Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

Yes, many people's theories seem to be predicated on the assumption that the police were something akin to the Keystone Cops, not even bothering to interview potentially key witnesses, and easily outwitted by clever locals, such as Barnett, who were obviously criminal masterminds!

Just to be clear to you guys: that's not my view. This topic is worthy of a full article but I would just say that police procedures in dealing with murders could quite reasonably be described as rubbish when compared with procedures in place today. I'm not talking about forensic procedures (although the washing away of the blood after the Nichols murder was embarrassing even then). What I mean is that there were no reconstructions, no proper door-to-door inquiries, no appeals for witnesses etc. It's hard to assess police murder investigations from the period due to lack of complete files but a number of the written statements that we do have leave a lot to be desired. Officers weren't properly trained in how to take them and we can read many which contain more questions than answers. We don't know what happened after the inquest but the failure to establish MJK's identity doesn't seem to have caused anyone any problems. And, of course, there were no cold case reviews. Further, even today experienced police officers can do very poor investigations and miss vital evidence. Just look at the Colin Stagg case and the failure to catch the real killer. So no, the police weren't idiots but they were human, subject to time and resource constraints and capable of making mistakes.

[David Orsam]

It doesn´t matter it we know that rigor mortis can set in after 2 hours, since we can know this using modern technology. But Dr Bond did not have the modern technology to measure rigor mortis in 1888.

So what you're saying is that Dr Bond couldn't accurately measure rigor mortis, and thus his estimate of the time of death of Kelly must have been wrong?

In which case, why rely on it?

Or, if I've misunderstood you, what exactly ARE you saying?

[GUT]

Just to be clear to you guys: that's not my view. This topic is worthy of a full article but I would just say that police procedures in dealing with murders could quite reasonably be described as rubbish when compared with procedures in place today. I'm not talking about forensic procedures (although the washing away of the blood after the Nichols murder was embarrassing even then). What I mean is that there were no reconstructions, no proper door-to-door inquiries, no appeals for witnesses etc. It's hard to assess police murder investigations from the period due to lack of complete files but a number of the written statements that we do have leave a lot to be desired. Officers weren't properly trained in how to take them and we can read many which contain more questions than answers. We don't know what happened after the inquest but the failure to establish MJK's identity doesn't seem to have caused anyone any problems. And, of course, there were no cold case reviews. Further, even today experienced police officers can do very poor investigations and miss vital evidence. Just look at the Colin Stagg case and the failure to catch the real killer. So no, the police weren't idiots but they were human, subject to time and resource constraints and capable of making mistakes.

I accept all (or most) of that David, procedures have certainly developed. I would've been shocked had they not.

And did they fail to establish MJK's identity?

Iveoften thought of setting the task of researches to locate someone whose details I know but whom I know is extremely hard to trace to show that due to lost, or un transcribd files some people are just all but impossible to find.


What I don't accept is that the police isn't make wha I would describe as the most basic of inquiries, things like was someone where said they were, did they live where they said they lived, did they work where they said they worked.

[David Orsam]

And did they fail to establish MJK's identity?

Iveoften thought of setting the task of researches to locate someone whose details I know but whom I know is extremely hard to trace to show that due to lost, or un transcribd files some people are just all but impossible to find.

What I don't accept is that the police isn't make wha I would describe as the most basic of inquiries, things like was someone where said they were, did they live where they said they lived, did they work where they said they worked.

Sorry badly phrased on "MJK's identity" but you evidently knew what I meant.

On your second point I really think it depends on how important the person was and the context of the information. There's no way they have time to check every single point they are told by witnesses or informants.

[Michael W Richards]

When Abberline says, "There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off" we have to make a judgement : was this just surmise on Abberline's part, or had he spoken to Barnett or Harvey and ascertained that the kettle was undamaged the day before the murder?

One might wonder about that Robert, but there is nothing in the records that says that happened.

[Pierre]

Erm, I don't like to rain on your own little parade but the streets weren't closed until 10am on the Friday morning and not in Whitechapel.

Yes, I know. And the murder was committed before the closing of the streets. Whitechapel has no relevance, people knew where Lord Mayor´s show would take place.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I know. And the murder was committed before the closing of the streets. Whitechapel has no relevance, people knew where Lord Mayor´s show would take place.

Okay, so what are you saying is the significance of the streets being closed?

[Pierre]

Okay, so what are you saying is the significance of the streets being closed?

Are you referring to "before closing time"? The significance is that the murders will be committed on the 9 November before the streets are being closed for the parade.

[David Orsam]

The significance is that the murders will be committed on the 9 November before the streets are being closed for the parade.

Why did the murders need to be committed on the 9 November in Whitechapel before the streets were closed to traffic in another part of London?

[Pierre]

Why did the murders need to be committed on the 9 November in Whitechapel before the streets were closed to traffic in another part of London?

The murderer liked Whitechapel.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

The murderer liked Whitechapel.

Regards, Pierre

How do you know this? The murderer was never identified.

[Pierre]

How do you know this? The murderer was never identified.

But everybody knows this. The murderer killed four women in Whitechapel and one in the City. So it is easy to see that he liked Whitechapel. As a place for killing women.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

The murderer liked Whitechapel.

Regards, Pierre

Forgive me Pierre but that doesn't answer my question of why the murders needed to be committed in Whitechapel before the streets were closed to traffic in another part of London.

[Pierre]

Forgive me Pierre but that doesn't answer my question of why the murders needed to be committed in Whitechapel before the streets were closed to traffic in another part of London.

If the murders took place before the closing of the streets the victims could be discovered when the show started. The correlation between those events would then be very obvious.

And if the police would understand the letter, they would understand the correlation.

[John G]

But everybody knows this. The murderer killed four women in Whitechapel and one in the City. So it is easy to see that he liked Whitechapel. As a place for killing women.

Regards, Pierre

Well now you seem to have expanded/changed your argument, i.e. with your last sentence. I must say, Pierre, I'm starting to find your posts somewhat confusing today.