Would Jack have been caught if he struck today?

[Hellrider]

So ladies and gentlemen, what's your opinion? Would modern police with all the conveniences of modern technology have caught Jack the Ripper if he struck today?

[sdreid]

Probably not if he quit after five. He didn't apparently leave any DNA and he probably wouldn't be dumb enough to leave fingerprints had he known the consequences of doing so.

[Natalie Severn]

I agree with Stan,probably not.
The more you learn about the Ripper ,the more you realise what an operator he was.
Natalie

[Doctor X]

I was about to holler and bluster about "how do we KNOW he did not leave DNA?" but as Stan notes:

. . . he probably wouldn't be dumb enough to leave fingerprints had he known the consequences of doing so.

He probably would make sure not to leave any DNA either, and he probably would not make the killings public.

However, if you could magically transport the murders into modern times, or modern science back in time, it is possible more physical evidence would have been obtained.

However, there are other problems. On another thread, I [Blathered.--Ed.] mused that even if the police sought and obtained fingerprints in 1888, how would they match them to Jack? Unless they just so happened to have interviewed and taken fingerprints from Jack . . . and had the ability to compare them to all of the possible sources . . . I do not see where it helps them at that point in time.

The big problem for modern times other than Jack probably would not commit the murders in the same fashion--in public primarily--is that probably no connection existed between him and the victims. So . . . let us pretend that both fingerprints and DNA evidence is found. Unless the authorities have such from previous or subsequent crimes they now have "Unknown."

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Christine]

It's not really a valid question. For example, if Jack were alive today, he'd know about fingerprints and DNA and blood stain analysis (think of all the butchers who had to explain their gory clothes to the police), not to mention security cameras, streetlights, and prostitutes with cell phones. So presumably he'd change his actions, unless he really was so mentally addled that he was unable to think these things through.

And of course the newspapers are different, the police procedures for dealing with the press and public are different, the police would know quickly if the Lusk letter were a hoax or not, and so on and so forth.

So whether or not Jack could be caught depends on who or what you think Jack was. If he did the same things, as least as closely as he could do them in an entirely changed city, yes, probably. If you are imagining translating Jack's twisted brain into a 21st century body, you still have to consider that he'd be an entirely different person if he grew up in modern times. Maybe he had brain damage from some entirely treatable disease, or maybe he'd have been treated with anti-psychotics long before he reached the point of murdering anyone.

[Mitch Rowe]

Originally Posted by sdreid

Probably not if he quit after five. He didn't apparently leave any DNA and he probably wouldn't be dumb enough to leave fingerprints had he known the consequences of doing so.

I was just thinking today while reading the fire in the grate thread:

"Its a good thing JTR didnt decide to start the room on fire!"

I think if JTR were commiting crimes in modern age he would have been dumb not to.

[The Grave Maurice]

I think Christine has the right angle on this: it's like comparing apples and oranges. Jack wouldn't be the same, the police tactics and resources would be completely different, even the city isn't the same. It's interesting to note, though, that recent Jack-like killers in England (Sutcliffe and Wright, say) were, in fact, caught.

[Mitch Rowe]

Originally Posted by The Grave Maurice

I think Christine has the right angle on this: it's like comparing apples and oranges. Jack wouldn't be the same, the police tactics and resources would be completely different, even the city isn't the same. It's interesting to note, though, that recent Jack-like killers in England (Sutcliffe and Wright, say) were, in fact, caught.

Yes...Wright was caught. And the timeline for the discovery of the victims was very short. But one thing Wright did that JTR didnt.(At least that we know of.)And thats spend time with the victims. The less time the less chance DNA will be found. So if JTR did just pick these Women off the street there may not have been DNA available.

[Bob Hinton]

Originally Posted by Christine

And of course the newspapers are different, the police procedures for dealing with the press and public are different, the police would know quickly if the Lusk letter were a hoax or not, and so on and so forth.
.

I wouldn't bet on that. the police hunting Sutcliffe were fooled by a hoax tape. Don't forget the overwhelming majority of serial killers are caught today by pure luck, Sutcliffe certainly was.

I believe the Ipswich murderer's capture was due to police work, but only after they had picked up the wrong chap first.

[Stewart P Evans]

Originally Posted by Bob Hinton

I wouldn't bet on that. the police hunting Sutcliffe were fooled by a hoax tape. Don't forget the overwhelming majority of serial killers are caught today by pure luck, Sutcliffe certainly was.

I believe the Ipswich murderer's capture was due to police work, but only after they had picked up the wrong chap first.

Robert, a bit harsh on my ex-colleagues of the Suffolk Constabulary, I thought they did a very good job and cleared up these series murders in double quick time. If your evidence leads you to another suspect first that is quite normal. One often leads to another, in this case the actual offender.