I just wonder how blameless a person is if they happen to be born in Victorian London to a prostitute, amongst gangs and the poor in whitechapel. Blameless through birth, poverty, no supportive networks whatsoever as the social side would condemn you to that risky lifestyle too. However as with Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper, he was just a calculating serial killer that attacked at opportunity, one of his victims was classed as a prostitute and she wasn't, if i remember correctly she was just a housewife and married mother. It was a shame that they didn't catch him earlier, but it's not easy to catch such a man, it's better that they did catch him eventually, as he would have claimed more victims and lives of women.
Last edited by Shelley : 04-26-2009 at 06:34 PM.
Reason: captial letter correction
in Sutcliffe's case, it's clear that they could have caught him earlier - if AP is right :
Originally Posted by Cap'n Jack
I now discover that Sutcliffe was in fact flagged a total of ten times in that system which can only mean one thing: he was the killer.
But the senior police officers in the case, refusing to acknowledge their own information systems, pursued a completely different suspect, much to the horror of the junior officers on the street who had interviewed Sutcliffe and firmly believed him to be the killer.