What SHOULD the police have done?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Many thanks. Interesting that the Echo story appeared the day before GH's enhanced description.

You're quite right. The Echo had no reputation for being unscrupulous. And nor did the Star, come to that, which boasted a stellar editorial team. Radical, most definitely, but not unscrupulous.

Thanks again.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

lone killer...police mistake?

Hello all,

When I posed the original question on this thread, I had, in the back of my mind something that bothered me. Allow me to explain..

From a very early stage DURING the spate of murders, from both the press and the police, the idea that ONE lone killer was responsible for these murders was formed. It seems, at no point in time, did any policeman ever believe that there was more than one murderer involved, UNLESS we turn the clock forward until AFTER the Kelly murder, when as if by magic, and with a little help from Dr. Bond's writings to Anderson, and Sir MM in his references to it, a "canonical five" is formed, thereby making every other murder by another hand.
Ignoring the canonical victims for a moment, let us now look at the remaining victims. Just how many different murderers are we talking of here from 1887-1892?

You see, something struck me, that we bracket together 5 mureders as by the same hand, saying that this is a likely scenario, by quoting different statistics, for example, of how unlikely two murderers in the same area at the same time would be, yet forget that Smith and Tabram, for example, not to mention McKenzie and Coles, or the Torso murders even, all happened at the same point in time and some in the very same area, yet THESE are undoubtably by a different hand. Yet how many different hands, one can ask? So just how many murderers were there floating about Whitechapel etc, carving up women? If 5, for example, I come back to the original question. What should the police have done, if anything, that they didn't do. Doesn't that indicate that the fixed idea of a lone killer was flawed right from the start?

In my mind, one plausible answer is to NOT presume that one murderer was responsible for the murders from an early stage onwards. The views of the press didn't help by promoting this idea this either.

That is why if, as has been the case in the last 25 years or so, we denounce Elizabeth Stride as not being a canonical victim, likewise Mary Kelly,
then how do we denounce Stride, for example, and not accept she was killed by a different killer. Therefore, I opine that the police must have considered this too, yet we hear and read nothing official nor even in the press to question it.

It seems that the idea of a mad, lone killer had already taken hold. That is a mistake I believe the police made that may have been crucial to these murders. For the sheer fact of the matter is that different policing methods etc do not account for thinking. I would hazard to say that people think pretty much the same, when investigating possibilities. Yet apparently, the police decided to ignore all other scenarios other than a lone killer.

Just how many killers were there? And why would this be ignored for so long?
Thank you for your thoughts.

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

The police investigated each murder as an individual case. It was standard procedure. Barnett was interrogated for four hours after the Kelly murder, despite all of the previous murders that had taken place. That some of the murders were invariably linked is understandable considering the constricted location and time-span of the so-called canonicals; let alone the victimology and the fact that their throats were cut... a discernable pattern, if you will... If they happened today, such a possible link would be made.

Not conclusive by any means, but a logical thesis nevertheless. The type of mutilations inflicted on four of them was extremely rare indeed.

[harry]

Perhaps the police should have been more unorthodox.A friend of mine was having great success at detecting wrongdoers,so much so that the boss asked him one day the secret of his success.My friend stated it was on account of his wife."Your wife",replied the boss,"how does she help".
"Well",said my friend,"If I wake up in the morning and she is lying on her left side I concentrate on dark haired people,if she is lying on her right side I concentrate on light haired persons"
The boss thought for a moment then said,'I suppose if she is lying on her back you select bald headed people".
"No",said my friend,"If she is lying on her back,thats the mornings I am late for work".

To answer what the police might have done differently,one would have to know what they were doing.Basically I suppose it ws using preventive and detection methods,and as Monty points out,one would have to apply that to 1888,and not present day.Profiling,or in the terminology of that day,'charisteristics of the crime',was in evidence,and is spoken of by,I believe,Anderson.So profiling itself is not a new thing,the name was invented to lead people to the belief that an entirely new method of crime detection had been invented.It failed then as it so often does now.

[protohistorian]

With a worldview dominated by thinking like 'people in a social class all behave the same', or 'those poor all manifest similar traits', and 'whatever happens is God's will', the Victorians were very poorly equipped conceptually for the reality of certain people (for varied reasons) hunt other people. They had no effective frame of reference for this. They could not even see these events as requiring three basic elements, a killer, a victim, and a space to interact. If they had grasped this much they would have realized that the only variable they could influence is the space of interaction. The victorian mind however saw more police as the answer and not the removal of the victim pool. Removal of the victim pool would require seeing the victims as humans, and even more repugnant than that, excepting the activity of prostitution as created by the victorian legal system as the genisis of the observable victim pool. In short, they would have to accept certain very dearly held beliefs as contributing factors. If all is God's will, and God says prostitution is wrong, the self righteous would never except such a proposition of reality. Dave

[jason_c]

With a worldview dominated by thinking like 'people in a social class all behave the same', or 'those poor all manifest similar traits', and 'whatever happens is God's will', the Victorians were very poorly equipped conceptually for the reality of certain people (for varied reasons) hunt other people. They had no effective frame of reference for this. They could not even see these events as requiring three basic elements, a killer, a victim, and a space to interact. If they had grasped this much they would have realized that the only variable they could influence is the space of interaction. The victorian mind however saw more police as the answer and not the removal of the victim pool. Removal of the victim pool would require seeing the victims as humans, and even more repugnant than that, excepting the activity of prostitution as created by the victorian legal system as the genisis of the observable victim pool. In short, they would have to accept certain very dearly held beliefs as contributing factors. If all is God's will, and God says prostitution is wrong, the self righteous would never except such a proposition of reality. Dave

Wasnt Anderson criticized for trying to remove the victim pool?

[protohistorian]

Of this I am uncertain Jason. Maybe one of our fellow scholars will tell us. Pool removal would certainly be counter to established Victorian conceptions of right and wrong. Depending on the modality chosen, it could border on immoral to the Victorian mind. Dave

[mariab]

An important reason the Ripper was not caught was the too short time frame in which the murders occurred. I assume that, had he continued killing over several years, he would have been caught.

[Defective Detective]

The one thing that I can think of which should have been done but wasn't has nothing to do with the immediate investigation. It has to do with Lusk and the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.

There's a reason that modern police don't entrust criminal investigations to deputized civilians. Vigilantes have a bad habit of fouling up an investigation, injecting their untrained opinions and prejudices into them or, in some cases, directly contaminating crime scenes. While I believe that Lusk and his men had perfectly altruistic motives, what would have been more profitable than allowing them to form the Committee would have been to respond to their initial concerns and put more plainclothesmen at work patrolling the streets at night. Surely there was enough public hue-and-cry by the time of the Double Event to justify it even to posh Charles Warren. And the manpower could have been had, if there had been an actual will to do it.

In other words: fewer vigilantes, more undercover policemen. Two specimens of each may be doing the exact same work in perfectly parallel roads at the same time of night, but the latter will be more effective every single time.

As for the investigation proper? I hardly see what could have been done better than was done without the benefit of hindsight. The Goulston Street Graffito hadn't been connected to the murders, and so, despite my opinion of Warren otherwise, his actions with regards to it are at least intelligible. Mostly I'd just like to have more photographs of the victims in situ, because the pictures of the only victim to have been captured thus look to have been shoddy even when they were perfectly new.

[Abby Normal]

Hello all,

The police didn't catch Jack the Ripper. In one way or another, thousands afterwards have tried to catch him. So what should the police have done that they didn't do to catch him? Given that we cannot do anything that was not possible at the time. What strategy? What ideas would you have if YOU were the man in charge ?(No, you don't have to have a personality like Anderson by the way). What would YOU have put in place or into practice?

I look forward to the variation in answers!

best wishes

Phil

They should have tried to engage the killer in an in/direct dialogue, maybe via the papers, to draw him out perhaps or maybe appease him.

[c.d.]

I would say try to work with the prostitutes more. Maybe spread some money around in an attempt to get information.

c.d.

[DVV]

More attention to the common lodging houses, imo. Deputies should have noted the name of people coming and going.
I'd be glad to know at what time Fleming and Hutch went back to the VH on...let's say 8 Sept, 30 Sept, 9 Nov.

[jason_c]

I would say try to work with the prostitutes more. Maybe spread some money around in an attempt to get information.

c.d.

I agree with this.

Questioning prostitutes concerning the night of Chapman's murder may have garnered clues. Theres a good chance the killer spent most of that night/morning trolling around for prostitutes. A few had a lucky escape I think.

[mariab]

DVV wrote:
I'd be glad to know at what time Fleming and Hutch went back to the VH on...let's say 8 Sept, 30 Sept, 9 Nov.
You might want to add Barnett to that list.

[Phil Carter]

I agree with this.

Questioning prostitutes concerning the night of Chapman's murder may have garnered clues. Theres a good chance the killer spent most of that night/morning trolling around for prostitutes. A few had a lucky escape I think.

Hello Jason,

We do not often agree, but that comment at the end of your posting is insightful, imho. That really is food for thought.

best wishes

Phil