Single biggest reason for not catching JTR?

[Harry D]

In your opinion, what was the single biggest reason why JTR was never caught?

Lack of modern forensics? Police incompetence? Jack was just too damn good?

[Penhalion]

I think it was a combination of two factors.

1) The police were dealing with a new kind of killer that they really hadn't encountered before. The standard motivations didn't apply and the regular methods didn't work. (I know JtR wasn't the first but he was one of the earliest to be recognized).

2) JtR was really lucky. A matter of a minute or two and he could have been caught red handed at a couple of his crimes. He either had nerves of steel or just didn't care all that much about being caught. Maybe if he had continued his luck might have run out but he either stopped or changed his methods significantly enough to appear to have stopped.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo.

Thing about serial killers is, they tend to be pretty good at killing. Similar to playing poker. There's a way to play to increase your chances of success.

[Fisherman]

My money - or a good deal of it - is on prejudice on behalf of the police. The thing is, it was not easy to avoid being prejudiced; phrenology was broadly accepted as science, and it was believed that some people were more likely to commit crime than others.
We are discussing a century that for example saw a Bavarian gentleman receiving a reward and press acclaim for having shot and killed a gipsy woman and her baby with a single shot - the Bavarian authorities payed people who shot rats, pigeons and gipsies.

The Victorian police looked mainly for a specific type, preferably raving mad and foreign, and they did not have the benefit of hindsight as we do, knowing full well that many a serial killer is a very common man on the surface.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

He was only ever going to get caught by either forensic evidence or by being careless. He didn't get careless. He wasn't seen, he didn't start killing women close to him, he didn't get caught carting body parts across the city... the tiniest application of care was all that was needed for success. And the forensics that would catch him weren't there.

The biggest reason he wasn't caught is because it's actually really easy to kill without getting caught.

[pinkmoon]

Hi Harry,I personally do not think our killer lived locally the police were searching for a local resident but if our killer was coming into the area just to murder he could simply just leave the area after his murders.I do think our killer might well have had some connection to the area over the years maybe he had used the services of the women for a short period of time before the murders started.I think we can all agree if our killer had carried on he would have been caught his luck would have run out on day and I'm pretty certain that someone either police or civilian witnessed something and never reported it .

[Barnaby]

The biggest reason he wasn't caught is because it's actually really easy to kill without getting caught.

This, of course, for lots of reasons, but I hope you meant "was" and not "is," otherwise YIKES!

In addition, however, one reason not to overlook is that he stopped, or slowed down considerably, or moved away, or died, or something. Even if it was easy to kill and get away with it, at some point it became relatively more difficult as more police were put on the streets with the sole purpose of apprehending the killer. Had he kept killing, it was only a matter of time before he would have been detected.

This also assumes that he was not essentially caught, which is not 100% certain (e.g, David Cohen).

[mklhawley]

This also assumes that he was not essentially caught, which is not 100% certain (e.g, David Cohen).

And possibly in the case of Druitt. Well, drowned, but high suspicions that he was the man.

Mike

[FrankO]

My view is that because the Ripper was quite good at controling himself & not giving himself away the police would only catch him if they caught him red-handed or fleeing the crime scene.

Cheers,
Frank

[Cogidubnus]

Four factors essentially that I can think of off-hand:

(a) An absence of experience in dealing with an apparently motive-less crime...yes there HAD been serial murders before this time but nobody living seemed to have any experience in how to deal with them...in most crimes police depended on witness evidence or "previous history" to bump-start their enquiry...in these cases there was none...

(b) An absence of crime scene pathology - some doctors summoned to crime scenes were experienced in that context...others weren't...but compared to modern experts, none at all had a hope in hell...blood groups weren't even heard of...it was impossible for a doctor at the time to know if a blood sample was even human or animal...let alone blood grouping or DNA...fingerprints were years away...forensic evidence was actually NIL

(c) Communications or absence of...shaking a rattle or blowing a whistle was about it on the ground...ok there was the telegraph between police stations but at the actuak crime scene... ok the cops were on the cusp of something better but it hadn'tgot there yet.

(d) A totally inadequate protection from above...the political interference in this case was unprecedented...I'm sure Warren did his best but he was subject to the limitations of military command, the Home Secretary being a total inadequate didn't help, the Home Office and the Queen herself shamelessly interfered with the investigation...

I'm sure there's more...

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

As the question was the single biggest, I go for luck, how lucky was he that no one ever caught him in the act, considering the number of people out looking for him, especially the double event. If it was all one person.

[lynn cates]

Catch what does not exist.

Hello Harry. Good idea for a thread.

Permit me to suggest that he never existed in the first place.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Harry. Good idea for a thread.

Permit me to suggest that he never existed in the first place.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I knew you were going to say that even before I saw your post.

But we do have victims and their slayer or slayers were never caught.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I forgot to add that if there were in fact multiple killers, I would expect that that would have increased the chances of at least one of them being caught.

c.d.

[GUT]

G'day c.d.

I forgot to add that if there were in fact multiple killers, I would expect that that would have increased the chances of at least one of them being caught.

c.d.

I see that as the biggest obstacle to the multiple killer [as opposed to gang] hypothesis.

The biggest problem I see with the gang hypothesis is it not slipping out. The best way to keep a secret is for only one person know it.