|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through June 16, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Police Innovation, Tools and Techniques:
Archive through June 16, 1999
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 19 January 1999 - 08:05 pm |        | Ev'nin' All.
It has been written that in JTR’s time, the police relied on arresting and securing evidence against criminals:-
1) By catching them in the act of committing a crime.
2) Because voluntarily, or upon arrest, the suspect made a confession.
3) Because the criminal was turned in by an accomplice or relative.
Other than this a conviction was unlikely.
Over the years the efforts of the police to catch the Ripper have received a mixed press. Part of this seems to be related to particular writer’s dislike or mistrust of the senior officers of the time, notably Sir Charles Warren. There is another strand though, which seems to imply that the police lacked innovation or were just resistant to new ideas and techniques.
Interesting to note then, the criticism of Warren for his use of dogs by the same sources. Bloodhounds had been used successfully to track down a child murderer in Blackburn in 1876. Following a suggestion in the press, a couple of dogs were secured and trialed. Surely something original like this was worth a try, even though it soon became obvious that the use of dogs in a crowded, built up area like Whitechapel was completely inappropriate. So what other tools and methods which were available at the time could have been used?
Let me suggest two ideas to get us started; finger printing and bicycles. Respondents might want to add others.
It would be appreciated if anybody could provide details as to how well developed finger printing was at the time, since this would determine its practicality as a method. In the case of the bike, the new ‘safety bicycle’ had ousted earlier designs, and cycling clubs were springing up all over Britain. How practical was a bike on the rough-surfaced roads of the East End though, (now also being covered in tramlines)? Thoughts please… |
Author: Rotter
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 04:45 pm | | I quote:
Sir Francis Galton, a British anthropologist and a cousin of Charles Darwin, began his observations
of fingerprints as a means of identification in the 1880's. In 1892, he published his book,
"Fingerprints", establishing the individuality and permanence of fingerprints. The book included the
first classification system for fingerprints.
The whole story can be found at:
http://www.randomc.com/~german/fphistory.html
We might all have something to learn from this free e-journal:
http://www.bio.net//hypermail/NEUROSCIENCE/9710/0077.html |
Author: dj
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 10:21 pm | | | looking for infomation on jack the ripper please get to me on email: denis@dangerous-minds.com |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 17 May 1999 - 08:42 pm | | Following up on the fingerprint thread...
A fellow named Henry Faulds was the first to consider fingerprinting as a means of criminal capture (though he and Galton debated this furiously)... he actually used it in Tokyo, 1880 to prove the innocence of a student accused to stealing some items from a university. He published a number of articles/books on the subject, both before and after 1888, but one in particular strikes my fancy.
In his Dactylography; or, the Study of Finger-prints (Milner & Co., 1912), Mr. Faulds seems to taunt the average Ripperphile with a staggering "what if?"...
Quote:In 1887 and 1888, after my final return to England, I brought the method [of fingerprinting] under the the notice of the Home Authorities, who merely dealt with it in the usual red-tape methods. Finally, I asked to have one of their most intelligent officers appointed to meet me, so that I might enter fully into practical details ...
I showed him how printing was done, the method of classification adopted by me, and offered to form a model bureau from the hands of the London police ...
At the close of our long interview he told me he was disposed to think the method would be rather delicate for practical application by the police, and that fresh legislation would be required before any beginning could be made. (pp 25-26)
Interestingly enough, Faulds prints a facsimile of this police officer's business card, which reads:
J.B. Tunbridge,
Inspector
C.I. DEPARTMENT
GREAT SCOTLAND YARD
Considering the numerous possibilities in terms of latent fingerprints (the letters, the victims' bodies and belongings, Kelly's doorknob and other items)... it appears that perhaps all of the Ripper history could have hinged on our dear Insp. Tunbridge's decision not to follow up on this "newfangled" technology. |
Author: Leonard
Tuesday, 18 May 1999 - 09:41 am | | All to true, but for years, fingerprinting had its own unique problems. It has only been within the past few years that police have had the help of computers. The new A.F.I.S system now in use can find the prints of any individual who has prints on file. "The key word here is PRINTS ON FILE". The old method required police to review cards, one at a time, with a lens checking loops,whorls, and arches and you had to have ten point of identification from the print to get a conviction.
Other problems associated with prints:
[1] smudges and smeared prints.
[2] prints on non-porous surfaces.
[3] gloved suspects
In addition, fingerprints are only good if you have a suspect to compare them with.
Fringerprints are not conclusive as to conviction, but only prove circumstantial evidence that someone touched an object.
[many people handled those letters before they were given to the police]
If I recall correctly, one letter was held back for about two weeks before it was given to the police for fear that it was a hoax.
For fingerprinting to be effective in 1888, all suspects, and probably all of London would have to have prints on file. Prints that are not smeared or smuged, not overlapped by other prints, taken from surfaces that will hold a proper print and also have ten points of identification.
The best print I've ever examined was a full print, [not a partial] taken from a window pane at the scene of a burglary. Fortunately, the suspects were on file. I find that first time offenders, such as juveniles are the worst, whereas they have no record on file [military service, government job, etc.]. I have even found a few individuals who have worked with chemicals, who have such erratic prints as to make them unreadable. one female, an Asian, attempting to obtain a weapons permit, was refused because her prints would not match up with the ones that were already on file. An abberation, to be sure, but never the less, it occured.
Yes sir, fingerprints work and work well but the do, from time to time, present problems.
Good Day;
Leonard |
Author: Dan
Tuesday, 01 June 1999 - 08:03 am | | Does anyone know of references to the use of police informants during the jtr investigation?
I don't know if Scotland Yard had an official network in place at the time however I imagine the number of unofficial informants must have been large.
It seems to me that the average beat bobby wouldn't have been able to afford to reward informants for information. Other than turn a blind eye to the occasional wrong doing.
Higher ranking officers, however, would within reason have been able to afford such payments. This could suggest,(I realise in a VERY round about way) that jtr was not from the London area as none of the ranking officers added anything significant to the investigation. |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 01 June 1999 - 12:05 pm | | Greetings, Dan:
Welcome to the discussion of Jack the Ripper and his world. We are glad you have joined us. Your question about whether the police of 1888 used informers is a very apt one and worth asking. No doubt the police did use informers in the investigation. Perhaps Mr. Paul Begg or one of the other authors who visits this site, such as Bob Hinton, may wish to address this point. Note, however, that if Jack, as most of us suspect, was a lone serial killer, police informants in the criminal underworld might NOT have been able to supply the information needed to lead to his capture. As likely as not, if Jack WAS a loner, he would have kept very much to himself and would not have associated with the "professional" criminal element. It is quite likely that in this scenario the criminal underworld of London was as much in the dark about who Jack was as were the police themselves.
Chris George |
Author: Dan
Tuesday, 01 June 1999 - 05:42 pm | | Thanks for the reply Chris. That's a fair point you make in relation to jtr not associating with the criminal fraternity.
Another couple of questions I think worth asking are,1) Did beat officers at the time carry notebooks? 2) If so where are the notebooks relating to the officers who found the bodies?
I know that here in Scotland when the police find a body and the cause of death isn't obvious (not natural causes) then they are instructed to note ,amongst other things, the exact time the body was discovered and the description/appearance of the body. These instructions ,from what I can gather, have been in place more or less since the inception of policing in Scotland so I would presume Scotland Yard, in 1888, had something similar. |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 01 June 1999 - 08:37 pm | | Hi, again, Dan:
Indeed, the beat coppers of 1888 did carry notebooks and when they were called to testify at the inquests of the victims, they read from their notebooks much as modern-day British policemen do in criminal trials. We know this, for example, from the inquest on Catherine Eddowes, as reported in "The Daily Telegraph" of October 12, 1888, in which P.C. Alfred Long gave evidence about the Goulston Street graffito:
"At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall. . . ."
Chris George |
Author: Dan
Saturday, 12 June 1999 - 06:22 pm | | Chris,
Once again thanks for the reply. Over the last couple of messages I have tried to ask a couple of practical questions (see above!!!). I find it significant that no-one bar yourself has made any attempt to reply or offer answers(gasbags etc). Does this mean that only yourself has a serious interest in the basics of what comes down to a murder enquiry. To be perfectly frank, having read the various pages of this site, some of the people who contribute wouldn't even make it as security guards, never mind as detectives!!! |
Author: Sara
Sunday, 13 June 1999 - 10:09 am | | Dan:
Your three questions have been succinctly and factually answered by the esteemed Chris George. Your habit seems to be to ask a question, and then offer your suppositions; ask two questions, offer suppositions. Since CG had the bead on it, why should any others bother to further post, but rather to benefit from the knowledge as well?
I will offer that the lack of zealous response to your questions comes from the fact that at this time, this board is a "lonelier", more remote one. You haven't exactly invited rejoinders or debate on the subject, either.
Your very public deduction that few of us are security guards, or detectives, is quite correct. Your statement only serves to remind me that it takes a vast array of knowledge and experience from everyday sorts to fully understand the heinous events, the giant undertaking of the investigation and violent mind of the person responsible for all of this. Try to enjoy the diversity, or skip it.
Besides, all work and no play makes Jack a very dull boy.
All the best,
Sara |
Author: RLeen
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 11:40 am | | Hello All,
It seems that I have visited this site just in time Sara as I have an enquiry which may engender some debate.
Basically, I noticed what I consider to be a slight anomaly as to the quantities of evidential material surrounding the JTR case. For instance, Alice McKenzie benefitted from a nine page Post Mortem report after her death. Why is this ? Is it possible that a large section of official documents regarding Jack the Ripper have been lost or misplaced or witheld ? If so, why.
However, as I don't place much credence in conspiracy theories,I wonder if anyone could tell me if the police changed their methods after the Kelly murder. That is, did the police realise that they had not made the most of the information received and had thus started a bias away from circumstanced towards ratiocination.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 12:31 pm | | Hi, Rabbi:
In regard to the size of the post mortem report on Alice McKenzie, I have to say that one reason this report is larger than others probably has to do with the doctor involved, much as a doctor who gives a patient a physical examination might do a more complete examination than would another doctor. As I often say, the medicine is not a science it is an art, and a doctor who reports on a post mortem uses a personal touch and choice much as a general practitioner does.
Yes, there are a number of missing files in the Ripper case. The reasons for this are many. For the benefit of those who did not see it, I am going to repeat the sage words of Stewart P. Evans who posted the following as part of his message of March 21, 1999 on the "Into the New Mellenium" board:
"The 'missing files' fall into three basic categories -
"1. Those simply thrown away by officials with absolutely no sense of history, but an urgent desire to create fresh storage space.
"2. Those stolen (and these are the most likely to come to light again) either by retiring police officers wishing to retain a souvenir, or by overenthusiastic (and dishonest) past researchers who had the opportunity to do so before the implementation of modern security measures.
"3. Those which are still officially held, possibly uncatalogued, filed under other unlikely categories, or simply gathering dust in the depths of the PRO storage syatem. As far as I know, no Special Branch files have ever passed to the PRO, and these may be (because of their nature) retained somewhere in New Scotland Yard."
Stewart Evans, whose words I have just quoted, is a former British police officer and researcher, who is very familiar with the workings of both the police bureaucracy and the Public Record Office (PRO) in London. I believe that Stewart is probably in a better position than most (with the possible exception of fellow Ripperologist and former British policeman Donald Rumbelow) to judge what has become of the missing files, without, as some would and have done, springing to the conclusion that they are missing because of some conspiracy.
On the other hand, I was posting today on Red's board about some thought there is a link between the Whitechapel murders and the Irish nationalists.
Although Stewart believes files are missing for the reasons stated, he apparently does believe that the file on his suspect, Dr. Francis Tumblety, a quack doctor and activist in the Fenian movement, may be have been deliberately destroyed. One wonders if the Tumbley file has disappeared for the reason that its content had to do with the Fenian movement?
In any case, the following is posted on the Cloak and Dagger Club site in regard to the content of Stewart Evans's presentation there on June 1, 1996:
"Several Scotland Yard detectives were sent to America to track [Dr. Tumblety] down, but with no success. They had to report back that they were not able to trace him. Scotland Yard had egg all over it’s face - what could they do about this apparent blunder? In the Littlechild letter, the detective says that 'there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard.' This dossier does not exist today - for good reason, according to Stewart.
The police did not want it escaping that they had let Jack the Ripper escape. Just think - Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police would be the laughing stock of the world were it known that they had the worst killer of all time (or at the time) in their grasp and they set him free. So they set about a cover-up. They destroyed all papers referring to Tumblety, including the dossier. Today nothing exists in the files at the Public Records Office in Kew that refer to Tumblety."
Food for thought?
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 05:51 pm | | Ah, but did the police KNOW that Tumblety was Jack, ie did they have the final proof in among the destroyed papers, or did they merely BELIEVE he was? And was their belief good enough? They would be just as frightened of making themselves look fools either way.
There is a subtle difference here, and whether they KNEW or BELIEVED they knew, the police still covered their backs and 'lost' the files etc. Very sad, because if we had those papers today, maybe we'd have as good a chance of concluding that the guy was innocent as finding that 'we got 'im bang to rights'.
Interesting discussion all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 06:49 am | | Hello All,
A very good observation Caz, I have to admit that for various reasons I am not an advocate of Tumblety as Ripper, principally because the Atlantic is not a one-way street.
Is it not the case that the Met Police would require permission from American officials in order to be allowed to operate on the "other" side of the big pond. Quite simply, New York lies quite a bit out London jurisdiction! So surely a file regarding who, how and why a British policeman wished to detain an American citizen would be held somewhere Stateside. And with a genuine Freedom of Information Act it wouldn't take too long to ferret out.
Unless the conspiracy was a real monster of course!!
Thanking you for your consideration and awaiting a firm rebuttal.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: rich
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 04:10 am | | Good morning everyone,
What a great site this is. I have to say that I am also seriously sceptical about Tumblety as the Ripper.
I would like to offer another name as a possible suspect. Mrs Mopp the cleaner. She, in my opinion, can not be overlooked. She had a perfect motive after all. Her sister Molly was a known prostitute in the Whitechapel area, and had the week before embezzled sixpence from her sisters purse for a pint of Grogg. In a fury, Mrs Mopp (who had been saving said sixpence for a day out to see the hangings) decided that the only way to get revenge, was to carve her sister, and use the carving of other woman as suitable cover. She also had the perfect job. As a full-time cleaner, her deft skills in concealing suspiscious marks, such as foot prints, finger prints etc, were all put to good use. She was a common site in old London, walking the streets with her steam powered Vaccuum cleaner, and familiar yellow duster. Now, that in my book is suspicious behaviour. Why did Mrs Mopp suddenly start hoovering the streets of London, if it was not an attempt to cover her murderous traces, and WHY was she not questioned by Londons finest after the murder of her sister Molly, and why was the finger not pointed at her when the blantantly obvious clue (in my own opinion of course) of a yellow Mr Clean duster found at the scene, not attributed to Mrs Mopp the cleaner.
This is only a theory of course, and I too await a firm rebuttal.
All the very best my fellow sleuths.
Rich |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 08:52 am | | Hi All,
So I don't have a monopoly on weird posts then :-)
Hi rich,
One wonders who would try to make a nonsense of a serious discussion on why Tumblety MAY not be Jack? Someone who is fiercely pro-Tumblety maybe? Hmmm.
Or just someone with nothing constructive to add to this particular thread?
Whoever 'rich' is, you'd better duck as Karoline's flying lumps of concrete come hurling towards you, which is her proposed punishment for all pseudonymous posters in case you were not aware :-)
Or are ya gonna inform us that rich is short for richenda, so you don't come into that dubious category?
Hey, wait!
Are you trying to tell us that you could be descended from one of the sisters Mopp, thereby claiming the fame and infamy due to your family?
I also have a claim then. My mum's name was, wait for it...Molly Rich (true). Her great aunt, Molly, was obviously Mrs Mopp's sister, the victim.
Coincidence? I think not....:-)
Love,
Caz
PS Oh God, that means I must be related to you too :-0 |
Author: Lindsay
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 08:54 am | | Sorry, Rich, here comes the rebuttal.
The Christine Mopp case has been investigated over and over again and found to have only the most tenuous links to JTR.
Yes, her sister was a prostitute, but never in the Whitechapel area; most evidence points to her being part of the east London 'party set' of the time. In fact, I think that it is purely through this fact that recent JTR investigators have latched onto her name. [Admittedly, Christine was introduced to Sir Charles Warren by her sister at one of these parties.]
Also, you seem to have your wires crossed about the importance of the sixpence. The sixpence was given to Christine by her mother on her deathbed for "some cleaning wark (sic)" ('Old London Crimes of Passion', Wolseley Press 1954). Hence, the great sentimental attachment to a coin.
However, you seem to fall into the trap, like many have done before, of seeing a connection between Christine's sister's murder and the circumstances surrounding the JTR murders. This is usually due to the excited ramblings of some of the press at the time. [I used to have a cut-out from 'The Times' which actually described Christine Mopp as "immoral, evil and cloaked in a thick Whitechapel fog . . . what other crimes did that fog conceal?" Unfortunately, I lost this in a house move.]
As for the vacuum cleaner, I can find no mention of this anywhere; the family business did require her to transport the odd dead goose. I'm sure they didn't have vacuum cleaners in the 1900s. Is this a wind-up?
And, lastly, the Mr Clean duster (very funny, it was a standard cleaning cloth of the time) was sold to Alice McKenzie by Christine weeks before her murder; this is a purely circumstantial link.
Next time you post, please do the research.
Lindsay |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 09:10 am | | Does anyone else think rich and Lindsay's posts have all the hallmarks of the old Sooty/Bronte/UFO/Fortean satires of a few weeks back? Congrats to you both for so slavishly copying the writing styles. But I'm afraid you can't compete with yellow glove puppets when it comes to small-minded, cowardly but non-JtR-related gestures
(no offence mates :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rich
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 09:20 am | | How dare you Caz. If you check your history you will realise that the Mopp family was in fact eradicated by the not-so-great plague of 1902 (the very plague that wiped out the then Prince of Wales, Prince Bob!). You may be related to the Mopp family however, because it is obvious that you have the makings of a foul-mouthed wench.
Please check your facts before slating what is in actual fact, genuine research.
On this note, I thank you Lindsay for your support.
Rich |
|
|
|
|
