Why was the identity of the Ripper not uncovered?

[eliz]

Hi,
I am doing a research project for my A2 history project titled, "To what extent did the policing surrounding the investigation of Jack the Ripper hinder uncovering the serial killers identity".
I am trying to avoid secularisation as this will greatly lower my mark. I have acquired a lot of source material but am finding it hard for any historians views on answering the question, as most seem intrested in speculating as to the the Ripper's identity. The historian's views are vital to formualte an argument. If anyone does know of any historians views on as to why the Ripper's identity was not uncovered, and the investigation failed, i would very much appreciate any help!
thanks
-eliz

[Nemo]

Hi Eliz - welcome to the boards and good luck with the exam

I think the consensus is that the police did a very good job with what little tools they had at the time

They were limited by lack of forensics etc - not even being able to identify human blood as opposed to animal blodd - and no fingerprints etc

Unless the murderer was pretty much caught red-handed, then they had no chance of linking a person to the crime scene at a later date.

Witnesses were notoriously unreliable, often with personal motives for giving information.

I suppose Abberline's statement that the police were overwhelmed with theories may indicate that police were sent on a lot of fruitless wild goose chases, but they cannot be blamed for that.

What if anything could have been done differently to ensure the capture/identification of the Ripper?

There were numerous house searches etc using many man hours - similar to the modern Yorkshire Ripper investigation

I cannot really say that anything the police did hindered the investigation though the obvious event relating to something like that would be the erasure of the Goulston St graffito - and possibly the loss of the clay pipe at No.13 after the doctor absent-mindedly threw it on the fire and smashed it to pieces - lol

PS There did seem at times differences between the investigations of the City Police and the Metropolitan police - so i suppose they could have collaborated more in the case

We need a historian!

(I don't think I would get a pass with my answer to that question - lol)

[GordonH]

The main issue is the lack of forensics.
The police were relying on catching him in the act of killing someone or getting good eyewitness testimony.
The chances of that were very slim.
However, technology has moved on and if the original evidence had been retained it might have been possible to revisit the case with modern forensics.
As it stands there is new documentation appearing at irregular intervals and some of that may shed light on the issue.

Another thing which is aiding understanding of the case is a greater knowledge of the social history of London at that time in history.
This is where my main interest in the case is. It is so well documented and researched it actually lets you understand what life was like in 1888.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi,
I am doing a research project for my A2 history project titled, "To what extent did the policing surrounding the investigation of Jack the Ripper hinder uncovering the serial killers identity".
I am trying to avoid secularisation as this will greatly lower my mark. I have acquired a lot of source material but am finding it hard for any historians views on answering the question, as most seem intrested in speculating as to the the Ripper's identity. The historian's views are vital to formualte an argument. If anyone does know of any historians views on as to why the Ripper's identity was not uncovered, and the investigation failed, i would very much appreciate any help!
thanks
-eliz

Hello eliz

Good luck to you with your project.

You wrote, "I am trying to avoid secularisation as this will greatly lower my mark." What do you mean by "secularisation"? Do you in fact mean "speculation" -- a word you use several lines further on?

As Nemo and GordonH said, the lack of being able to apply forensic science to the case was one big deficit that the police had. The case occurred before fingerprint evidence was accepted by the British police, and of course it was long before DNA evidence as well.

The police of the day mainly had to rely on old-fashioned footwork detection, house to house enquiries, and increased patrols to try to prevent further murders. A plan to use bloodhounds proved ineffective in such an urban setting despite a trial of such hounds by Sir Charles Warren in Hyde Park.

Another big problem was that the police were not used to dealing with serial killers and murders of strangers. They were better at dealing with domestic crimes and simple robberies that included murder. The tendency was to think that the murderer was a raving maniac, and based on what we know about sexual serial murderers today he could have been, by contrast, an outwardly normal person. Since he was targeting women who apparently were unknown to him, this made him very hard to catch. Moreover, there is the possibility that he had something about him that put his victims at ease. He might even have been a clergyman, a social worker, or a policeman. . . or else, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle suggested, a man dressed as a woman -- or alternatively a woman, a model for whom might be Mary Pearcey even if she was not herself Jack or "Jill the Ripper".

All the best

Chris

[eliz]

You wrote, "I am trying to avoid secularisation as this will greatly lower my mark." What do you mean by "secularisation"? Do you in fact mean "speculation" -- a word you use several lines further on?

Chris, I used the word secularisation as this is what the examiner wrote (to avoid) on my inital report, to see if my choice of topic would be approved. I may of course have misinterpreted the meaning!

Thank you all for your feedback and help, its all very useful!

I have now drawn up a rough plan for reasons for possible failure, and have categorized it under 3 main groups;

3 Main factors:

Police
• Failure to understand serial mentality
• No resources for the “lower classes”
• Victorian official distain for prostitutes- Not committed
• Poor police techniques
• Lack of equipment and Forensics
• Lack of training
• Victorian values and ethics
• Two police forces in competition with each other- Metropolitan police force and City force
• Witness statements- Look for person who matched descriptions
• Terminated reward scheme
• Police had bad reputation
• More concerned in preventing crime rather than solving it
• Corruption in Victorian society
• Underestimated impact of murders
• Disruption of leadership in force during investigation
• Disregard of evidence- chalk on the wall

Public opinion and media
• Hindered by public opinion- Media
• Well known person or influence from above
• Doctor- If uncovered remove faith
• Publicised
• Witness statements- Look for person who matched descriptions
• Anti-Semitism

Luck
• Poor living conditions and visibility
• The Ripper’s own genius
• Network of burrows and hideouts

If anyone can think of any that I may have left off please suggest them!

Thanks
-eliz

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi eliz

"avoid secularisation" would seem to mean in a religious context so I am not sure it fits what you are doing.

In regard to the point you made about the possible police disdain for prostitutes affecting their commitment to find the murderer, the murders became so notorious that the police were under intense pressure from the Home Office and even from the Queen who expressed concern about the murders. So even if they were not as committed to finding the killer of prostitutes at the beginning of the murders as the murder series grew, they had to be committed to get a result.

As for escape routes, you mention "burrows". Not burrows as such although sewers and underground railway tunnels might be possibilities. But more than anything, if the killer was a local man his knowledge of passageways and alleys for escape could have helped him. This was something that the police acknowledged at the time, that it was hard to cover every route of escape from the murder sites.

Best regards

Chris

[Grim]

Hi,
I am doing a research project for my A2 history project titled, "To what extent did the policing surrounding the investigation of Jack the Ripper hinder uncovering the serial killers identity".
I am trying to avoid secularisation as this will greatly lower my mark. I have acquired a lot of source material but am finding it hard for any historians views on answering the question, as most seem intrested in speculating as to the the Ripper's identity. The historian's views are vital to formualte an argument. If anyone does know of any historians views on as to why the Ripper's identity was not uncovered, and the investigation failed, i would very much appreciate any help!
thanks
-eliz

Hi Eliz. I believe that the police knew who JTR was after the MJK killing but covered it up because it either would embarass the police force or that the murderer was high profile.

Hope this helps.

[Tom_Wescott]

Your instructor is advising you to avoid heathens and athiests. I'd say that's sound advice!

As for the police, on the whole they did the best they could. Go easy on them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sdreid]

Irregardless of modern forensics and the like, he wasn't identified because, whether voluntarily or not, he quit while he was ahead.

That's the way it sometimes works with serial killers. If they'd stopped at five, chances are, we'd never have heard the names Bundy, Sutcliffe, Pommerenke or Gacy.

[Doug Irvine]

A very good list Eliz. So good in fact the only thing I can think of to add to it is the police and a good portion of the general public believed in the tenets ( and I hope I'm using the right word) of Cesar Lombroso.Lombroso claimed in his book Criminal Mind (1876) that in anatomical investigations the post mortem bodies of criminals revealed that criminals were physically different from normal people. He maintained that criminals have stigmata (Gr. Sign) and that these stigmata consist of abnormal dimensions of the skull and jaw. Lombroso even claimed that different criminals have different physical characteristics which he could discern. In fact Lombroso thought that criminals were throw backs to primitive Neanderthals. So the top flight criminal profiler of the day had the police believing that anyone whose knuckles dragged on the ground was a JTR suspect. This theory held until until 1913 when Charles Goring (a prison manager) wrote his book The British Convict. This book showed that British convicts were no different than other Englishmen and that all of Lombroso's theories were untenable.

[Bob Hinton]

Essay

Personally I think you are doomed to failure. The title of your piece "To what extent did the policing surrounding the investigation of Jack the Ripper hinder uncovering the serial killers identity".”, means that you have already made up your mind that the standard of policing was not good. Far better for you to have called your essay " Did the policing surrounding the investigation of Jack the Ripper hinder uncovering the serial killers identity?"

You could have then explored what efforts the police made then against other investigations of the time and then compared those to modern policing methods.

Even today the vast majority of serial killers are caught by sheer chance, even with all our forensics etc.

[Bob Hinton]

Essay

Looking back on your post number five I would say that you are off to a very bad start in that you have taken the view that the police investigation was very poor, without offering any evidence to support that theory. Let me just go over a couple of your points.

Failure to understand serial mentality

We don’t understand it today so this can hardly be held against the police force back then.

No resources for the lower classes.

Nonsense. They did the best job they could with the resources they had. More police officers were used in this investigation than just about any other.

Distain for prostitutes – not committed.

Again nonsense. If you read the accounts of the effort that the police as a whole and as individuals put into this investigation you wouldn’t make such a silly comment. Several senior detectives practically ruined their health during this time.

Poor police techniques
Lack of equipment and Forensics
Lack of training

Not so. The techniques they used and the training given was the best they had available. As for equipment and forensics, well they weren’t much help catching Shipton were they?

More concerned in preventing crime rather than solving it

I’m afraid this shows your ignorance of the subject. I suggest you read the nine basic principles of policing by Sir Robert Peel, who effectively started the police force in Britain. Have a good look at number 1.

I could go on but with little purpose. You seem to have made up your mind beforehand, and are simply using myth and stereotype to flesh out your essay.

I would suggest most earnestly that you start doing some real research into policing in the Victorian period and then compare it to other police forces of the time, and then run a comparison with modern policing techniques to see if we really are better today.

After you have done that then you can comment on whether the investigation they carried out was flawed or not.

Having said all that I do wish you the very best with your project.

[DarkPassenger]

I think catching a random serial killer is hard now, so given the lack of forensic technology, it was impossible then.

[Robert]

Eliz, you might find this interesting :

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/schoeneman-crisis.html

[smezenen]

you have listed "Witness statements- Look for person who matched descriptions" in 2 of your 3 sections. I dont know if this was accidental or if you intend to address this in both sections. Also i would not say "poor police techniques" as im sure they used the approved most up to date methods available, maybe primitive or better yet inadequate police techniques would be a more appropriate term.