Why Didn’t They Catch Him?

[Ms Diddles]

I too would see sheer luck as being a significant factor in the killer never being caught.

I would postulate that to kill in such public places when half of London was out searching for him, would be indicative of strong nerves and an ability to remain calm under pressure.

It may also imply an excellent knowledge of the area and street smarts.

This same ability to remain calm could also be why he did not attract suspicion and the victims felt comfortable to go with him.

I personally don't see the police as being incompetent.

I think they probably did their best with what they had at the time, but without dna, fingerprinting or cctv, really the only way the killer would have been captured would be if caught in the act, seen covered in blood and acting strangely in the vicinity, or confessed outright.

[MrBarnett]

I too would see sheer luck as being a significant factor in the killer never being caught.

I would postulate that to kill in such public places when half of London was out searching for him, would be indicative of strong nerves and an ability to remain calm under pressure.

It may also imply an excellent knowledge of the area and street smarts.

This same ability to remain calm could also be why he did not attract suspicion and the victims felt comfortable to go with him.

I personally don't see the police as being incompetent.

I think they probably did their best with what they had at the time, but without dna, fingerprinting or cctv, really the only way the killer would have been captured would be if caught in the act, seen covered in blood and acting strangely in the vicinity, or confessed outright.

Why the excellent local knowledge, Ms D?

What did the killer do that an outsider couldn’t have done?

[Ms Diddles]

Why the excellent local knowledge, Ms D?

What did the killer do that an outsider couldn’t have done?

Hi MrB!

My thinking was just that familiarity with the geography and movements of the area would aid that apparent coolness under pressure.

It's by far from a certainty though, but on balance I personally lean that way ever so slightly.

[Wickerman]

For what it's worth I suspect the 'super-sleuth' aspect has been grossly overplayed. The killer only needs to make it around the corner, to the next street so-to-speak, the streets were not empty as some have imagined. He blends into the natural comings & goings of the early morning locals, and he is just another unidentified figure.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Sounds like Joseph

[Abby Normal]

I too would see sheer luck as being a significant factor in the killer never being caught.

I would postulate that to kill in such public places when half of London was out searching for him, would be indicative of strong nerves and an ability to remain calm under pressure.

It may also imply an excellent knowledge of the area and street smarts.

This same ability to remain calm could also be why he did not attract suspicion and the victims felt comfortable to go with him.

I personally don't see the police as being incompetent.

I think they probably did their best with what they had at the time, but without dna, fingerprinting or cctv, really the only way the killer would have been captured would be if caught in the act, seen covered in blood and acting strangely in the vicinity, or confessed outright.

totally agree diddles. pure luck, being cunning, appears as avg joe, knows the lay of the land very well (which implies a local).

[Darryl Kenyon]

Jack killed in a very small area which , by the end of the murders was teeming with police, vigilance committee/s and people just on the lookout.
Why stay in Whitechapel ? Particularly with Mary ? Why take that chance, if he wasn't local but frequented the area now and again ?
Why not move to another area if he could get about ?
Seems to me Jack was local and stayed in the only area he knew and perhaps couldn't leave IE Work commitments maybe, and of being of the poorer class

Regards Darryl

Ps I also agree with Wick, once he turned that corner he was just another face in the crowd with normal working class clothes, possibly a long jacket with inside pockets and a cap on .

[mpriestnall]

Why didn't they catch him?

Was something to do with they way he rolled up his trouser leg?

[barnflatwyngarde]

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.

Fair enought point c.d.,
I would suggest however that the factors to be considered when scoping out a site for a murder and mutilation would be different from those factors required for an outdoor assignation.

Specifically, sufficient light to carry out the mutilations and possible removal of organs, and a degree of solitude in case the victims cried out.

I am not carrying a torch for my premise, merely a thought that it should at least be considered as a possible scenario, and accept that it is not a safe position to assume that the victims definitely led Jack to the murder sites.

[Losmandris]

Lots of luck and a police force woefully unprepared to deal with a perpetrator of his kind I reckon. Would he have been caught 10 or 20 years later I wonder? When police procedures became more advanced?

[c.d.]

Fair enought point c.d.,
I would suggest however that the factors to be considered when scoping out a site for a murder and mutilation would be different from those factors required for an outdoor assignation.

Specifically, sufficient light to carry out the mutilations and possible removal of organs, and a degree of solitude in case the victims cried out.

I am not carrying a torch for my premise, merely a thought that it should at least be considered as a possible scenario, and accept that it is not a safe position to assume that the victims definitely led Jack to the murder sites.

But an outdoor assignation is an outdoor assignation. There are very few requirements to make it happen if you get my drift. It's not like both parties were in search of romantic ambiance. Once the murders started, I think any prostitute would have been very hesitant to leave their safe place and go to where the customer suggested. Possible but doesn't seem likely.

c.d.

[Varqm]

From the pogroms in Russia most Jews settled in\around the Whitechapel area. If JTR was Jewish and he was caught would there have been a riot in Whitechapel\Spitalfields or a mini-pogrom in England in 1888?

[Scott Nelson]

They did "catch" him, but couldn't prosecute because of his 1) insanity, 2) lack of cooperation by witness and 3) pressure from suspect's family. The police were "morally certain" of his guilt, but were unable to bring him to justice because they lacked the powers possessed by, for example, the French police (Anderson).

Because of these embarrassing circumstances, it wasn't widely known beyond a few officers in Scotland Yard and the City Police (Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten, Moore, Sagar and eventually Henry Smith). And other police officers who knew certain circumstances surrounding the Identification came to reject the idea of his guilt, possibly from a lack of direct involvement and lack of overall facts (eg., Reid, Abberline, Arnold).

[erobitha]

They did "catch" him, but couldn't prosecute because of his 1) insanity, 2) lack of cooperation by witness and 3) pressure from suspect's family. The police were "morally certain" of his guilt, but were unable to bring him to justice because they lacked the powers possessed by, for example, the French police (Anderson).

Because of these embarrassing circumstances, it wasn't widely known beyond a few officers in Scotland Yard and the City Police (Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten, Moore, Sagar and eventually Henry Smith). And other police officers who knew certain circumstances surrounding the Identification came to reject the idea of his guilt, possibly from a lack of direct involvement and lack of overall facts (eg., Reid, Abberline, Arnold).

"...and eventually Henry Smith."

Why was he so late to the party? It's unlikely the so-called Jewish witness that identified the suspect at the Brighton seaside home was Israel Schwartz - they never had the correct address for him! The most likely witness in this scenario would be Joseph Lavende. Eddowes murder was on Smith's patch. Are you suggesting they used his witness for a murder outside the jurisdiction of the City of London police without Major Smith's initial knowledge?

I know some police procedural experts reside on these boards and would be interested to get their take.

[Scott Nelson]

No, they likely used a witness in the Eddowes murder. Smith interviewed Lawende to see if it was worthwhile proceeding with the identification. Evidently, Smith didn't think the identification was going to be very productive, but I think, he sanctioned it anyway because of pressure from the MET. I think years later, after publication of Anderson's TLSOMOL and Smith's "From Constable to Commissioner...", Anderson was able to convince Smith of the suspect's guilt from circumstantial evidence the MET gathered after the murders that Anderson subsequently shared with Smith.

But I'm not sure who the witness was. Maybe Levy.