why wasn't Jack caught?

[sdreid]

Hi Bob,

There is no way to know for sure if Shipman would have eventually been caught if he'd quit before fifty, perhaps not. That's why I said anecdotal and not empirical. Ridgway quit at 50 something but was caught 20 some years later. I'm just going by the list of known unsolved individual serial killer cases, which is what Jack is, and I don't see any above 30 on there so I stand by what I said. At any rate, obviously, the more murders you commit, the greater your odds of being caught.

[TomTomKent]

If serial killers are caught because of forensic science is not really the important question. Are they CONVICTED because of the additional evidence that can be gathered to help detectives and is really the key issue. I can't claim to be any kind of expert, and certainly can't comment on individual cases, but from what little I do understand (and the Forensics for dummies book I use for reference) it would appear that forensic evidence would have been essential for proving a suspect guilty after traditional detective work (or luck) has identified them.

Er, if I am wrong on that, and anyone wants to point me in the right direction then feel free.

[Steven Russell]

Hello, Laura and welcome to the site.

At the risk of disillusioning you, I have to say that I agree with Jukka, Bob, and Adam as to the reasons why JTR was not caught.

Yes, forensic science was nowhere as helpful as it is today. The first British criminal trial to rely substancially on fingerprint evidence (The Stratton Brothers) did not take place until 1905. Previous to that, the French used the system of "Bertillonage", which involved measuring bones in the belief that their lengths did not change throughought adult life. Photography was, of course, enormously helpful, and we can be in little doubt that this was a major aid to detection. There is a good book you may wish to consult called "Fingerprints" by Colin Bevan about all this.

DNA sampling, fingerprints, and other tools are superb if you already have the suspect on your database. But if you do not, look out!

Murderers of strangers are extremely difficult to catch. Obviously, there is no connection between killer and victim. Look how long it took to catch Sutcliffe, West, Gacy, Rader, and the Green River Killer to name but a few; you will see that with all the Douglases and so on, they remained at large for a very long time.

It is quite true that "house to house" enquiries are the backbone of a murder investigation. Perhaps none of those above would hase been captured without this time-honoured means of detection.

I hope you have found this somewhat rambling post helpful,

Best wishes,

Steve.

[Jeff Leahy]

I believe Napoleon said something like “give me a LUCKY general every time”

Jack was certainly ‘Lucky’ if Harvey was where he said, at the time he said, then it’s a miracle that he wasn’t caught red handed in Mitre sq.

In fact it must have been pretty close at Nichols, Chapman and Stride's murder also!

Pirate

[Steven Russell]

Richie Benaud said, "Captaincy is 90% luck, and 10% skill... but, whatever you do, don't try it without the ten percent."

Regards,

Steve.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yep, the first time I took the boat out I ran it aground, second time- hit the bridge. Third time cut the wrong pipe to the sink and nearly sank her.

Its not all luck as you say, but she's still afloat.

Pirate

[Blond1e_84]

thank you very much everyone!
i've come to the conclusion that although forensics would help cases, where availale, it is the hard graft of initial detection that catches the murderers first.
So i will be looking at that part of the police investigation, and what helped and hindered the initial detective work.

[Jeff Leahy]

My comments about the ripper being 'lucky' may appear flippant but they are a serious comment. Jack was an opportunistic killer. The victims probably took him to the murder locations. And the fact that they took him somewhere quiet suited his needs. He appears to have been close to being caught in the act several times.

It’s usually argued that no one saw Jack the ripper. This is unlikely. Several witnesses appear to have been fairly close just before victims were killed. Albert Cadouche may possibly have been a few feet from Chapman when she was killed. As was possibly Schwartz and Pc Harvey.

And while it’s often argued that the police didn’t have a clue, it doesn’t Talley with the fact that most of the senior officers claimed they new the identity of Jack the Ripper.

Of course they largely appear to have given different conclusions to jacks identity, but the idea that Jack the Ripper was an elusive phantom, might be a long way from the TRUTH.

Good luck arguing that one with your history teacher however

Pirate

[sdreid]

Forensics might have helped catch him, that is, if there was any evidence of that sort. He didn't apparently rape the victims so, unless he cut himself, there likely wasn't any DNA. He might have left some fingerprints but we can't say that for sure either. Where are the fingerprints in the Bible John or Boston Strangler cases? There obviously weren't any otherwise we'd at least be able to eliminate some suspects if not inculpate one.

[Adam Went]

Bob:

As TomTomKent said, you may need a little luck to catch the killer/s in the first place, but when you do, forensic science is vital in proving the case against them. You can bet that many killers would have walked free even after their arrests had it not been for the advent of technology and all of its uses.

And that's only for killers who don't already have information on the database or don't get pulled up in questioning over the case! Remember, a very high percentage of murders are committed by people who are in some way associated with their victims....Jack the Ripper was an odd one out here, which made it even harder for the police.

I can't remember the last time I heard of police doing door to door searches anywhere. You need a warrant for that. I think what you're confusing that with is "door to door INQUIRIES" where they ask the local neighbours if they have seen anything or anyone suspicious around.

For the record, I don't watch CSI. But I do suggest you sit yourself down and watch an episode of "Crime 360" when you get the chance.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Bob Hinton]

Adam,

Sorry I really don’t understand what you’re getting at here. The title of this thread is “Why wasn’t Jack caught?” You replied:

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.

I pointed out that all the things you mention are of little use in CATCHING (what the thread is about remember) a criminal if he isn’t known to the police, but is of use in convicting one. Two very different things indeed. You reply with a snotty post, saying in part:

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
And

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

I replied re-stating my point of view. Now apparently you are agreeing with me for in your latest post you come up with:

you may need a little luck to catch the killer/s in the first place, but when you do, forensic science is vital in proving the case against them. You can bet that many killers would have walked free even after their arrests had it not been for the advent of technology and all of its uses.


Yes we know that, it has been my point all along, but that is immaterial I refer you once more to the title of thread which is about CATCHING Jack, not convicting him. You then try and score a point by saying:

I can't remember the last time I heard of police doing door to door searches anywhere. You need a warrant for that. I think what you're confusing that with is "door to door INQUIRIES" where they ask the local neighbours if they have seen anything or anyone suspicious around.

No I’m not confused at all. If you really can’t remember the last time you heard of police doing door to door searches, then I suggest you look at your post number 43 where you yourself mention it. I simply used the phrase that you had first used thinking you were ignorant of the correct term.

You are also not correct in stating:

Remember, a very high percentage of murders are committed by people who are in some way associated with their victims

This would be true if you added the word ‘known’ murders. In discussion with various police officers and others they all say that they believe the true rate of murder is many, many times those reported.

Thank you for recommending a TV programme for me, but with all the talks I give on Criminology and Forensics I really haven’t got much time to watch TV. Any spare time I have I find I spend going through police records and files researching my next book, but thanks for the tip!

[Adam Went]

Bob:

I pointed out that all the things you mention are of little use in CATCHING (what the thread is about remember) a criminal if he isn’t known to the police, but is of use in convicting one. Two very different things indeed.

IF he isn't known to the police. Are you forgetting that there was umpteen suspects that the police arrested in the autumn of 1888 in relation to the WM? Imagine how much easier it would have been for both them and us if they had extracted fingerprints, fibres or DNA of some sort from one of the victims, and then been able to compare it with the suspects they had at the time - Jacob Isenschmid, Jack Pizer, etc.

No I’m not confused at all. If you really can’t remember the last time you heard of police doing door to door searches, then I suggest you look at your post number 43 where you yourself mention it. I simply used the phrase that you had first used thinking you were ignorant of the correct term.

Door to door searches in 1888 was what I was referring to, Bob! They needed a warrant then too, but relied on public co-operation and most of them were willing to let the police in regardless, even though they didn't have to without a warrant. Believe it or not, 1888 is just a little out of my memory range though, Bob..... and I have never experienced, nor do I know anybody who has ever experienced, a door to door search by the police. Maybe Australian police just do it differently!

Door to door SEARCH, and door to door INQUIRY, are 2 different things.

Thank you for recommending a TV programme for me, but with all the talks I give on Criminology and Forensics I really haven’t got much time to watch TV. Any spare time I have I find I spend going through police records and files researching my next book, but thanks for the tip!

I feel flattered, then, that you have taken the time to reply to my posts - twice. Being such a busy man. You could have watched a few minutes of "Crime 360" in that time, Bob!

Cheers,
Adam.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

One interesting thing with some caught serial killers is, that;

Pretty many people seem to disagree totally with the police officials. At least in the beginning...

All the best
Jukak

[Varqm]

why was'nt Jack caught...Obviously because there were no ripperologist then. The bastards.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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,

Anyone considered that as a single man he had predelictions that weren't evident when in a relationship? Isolation can lead to all sorts of strange behaviour. Wonder if he took up with a woman? Long shot I know.

I don't think he'd stop regardless of the crescendo. He must have got a buzz from that and would have wanted it again.

I doubt he was a lunatic of asylum category. Most serial killers aren't.

My best guess would be that opportunity in that area ceased - most probably moving away from the area.