What SHOULD the police have done?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

The police didn't catch Jack the Ripper. In one way or another, thousands afterwards have tried to catch him. So what should the police have done that they didn't do to catch him? Given that we cannot do anything that was not possible at the time. What strategy? What ideas would you have if YOU were the man in charge ?(No, you don't have to have a personality like Anderson by the way). What would YOU have put in place or into practice?

I look forward to the variation in answers!

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Hello Phil,

I would do what they did. However I would have taken photos of all the crime scenes and of the GsG. I would have set up a profile of the killer(If my 1888 self knows how to profile) so that could help stop the killer. I would let all the divisonal detectives know what would most likely happen after each murder and I myself would patrole near "Ripper spots"(again if my 1888 version self knew the hotspots). If I did not. I would send undercover constables to find out where prostitutes did their service, places like No. 29 Hanbury st. and Dutfields yard. I would have all the partols present 24-7(switching during hourly intervals).

Yours truly

p.s I would also forbid Dr.Lewellyn to work on the case.

[Sox]

Given that, even with all the methods available to modern police forces, serial killers still escape or take years to bring to justice, then the simple answer to your question is: nothing beyond what they actually did do.

[Pontius2000]

1. they should have taken more victim photos, including crime scene photos.

2. they should have photograped the grafitti and it's relation to the location of where the apron was found.

3. they should have held back most information from the press.

4. they should not have given the press any of the letters and should not have had the press to post copies of the Dear Boss letters in newspapers.

5. they wasted a lot of energy doing door-to-door interviews. they would have been better off knowing the alibis of everyone working in the meat trade and the areas surrounding the Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman murders.

6. they should have made a better effort of finding James Kelly for no other reason than to rule him out as a suspect. and years later when he made himself available, they should have interviewed him.

7. once the "Polish Jew" was indeed locked in an asylum, they should have gotten access to him to either find out if he was the killer or exclude him as a suspect.

8. they should have made some effort to locate Joseph Fleming.

and lastly, off the top of my head, when McNaughton published a book stating that he destroyed evidence pertaining to Druitt's guilt, he should have been prosecuted.

other than that, I think the police did mostly what they were capable of doing. it seems to me that the City Police were a lot more capable and knowledgable than the Met. at least they seemed to understand the importance of photographs.

[Monty]

Are talking in 1888 reality or 2009. Cos there is a difference.

Monty

[DVV]

8. they should have made some effort to locate Joseph Fleming.

Oh yes, Pontius,

Paradoxically, they would have done this and perhaps caught the Ripper, had they believed in a "domestic" murder in Miller's Court.
Of course I'm biaised, for I firmly believe in Flem-the-Ripper...

Amitiés,
David

[Graham]

It's obvious - they should have called in Sherlock Holmes. 1888 was a bit of an idle year for him, so he'd have had time to nail the Ripper and be back in Baker Street for a pipe and a shot of 7% solution whilst taking the piss out of Watson.

I mean, what on earth was Swanston & Co thinking of?

Graham

[DVV]

What about the Pink Panther ?

Amitiés,
David

[corey123]

Hey david and Graham,

Obviously they needed Inspector Gadgit. Seriously

[Hunter]

Hello All,

Most other serial killers murdered more victims over a longer period of time allowing the odds of more mistakes being made by the perpetrator and as Sox pointed out it still took a long time to find a suspect. Ted Bundy was caught, then escaped and killed more.

If the Whitechapel murders had continued for some length of time I believe that Jack would have been aprehended . For so few murders, of a kind that hadn't been seen before, the police did the best that they could do outside of declaring marshal law.

If I had to add anything to what was done, it would be fingerprinting. Even though it wasn't official practice at that time, it was known and would have been useful. As far as more photographs are concerned, they would be of more interest to us, today, than useful back then. A GSG photo may have helped eliminate some of the hoax letters- if it was written by the murderer.

Correy mentioned profiling. They did profile. I just believe it was the wrong one . Even today, I can't think of a single case that profiling helped catch a serial killer. They got the Atlanta murders and the DC snipers wrong. Hard evidence is what solves a case and either by accident or design Jack didn't leave much.

Before we try to second guess the 1888 officials we should look at ourselves. Heck, we can't even agree on who this man called Jack even killed.

[Supe]

Pontius,

1. they should have taken more victim photos, including crime scene photos.

And just precisely what might those photographs have told the police? A scene-of-crime forenics sweep today often provides valuable clues but SOC photos are more beloved of prosecutors than investigators, providing a hedge against defense charges of site contamination.

3. they should have held back most information from the press.

In fact, they revealed very little to the press and most analysts are of the opinion that better press liaison efforts would have aided the investigation.

4. they should not have given the press any of the letters and should not have had the press to post copies of the Dear Boss letters in newspapers.

Of course, since many of the letters were sent directly to the press or private individuals, this would have been rather difficult, wouldn't it? Moreover, releasing handwriting and textual samples to the public is still a valuable tool and led directly to the discovery of, among others, the Unabomber.

5. they wasted a lot of energy doing door-to-door interviews. they would have been better off knowing the alibis of everyone working in the meat trade and the areas surrounding the Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman murders.

In fact, the police interviewed everyone in the slaughtering and allied trades and did conduct door-to-door interviews in all the Canonic 5 murders as well as Tabram's. I assume your wasted energy remarks refer to the massive October house-to-house interviews, but remember that effort was forced upon the Met police by an MP and the Home Office. That it may have turned up anything positive remains uncertain.

7. once the "Polish Jew" was indeed locked in an asylum, they should have gotten access to him to either find out if he was the killer or exclude him as a suspect.

However efficacious that might have been, it would have been patently illegal.

And so on.

In fact, Sox is correct: the current success rates with serial killers, given all the investigatory advances gained in 12 decades, remain dismayingly low.

Don.

[corey123]

Profiling

Hunter,

Profiles can be wrong, but it is helpful. Profiles dont solve murder cases, they were never ment to catch criminals, they were ment to help narrow suspect lists.

Alot of so called "criminal profilers" use the wrong kind of profiling. Yet there are some forms of profiling that works.

Have you heard of the "railway rapist"? He was a rapist and killer who was caught with help of a criminal profile. It does help. If profiling did not help the FBI agents at quantico would not spend so much time into teaching it, let alone funding the Behavioral Science Unit.

So profiling does have its weak points, but so does all things. However saying it helps none whatso ever is ignorant. Like I said, why would a federal organization spend so much on profiling if it was worthless?

Yours truly

[Pinkerton]

Commicated with prostitutes

I don't know if the police extensively did this (if they did it has not been documented) but I always thought they should have spent a lot of time communicating with the prostitutes of the East End. They could have gotten a lot of information on clients who had abused them or worse in the past. This was ultimately what would help point the police in the right direction of the Green River Killer murders. I think there have been other serial murders of prostitutes in which this also contributed to the suspect's capture (can't remember any particular cases though off the top of my head).

The only problem was of course that the police didn't have a lot of time to build up any sense of "trust" with these women since the murders presumably ended only a few months after they began.

By the way I don't like the "condescending" attitude (I won't mention any names) of some posters on this thread to the person who started it. The person who started the thread is asking a legitimate question and stating his/her opinion. You can disagree without the "attitude" that some posters on this board regularly exhibit (patronizing and smug). This is one reason I rarely post to the boards much any more even though I've followed this website since the late 90's.

I'm just saying.

[sdreid]

Used the dogs.

[Phil Carter]

Are talking in 1888 reality or 2009. Cos there is a difference.

Monty

Hello Neil,

1888 reality.

best wishes

Phil