Why Didn’t They Catch Him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apart from being an exercise to see if I can post on a thread without stupid Druitt-related posts being made or that certain posters just make things up and refuse to acknowledge what’s in front of their eyes in black and white, I’ll ask this question to the vast majority of posters. Of course any reasons might be related to a preferred suspect or theory but I’m talking in more general terms here. The murders took place in a fairly small area, manpower was thrown at the case, the police were under huge pressure to leave no stone unturned.

Why didn’t they catch him?

What do we think were the most important deciding factor or combination of factors in the Police’s lack of success?

Was he just lucky? Was he just too clever for them? Did ‘insider’ knowledge help him (like knowledge of the local geography or Police beats?) Were the police incompetent? Was it just a case of their lack of knowledge about serial killers or those that they would have termed lunatics? Did anyone cover for the killer (like family or friends or the authorities for whatever reason?)

My intention here btw is less for debate and more just to hear opinions.

[Iconoclast]

Why didn’t they catch him?

Hi Herlock,

Good question. It points to:

1) Knowledge of the streets
2) Looking sufficiently affluent that no-one would suspect nor stop him
3) Not looking like he was covered in blood (must have worn a long coat which he removed before each murder)
4) Having a valid reason to be there in case he was stopped for whatever reason
5) A large amount of good fortune (at the first four murder scenes)

I think if you could find the pool of candidates who fitted the first four criteria, Wor Jackie would be amongst them.

PS Just thought, he must have carried a mirror too (to check his face for blood before he fled)!

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

That was all true of why they didn't catch him in the act, of course.

In terms of after the event, I assume he:

6) Lived alone or with one or more people who would not find his movements strange (senile parent or what have you)
7) Absolutely never talked about his crimes even under the influence of drink
8) Never acted suspiciously at any time
9) Possibly did not live permanently in Whitechapel but had a temporary base there (hotel, room, etc.)

I'm sure I'll think of a tenth!

Ike

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Herlock,
I am inclined to believe that your comment re possible "insider knowledge" is a good one.

Many moons ago I started a thread called "Who Chose the Murder Sites?"
My basic premise was that although it is widely accepted that the victims chose the sites for a potential assignation, there is no real evidence to support this.

It is fair to say that my idea receceived pretty short shrift from other posters, however I still think that not enough consideration has been given to this particular scenario.

Even if the victims (I am excluding MJK from this scenario as her murder was indoors, although this in itself does not negate my basic premise) had used the sites of their murders for past clients, the possibility still remains that the killer chose these particular locations (the customer is always right) because they suited his purpose perfectly.

If the killer used his "insider knowledge" of the local area to reduce his risk of getting caught, then we begin to see the killings in a new light.

[c.d.]

Even if the victims (I am excluding MJK from this scenario as her murder was indoors, although this in itself does not negate my basic premise) had used the sites of their murders for past clients, the possibility still remains that the killer chose these particular locations (the customer is always right) because they suited his purpose perfectly.

It would seem that the prostitutes and Jack had the same goal. Choose a location where they would not be interrupted by the police. So I think a reasonable assumption on the part of Jack would be that the locations chosen by the women were suitable for his needs as well.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Even if Jack scouted out locations beforehand with a cold, calculating mindset comparable to a bank robber planning a heist we have no way of knowing whether he might have seen a woman on the street and decided I am going to kill her, circumstances and location be damned. I think the Stride murder could have been the latter.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

because he was lucky and very perceptive, crafty. street smart and knew thise roads and allyways like the back of his hand.

[JeffHamm]

Stranger murders are extremely difficult to solve, even today. If an offender's DNA is found at the crime scene, that doesn't help unless that offender's DNA is already in a data base (although that is starting to change with the use of ancestry type DNA databases, it is still a long and complicated process and not one guaranteed to meet with success).

In 1888, the London police didn't even use fingerprints for identification. Photography was starting to be used, but only haphazardly. Basically, the police at the time were pretty much entirely reliant upon either catching him in the act (which in my opinion I think they almost did in the case of Eddowes) or getting information from the public from someone who knew, or suspected, who the murderer was. They greatly increased the patrols at the time, and there were numerous requests for additional funding to maintain a high density police presence on the streets at that time, which basically is an attempt to increase the probability of the first option.

With regards to the second, the police were not entirely well trusted by the residence of the area at the time, and someone turning another in based only upon some sort of suspicion would result in that person being looked upon poorly if they were wrong (and by some, even if they were right I don't doubt!). As such, the police had an uphill task in front of them. People were reluctant to come to them, as we know by the reluctance of some of the witnesses to come forward. Their main method of information gathering was, therefore, to canvas the area, which they did. They performed extensive house-to-house inquiries, and there are reports that despite the suspicions against the police the general population was, on the whole (if not entirely) generally helpful and open and allowed the police to check out their residences if asked.

Of course, that would not be helpful if JtR was not resident in the area, or if he lived alone, of if he did not raise suspicions amongst those who knew him. In more recent history, we have the likes of Dennis Radar, whom nobody suspected, and when Ed Kemper called the police to confess they didn't believe him the first time and thought he was pranking them! He had to call a 2nd time. Not every serial killer is obviously deranged, no matter how horrendous their crimes. If JtR is of this sort, the police would have their main method of information gathering nullified.

While some people often denigrate the police at the time, they cannot be held responsible for the fact that much of the modern techniques were simply not yet developed. They did make some mistakes, as people do, and they were slow to take up fingerprinting, but they were starting to incorporate crime scene photography (at least in the case of Kelly), and the idea of using the bloodhounds was considered. I know the latter was poo-poo'd by the press, and it may have had little chance of sucess, but it was at least an attempt to try something new as they realized this was a series of crimes unlike anything they were used to dealing with.

I do think JtR was extremely lucky for the most part. There is a good possibility that Cross/Lechmere entered Buck's Row while he was still there, that Cadoche was in the yard beside him while he was still there, that PC Harvey patrolled Church Passage while he was still there, and that Schwartz may even have seen him as he attacked Stride (if, of course, Stride is a JtR victim). None of those close calls were because he was clever. Clever would be reflected in killing in a place safe from discovery. With JtR, he was relying upon being quick and alert. But if Harvey's patrol included Mitre Square, the chase would have been on, and if PC Neil had arrived before Cross/Lechmere the same. If Cadoche looked over the fence, the hue and cry that most likely would have followed would end up (most likely) in his capture, and so forth.

But, once he was able to put some distance between himself and the crime scene, and it wouldn't require all that much distance, the lack of any association between him and the victim pretty much meant there was almost no way to connect him to the crime itself.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

I agree with Jeff. I see nothing in any of the crimes or their locations that suggests the killer was anything other than lucky. He may have had local knowledge or he may have been a virtual stranger to the area.

[Trevor Marriott]

With JtR, he was relying upon being quick and alert. - Jeff

I agree with your comment but in my opinion being quick and alert can only refer to the murder and the mutilation to the bodies.

That term cannot apply to the alleged removing of the organs !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Cunning with some lucky breaks, is my opinion.

[Enigma]

He was lucky with good local knowledge and did not arouse suspicion either with his victims or during the police investigations.

[Simon Wood]

Why didn't they catch him?

Because there was no one to catch.

Jack was an invention.

[FISHY1118]

Or there was a murderer..that was to slick

[John Wheat]

Why didn't they catch him?

Because there was no one to catch.

Jack was an invention.

So just who was responsible for The Whitechapel murders then? If Jack wasn't involved.