Nowadays we might have caught him.

[Moriarty]

My claim is that JtR would have been caught quite easily were he operating today. Here are some of my reasons.

(1) Crime scene: in contemporary police investigations it is no longer compulsory to completely denude the crime scene of all available evidence. Bodies would be photographed in place (perhaps by a tabloid journalist); chalk would be left on walls etc. Unless of course the victim happens to be a black teenager from Eltham.

(2) Eye witness reports: these are now taken very seriously. So seriously in fact that in the (comparatively contemporary)case of Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe more than 100 eye witness statements were taken. These resulted in a set of identikit images all of which had two things in common: (i) they showed the same face and (ii) that face was Peter Sutcliffe's. The fact that Sutcliffe was arrested, by chance, for driving a car with false plates proves the value of contemporary eye witness testimony.

(3) The Ripper letters: there's no way these would be taken seriously today; unless, of course, they were accompanied by a dodgy tape recording.

(4) DNA analysis: this was not universally available in 1888. Thanks to recent DNA advances we now know that a prostitute in 1888 might well have had sex with more than one person in the course of an evening.

(5) Lighting: Commercial Rd is far better lit than in 1888. Those, such as Queen guitarist Brian May, who have campaigned against ambient lighting are arguably demonstrating an unacceptable degree of social irresponsibility.

That's the bones of it. I'm beginnning, however, to think that as things now stand this guy(?) might never be caught.

[Scotland Yard]

Operating under the modern conditions you describe, the Ripper would have undoubtedly altered his behaviour. He would have to have been far, far more cautious.

I read recently that American investigators have blamed programmes like 'CSI' for criminals becoming increasingly savvy about police methods -apparently some crims are now using bleach to eliminate DNA traces from crime scenes.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Moriarty,

(5) Lighting: Commercial Rd is far better lit than in 1888. Those, such as Queen guitarist Brian May, who have campaigned against ambient lighting are arguably demonstrating an unacceptable degree of social irresponsibility.

Brian May - as an astronomer - is campaigning against light-pollution, not "ambient lighting" as such. Light-pollution is caused by street-lamps spewing light into the sky, when all they need to do is illuminate the pavements and roads. Light-pollution is bad news from an astronomical and an aesthetic perspective, because the current plague of non-eco-friendly lamps obscures our view of the stars, replacing it with a uniform orange glow. Light-pollution is bad economically, because over half the light produced by an average street lamp isn't directed where it's needed on the ground below. This, in turn, is bad for the environment and our pockets, because wasted light means wasted electricity.

Look at any satellite photograph of the Earth taken when the land is in "darkness" and you'll see towns and cities lit up like Christmas trees. These displays might provide some amusement to the handful of astronauts in orbit around the Earth at any one time, but for us on the ground it's a complete waste of our rates and taxes.

I'd say that Brian May was acting with a commendable degree of social accountability.

[Moriarty]

Sam - I was joking about that bit.

[joelhall]

Hi Moriarty,Brian May - as an astronomer - is campaigning against light-pollution, not "ambient lighting" as such. Light-pollution is caused by street-lamps spewing light into the sky, when all they need to do is illuminate the pavements and roads. Light-pollution is bad news from an astronomical and an aesthetic perspective, because the current plague of non-eco-friendly lamps obscures our view of the stars, replacing it with a uniform orange glow. Light-pollution is bad economically, because over half the light produced by an average street lamp isn't directed where it's needed on the ground below. This, in turn, is bad for the environment and our pockets, because wasted light means wasted electricity.

Look at any satellite photograph of the Earth taken when the land is in "darkness" and you'll see towns and cities lit up like Christmas trees. These displays might provide some amusement to the handful of astronauts in orbit around the Earth at any one time, but for us on the ground it's a complete waste of our rates and taxes.

I'd say that Brian May was acting with a commendable degree of social accountability.

ive also been involved with this as an amateur astronomer. fact is theres no real use for alot of lighting at night. businesses waste extraordinary amounts of money (as well as strain on dwindling oil reserves) on lighting up empty buildings, as well as councils on poorly efficient road lighting (alot of light directed up). in a pilot scheme here turning off lights along some of the bigger non-residential roads, there has been no inconvenience made to drivers, and it helps alleviate some of the above problems.

also, one aim of the campaign is to use more efficient lighting installed, which directs the light directly downwards. these apparently are also safer as their aiming of light also lights up the area below better (though i forget the studies/sources of this now).

[Sam Flynn]

Sam - I was joking about that bit.

Good-oh, Moriarty. Why not join Brian's campaign!

[Moriarty]

Good-oh, Moriarty. Why not join Brian's campaign!

What's it called? Another One Lights The Dusk?

[Sam Flynn]

LOL! Nice one, Professor

[DarkPassenger]

You forgot that despite best efforts, Sutcliffe was caught by accident regardless of the police investigation.

Steve Wright was caught because he was on the DNA database and, well, he left a laughable amount of evidence in his wake.

Alun Kyte was convicted of two prostitute murders but is believed to have killed at least 10 more - to this day, he himself admits to a total 12 murders. No charges coming his way despite this.

If JTR had been around today, his crimes would have been different for a start. You can't transplant a 19th Century criminal into the present and analyze it from there.

[Limehouse]

Moriarty wrote: (2) Eye witness reports: these are now taken very seriously. So seriously in fact that in the (comparatively contemporary)case of Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe more than 100 eye witness statements were taken. These resulted in a set of identikit images all of which had two things in common: (i) they showed the same face and (ii) that face was Peter Sutcliffe's. The fact that Sutcliffe was arrested, by chance, for driving a car with false plates proves the value of contemporary eye witness testimony.

Interestingly, women who survived Sutcliffe's attacks were able to give accurate descriptions of him, from which identity kits were compiled. However, the various forces involved in the Ripper hunt rarely consulted each other and at times, women who claimed to have been attacked by a man similar to that believed to be responsible for the Ripper killings were dismissed as fantasists. The identity kit pictures did not seem to play a big role in the hunt for the Ripper.

He was, as others have pointed out, caught quite by accident when a pair of policeman noticed a couple parked up in a dark lane and, on checking, found the number plates were false. It could be argued that it was a feature of modern, materialistic society (ie the criminal having a car) that made it possible for policemen to make checks that would then lead to the killer. Therefore, in a way, your argument is sound - but it did take a lot of murders and attacks to catch Sutcliffe. In the case of the Whitechapel murders, the time span within which the murders were committed was very small. Given the same timespan, even with modern policing, it would be a tall order to expect an arrest, especially in London. Therefore, the investigating officers who caught Steve Wright did very well indeed.

[Mitch Rowe]

Jack spent very little time at each Crimescene. There may not have been much "Modern Evidence" to collect. DNA and Fingerprints need a subject to compare to. We dont even know if Jack was a Citizen of Britain. He could have been from a small Country and didnt even have a Birth Record.

In short..I couldnt make any comment because I havent the foggiest what new evidence would be gathered. Chances are though, A bit of Jacks hair/blood/something was left at one of the Crimescenes. Most likely MJKs.

[joelhall]

actually it wouldnt be just dna and fingerprints wed be likely to find today (especially as he could wear gloves). these are not the two miracle pieces of evidence people assume them to be, as trace evidence tells us more of the event and suspect we should find (such as height, hair colour, the clothes they wore).

being so close to the victim, he could leave footprints, hair, clothing fibres, trace materials from his home or work. most places are better lit, and at weekends we are likely to find more potential witnesess around london (who could be afforded protection), as well as cctv cameras, quicker police responses, better police appeals for witnesses, improved records of people,

add to that the evidence carried away from the scene by the killer would include similar pieces from the scene & victim.

professional crime scene investigation means more could be deduced about the height of the killer, the events which took place, history of the victim, etc.

whether or not he would have been caught is of course impossible to say. not every murder gets solved, and as yet forensic scientists and detectives are yet to come up with a crystal ball. we would certainly gather more evidence. whether it would lead to an arrest is something we could never answer.

[ClarkesYard]

unless, of course, they were accompanied by a dodgy tape recording.

[Graham]

4) DNA analysis: this was not universally available in 1888. Thanks to recent DNA advances we now know that a prostitute in 1888 might well have had sex with more than one person in the course of an evening.

Whaaat? It wasn't available AT ALL for about another century, as far as forensic science was concerned. In 1888 not even finger-printing was an accepted forensic tool!

With regard to the Whitechapel Killer, he had phenomenal luck...

Cheers,

Graham