might kill her the next night). Worth thinking about??
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 06:55 am | | Hi Ashling,
Valid points all, of course, but then Jack would be the ripper who happens to be P.C. Jack, not P.C. Jack using his powers to help him chop up Eddowes & Co. (P.C. Jack T. Ripper, oho!)
The same goes for a plain-clothed bobby. He would be Mr. Private Man doing the killings as such, and not as copper. Remember that an off-duty policeman or a plain-clothes man does not have an illuminated sign over him saying 'COPPER' with an arrow pointing at his head. He would be the same as anyone else in the street and would be just as liable to scrutiny. We cannot suppose that every policeman in London knew all others by sight.
The idea of Jack being a policeman came partly from the question 'Who could have the chance and still would not fall under suspicion?' Policemen were a nice answer, but as my last post submits, not as easy as one may suppose.
Of course your point about the bobby offering the girl to go free in exchange for sex were possible, but I don't know what he would have to charge her with, as long as she didn't solicit him, and in his position as policeman it would not only have been far under his standing, but damn dangerous to go with her.
Despite my views above, there is no definite evidence that Jack wasn't a Mr. Plod. Perhaps an interesting field to investigate further.
Best regards and nice Week-end
Bob |
Author: Rachel
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 09:02 am | | In relation to the above few posts, wasn't there a police officer in New Orleans in the last couple of years who was found to have been murdering prostiutes over quite a long period? I seem to remember that there was a fear that a serial killer was operating, yet when the cop was caught no-one believed it could be him (or didn't want to believe it?).
Regards
Rachel |
Author: Leonard
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 07:35 pm | | Just read an interesting quote:
Reference A-Z, page 171.
24th Oct.88 Warren's reply to Matthews' letter of 13 Oct. requesting details of investigation. Very numerous and searching enquiries have been made in all directions and with regard to all kinds of suggestions which have been made; they have had no tangible result.
Enclosed was a minute from Robert Anderson: "That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal is unusual, but that five sucessive murders should have been committed without our having the slighest clue is extraordinary, if not unique in the annals of crime".
Now then, after you have read that one, go back to page 19 Reference: Robert Anderson and we read;
ANDERSON,DR. {LATER Sir} Robert {1841-1918}
Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police CID; officer in charge of the Whitechapel Murder Investigation from 6 October 1888 until closure of the file in 1892. Stated several times in writing that the identity of the Ripper was known.
Hummmmmmmmm.
leonard |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 07:43 pm | | I for one am well aware of those two extracts.
Now, Leonard you are seeing the light !!!!!
Nice to experience the evolution of a Ripperologist :-)
Welcome to the club, Leonard....... |
Author: Leonard
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 12:15 am | | If you want to see a classic example of how well the police keep evidence a secret and "play with words" consider the grapes.
Page 146 A-Z: Miss Harstein and her sister saw a blood-caked grapestalk and some flowers petals at Strides murder scene.
Matthew Packer says he sold grapes to a man accompanying Stride.
Page 352 A-Z: Dr. Phillips aludes to fruit and grapes.
Page 149 A-Z: The Evening News featured these discoveries {the grape stem} very prominately, crowning over their success in finding a "clue" the police had missed, and compelling further questioning of Packer.
Now we read Page 335 A-Z: The police responded to the Evening News attack with an immediate statement that the greengrocer was unreliable and contradicted himself. They said there was no evidence that there were any grapes in Elizabeth Stride's hand.
Well I'll be darn. An old police tactic. Seen it employed so many times it seems like an old friend come back to visit.
Explanation: The police did not say that no grapes were found, only that they were not in Stride's hand which is probably true. A slight mis-direction to avoid the issue.
I believe that the grapes were found at the scene and the police wanted to avoid one more embarrassment. They did in fact re-interview Packer and realizied the importance of the grapes.
The statement given about the grapes by the police was not a lie ,as such, they just refused to tell the entire story.
Giving mis-leading information often is used to put private investigators off the track and out of the way of a police investigation which they consider is their territory.
Their statement denying the grapes was not a lie as it was given |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 03:27 pm | | Hi, Leonard:
You may be interested to know that in an upcoming issue of the magazine "Ripperologist," researcher Dave Yost will examine Packer's testimony and the significance, or lack thereof, of the grapestalk found at the Stride murder site.
Chris George |
Author: Leonard
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 05:03 pm | | TO Chris:
At the risk of making someone angry, which is not my intention, I keep hearing the term "Ripperology and Ripperlogist" used quite a lot but my I call attention to something that I read last night.
Reference: A-Z, page 374. Ripperology and Ripperlogist: Terms coined by Colin Wilson for expertise and experts on Jack the Ripper. Not favoured by the authors, as it has increasingly become associated with cranks and charlatans.
Now then, are the authors implying that they are the only experts with expertise and everyone else is some sort of blithering idiot, or does Wilson speak for himself or all authors. I think Mr. Wilson needs to define expertise as he understands it to be. I know I'm not an expert on the Ripper because I have no credentials to back up such a claim but I don't think he should imply that everyone but characterized as a crank or charlatan.
What do you think? |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 07:13 pm | | Hey Leonard:
You have actually got up to p. 374 of A to Z. Wow!!! Congratulations! :-) Actually, I do not mean that to be a slap at you. I congratulate you on your persistence in reading one of the seminal books in the field, compiled by three of the leading living experts, Begg, Skinner, and Fido. Incidentally, I do not think the terms "Ripperology" and "Ripperologist," artificial (and awkward) terms as they are, should denote an exclusive club. Welcome to the Problem, Leonard, in other words. The police in 1888 did not solve the Case and neither have 111 years of delvers into the Case---whether they term themselves Ripperologists, Ripperphiles, or men from Mars! This is an open field, Leonard, and we welcome your input and other newcomers as much as anybody else's, the nasty recent posts from a well-named but boneheaded individual of the name of "Crappy" notwithstanding. On with the hunt!
Chris |
Author: Dave Yost
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 11:53 pm | | Hi Leonard & Chris,
I'd like to jump in here, if I may.
(I will be doing this mostly from memory so please indulge me). I'm not sure what edition of A-Z to which you refer, Leonard, as some of the page numbers don't correspond to the text you cite with respect to 2nd or 3rd edition, so I can only assume you're using the 1st edition. (I'll be using the 2nd ed, as the my copy of the 3rd ed is mostly a keepsake item, and rarely opened). Nevertheless, I should point out that there are errors within any version of A-Z; so, double checking the information with primary sources is recommended.
Down to business...
On page 170 under HARSTEIN, EVA, it is written that she and her sister, (Mrs Rosenfield, mentioned on page 160 under the continuation of GRAND, MR) did see the white flower petals. However, there were approximately 30 some other people in the yard that morning, and I don't believe any of them mention these petals. While this is not necessarily sigificant with respect to the grape stalk, it is interesting. (They were interviewed by Batchelor & Grand on 2 Oct, "Complete History of JTR", page 220, 1994, hardback. Will supply additional references upon request due to the lateness of the hour.)
Matthew Packer stated many things between 30 Sep and 6 Oct, consisting of 6 perhaps 7 interviews total during that time. But it was not until Batchelor & Grand got hold of him did he suddenly tell Sgt White on 4 Oct that he believed "she bought some grapes at my shop at 12 o'clock, Saturday." (Packer references are numerous and will supply them in a separate post if requested.)
Keep in mind several things, here. 1) Batchelor & Grand were employed by a vigilace committee and were most likely very proud to obtain a witness that the police did not. 2) That at the time Packer informed Sgt White of this, (4 Oct), Packer had already shifted his time from 12:30am, to 12:15am, to midnight. It is no wonder that the police viewed his statements with distrust, because of his inconsistency. (A-Z, pages 346-349 under Packer, Matthew)
(A-Z, page 362 & 363 listed under PHILLIPS, DR GEORGE BAXTER) Dr Phillips was recalled to the inquest on 5 Oct. This was primarily done in order to provide satisfactory answer to Coroner Baxter regarding Stride's soft and hard palate with respect to her aleged involvement with the Princess Alice disaster on Sep 3rd, 1878. Philips specific mentioning of grapes was to help answer questions on this aspect (ie., grapes). Stride swallowed neither "the skin or inside of grape within many hours of her death." As for the handkerchief - fruit stain...Phillips never stated that the fruit was from a grape, only that it was from a fruit. It could have just as easily have been from an apple eaten earlier that day. There is no way to tell with what we know at this point, but it does make me wodner if a PH test was performed in order to help determine what type of stain it was.
(A-Z, page 160) Yes, the Evening News did feature the discoveries of Batchelor & Grand. (Why not, along with the vigilance committee, the Evening News was also paying their salory.) This is also interesting since the next day, they (Evening News) had one of their own reporters obtain an interview with Packer (possibly to maintain a run on the story?) And, yet again, Packer altered the details of his narrative significantly. Is there any wonder that the police with all its multitude of leads, letters, and bad press should chose to "fire a salvo" at that news article? Which by the way, it seems they did not do with the Star's report of Schwartz. (It should probably also be mentioned that it was that Evening News article which stated that the man to whom Packer sold grapes was JTR - I.E., a media invention, so to speak.)
As I recall, Dr Blackwell on 5 Oct during the inquest was directly asked if any mention of grape or grape stalk was given when he and Dr Phillips examined the body that morning. The answer was "no." He was also asked if he "perceived any grapes near the body?" Again, the answer was "no." I also recall that Edward Spooner, who knelt down and lifted Elizabeth's chin noted only the paper which contained the cachous...no grape stalk there. Heshburg (Heabury), who was one of the first people in the yard never saw this grape stalk. Morris Eagle never saw this stalk either.
While Packer did sustain consistency with respect to the man's (to whom he alegedly sold the grapes) general appearance (5'-7" tall, dark clothes, clerk-like, quick sharp way of talking), he rarely held any consistency on any other aspect except perhaps for seeing the couple for 1/2 hour and that the man was in his early to mid thirties, which even this latter was altered slightly during his interview at Scotland Yard to 25-30 years of age. He did, however, contradict himself on one aspect. On 30 Sep, he informed Sgt White that no one was around when he closed up shop; yet, during nearly every other subsequent interview after that, he stated that the couple was still hanging around when he did close up. Did he do so in order to embellish the story? I wonder, since after the Daily Telegraph interview on 6 Oct, he seemed to go out of his way keep himself in the spot light.
(I'll be more than happy to supply an other references not already given, etc.)
Might there be any value to having an accurate Packer story, and to him testifying at the inquest (which he did not do)? No. The only aspect, with which a corect narrative might aid us is to answer the questions, Did he sell the grapes? and When did he sell the grapes, if he did? Either way, it does not tell us who killed Elizabeth.
I do not see any police cover up, and I do not believe there is a precedent for it within this case. I cite Lawende being sequestered as an example. If the police had believed that Packer's information was of such value then I would think that he also would have been sequestered, but as it turned out, he did not even testify. Another possible example is the one reference to Schwartz testifying, but that (so far) is unconfirmed.
There are many facets to any single event and it is usually intertwined with numerous other events and/or comments which can not be ignored. I think Packer is also a good example of how more than a sole source of information proves itself quite valuable. The causes and motivations of the other players must be taken into account, not just that of one side or one person.
Leonard, I do commend you on delving into the heart of these matters, painstakingly reviewing the information at hand. I also direct you to a web page http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/cp_investigates_jtr/time_lines/stride_elizabeth.htm
which offers quite a bit of detail about the goings on with respect to Stride's life and death with full sourcing. Upon reviewing this page, you will note the many sources used for even a single entry. Not every source tells the full the story, as you alluded to earlier.
Did the grapes exist? Possibly, maybe not. Was Packer lying, misremembering, confused, or innocently providing incorrect information? Again, maybe, maybe not. Only a comprehensive review of the information can help supply those answers, and yet, the answers that are obtained will still be based on what one believes. A pain in the tush? Absolutely! But, I think it better to discuss such things as Packer and get down-n-dirty with the nitty-gritty aspects of the details of the case than discuss suspects when there's not even a concensus with respect to whom JTR might have killed.
(I realize this latter comment on suspects may cause some "dismay" with some, but it's my view, and I am well known for holding such beliefs - so let it be written.)
Leonard, while I have little precious time for such postings as is, and only now will post on these boards for such topics as Packer, I ask that if you wish a continued discussion of this aspect of the crimes that you e-mail me, and I'll be more than happy to reply.
Cheers,
Dave Yost |
Author: leonard
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 04:00 pm | | Hello Dave: The A-Z that I'm reading I ordered from the net. It says that it's an updated version{revised 1996} so I know not of the previous versions printed.{Sorry about that}. Maybe that is the reason for the discrepancies noted in my text. I have enjoyed the A-Z. and the next book I ahve received is "The complete history of Jack the Ripper" by Sugden. Please reply if you think this Is a good source material{as I have been warned by the net that some books are better accounts than others}.
I have enjoyed very much, the material and views that you and other have put forth so far, which gives me a better understanding of the case than I have had so far.
Chris: I don't concern myself with boneheads.
I listen to people like yourself and Dave for information and answers.{Don't mean to leave anyone out but you know who you are}.
My impression, from what I know so far, is that everyone at a crime scene[Police, civilians] see different things and hear things differently.
This is good because I have found that if two policemen write a report{and I have seen this with my own eyes} and they say the exact same thing and spell the same words wrong/mistakes in punctuation, ect. then they have got together and manufactured a story that sounds good to the supervisor. When I see an account form different witnesses that generally fits but they add different things that the other did not see, that is a believable account to me.
The Schwartz/Hungarian account is just such an example of a believable account. Both me told practically the same story, but with minor variations. If we take both stories and use reason as to the actions/re-actions of the participants we can come up with a scenerio that makes sense.
I recall from page 148 {A-Z} that Grand and Batchelor recovered a grapestalk from the rubbish swept by the police into the drain in Dutchfield's Yard. They then learned from Matthew Packer that he had sold grapes to the man accompanying Stride an hour or more before her death, a fact he had omitted to tell the police in their routine questioning.
I believe that [1] The grapestalk existed.
[2] The account given by Packer was accurate as best as he could remember.
[3] The police considered the account of importance.
[4] The ommision was probably due to Packer thinking of it as un-important at the moment and did not think to volunteer such information at that time.
Whether the man who was with Stride when the grapes were bought was indeed the Ripper can only be speculation.
Prostitutes, by the very nature of their profession, frequent numerous men, at all hours of the day and night. Sometimes these encounters last for only a few minutes, sometimes for much longer, because of this, I would be hard to pin down exactly which man would be in her company at any particular time. A pimp, however, could probably provide this information better than anyone else.
I would have to add that if I sold grapes to A man and woman and later heard that the woman had been murdered and a grapestalk was found in the vicinity of the crime, I would be very inclined to access the probability that the two are connected.
I agree that the newspaper should not infer that the man was the ripper.
I agree also that a test of the stain could resolve the problem of the fruit. Which now brings me to page 389 A-Z on the Scotland Yard files which I have not finished yet, but it is interesting to note that they refer to "THESE FOLIOS ARE NO LONGER IN THE FILES. THEY WERE NOTED AS MISSING IN DECEMBER 1983".
What a pity that that these are missing. No telling what evidence these files contained.
Dave if you will leave your e-mail address, i would be happy to haer you comments and ideas.
As Always;
Leonard |
Author: Dave Yost
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 09:07 pm | | Hi Leonard,
You caught me at a good time (imbetween things as it were).
OK, the A-Z you've ordered would be the 3rd and most recent edition. Yes, Sudgen's book is good and covers a lot of information. The only other 2 books, I'd personally would recommend would be Donald Rumbelow's book ("Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook {us ed)) and Pual Begg's "Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts". (information on these books may be obtained from the web site previosuly mentioned.)
I agree with you that if any 2 police reports seemed to be a duplicate of each other, then there is very great chance that said reports were produced in the fashion you mentioned. And that it is good to not have such "duplicates", as it gives a greater perspective and insight into the case.
With respect to Schwartz (Swanson's report & the Star's), I tend to think that the Star's report added some items, aiding us, while embellishing others, causing us unnecessary problems. As with any such conflicts, the information must be duly and properly weighed against each other to see what is more plausible/probable. I do not say possible, as anything is possible. But, that does not mean it is correct, just becuase it is possible.
Yes, Grand & Batchelor reported that they found a grape stalk in the yard drain to where all the blood, etc was washed away by RPC Collins at c.5:30 that morning. If we accept their report as accurate, instead of as an attempt to create a story where one does not exist, then the odds increase that Packer sold the grapes, as he later claimed.
To which Packer interview do you refer? I mentioned previously that he was interviewed approximately 6/7 times within a 6 day period - 3 times by Sgt White (2 of which were on 4 Oct).
I think the interview given by Packer at Scotland Yard was deemed important enough to warrant Sir Charles's comments on the matter; yet, even he seemed not 100% convinced. While the police may have been interested in what he had to say, at some point, this should not necessarily point us in any one direction. The police followed up any/every lead as well as the man-power permitted. If we look to the Tabram case, we see Insp Reid "towing" PC Barrett to the Wellington Barracks on 15 Aug, even though he never stated that the soldier with whom he interacted was a Coldstream Guard. This was most likely done to ensure that no stone went unturned. I believe the same "attitude" can be applied to the police's actions toward Packer in several respects. This does not necessarily mean, however, that they wholely accepted his statement given at Scotland Yard. By contrast however, we can look at how Abberline wrote about accepting Hutchinson's statement on 12 Nov.
I suspect that Packer was a "pawn" so to speak in a "tug-of-war" game between the press and the police. Perhaps, once he realized his own importance, we see his story shift numerous times. This does not mean that he did not sell the grapes, only that we must be cautious in accepting any one particular statement he might have made. Most likely, if he did actually sell the grapes as he first claimed on 2 Oct, then a factual Packer statement can be probably gleaned from all of his statements.
With respect to prostitutes, I agree with your comments, but point out that there is a school of thought which has brought up the idea that Stride was not out to be with a client, but possibly a new beau. This perspective changes things a bit, and there is circumstantial evidence to support this view. Which one is correct? - again, it depends on what one wishes to believe.
As for the question of whether or not Elizabeth's man (who alegedly bought the grapes) is JTR, is potentially easy enough to answer, for me personaly. No, he was not. From my perspective, the only way this man could have been Elizabeth's killer would have been for her to "dump" him, found another and then he returned in a fit of rage. Does this make him JTR? No, absolutely not. While many will disagree and have often supplied supposition to continue Elizabeth's membership in the canonical club, (as I call it), there is more than enough evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to disallow any claim for Elizabeth's inclusion as a member of JTR's victims.
I also agree with your comment that if I had sold grapes to an innocent looking couple, I would not necessarily connect her death to such an act. Albeit, is such an act [buying grapes] involved with her death? Most likely not, as there is no connection between her death and the grapes. Nor this does this bring up the adge, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." He may have sold the grapes, but most likely it would have been about 1-1/2 hours prior her death. I suspect that the only advantage an accurate Packer statement can offer is to aid us in understanding the events a little bit better, not in determining who her killer might have been.
There are many points to be considered when reviewing Packer, especially from Packer himself. When did he see what he claimed (he shifted his time frame so often); what was he actually claiming (was he narrating or attempting to persuade); and, did he fabricate or miscommunicate, or a bit of both?
(as for the missing MEPO files, since 1983, that refers to the Emma Smith case, not Stride, page 404, A-Z, 2nd ed., refering to MEPO 3/140, folio #'s 180-203.) The MEPO 3/140 may be obtained from the Public Records Office (the adress is located on the site to which I gave previous mention); at the time I obtained my copy, they were over $400.00 for the complete set of 3/140.
You'll be able to e-mail me by clicking on my hi-lited name at the top of this post, but for ease, I give it here: dyost@access.hky.com
(I do not know if the "mailto" will take on this format, but my address is there and is good.)
Hope to hear from you soon, Leonard, especially since the Berner Street Case is a favorite discussion of mine.
Cheers,
Dave Yost |
Author: Aidey
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 04:12 pm | | Greetings All!
I have read all your correspondence with interest and note that no correspondent claims to be a police officer. I am a CID officer of some years experience and am also deeply interested in the whole JtR story. Criticism has been levelled at the investigation methods employed circa 1888, some justified, some not. Such criticism is always levelled at investigating detectives (see Jill Dando etc.) Would anybody out there like a rundown on how I think the investigation went in 1888, using as a reference point, how it would probably be investigated today?
Cheers,
Aidey |
Author: S. Fern
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 05:27 pm | | I fail to see what relevance a modern investigation has to one of 1888. A modern policeman (retired), John Plimmer, has tried to do just what you suggest, in his book and has failed dismally.
Your 'rundown' on how you think investigations went in 1888 would be mildly interesting, more especially in relation to what points of reference you are using. Does anyone really want to know how it would be investigated today? Not really I think. It is an irrelevant comparison to make. |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 05:41 pm | | Hi Aidey,
Welcome to the Casebook!
I hope you won't be put off by the often negative-sounding responses one gets here.
I, for one, think comparisons between then and now can indeed offer valuable insight into all things JtR. For example, we are always looking at the serial killers who followed Jack, who may turn out to have been the first of that unhappy breed. So we can surely justify also looking at how police methods have changed since Jack.
This is called having an open mind and exploring all avenues for clues. We don't want all these wonderful ripperologists going round in ever-decreasing circles remaining 'clueless on the Casebook' forever, do we? ;-)
You go Aidey!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 05:43 pm | | Good day, Aidey
We do have contributing Police/ex-Policemen to the site so we are not short of an official point of view, when one is needed.
Go-ahead Aidey, your point of view is welcome, as is anyone else's who has an interest in the case.
The Police at the time were among the best in the world, and as we know had only been in existance for a little under 60 yrs.
Those who level critisizm at them are usually comparing there efficiency to to-days force, which is ridiculess, to say the least.
Welcome, and all the best to you, Jon |
Author: Aidey
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 11:11 am | | Dear All,
Wow, quick response. S.Fern made a good point about what relevance a modern day approach to the investigation would have. Well, 110 years after, the simple answer is 'none'; the killer is long since dead, of course. It's all a question of perspective. Why did Fred Abberline and co. fail to catch JtR? is the key question. Nowadays, in the UK at least we have graduate detectives, the Home Office Large/ Major Enquiry System (HOLMES), DNA profiling, psychological profiling, etc. Yet we cannot even find the killer of a TV presenter, shot in broad daylight on a busy street. The obvious answer is 'Police Incompetance' - we could argue that particular toss all night! In the Whitechapel of 1888, the police were, on the whole, barely literate, recruited basically for their ability in delivering the 'knuckle-sandwich' In his excellent book, Donald Rumbelow delivers a richly-detailed description of the conditions the police had to work under in the Whitechapel of the period. Like many detectives, I have had to work in areas where the majority of the population, if not anti-police, would never dream of assisting 'enquiries' (for a variety of reasons, I know!) Policing in 1888 had more to do with the control of the populace i.e the 'Dangerous Classes', than the detection of crime (a classic example would be the appointment of that dangerous psychopath Sir Charles Warren to the Commissioner of the Met. before the ripper period - his sole interest in the job was gaining 'stick-time' on half-starved demonstrators)
Imagine for one minute interviewing witnesses to any of the 'events'! Descriptions of all sorts of people seen in dimly-lit streets doing whatever; the characters of such witnesses and their 'nocturnal habits' and semi-drunken condition. The only real chance the police had was either a 'tip-off' followed by a confession, or catching the offender red-handed. Note that one Detective Sergeant, I think it was DS Thicke, apparently had the nickname 'Johnny Upright' due to his willingness to 'fit up' villains. Why no 'fit up' on John Pizer? Confessions at the time (and up to more recently) were often beaten out of suspects (hem hem) - why no allegations of dodgy confessions? Rumbelow made to good point that, on the Day of Judgement, when we all are called to atone for our sins, we'll all look round when Jack the Ripper is called and say "who the hell is he?"
Speak to you all again,
Aidey |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 02:45 pm | | Well of course, many of us know exactly how a modern force would handle a modern Jack the Ripper. Those who remember the Yorkshire Ripper can testify to that.
And I for one living right in the heart of the area got everything first-hand.
The all-out, no-holds-barred, stop-for-nothing, turn-every-stone, double-tripple-check-everything, 21st century, hi-tech investigation, was spinning its wheels, ....they may have learned more, and were better equipped, but the bottom line was, ...they were empty handed.
And as we all remember it was sheer-luck that he was caught.
There likely will never be an easy way to catch a random killer.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Carl Dodd
Tuesday, 04 July 2000 - 02:32 am | | I'm new to the boards and hope you'll bear with me. I'm a retired American police officer. Over the years I've learned that major case investigations involve the input and work of all sorts of people. If one person does not effectively communicate with the other officers, all the work can be for naught. The case will fail to discover the identity of the suspect. This is especially true if a lead investigator does not cooperate with all the other officers. If the lead investigator "holds his cards close to his chest" and doesn't tell other officers what to look for, officers will stumble about in the dark and fail to locate the suspect. I've seen this in several cases. I wonder if Inspector Abberline did that? I wonder if the higher command officers ordered him, Abberline, to not give out full information?
Do I see a cover-up in the actions of the police officers from back in 1888? No. I'm very sure that there was no cover-up and nothing is being hid. The reason I believe this is that cops are as bad as any other group when it comes to talking among themselves. To be honest, if anybody knew that there was or suspected that there was a cover-up, the gossip circle among the officers would have broken loose with this information many years ago. If more than one person is involved, there is no such thing as a secret. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 04 July 2000 - 12:46 pm | | Over the years people have assumed Abberline was in charge of the case. His role is not always clear, it appears Abberline was in charge of the officers out on the street, but not in charge of the investigation.
Abberline was an inspector, but Moore was superior to him in rank, an inspector, 1st class, I think.
No-one has been able to establish exactly the individual roles of those under Swanson. We know Moore was superior to Abberline and yet there is a note by Moore which refers to him using caution lest he infringe on Abberlines responsibilities.
They both likely worked side by side under Anderson via Swanson, who was the desk officer in charge of the case.
Regardless, as Carl say's, if the lines of communication were not completely open then we have a weak link in the investigation. And the weak link need not be the man in charge, be it Anderson, Swanson, Moore or Abberline.
I'm sure Stewart can correct any of the above, if necessary.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 01:00 pm | | (Psst....Abberline was Inspector - First class, and Moore was Chief Inspector)
Just reading Leonard Matters, 'Mystery of Jack the Ripper'. He is remarkably accurate overall, considering the times he wrote his book, and that official files were not available then (1929?). He gets all his info from the Newspapers. So we must allow for a few discrepancies.
Matters blames Major Griffiths for the P.C. in Mitre Square story, he claims it was Griffiths who thought that PC Watkins saw Jack that night.
Seeing as how Macnaghtens memoranda was written Feb 1894, I wonder if Griffiths was quoting Mac. or did Griffiths know more than we do about the events that night.
Or was it simply that Mac's notes were not available to anyone, and Griffiths was the first to make that assumption public.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 03:37 am | | Hi Stewart, Carl, and all
Recently some of us had a discussion on the suspects->Barnett board. One side trusts the police to have done a good enough investigation of Barnett and the other side argues there are no arguments to suppose this.
To synthesise:
Would they see Barnett as first suspect?
What would the procedures have been during the 4hrs interrogation of Barnett (field cops asking questions in the neighbourhood included)?
Was 4hrs enough for the police to have some independent back-up material to check with Barnetts statement? What would the amount of knowledge have been then?
Would they still be enquiring after him independent from Barnett after the interrogation?
There are inconsistencies in what Barnett declares on the inquest with his statement to the police 3 days earlier? Would the police have let them go easily? Or wasn't it inconsistent it all, with the results of an independent research of 3 days?
Would they have known that Barnett didn't like it that MJK prostituted herself?
Would they have known of his history?
All in all 'what did the police knew of Joseph Barnett'?
Much obliged and greetings,
Jill |
Author: jennifer pegg
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 03:40 am | | who do people think were the most important po in the investigation i dont nec. mean in terms of seniority but more in term of the amount contributed etc
jenni |
|
|
|
|
