Why was the identity of the Ripper not uncovered?

[Into The Abyss]

Hello everybody!

My first post on this forum, having been a "lurker" in the shadows, so to speak, for a number of weeks.

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the website team and the forum contributors for making this the Number One web resource for our Jack. Excellent job!

Now, getting down to business, I'd have to say, Bob Hinton, that I did think that you were being a tad brusque with eliz over her request for help. Having said that, your points are valid.

As an ex-Police officer, looking back at the actions of my brother officers from 1888, without utilising the benefits of hindsight but taking into account the resources available to them at the time, I believe that they actually did a remarkably thorough job. The only criticism I have (and I believe that this has already been touched upon by another poster) is the poor quality of the statements taken from the various witnesses, particularly in the case of George Hutchinson.

By poor quality, I mean the lack of detail apparent in descriptions, actions of the witnesses, times, etc. Certainly in Hutchinson's case, for a witness who should have been treated as a suspect, his statement is incredibly short, notwithstanding that he was subsequently interviewed by Abberline. In fact, if I had been in the Inspector's shoes I would have taken the statement myself, not left it to a subordinate officer.

[Ben]

Welcome, Into the Abyss!

Intrigued to hear an ex-police view on the Hutchinson/Abberline issue.

Best regards,
Ben

[ChrisGeorge]

As an ex-Police officer, looking back at the actions of my brother officers from 1888, without utilising the benefits of hindsight but taking into account the resources available to them at the time, I believe that they actually did a remarkably thorough job. The only criticism I have (and I believe that this has already been touched upon by another poster) is the poor quality of the statements taken from the various witnesses, particularly in the case of George Hutchinson.

By poor quality, I mean the lack of detail apparent in descriptions, actions of the witnesses, times, etc. Certainly in Hutchinson's case, for a witness who should have been treated as a suspect, his statement is incredibly short, notwithstanding that he was subsequently interviewed by Abberline. In fact, if I had been in the Inspector's shoes I would have taken the statement myself, not left it to a subordinate officer.

Hello, Into The Abyss

Great to hear from you and get your input.

In regard to George Hutchinson's statement, the problem is the exact opposite to the way you express it. Hutchinson's statement is very detailed, suspiciously so, as Bob Hinton pointed out in his fine book on the case, From Hell... The Jack the Ripper Mystery (Old Bakehouse Publications, 1998). Because the statement was taken, the streets apparently searched looking for the suspect he described, and thereafter, it seems, his statement was completely ignored, it is apparent to most students of the case that the Yard came to realise George had sold them a bill of goods.

Best regards

Chris

[Supe]

Into the Abyss,

Good opening post. You might be interested in an article, "Solved In Minutes," that ran in Ripperologist 97 (November 2008) that addresses the question of how good a job the Metropolitan Police did in 1888 in detail.

Don.

[Malcolm X]

Welcome, Into the Abyss!

Intrigued to hear an ex-police view on the Hutchinson/Abberline issue.

Best regards,
Ben

yes i bet you would ................

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

An interesting thread, indeed!

When I was studying very, very fast the case in the 1970s - it was shortly mentioned in the media, while catching the Yorkshire Ripper - my conclusion was: Jack the Ripper must have been a police-officer!

All right, here is another view to the subject; he kept breaks long enough to have the coppers loosing his tracks.

All the best
Jukka

[Grim]

my conclusion was: Jack the Ripper must have been a police-officer!

Rubbish, total rubbish!

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Grim!

That was my conclusion at the time (1970s! ), while reading fast about the case and then forgetting it...

These days I'm more - though not completely, no-one can be like that - certain, that he was a common man not known to any of us!

All the best
Jukka

[Nicola]

The police did the best they could. Looking back with modern eyes,some think they sucked. Not so. I believe that a lack of forensic science and absolutely no experience with the sort of freak that JTR was hindered them.

Then there was the Victorian attitude. JTR was murderering fallen women and well,so what? Murdered prostitues,even in our time,aren't exactly high priority homicides. If he had started hacking up countessess,governesses and respectable women,I bet the efforts would have been far more concentrated.

The media played a part in whipping up fervor and the bane of all investigations,modern or in the past,the hoaxers,showed up. Too many false leads,ridiculous witness accounts from attention seekers,and the police,to their credit,exhaustively followed up on all this crap. This distracted from real clues and possible leads.

[DVV]

Then there was the Victorian attitude. JTR was murderering fallen women and well,so what? Murdered prostitues,even in our time,aren't exactly high priority homicides. If he had started hacking up countessess,governesses and respectable women,I bet the efforts would have been far more concentrated.

Hi Nicola,
that's false. The police was really after him. Even in the Tabram's case, they did their best, organizing several parades for Barrett and Pearly Poll (Reid's efforts are amazing).
They certainly made mistakes, but not because the victims were low-class prostitutes.

Amitiés,
David

[Into The Abyss]

Evening all!

Thanks for your responses to my first post, especially ChrisGeorge. You are correct, of course, about the fact that Hutchinson sent the Police off on what would appear to be a wild goose chase and, yes, his description of the man with Mary Kelly, was far too detailed to be believable. However, there is no real explanation anywhere in his statement about his relationship with Kelly; why he was loitering about in the middle of the night; why, if the man was trying to hide his face with his "hat over his eyes", he then "looked at me stern" when Hutchinson bent down to look the stranger in the face; why at this particular juncture of the incident neither he nor Kelly spoke to each other; where did he go after leaving Millers Court; why did he wait more than three days before coming forward; who, if anyone, could verify his movements/whereabouts before, during, and after the murder (including the three days; and so on and so on.

Furthermore, I would have wanted an additional statement, at least, from him in view of the discrepancies between what he stated to the Police and what he gave to the press. But then perhaps there is an additional statement, or perhaps Abberline re-interviewed him and this information is lost - who knows!

All just part of the rich, dark tapestry, that is the mystery of Jack the Ripper.

[Mitch Rowe]

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

Well then.. Perhaps we should hire the "head" detective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZihmHZtEPM