It's 3rd September 1888 what should the Police have been doing?

[Abby Normal]

A total hypothetical here but what should the police back in 1888 have been doing just after the murder of Polly Nichols, with the resources/technology (but without our hindsight of where the next murder would be to take place) they had? Could they have caught the culprit? What errors did they make or what were the biggest opportunities they over looked?

taken photos of all witnesses(who could have been the killer-crow, Richardson hutch etc)/suspects/persons of interest to show witnesses who probably saw the ripper. I think this is the single most important thing they could have done that could have helped catch the killer.

[Lipsky]

Do you realise the manpower and costs involved in implementing such an impractical plan?

Monty

Ps the lamp issue was a Board matter, not a policing one. In fact the police often pushed the board to improve lighting.

Well!

Thankfully the police had the providence to never put such plans into action.

They saved on the manpower and costs and failed to capture the killer, much to the dismay of the contemporary taxpayers and all subsequent generations.

Some quick remarks on previous point:

Profiling, is like any other tool. It contributes to capturing the killer. Like witness examination, fingerprints, and DNA samples. It doesnt prepare your breakfast, it wont get you laid, and it sure dont capture the killer "on its own", but it helps crack the case. Definetely more helpful than erasing crucial hard evidence (graffiti on double event) and misplacing other hard evidence (where is that Lusk letter, again?).

[JeffHamm]

Thoughts.

Profiling has never caught a murderer.

Use of photography was not feasible.

And the dogs would have been of no practical use, as stated by their owner.

Monty

Hi Monty,

Why was photography not feasible? I know it would have been cumbersome, but the cameras of the time were certainly capable of long exposures to deal with the low light, etc. I never quite understood why they couldn't take the photo of the graffiti until the sun came up, unless the issue was more of "it will take that amount of time to get things set up to take the photo" rather than the photo couldn't be taken without the sun.

Mind you, I'm not expert in Victorian photography and it is possible that night photography just wasn't possible. I recognize it would have been effortful, certainly much more than it is now, but that's not the same thing. They did, after all, eventually use it for the Kelly crime scene. Mind you, that was one where they could leave things as is without exposing the general public to the scene. Blocking off a crime scene with tents, and such, was not beyond their abilities, but again, not something that was the done thing at the time even though that too was something that was physically possible for them to do and indeed, I believe there was discussion of this surrounding the graffiti as well (though there was fear such coverings would be torn down by the public. It is through improvement in investigative techniques that tells us now that preservation of the crime scene, and the recording of the details, is best practice - the Victorian police were working prior to these standards being recognized as being so valuable and were, in a sense, trying to figure out best practice. As I say, they did eventually start to record crime scenes (i.e. Kelly), I just think it would have assisted them had this been the practice already.

Anyway, just wondering if by not feasible you mean "not practical" or something more akin to "not physically possible due to the limitations of photography at that time"? I'm interested in what those limitations might have been, particularly if you mean the latter (as I say, I don't know much about the capabilities of photography at that time so always interested in learning more).

Cheers.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Great analysis. Thanks Jeff! So what do you think, would they have been able to catch him?

Tristan

Thanks. That's unanswerable as it depends on what information might have been found but wasn't. It's possible they would have found little of investigative use, and it's possible they would have found something that eventually allowed them to solve the case. A thorough crime scene investigation doesn't ensure a solution, but not doing this greatly reduces the probability of a solution.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Although the neighbourhood had seen the deaths of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram in the past year, they were of rather a different character to Polly's, so I doubt that there would have been an expectation of a single, serial eviscerator on the prowl. This is, perhaps, evident in the rather cool manner with which Dr Llewellyn discharged his duties; it was almost a case of "Well, she's dead, so you may as well take her away and I'll check her over later". That's not a criticism, more a suggestion that the authorities - Doctors and Police alike - had no particular reason to treat Polly's death as anything to go overboard about. That would come later.

[DJA]

Yet the very next day,Abberline turned up from Scotland Yard for Nichols' inquest.

[Lipsky]

Interesting stuff! Thanks Lipsky. I think by being a bit more joined up, open and methodical the police would have had a far getting chance of finding the culprit. Jack certainly gave them lots of opportunities and clues that were just over looked because that is just what they did back then, they simply did not know any better. Am I right in thinking that he is one of only a few serial killers (The Ted Bundy murders in Florida, comes to mind) who made no effort to hide of dispose of his victims bodies and killed in a relatively public area where the bodies would be found pretty quickly? Again I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but just a few simple steps could have resulted in an arrest. Though It may have taken a couple more murders to have done so.

Tristan

Interesting analogy, Tristan. Ted Bundy, in his last killing spree in Florida, was by that time totally out of control, fitting of the profile of a "disorganized serial killer" with an exponential rate of losing control.
Our man had another design: terrorism via public exposure of bodies subject to gradually increasing (and more disturbing) mutilations.
Interestingly, in a "tour de force", the final horrific "execution" was indoors --- yet still, it was "public exposure" per se.

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting analogy, Tristan. Ted Bundy, in his last killing spree in Florida, was by that time totally out of control, fitting of the profile of a "disorganized serial killer" with an exponential rate of losing control.
Our man had another design: terrorism via public exposure of bodies subject to gradually increasing (and more disturbing) mutilations.
Interestingly, in a "tour de force", the final horrific "execution" was indoors --- yet still, it was "public exposure" per se.

Im sorry Lipsky, but indoors in a small courtyard, in her own room, in bed, with windows and doors locked is, if anything, creating a curio cabinet from the windows vantage point, but it has nothing in common with "public exposure". People who make these arguments are surprisingly unable to remove Liz Stride from their own theories about a list of victims, despite the very obvious problem with their own speculation. Without any evidence of any interruption Liz Strides death is simply a murder...not ripping, not mutilation, just a murder. So why no "gradually increasing" mutilations? Why not more than one simple cut?

Because she wasn't killed by double throat cutting serial abdominal mutilator Jack is the obvious answer,,,which means the Canonical Group should actually be smaller by the existing evidence, not larger.

[John Wheat]

Im sorry Lipsky, but indoors in a small courtyard, in her own room, in bed, with windows and doors locked is, if anything, creating a curio cabinet from the windows vantage point, but it has nothing in common with "public exposure". People who make these arguments are surprisingly unable to remove Liz Stride from their own theories about a list of victims, despite the very obvious problem with their own speculation. Without any evidence of any interruption Liz Strides death is simply a murder...not ripping, not mutilation, just a murder. So why no "gradually increasing" mutilations? Why not more than one simple cut?

Because she wasn't killed by double throat cutting serial abdominal mutilator Jack is the obvious answer,,,which means the Canonical Group should actually be smaller by the existing evidence, not larger.

I'm not sure how you can categorically state which of the Canonical Victims were and weren't killed by Jack the Ripper Michael?

[Lipsky]

Im sorry Lipsky, but indoors in a small courtyard, in her own room, in bed, with windows and doors locked is, if anything, creating a curio cabinet from the windows vantage point, but it has nothing in common with "public exposure". People who make these arguments are surprisingly unable to remove Liz Stride from their own theories about a list of victims, despite the very obvious problem with their own speculation. Without any evidence of any interruption Liz Strides death is simply a murder...not ripping, not mutilation, just a murder. So why no "gradually increasing" mutilations? Why not more than one simple cut?

Because she wasn't killed by double throat cutting serial abdominal mutilator Jack is the obvious answer,,,which means the Canonical Group should actually be smaller by the existing evidence, not larger.

Thank you, Michael, for sharing.

You raise some interesting issues:
1. How canonical was the canonical five?
2. If , deviating from the canonical five, one should exclude victims, instead of including more?
3. Is the Liz stride murder part of the canon? and if so, how does one explain the lack of mutilations?
4. Is the "indoors" murder of MJK incompatible with prior murders?

Some fast responses:
1. It wasn't. In my opinion, ten was the murder toll (and possibly one survived attack, raising the designated victim toll to 11).
2. All Torso murders are in my opinion, irrelevant. I think though that Liz Stride was a canonical victim.
3. I consider the Double event as "a singular" operational hit. Two hits, one operation, one mutilation. Stride MO concerning throat-cutting identifies our man.
4. The most spectacular mutilation had to be indoors. It balances out the scheme. MJK was the stellar witness and treated as such. It was neither private nor remote. This was never intended to be a "missing persons" case. The body would be immediately discovered by McCarthy (as happened) or Barnett. Or the other prostitute residing there? (A discussion in its own). MO of the killer was not grade of mutilation or the "type of knife" or the age of the victim or their profession.

[John Wheat]

taken photos of all witnesses(who could have been the killer-crow, Richardson hutch etc)/suspects/persons of interest to show witnesses who probably saw the ripper. I think this is the single most important thing they could have done that could have helped catch the killer.

Great Post Abby. I'm not sure this would have worked at this stage but continuing in this manner would have been useful and would have probably solved the question of who was Jack.

[Losmandris]

Interesting analogy, Tristan. Ted Bundy, in his last killing spree in Florida, was by that time totally out of control, fitting of the profile of a "disorganized serial killer" with an exponential rate of losing control.
Our man had another design: terrorism via public exposure of bodies subject to gradually increasing (and more disturbing) mutilations.
Interestingly, in a "tour de force", the final horrific "execution" was indoors --- yet still, it was "public exposure" per se.

I have just been watching a documentary on the Yorkshire Ripper and it appears he too made no effort to dispose/hide the bodies (at least in the majority of cases) of his victims either. It was five years and 13 victims before he was finally caught, and that was by chance, so I think without some really inventive interventions I think the police back in 1888 would have really struggled. In deed the police of the 70s and 80s were very much in the same boat no DNA, no CCTV and old school attitude to policing that nowadays seems rather myopic.

Tristan

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed, if Sutcliffe hadn't had false number plates on his vehicle, he probably wouldn't have been arrested at all.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm not sure how you can categorically state which of the Canonical Victims were and weren't killed by Jack the Ripper Michael?

I am saying in the quote that you used that Liz Stride doesn't belong on a Rippers List, and therefore the Canonical Group should be smaller. Show me one bit of evidence that links the killing of Liz Stride with either Annie or Kate, and geography and timing are not links. Stride is included because the second murder that night resembled Annies killing and people therefore assume the same man did both...they are the same people that suggest an interruption to explain away the obvious problems, something that is not indicated in any evidence anywhere.

[Harry D]

I'm not sure how you can categorically state which of the Canonical Victims were and weren't killed by Jack the Ripper Michael?

Eh? You've done the same when you dismiss Alice McKenzie based on the time lapse.