Tweet
I'm writing a paper for school and I'm looking for some in site on the topic.
Do you think it was possible for the police at the time to catch the ripper?
Do you think it was possible for the police at the time to catch the ripper?
-
-
Yes.
Yours truly,
--J.D. -
haha well any explantion?
I honestly don't think it was possible, the police at did not have the man power, discipline or the training on any type of investigation tactics. The requirement to even join the police force where low. You only need some ability to read and write and physical strength. Also, at the time all identification relied on eye witnesses which could not give the police any real truth.Comment
-
What would help--since a lot of people come on with "I haz a paper plz help kthkz"--threads is if you provide sort of an outline or example of your paper at this stage.
You can maybe do that in the Writing Section and refer to it.
Yours truly,
--J.D.Comment
-
In alot of ways you are correct. But training doesnt make the Man or the Detective.Originally posted by Shuino View Post
I think it is impossible to know if it was possible because we just dont know what sort of information Police were gathering since the records are mostly lost.
We dont know if Police could have tried another tactic to cause a reluctant witness to talk.
We dont if a Policeman saw something and turned a blind eye to it.
Ther are so many ifs and no answers. But to say it was very difficult for Police to catch a serial killer is as true then as it is now.
I think the Police did the best they could with what they had. The problem is... The killer hold all the cards and Police can only pick up the pieces.
And its not like JTR was out there killing for years..He may of been but we dont know to this day if he was. What happed took place within a very short time period and yes that would make it nearly impossible.
BTW>>>Welcome to the CasebookComment
-
It is true of the lack of information we have today to tell what really happened, and I didn't even think about talking about how short the time frame was on the killings. Thanks for the reply.Comment
-
That is one of the more "maddening" aspects--how "close" he came to being potentially caught or at least seen.
--J.D.Comment
-
Of course it is also possible that they did stop the Ripper, or knew who he was but couldn't prove it, etc. For example, why did the police reduce their presence on the street shortly after the Kelly murder?
Also, then as now so much depends on luck. Jack may have been interrupted with Stride (if this was a Ripper killing) and he couldn't have been long gone when Nichols and Eddowes were found. A few minutes earlier and he is caught in the act. There were also eyewitnesses. A better eyewitness, or one more willing to testify, and he is nabbed. There is no way that the murders could have continued indefinitely because he took too many risks and ultimately would have been apprehended.Comment
-
Hi,
I'm sort of new here and I am doing a research project on JTR, but I don't want to put any effort into it. I thought I might just ask everyone's opinion, and then tell them that they are wrong. Is that OK with all of you.
Nearly a University Studenthuh?Comment
-
-
Mitch,
You are welcome sir.
Mikehuh?Comment
-
Yes, I am doing a paper, and to be honest I don't need to put much effort into the paper. The paper is only about two pages and about my opinion. I only posted for in-site on what other's think, to give me a better look into the topic without reading tons and tons of material. If you noticed I posted another thread in the writing section, which was a better post.Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
And Mike
I'm sure your a great teacher...Comment
-
Hi there,
If you'd like a different approach to this question, try the fact that they may well have had him in for questioning more than once....thats how little they and we know of who he may have been. And so your paper has some accuracy and integrity, you can mention not one alleged Ripper murder was ever solved, so this "crime spree" associated with a single mad killer is, as is most of this study, merely opinion or conjecture...his alleged victims we refer to as The Canon, or Canonical Victims.
No physical evidence linked any victim with another, or any known man.
Good luck...cheers.Last edited by Guest; 04-22-2008, 12:11 AM.Comment
-
Evening, Gents.......
Shuino, you might also remember that the very manner of mutilations was off the charts of what, then, was considered "a normal murder"..... whatever THAT is. Given that we NOW know these fellas look fairly normal (whatever THAT is) and the neighbors are always stunned that their good ole over-the-back-fence-chatting buddy was actually having his girlfriends as barbecue, the police in 1888 must have thought they were searching for the Wolfman! I'm really not making light of this, but considering some of the published "sketches" of the killer resemble Dracula without the bat wings, the cops just weren't in a mode to comprehend what was happening...actually no one was. So cut them some slack, please......no fingerprints, no DNA, no forensic anthropologists, no crime scene techs, not even a Polaroid camera...egad! Caught in the act, a REAL eyewitness, a surviving victim, or a talkative friend are just about the only options the cops had, and somehow, I DON'T think our little friend had many friends at all..........
Cheers,
Judy
Comment
-
Sugden does note that fingerprinting was becoming available and, certainly, I think photography should have been used extensively. That is a bit of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" in that it may not have helped find Jack, but it certainly would make all of OUR lives easier!
One of the reasons a serial killer can remain uncaught is his lack of connection to the victim. Some argue for "domestic violence" with one or more of the victims. That promises a relationship between the killer, presumably different from Jack, and victim one can establish now. However, frankly, I do not buy that: I do not think Jack had any relationship with his victims one can trace now, and probably not then.
Returning to fingerprinting--if they found a fingerprint of Jack . . . neato! Well . . . unless you have a database of fingerprints, where does that get you? Helps you establish that this and that murder were by the same killer, but unless you happen to have Jack's fingerprints from a previous crime or subsequent crime--and, more importantly, a method to discover this . . . you have bupkiss!
Photography probably would not have changed the outcome either, unfortunately. It would help clear up a lot of questions now--such as confirming autopsy reports--was he "skilled" or "not skilled." I do not know how that would have helped the police then. I do not know if one can judge them harshly.
Sure, there were things the authorities could have done in hindsight, but that is ever the case.
I think the only way Jack would have gotten caught is by luck--observed, witnessed, if he kept killing such to make him noteworthy--"hey, Bob? Another night killing goats? Seems you missed a bit of guts there."--to others, or if he left clues to himself--kept sending letters--if he sent any!
The $37.48 Question remains "why did he stop?" I am unaware that anyone has an answer to that though there are many possibilities, and most of them explain why he was not caught.
Finally, I think far later claims from some that they "knew" Jack or somehow had "a likely suspect" is pure wishful thinking and looking back with rose-colored glasses. I do not think they really had a clue. I am not sure one can expect them to given the nature of the crimes and the resources available.
--J.D.Comment
Comment