Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 6 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 21 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 18 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 19 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - by Yabs 1 hour and 26 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (40 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (13 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (10 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (9 posts)
General Discussion: What Would an "Investigation" Consist of? - (2 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > General Police Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-25-2010, 12:26 PM
Adam Went Adam Went is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 779
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-25-2010, 02:43 PM
Bob Hinton Bob Hinton is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 654
Default 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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-25-2010, 06:22 PM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

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%.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-25-2010, 06:34 PM
Bob Hinton Bob Hinton is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 654
Default Maybe

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdreid View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-25-2010, 07:01 PM
j.r-ahde j.r-ahde is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: finland, the center of the universe!
Posts: 1,146
Default

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
__________________
"When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-25-2010, 07:25 PM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

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.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid

Last edited by sdreid : 03-25-2010 at 07:46 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-25-2010, 07:43 PM
TomTomKent TomTomKent is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 357
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-25-2010, 08:11 PM
Steven Russell Steven Russell is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 650
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-25-2010, 08:26 PM
Jeff Leahy Jeff Leahy is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East end-kent
Posts: 3,737
Default

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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-25-2010, 08:42 PM
Steven Russell Steven Russell is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 650
Default

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

Regards,

Steve.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.