What SHOULD the police have done?

[Monty]

Maria.

Why they didn't? Are you serious? Look how Abberline interviewed Barnett or Hutchinson, or how Schwartz and Lawende were interviewed! 60% of the details were left out. They spent just 5 hours with Barnett. Did they really check his alibi for the entire night? And how about Joseph Fleming, did they look up for him at all?

Deadly serious. What are you basing this 60% of left out details on? Seeing as it was left out and all.

For the WVC at least the "silent boots" was a great idea, but they clearly didn't manage to do "comprehensive" patrolling, plus, there are suspicions by certain Ripperologists (I won't mention names, to protect the guilty) about Joseph Aarons allegedly having been involved in the Lusk letter deed, plus, don't make me mention the names Le Grand and Batchelor, about whom at this point noone wishes to hear anymore.
Please notice that I'm NOT claiming that I personally suspect Joseph Aarons. I'm just saying that it would be of benefit if his earlier activities before the WVC were researched.

The Vigilance Commitees did not do 'comprehensive' patrolling? The evidence contradicts.

At their peak they were organised, had rotas, they liaised with the local force, they were monitored and generally extremely effective. Look at October.

Monty

[Fisherman]

It´s "condescending", Maria - not "condenscending".

...and no, there was never any real chance that I´d refrain from pouncing on that one. Sorry!

Follow my posts carefully fortwith, Maria; I´m a Swede, and so I´m bound to give you ample opportunities to strike back...

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

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.

[Barnaby]

Unfortunately, there isn't much more that could have been done. I would increase police surveillance, make the walking beats less predictable, and try to better foster relationships with the prostitutes. Given that many think the victims led Jack to the murder locations, why not create "safe spots" where women could ply their trade safely? For example, get the word out to the women that the backyard of XXX Street is under surveillance. Women can take their johns there and work free of police harassment or legal repercussions. Of course, if a john pulls a knife the trap is set.

[mariab]

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).

[Errata]

I think clearly the Police made mistakes. I think every Police department makes mistakes. Given the technology of the time, they did everything they could. But they didn't have an eye for the future, and that is a problem. For the past several decades, police have had a "collect everything" ethic. Whether or not its useful now, sample it because it might be useful later. Cold cases often get solved this way. Items preserved from rapes and murders were available for DNA testing when the technology evolved. Had the police recognized the acceleration of technology in the age which they lived, and the probability that they might not catch him, they could have taken steps that would allow them to catch him withing the next ten years. If they had this attitude of preserving everything just in case, they would have taken pictures of the crime scenes. They would have gotten a photographic record of the injuries, the autopsies, and detailed sketches of the mutilations. They would have preserved clothing and possessions. Fingerprint analysis leaped ahead a great deal in the 10 years after the killings. So did the training of dogs. If it had occurred to them that someone who was not at the scenes, was not involved in the case, and was not known to them at the time might solve the case, we would have more now.

[mariab]

Hello Hunter (I hope you're fine, by the way),
I agree with everything you say except for Barnett, whom they definitely let go too easily. 5 hours of questioning is a joke, especially since there are many inconsistencies between what he claimed at different times and what Mary Kelly's girlfriends claimed. And it's not clear at all if they checked his alibi for the entire night. Plus, did they seek to talk to Joseph Fleming, to corroborate what Barnett was claiming?
Also, though it's a fact that notebooks kept by constables, sergeants, and divisional inspectors have not survived the passage of time, and with these important sources missing we are unable to reconstruct many of the more intricate details of the police investigation, still, we can clearly see that Abberline's questioning of the witnesses is everything but satisfactory. He doesn't go through things linearly/systematically, and he leaves very important details completely out. (This is most visible in the questioning of Barnett and Hutchinson.)
I completely agree with you that the Ripper was possibly more lucky than exceedingly skilled in aprehending. (Especially if we assume that BS was the Ripper, which I know that the majority of Ripperologists don't. I'm sitting on the fence on this.) Exactly as you said, the best chance to catch such a killer is time. And the Ripper murders occurred in too short a time frame.

[Hunter]

At this late date and with nearly all but some of the major divisional and Home Office reports missing, we don't know many of the more intricate details of the police investigation. Notebooks kept by constables, sergeants and divisional inspectors have, for the most part, not survived the passage of time.

We do know a little about what was standard procedure, which in domestic cases had proven quite effective in the past. In every case of the Whitechapel murders, friends, relatives, aquaintances and people in the vicinity of the crime were interrogated and checked out. Swanson's and Abberline's surviving reports verify this. In domestics there were usually witnesses or at least people who heard the perpetrator make threats or even boast of his crime to somebody. The suspect was even known to confess under interrogation.

Of course, they were dealing with a different situation here, but despite this, it is to their credit that they did not falter in, at least, checking and eliminating what had previously been their best candidates. Placing Barnett under the proverbial 'hotlight' for 5 hours, even after 5 other murders of a similar character, in the same area, had taken place, exibits a good mark of professionalism to me.

With these most unique crimes, they were treading new ground. They made adjustments in many areas as the series progressed - even to watching certain individuals - but we must remember that the canonicals plus Tabram took place in only three months; and then it appeared to end as suddenly as it began; with the Mackenzie and Coles murders occuring over a much wider timespan.

This type of culprit - a 'murderer of strangers', as Sugden chose to call it - is difficult to apprehend even now. Their best chance is for the killer to make a slip over time; to leave a tangible clue. This one, either by accident or design... didn't. They were left with suspects based on theories of certain behaviour and/or suspicions by relatives or aquaintances. Even their attempts at ID lineups appear to have fallen flat.

With our ability of hindsight and 122 years of other case studies it is easy to second guess. In 1888, they didn't have that luxury or knowledge.

[mariab]

NickB wrote:
From the Evening News, 2nd Feb 1949:
A London girl Amelia Lewis volunteered to act as a decoy for Jack the Ripper and was used as such. She is still alive and will be 82 in March - Mrs A. Brown of Adys Rd, Peckham.
Is this a reliable account? From 1949, it might very well not be reliable at all.

[mariab]

By the by, let me state that I agree with everything Supe and Hunter wrote in their posts – apart from the fingerprinting. It would have been marvellous if the Victorian police had realized the usefulness of such a tool, but the time was not yet ripe for this (despite people having written letters to propose fingerprinting in the Whitechapel investigation).

[mariab]

Originally Posted by mariab
What the police could have done better with the ressources available to them at the time?
1) Interview the witnesses more thoroughly.
Monty wrote:
1) Why are you so sure they didnt?
Why they didn't? Are you serious? Look how Abberline interviewed Barnett or Hutchinson, or how Schwartz and Lawende were interviewed! 60% of the details were left out. They spent just 5 hours with Barnett. Did they really check his alibi for the entire night? And how about Joseph Fleming, did they look up for him at all?
Originally Posted by mariab
2) Arrange intensified patrolling in a more professional fashion than the WVC.
Monty wrote:
2) Meaning?
For the WVC at least the "silent boots" was a great idea, but they clearly didn't manage to do "comprehensive" patrolling, plus, there are suspicions by certain Ripperologists (I won't mention names, to protect the guilty) about Joseph Aarons allegedly having been involved in the Lusk letter deed, plus, don't make me mention the names Le Grand and Batchelor, about whom at this point noone wishes to hear anymore.
Please notice that I'm NOT claiming that I personally suspect Joseph Aarons. I'm just saying that it would be of benefit if his earlier activities before the WVC were researched.

Monty wrote:
Steady on Hunter, dont let realism cloud your judgement.
I LOVE this!

[Monty]

Hunter wrote:
If the Whitechapel murders had continued for some length of time I believe that Jack would have been aprehended.
I positively agree.
What the police could have done better with the ressources available to them at the time?
1) Interview the witnesses more thoroughly.
2) Arrange intensified patrolling in a more professional fashion than the WVC.
(Notice I'm not saying anything about the bloodhounds!)

1) Why are you so sure they didnt?
2) Meaning?


Steady on Hunter, dont let realism cloud your judgement.

Monty

[Hunter]

You don't need to be a criminal mastermind to pull off the mystery of the century - you just need to be in tight control of the ongoing investigation.

There have been other series of murders that have gone unsolved and the police were in tight control over the investigation. In the Zodiac murder case, the police gave misleading information to the press. Should they be implicated as well?... or could it be that they were simply trying to catch the killer by any means possible?

And you're correct; you don't have to be a criminal mastermind to pull off the mystery of the century; you just have to be a difficult perpetrator to pursue due to the nature of the crimes themselves and just fortunately as a result, got away with it.

Maybe that's too simple and not fantastic enough.

[mariab]

Hunter wrote:
If the Whitechapel murders had continued for some length of time I believe that Jack would have been aprehended.
I positively agree.
What the police could have done better with the ressources available to them at the time?
1) Interview the witnesses more thoroughly.
2) Arrange intensified patrolling in a more professional fashion than the WVC.
(Notice I'm not saying anything about the bloodhounds!)

[Stewart P Evans]

Watch Out!

Hi All,
What should the police have done?
That all depends on what you think certain elements of the police were actually doing.
You don't need to be a criminal mastermind to pull off the mystery of the century - you just need to be in tight control of the ongoing investigation.
Regards,
Simon

Watch out - there's a conspiracy about!