why wasn't Jack caught?

[Blond1e_84]

i wonder if anyone can help me.
I'm doing my dissertation on the above question, "why wasn't Jack caught?", but i am having trouble researching the police investigation.
Is there anyone who can shed some light on this?
Thank you,

[Adam Went]

Blondie:

There are numerous reasons for this, but your best bet would be to focus on the lack of technology available to the police of 1888. That they didn't have modern day forensic science available to them, DNA, profiling, etc. Fingerprinting DID exist, but it was in its infancy, there was no police database to work from as they have today, and it was not used in the JTR case.

The police were basically relying on catching the killer red handed (hence the extra patrols enforced, vigilance committee's such as Mile End Vigilance Committee under George Lusk, etc) or receiving information from witnesses which would lead them to the capture of the killer. Old methods were employed, such as house to house searches and rewards from several local companies and identities. A government reward was not offered until after the Mary Kelly murder.

You could also mention the killer himself, and the fact that it's likely that he worked alone, and was not known to any of his victims, which makes catching a killer very difficult indeed, even in modern day homicide investigations, as such a high percentage of murders are committed by lovers, friends or associates of the victim.

Anyway....hopefully that gives you something to build on....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Blond1e_84]

Thank you Adam

I've started to look at the lack of forensics that the Police could investigate. I also looked at the lack of co-operation between both the Met and the City of London police.

But apart from finding out who were the police officials involved I was getting quite stuck!


Thank you

Laura

[Adam Went]

Hey Laura,

No problem.
You could also perhaps mention Barnaby and Burgho, the two bloodhounds that Sir Charles Warren himself took for a trial run, and were considering using to help track the killer immediately after a murder. These dogs had gone back home before they could be put into use however. And it's unlikely they would have worked anyway just because of the sheer quantity of tracks and contamination that would be in the area.

Anyway....best of luck....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Thank you Adam

I've started to look at the lack of forensics that the Police could investigate. I also looked at the lack of co-operation between both the Met and the City of London police
But apart from finding out who were the police officials involved I was getting quite stuck!


Thank you

Laura

Laura

Its a bit of a myth the two forces didnt co-operate. The did communicate with each other, the Sadler ID parade for example where a City witness was used by the Met. Though, admittedly, there were occaissions where there was miscommunication.

Cheers
Monty

[Blond1e_84]

Thank you Monty
I never knew that!


Adam,

That's brilliant! I've also managed to get copies of letters from the National Archives that mention the use of dogs, so that's very helpful!

Thank you

Laura

[Hunter]

Hi Laura, and welcome to the forums.

Scotland Yard Investigates has alot of info on the police and how they proceeded during the murders.

[Blond1e_84]

Hunter

Thank you!
I've just ordered it!!

Laura

[Bob Hinton]

I totally disagree with Adam Went. Even with all the advantages he mentions the overwhelming majority of serial killers today are caught by accident.

Fingerprints, DNA, forensic analysis etc is just about useless in catching a criminal. Once caught they can provide evidence, but first you have to catch him.

Blondie refers to a 'dissertation'. Does she mean this is for use in obtaining a degree? If so she is going to fail as it is obvious she hasn't done her basic research. Basic research in this case would be reading the major works on the case such as Sugden, Evans,Fido, Begg et al.

The short answer to her question 'Why wasn't Jack caught?' is very simple. Because he got away.

[Bob Hinton]

In Fairness.

i wonder if anyone can help me.
I'm doing my dissertation on the above question, "why wasn't Jack caught?", but i am having trouble researching the police investigation.
Is there anyone who can shed some light on this?
Thank you,

I think in fairness to the posters on here who are being asked to help it would be of great assistance if Blondie could tell us what books she has already read. This would prevent us from suggesting books she has consulted.

[Adam Went]

Bob:

Yes, I bet the police of 2010 totally wish they had the technology of 1888 available to them!

I'm afraid you are just a tad behind the times. Forensic science, ballistics, fingerprinting, profiling, DNA, mugshots, and so on and so forth, have solved innumnerable cases between them. Bear in mind that the police keep databases of all this sort of thing now, so should a suspect be arrested, it's very easy to check into them.

I would be willing to bet that you couldn't find a single police officer in the entire world who wishes that they still had to resort to travelling round doing door to door searches in a hansom cab with their pet bloodhounds....

Blondie....the next tip? Don't listen to Bob Hinton.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Bob Hinton]

What garbage!

Adam I’m sorry but you are talking rubbish. Since when did I suggest the police of today didn’t find all these things you mention useful? I was just pointing out the FACT that the majority of serial killers have been caught by pure accident rather than by use of all the bells and whistles.

Forensic science cannot help if you have nothing to compare your findings to. If the person you are seeking is not in the system then all the fingerprints, DNA and ballistics in the world is not going to help you catch them. When you have a suspect of course then these things can prove your case – the trick is to catch them first. You prove my case for me by saying “should a suspect be arrested”. But that’s not the question; the question is ‘How do we catch him in the first place?’

You show your ignorance of the subject by decrying ‘door to door searches’. Vast amounts of police time are still consumed doing door to door searches, though how you would do that in a Hansom Cab either now or in the past I have no idea. And as for sneering at bloodhounds I think you will find that more corpses have been found with the aid of dogs, including blood hounds, than any other means.

Would you like to tell me how forensics etc helped to catch Fred West or Harold Shipman or Peter Sutcliffe?

I suggest you stop watching CSI and come back to the real world. If Blondie doesn’t wish to take my advice that is entirely up to her, but I suggest she will learn more listening to me than the nonsense you are spouting.

[sdreid]

There are several reasons why he wasn't caught but foremost in my view is that he apparently quit after only 5 murders. I don't see any unsolved individual serial killer cases with more than a toll of 30 so, at that number, the anecdotal evidence is that the odds of being caught are 100%.

[Bob Hinton]

Maybe

There are several reasons why he wasn't caught but foremost in my view is that he apparently quit after only 5 murders. I don't see any unsolved individual serial killer cases with more than a toll of 30 so, at that number, the anecdotal evidence is that the odds of being caught are 100%.

I must dispute that. If Shipman had quit after 50 it is most unlikely that he would ever have been caught, he had carried out over 200 murders before the police looked at him and even then they passed him over.

If he hadn't have been so greedy and forged a will he could still be killing today.

All that we know about serial killers is gleaned from those killers who have been caught, the failures. For example Shipman didn't fit any recognised profile for a serial killer. I remember talking to Bill Hagmaier, one time Chief of the FBI Child Abduction and Serial Murder unit, and he said the truth was that they just didn't have any idea how many serial killers are at large in America at any given time.

If you look at how many people vanish each year and just assume that 1% are murdered that means there are hundreds of murders that haven't even been detected.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

If Jack would act the same way today like he did in 1888, he would be caught, I think!

But serial killers are probably very aware of the advance of criminal investigation!

One of the reasons why Jack wasn't caught, probably is, that The Scotland Yard didn't have modern knowledge of these types of murderers!

And yes, still many don't get caught!

All the best
Jukka