What SHOULD the police have done?

[Barnaby]

Barnaby, I'm not saying this in a condenscending fashion in any way whatsoever, but you should have authored Utopia (in a perfect world)! Sigh.

Hi Maria,

I wish I had authored Utopia!

But seriously, similar strategies are used. For example, in the TV show "To Catch a Predator" they lure sex predators on the internet to a house where supposedly they will have sex with an underage girl. Of course, it is a setup and the men are arrested. Could not something similar have been tried?

[Errata]

Errata, exactly as Supe said in his earlier post: And just precisely what might photographs of the crime scenes have told the police? Such photos are more favored by prosecutors than investigators, as they provide a hedge against defense charges of site contamination.
Also, it was too early at the time for the police to have realized the usefulness of fingerprints. And what might fingerprints have accomplished decades later, when there were no suspects available for fingerprinting?
The mistakes in the Whitechapel investigation happened 1) in the questioning of the witnesses/suspects (for which it's true that significant contemporary files are lost to us, so we don't have a fully precise idea of the investigation) and
2) in their failure to secure the neighborhood (which was not an easy task at hand, must be admitted).

Crime scene photos would have done nothing for the investigators at the time. But they would have been valuable to anyone working on it as a cold case. My point is they did what they could, as well as they could. The only thing more they could have done would have been to preserve as much as possible with an eye towards solving it at a later date. And even that may not have worked. But it's what else they could have done.

[Monty]

Apologies Ben,

I thought you had found something in the Police File.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

This is from the Echo of 13th November 1888:

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.

This was followed by the Star's revelation two days later that the account was "now discredited" and both articles make sense of Hutchinson's conspicuous absence from subsequent interviews, memos and reports which address the subject of eyewitnesses, most notably the observations of Robert Anderson.

But here we're drifting into another "Was Hutchinson discredited?" thread, and the danger of duplicating numerous other (and very recent) threads is imminent!

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

As reluctant as I am to wade into matters Hutch on the wrong thread, it's worth pointing out that the reasons for Hutchinson's lateness had by no means been established by Abberline at the time of the interview. Indeed, we know that "the authorities" were still pondering that very question the next day, when they were already attaching a "reduced importance" to his statement.

Best regards,
Ben

Do we Ben?

Where?

Monty

[Ben]

As reluctant as I am to wade into matters Hutch on the wrong thread, it's worth pointing out that the reasons for Hutchinson's lateness had by no means been established by Abberline at the time of the interview. Indeed, we know that "the authorities" were still pondering that very question the next day, when they were already attaching a "reduced importance" to his statement.

Best regards,
Ben

[mariab]

To Monty:
Hello Monty,
absolutely, I know about Abberline's notes of that interview not having survived. Both Hunter and I mentioned the unfortunate missing of the notes/full reports earlier in this thread. I do hope to be able to read the surviving covering report at some point in the future. Still, in my unavoidably uninformed opinion (both as a newbie and due to the fact that important sources are missing), I have the feeling that Abberline might have been swayed both by Hutchinson and Barnett. And why didn't he seek to have a talk with Joseph Fleming? Or did he, perhaps?

To Protohistorian:
I don't see the relevance of instisting with this debate. I didn't respond in part with "silent boots“ to the question “What should have the police done?", I just mentioned that it was very clever that the WVC used silent boots. What I have to say pertaining to this matter is in my posts #25 and #39 for all to see.

Gotta get dressed and run now, after the mother of all showers.
Until later, everybody, and have a nice day (for the Europeans) and a nice dawn (for the Americans).

[jason_c]

Errata, exactly as Supe said in his earlier post: And just precisely what might photographs of the crime scenes have told the police? Such photos are more favored by prosecutors than investigators, as they provide a hedge against defense charges of site contamination.
Also, it was too early at the time for the police to have realized the usefulness of fingerprints. And what might fingerprints have accomplished decades later, when there were no suspects available for fingerprinting?
The mistakes in the Whitechapel investigation happened 1) in the questioning of the witnesses/suspects (for which it's true that significant contemporary files are lost to us, so we don't have a fully precise idea of the investigation) and
2) in their failure to secure the neighborhood (which was not an easy task at hand, must be admitted).

Also favoured by modern day readers with a morbid curiosity, myself included.

[protohistorian]

So if I have this straight, on a message board dedicated to the study of Jack the Ripper, on a thread called" What should have the police done?" You responded in part with "silent boots", and that in no way implies that you were proposing silent boots would effect policing in relation to the ripper? The fact that the purpose of the police is to thwart crime in no way means that you were implying that said "silent boots" on the feet of policemen are to be taken as a method of thwarting the ripper? Dave

[Monty]

Hi Maria,

Yes, I read Stewarts piece on Hutchinson when it was first published. A fantastic insight.

Let me draw you to one point Stewart makes.

Unfortunately Abberline's notes of that interview have not survived the passage of time, although we do have his covering report, which does supply a few extra details. What is for certain is that Abberline would have cleared up with Hutchinson as to why he had come forward so late. That Hutchinson had a good reason must be assumed as Abberline made no comment on this point and still felt happy with Hutchinson's statement

Now you are drawing on the assumption Hutchinsons statement is the be all without considering that there may be other documents which add to this statement and covers that 60%. It is quite possible the details were not left out but more missing on a differing document. Not helpful to us, however I feel it is more a case of missing info than the Police not gathering the info at all.

We must consider all the facts and possibilities before we start laying into the Police.

Cheers
Monty

[Rubyretro]

Hi Richard, I think the description of A Man was in the official records, so secret from the public.

It was Hutch that gave it to the Press..along with more detail than he had given to the Police, and effectively that would have made A Man (if he existed) flee or change his appearence (but too late, unless he had never worn his jewellery before, or lived like a hermit).

I think that well before MJK it might have been useful to give out that they had an accurate description of the killer, but not say what it was, nor precise who the witness was...I think that it is almost certain that the killer followed the case, and was probably a 'control freak' (it could be argued that serial killers are all 'controlling', since they think that they have the power of life and death over another person, and after the first murders, control over the
situation). Keeping the killer in the dark would take away his sense of control (I think), and might make him make a mistake.

Still, it could be argued that the Police did hold back some information in the case of Lawende, and maybe this led to a short gap in the murders. Also, if
Lawende's description was not accurate, the killer may have suspected the Police of misinformation, but when nothing happened afterwards, he just carried on...

Fear of the Police playing such games, may also have led Hutch to come forward to the investigation on the other hand...and maybe that saved other women from being murdered, if nothing else ? (note the Question Mark everyone !!)

ps -I'm trying to be a 'Good Girl' now, and not bring the H word up in threads -but Richard made a point, and I replied..

[mariab]

Hi Fish,
typos are my forte (in every single language that I speak/write)! You're bound to find tons of them in my posts, for which I apologize profoundly.

Monty wrote:
What are you basing this 60% of left out details on?
Hello Monty,
well, 60% was an exaggeration (for emphasis!). Let's rather say 40%. There's a dissertation by SPE posted here on casebook discussing what all details were left out of Abberline's questioning of Hutchinson. The link is http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-witness.html. Plus, if you read Paley, the holes and inconsistencies in Barnett's testimonies make his statements appear like Swiss cheese.
Monty wrote:
The Vigilance Commitees did not do 'comprehensive' patrolling? The evidence contradicts.
I've read several reports in the press which (sometimes involuntarily) testify to an amateurish patrolling. One of these reports appears in Ripper Notes #25, if I'm not mistaken. Another report was posted in a thread about the WVC in June, resulting in a fight between Simon Wood and Wescott (big surprise!), if I recall correctly. NO time for me to search for this thread right now, sorry.

Protohistorian wrote:
Silent boots? Really? The guy killed a woman outside a busy social club and somehow silent boots are going to thwart him? Where's my bong?
I didn't say silent boots were going to thwart the Ripper, still, it was of greater benefit to use silent boots than the heavy standard ones, which telegraphed a PC's approaching about as thunderously as the T-Rex in Spielberg's Jurassic Park. Without these loud police boots, possibly (just possibly) the Ripper might have even been caught in Buck's Row or in Mitre Square.

Rubyretro wrote:
It's certainly a shame that they weren't more abreast of 'fingerprinting', since I think that the French police were -and the French were already sealing off crime scenes.
This is so cool and clever for the French, Ruby! I have the impression that fingerprinting is mentioned in Balzac (Le père Goriot) and, possibly, in Dostoievsky's Crime and Punishment. I have neither books here in Berlin (they're at my mom's), and NO time whatsoever to research such stuff this week.
The use of a bloodhound might have helped with Mary Kelly. Now I really have to go, starting with an extensive, overdue shower (I stink strong enough to make a bloodhound conk out), then follows some intense bureaucracy, laced with tons of errands to run.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
How about the Whole 'Astracan' story, could that not be a classic case of giving the killer a false 'sense' of security?
Lets look at the possibilty, that the police had a real good description from Hutchinson, and to prevent the killer, altering his overall appearence. they overplayed several features,[ with Hutchinsons agreement] so that the culprit would feel he had no need to alter his attire.
What would be the benefit from releasing an accurate description, which would lead to. not only the real possibility that the Ripper would 'go to ground'. but drastically alter his appearence.
Was that the reason for such a large payment to Hutch?...[ ALLEGED]
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

I don't think that they should have profiled. They did, and ended up looking for an insane Jewish butcher, more or less, which hindered the investigation.

I certainly agree that they should have interviewed as many prostitutes and
publicans as possible, as it is most likely that JtR was a man who hung about prostitutes and drank in the same pubs as them.

They should have tried to get the name of the man that Mary was supposedly afraid of from her female friends (although they probably did, and we just don't know about it).

I'm very sorry that those two bloodhounds never arrived at the Kelly scene, and as fast as possible. If you think about it, JtR was probably a man who didn't bathe and wash his hair very often, and certainly not his outer clothes.
With the fire burning so strongly in that tiny room he must have been sweating -and no deodrant ! The smell of the blood must have clung in his hair, and he was bound to have had at least droplets of blood on himself.
There must have been an incredibly strong odour for a dog -nothing comparable to the failed trials in the park. Dogs have a very long memory for smells, and they MIGHT have picked JtR out from a lodging House, pub, the market etc. (well, it wouldn't have been proof enough to convict, but they'd have known who to shadow).

It's certainly a shame that they weren't more abreast of 'fingerprinting', since I think that the French police were -and the French were already sealing off crime scenes.

I think that it is a shame that the Press had so much info -it allowed JtR to follow the investigation from afar. It might have frustrated him not to know
just how much the Police knew. Feeding some false info to the Press, such as 'leaking' that the police had a reliable witness who JtR hadn't seen (no details given), and that they were just days away from an arrest and intended to see the culprit hang...that may have flushed him out to make a mistake, it would surely put him under great stress, which may have been spotted by those around him.

[protohistorian]

silent boots? Really? The guy killed a woman outside a busy social club and somehow silent boots are going to thwart him? Where's my bong? Dave