Would Jack have been caught if he struck today?

[Mitch Rowe]

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.

In the case of the first suspect Tom Stephens. There was really no choice in the matter. He told Police he thought he had a split personality and that he may have commited the murders! He also granted an interview to national press saying he knew all the victims! This goes to show of what sometimes happens in a case. The suspect may fit all criteria. He may walk/talk/act like a duck but might not be a duck. That is why I may never formally accuse a person on being the Ripper even though all circumstances point to the person.

I think the biggest mistake made by Suffolk Constabulary is that Steve Wright was stopped and questioned on Dec 1st and he was to avoid suspicion. If he would have been arrested 3 lives would have saved. You can bet that this incident is being reviewed and scrutinized in an attempt to prevent such a thing from ever happening again!

Perhaps a better link from Patrol Officers to Headquarters via computer? If a Patrol Officer can obtain more information on the spot concerning a suspect?

Perhaps a direct link to video cameras so that Patrol Officers can determine if the car they have stopped is really just passing through and not cruising the area?

I have no doubt that something will be or already has been done to correct the problem. And the problem is NOT negligence on Police procedure. Its just something that can be improved in some manner.

[Bob Hinton]

Dna

Unfortunately DNA is not the Holy Grail of crime detection. DNA simply shows that someone came into contact with something, nothing more nothing less. Just because your DNA is found at a crime scene doesn’t mean you committed a crime. I remember having a real argument with a woman from victim support once about rape. She was saying that now they had DNA it was now acceptable to execute rapists as their guilt could now be proved beyond doubt.

I pointed out that this was not so and in this case all it would prove is that a person had intercourse with another person – it did not prove the act was non consensual. She just couldn’t see it loudly exclaiming that DNA now proved that it was rape.

Also don’t be lulled into a false sense of security when they trot out the old chestnut ‘ Ah if only we had something to compare it to’. Doesn’t make any difference. You can match DNA samples with a shed load of people, still doesn’t show they did anything wrong.

I remember a case a long time ago where a house had been burgled. A bookcase had been moved away from the wall to allow access to a hidden safe. On the back of the bookcase was a perfect set of prints, and these were matched to an ex con with a long line of housebreakings to his discredit.

When questioned he vehemently denied the crime and offered as his alibi the fact he had been in hospital at the time having his appendix removed. The appendix had burst and he had been under close observation – it wasn’t him, but they were definitely his prints. He swore he had never been in the house before. What was the answer? Five years before he had worked in the store where the householder had purchased the bookcase. With the bookcase against the wall all of his other prints had been polished off over the years – but not the ones at the back of the bookcase.

Now if he hadn’t had a cast iron alibi, what’s the betting he would have gone down for it?

[Bob Hinton]

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.

Not really harsh I was simply pointing out that this was a relatively rare case of a serial killer being apprehended by police work and not by pure luck. I take your point about the first suspect but put that in to show that in common with the Victorian police even modern police don't hit the nail on the head first time.

Personally I have always thought one the the classic cases of First Rate police work was the Buck Ruxton case.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

What a pleasant surprise to find Mr Evans back, post data crash.

Someone mentioned fingerprinting, although it was not used in criminal investigations as evidence until I believe 1903, the process existed since the early 1880's, and was known of. I think its possible that the contemporary police might have been able to compare fingerprints for similarity, to perhaps link crimes to a single print, maybe including witness suspect descriptions or their ID of him..had they at least 2 samples they could attribute to the killer, and in a complete, fair to good state, to use.

What sort of surprises me most is the lack of photographic evidence. I suppose night kills meant difficult crime scene lighting, and cordoning off an area until daylight wasnt practical...but I do wonder about even portable lamp lighting as a potential light source.

Its also apparent that unless they caught him actually in the act, they had little if any useful prosecution evidence.

Best regards.

[Mitch Rowe]

First rate police work yes! Perfect? No. All that can be done is make changes to improve and pray the changes made will help.

Bob..Your post on the bookcase incedent is exactly what I was talking about. All evidence can point to a suspect who may not be the perp. Its rare but it happens. I will always give a JTR suspect benefit of the doubt.

[Hellrider]

okay, let's assume that Jack's murders would take place in 2008 the same way (exactly) as they did 120 years ago.

I personally see the main hindrance for his apprehension in the fact that he certainly did many things by "accident"..he was not the criminal master mind that legend has him be. His actions most likely were impulsive, he did not know the victims, he struck quickly and with a sure hand. Maybe he left too much to chance for police to catch him without a least having to go to the limits of their capacities

[YankeeSergeant]

I Don't Know

The point has been made that this is like comparing apples and oranges and that is a most cogent assessment. If he only did 5 murders and he did them in London, I have to say I don't think he would be caught. It is so much easier to get around now than it was thenand if he was savvy enough not to be covered in blood as I tend to belive, then no one would have a reason to question him. IN my humble opinion.

[Pearberr]

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



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.

This is a great post, and I agree with most of it...however, I believe that they could have, in my perfect world, matched the fingerprints to William Henry Bury when he was hanged in Dundee, Scotland. To all of the different suspects who wish that they did fingerprint, (Druitt, Kosminski and Bury notably), that sucks for us, and for the rest of you, you got really lucky.

[Doctor X]

Well, as I said, they would have to have the fingerprints "on file" and created the file. I suppose they could just keep checking every person they hanged and hoped they got lucky.

One has to assume that Jack somehow came under arrest/suspicion for "something" during or after the crimes such that his finger prints would have been collected. That is quite an assumption. Furthermore, one then has to assume they do this for everyone they did actually arrest/question/suspect. This creates a rather big collection . . . that they would then have to sort through.

Not impossible, but not very easy. Be that as it may, they did not have the resources in place, so it is all a big "what if" anyways.

--J.D.

[Christine]

A more likely scenario is that they would have compared prints to various suspects, and the innocent (innocent of the Whitechapel killings at least) suspects would give their prints up voluntarily and be eliminated.

Any suspects left they could probably come up with an excuse to arrest, or at least follow them around.

DNA would work more or less the same way, if he'd left something usable like a hair at the crime scene. But then we're back to the circular problem: if he'd known about DNA, he wouldn't have left any and wouldn't have been caught.

[Doctor X]

Well, maybe if the police asked them to volunteer their astrological charts. . . .

--J.D.

[Barnaby]

If the murders occur today, it is a coin flip as to whether he gets caught. Forensic science is more sophisticated, but so then would be our killer. My gut feeling is that Jack gets caught due to his (perceived) impulsivity.

If we transport forensic science and modern policing back to Victorian London, Jack gets caught. I believe that he must have left some physical evidence. If so, police wouldn't have had to rely on reluctant eyewitnesses.

[brummie]

It would be extremely difficult not to leave any dna at the scene,but this is only useful when you have asuspect to compare it to.the main problem with serial killing of this type is that there is no logical suspect such as a relative or friend involved. The use of dna or fingerprints may have been useful to eliminate or confirm suspects but on its own wont neccessarily bring results,you only have to examine the difficulty in ctching modern serial killers to appreciate that good detective work and a large slice of luck comes first.

[truebluedub]

It's amazing to see the so called "csi effect" in some people's estimation of whether the Ripper would have been caught.

Kind regards,
Chris Lowe

[Graham]

No-one needs to be told by me that although fingerprinting was not unknown in 1888, the police in the UK did not utilise it as a forensic tool. Had JtR left his prints somewhere (most likely Mary Kelly's room) then they would have meant nothing to the investigating police. Back then, the vast majority of murders were solved not by super detective work, but by either the perpetrator being caught red-handed, or via confession.

I suppose the nearest modern (British) case to JtR is The Yorkshire Ripper, and he was murdering for a hell of a long time before he was eventually - and via sheer luck - brought to book. Bundy, too, was killing for a long time before he was caught.

The British Government just released a report which states that, although the UK has more CCTV cameras than virtually any other country in the world, there is no evidence that their extensive presence has led to any marked reduction in crime. What a surprise!

Regarding DNA, it is certain that in the vast majority of murders DNA will be left either at the crime-scene or on or in the body of the deceased, but the problem the police then have is who to check? Until everyone's DNA is on a central data-base (God forbid) it'll be down to good old-fashioned detective work to pin-point suspects.

I have a friend who was a detective in the West Midlands, and he told me that the easiest murder to solve is the domestic murder; the hardest is when a body is found on the street. Without some kind of link, however tenuous, between the body and 'someone else', such murders are virtually unsolvable.

I don't think that 'outdoor' random murders are much easier to solve today than in 1888. However, I am 99% sure that with modern detection methods and modern forensics, whoever killed Mary Kelly would have been caught.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject.

Cheers,

Graham