From studying Source A, whish is part of an article written in the East End Observer, there is very little information on the murders of Martha Tabram and Polly Nicholls. These two murders were widely broadcasted
. What can you learn from Source A about the murders of Martha Tabram and Polly Nicholls?
Nature: - Article
Origin: - East End Observer
Purpose: - Tell people how Martha Tabram and Polly Nicholls were murdered
From studying Source A, whish is part of an article written in the East End Observer, there is very little information on the murders of Martha Tabram and Polly Nicholls. These two murders were widely broadcasted, as they were so gruesome and unexpected happenings. This is clear in Source A when they say "the two murders which have so startled London". The residents of London were not only shocked because of how the murders were carried out but by the type of people that were becoming victims of them. There is considerable evidence from the source that these two women were some of the "poorest of the poor". This leads the local people to believe that the murderer has no particular motive for what he was doing, as neither Martha nor Polly had any money. This worries the residents of East London as they are beginning to see that the murderer seems to be randomly picking people to murder, not anyone in particular. We know this as Source A states "no adequate motive in the shape of plunder can be traced". This indicates that nothing stolen was ever found from the bodies of the two women. These two murders are very unlike murders that have been committed in the area of London before.
From the source we get the impression that the two murders were extremely gruesome, due to the 'excess of effort' that the 'demented being' put into each murder. The murders were that of extreme violence. The extreme violence and excess of effort that was put into killing these two women implies that the murderer could have had no knowledge in where to cut or what to do. Both Martha and Polly were found with a bizarre characteristic present on their bodies '...the peculiar feature in each instance.' with similar extreme violence present on their bodies and both of them with no money, this indicates that people were thinking that the same murderer was committing the murders.
2. Does the evidence of Source C support the evidence of Source A and B about the Ripper murders? Explain your answer.
Source A
Source B
Source C
Poorest of the poor
Anatomical skill and knowledge
Long incision in neck, which commended on left side, two and a half inches below angle of jaw, cutting windpipe completely in two
No motive
No meaningless cuts (like in the Tabram murder)
There was no money found on the body
Excess effort - demented being
Knew where to find what he wanted
Committed by somebody who knew what they were doing
Extensive violence
Knew how to use the knife
The appearance of the face no placid - seemed to be peaceful
Peculiar feature
Skilled person
Precise
Mo mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out the operations
Precise
Source C, a report written by Dr Frederick Blackwell about the body of Elizabeth Stride clearly explains how the body was positioned when found, and explains a specific incision that is found on her neck. The report states that he found "a long incision which commended on the left side, two and a half inches below the angle of the jaw, cutting the windpipe completely in two", which is quite extreme as it is not the most straightforward method that could have been used. In turn this slightly backs up Source A, which says that a specific method of murder was used in the murders of Martha Tabram and Polly Nicholls. However, it is not completely clear in Source A as to what the peculiar method of murder was. This could therefore show that the incision and peculiar method were actually two completely different things, as Source A says that it is a peculiar process, where as Source C indicates that its an incision of preciseness. Therefore, on the whole, the two sources quite contradict each other due to the lack of precision used in the description in Source A.
Sources B and C both emphasise the accuracy and care taken to kill, observed on the victims. For example Source B: - 'there are no meaningless cuts' and Source C: - 'two and a half inches...cutting the wind pipe completely in two'. These two statements both show the extent to which the two sources agree with each other. In other words, they both declare that skill and knowledge were both big factors in linking the two murders. They also might suggest that the same person may have carried out the murders, planning their attacks down to the very last detail. Yet, both of these still dismiss what is written in Source A, as that mentions the 'excess of effort' used. Which in turn implies that the murderer just stabbed his victims to death without direction. From the evidence given in both Sources B and C, it could be thought that the person whom the police are searching for may have been a doctor or at the very least someone with a fair amount of medical knowledge. This assumption can be backed up with facts drawn from both Sources C and B i.e. 'in the neck there was a long incision.... cutting the windpipe completely in two' / '...considerable anatomical skill and knowledge.', and no inexperienced individual would have been able to do this so neatly and tidily or precisely. Nonetheless the works of a 'demented being' is pretty evident in all three sources. This shows that Sources C and B strongly agree with each other, saying that the murderer knew what they were doing and were precise in their actions, however Source A has a completely different view on who the murderer could have been, believing that it was an unskilled person, "...both crimes are work of a demented being." This is thought to be true due to the excess of violence used in the murders of Martha Tabram and Polly Nicholls. And so Source C generally supports Source B a lot more than what it does Source A.
Source A clearly describes the two victims of "Jack the Ripper" were of the "poorest of the poor". This indicates the murderer had no motive in the women that he was choosing to murder; as they had nothing that he could have taken from them. Source C helps to support this to some extent when it states, "There was no money found on the body of the victim." This could be due to one of two possibilities, either Elizabeth Stride had no money in the first place, or the murderer took the money that was found on the body. And at that time most people would carry all the belongings with them rather then leaving them in the lodging houses where it was likely to be stolen by thieves. Therefore, Source A slightly backs up Source C in this statement, as all the women that were murdered could have been of the poorest of the poor, however, we can not be completely certain on this as Source C doesn't describe it clear enough, it just says there was no money present on the body, as they cannot be sure whether it began with no money, or whether it was taken after the murder was committed.
An uncertainty between the sources studied is the fact that neither Source A nor Source C mentions what instrument was used to take the lives of the victims concerned, yet Source C gives the impression that a knife or something similar would have been used, whereas Source A gives no clues what so ever. Therefore, Source C compliments Source B, but at the same time differs, as we do not know if a knife was actually used like we do in Source B '...and how he should use the knife.'
Another uncertainty between the sources studied is the fact that Source B talks about the killer finding the organs in the body of Annie Chapman, '...could have known where to find the organs, or to have recognised them when they were found.' Whereas Source C gives no indication about organs being found, or any other part of the body being slit, apart from the neck.
However, due to the lack of detail expressed in Source C on how the victim was actually killed, it is hard to compare the three sources. The main difference between the sources ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Another uncertainty between the sources studied is the fact that Source B talks about the killer finding the organs in the body of Annie Chapman, '...could have known where to find the organs, or to have recognised them when they were found.' Whereas Source C gives no indication about organs being found, or any other part of the body being slit, apart from the neck.
However, due to the lack of detail expressed in Source C on how the victim was actually killed, it is hard to compare the three sources. The main difference between the sources is that Source A is more to inform and educate the people of the East End on something that happened in their neighbourhood, as it is a newspaper for locals, written by a local, and they don't need to know every specific little detail and are only being told what they need to be told. On the other hand sources B and C are both reports on the victim, which are for professional use only and so every little detail is needed, as every little detail holds its own clue. However, there is also a clear distinction between Source B and Source C, as Source B is explaining the person that committed the murders and the injuries sustained, where as Source C is explaining the effect on the victims body at the scene of the crime. Therefore, it is hard to compare and link these sources together. Source C does support Sources A and B in some cases, however the different purpose in the information given makes it difficult to find links where they support. Source C supports sources A and B in some cases such as that it is implied that it was the same person who did each of the murders and the same type of people that were the victims of the "Ripper", but each of the sources are about different murders, also the sources are all describing different things in each one. E.g. Source A gives a very brief outline of the murders, Source B is a coroner's report and Source C a report on the deceased body. Therefore, the style of the information found in the sources is different, and the information itself is different. Thus, as each murder was slightly unlike one another they do not always support each other.
3. How useful are Sources D and E in helping you to understand why the
Ripper was able to avoid capture?
Source D:
Nature: - Evidence given
Origin: - Elizabeth Long
Purpose: - Describing the last man seen talking to Annie prior to her being killed
Useful
I think
As far as I could tell
I cannot be sure
As well as I could make out
Not exact descriptions!
Jack not clearly seen
One of the only descriptions of Jack --> Primary --> police believes she has seen Jack the Ripper.
A dark complexioned man - not many around.
As she gave this statement at an inquest the police automatically believed that she was telling the truth in everything that she was saying.
Source E:
Nature: - Local newspaper
Origin: - 1888
Purpose: - Inform and entertain people
Police force on the spot should be strengthened - present ones not observant enough.
The main thoroughfares of Whitechapel are connected by a network of narrow, dark and crooked lanes --> easy for Jack to get away.
Every one apparently containing some headquarters of infamy--> bad things not uncommon, therefore not surprised when things do happen.
Source D, evidence given by Elizabeth Long with a description of the suspect, is useful to explain why Jack the Ripper avoided capture because the description that is given is very vague and not completely exact. For example, Elizabeth Long says, "I think" " As far as I could tell" "I cannot be sure" and "As well as I could make out". These words in her statement make her description very hard to completely believe, as she herself isn't one hundred per cent sure on what she herself saw, therefore the police could have ended up spending a major amount of both time and money on extremely vague facts. The vagueness of Elizabeth's statement has helped Jack massively, as she could be the only person that actually saw him, however he wasn't found, as she wasn't positive in her descriptions. Also, it gave Jack more time to carry on with what he doing, as nobody else has seen him, and therefore they if he was seen on the streets in the day he would not be thought as a suspect of murder. This gave him more chance to commit more murders in the dark of the night. Source D is useful as it shows the typical type of evidence the police had to deal with and that some people weren't that keen on giving the police evidence. They had to follow up all the evidence they were given at the time of the murders.
Elizabeth Long heard a clock strike 5.30am and saw a man and a woman talking in the backyard of number 29. She later identified the woman to be Annie Chapman. Two other witnesses also heard people talking at around 5.20am and one said there was no body in the yard at 4.50am. However, the doctor present said the time of death was 4.30am. The police decided to accept the evidence of Doctor Phillips and so did not follow up the evidence of the three witnesses. This helped Jack the Ripper avoid capture as the police were going on the doctors timings not the timings of 3 witnesses that were positive they saw or heard Annie Chapman alive after the time the doctor predicted she was murdered. This helped Jack avoid capture as he may have an alibi for the time that the doctor predicted, but not an alibi for the time the three witnesses gave. Therefore, he could stay free as the police were following the wrong lead in their investigation.
The police had reason to believe everything to said in Elizabeth Longs statement to be true as she was in an inquest, which meant that she would have sworn on the Bible to tell the truth, and not make anything up, therefore the police believed every word she was saying to them. Nevertheless, the police completely dismissed the time that Elizabeth Long said that she saw a man and Annie Chapman talking in the back yard of 29. Hanbury Street. However, searching for a 'dark complexioned' person didn't help the police. Finding somebody with the same description that Elizabeth Long stated was not successful and therefore is fairly useful in explaining why Jack the Ripper avoided capture.
The conditions that were present at the time also help to teach us why Jack the Ripper avoided capture. When Elizabeth believes she saw Jack the Ripper it was in the early hours of the morning; this means she may not yet have been completely alert to things around her as she had just gotten up and the area around her would have been dark. Also, the lighting around the place that she believed she saw Jack the Ripper was virtually none existent, the only light present would be that coming off buildings. These things hindered what she was able to clearly see of the man she believed to be the murderer. On the other hand, she does describe Jack as being dark complexioned. This could have helped the police big time, as there weren't many dark complexioned people around. This is very useful to explain why Jack the Ripper avoided capture as there were no clear descriptions of the person that was believed to be the murderer, due to the conditions on the night that he was seen.
Source E, part of an article published in the local newspaper to inform and entertain people, is fairly useful to explain why Jack the Ripper avoided capture because it suggests how poor and ignorant the police were around the time of the murders. They were warned that more murders would happen if they didn't change, but they did not listen and therefore more murders were committed. The police not doing as they were advised helped Jack avoid capture, as they were not taking all the precautions that they could to stop the atrocities that were happening in London at the time. Also, Source E gives a clear description of the scene around where the murders were committed, as a "network of narrow, dark and crooked lanes". So it would have been easy for the "Ripper" to hide in without getting seen or caught. However, the newspaper is for local people around the murders. This helps because it makes it more reliable, compared to if it was a newspaper for a different area, as it makes it truer - as they have no reason to lie to the people, as they know what their local area is like, and lying to them will not benefit anyone in any way. Nevertheless, it is limited because the population are presently against the police, due to the past happenings, so things may have been elaborated or even made up to make them look even worse. Therefore, we cannot be completely dependent on the newspaper for reasons why Jack the Ripper avoided capture, as we are not positive which point of view it was written from. Consequently, Source E is useful to explain why Jack avoided capture as it explains that it was easier for Jack to avoid capture because the police force was so poor and it was easier for him to escape or hide, due to the surrounding areas as well as the uncertainty of the point of view.
The area of Whitechapel is seen as violent and dirty. Source E states, "...containing some headquarters of infamy. The sights and sounds are an apocalypse of evil." This shows that bad things happening in Whitechapel weren't uncommon; therefore the local residents weren't surprised and didn't pay attention anymore when bad things happened. This is useful to explain why Jack the Ripper avoided capture, as people didn't pay attention, if they did see him. Therefore Source E is useful to explain why Jack avoided capture as there was no concrete evidence on the appearance of the person that was committing these murders. Which meant that Jack didn't have to worry about being caught, as there were no suspicions that it was he.
In conclusion, Sources D and E are very useful in enlightening us on why Jack the Ripper escaped the police, and got away with the murders of so many women. These sources show that the surrounding areas of where the murders were committed ensured that Jack had a quick and easy get away path before anyone saw him after each murder. The ignorance of the police in both Sources D and E helped in the continuing freedom of Jack as they weren't prepared to do anything to find him, however long it took or how much it cost. The vagueness of the only eyewitness also helped Jack pursue his freedom. However, Source E is not completely reliable to explain why Jack escaped being captured, as we are not positive on what point of view the newspaper is being written from.
4. Use Sources F and G, and your own knowledge, to explain how the police tried to catch Jack the Ripper.
Source F:
Nature: - Police leaflet
Origin: - Metropolitan Police
Purpose: - Plea for information on any suspects of the murders
Source G:
Nature: - Letter
Origin: - Home Secretary
Purpose: - Asking is a reward can be granted if someone found the murderer (being exempt from the rule that had been put in place not to give rewards any longer).
During the time of the murders the only way the police could prove someone committed a murder was to catch them in the act or to get the suspect to confess. So to try and catch the murderer and get evidence they had to do many things.
Source G is part of a letter from the Home Secretary to the Mile End Vigilance Committee on 17th September. In the letter the Home Secretary declines the police officers request about offering a reward for the capture of Jack the Ripper or for any evidence given to them. The Home Secretary didn't believe that offering a reward would benefit the police in any way towards catching Jack the Ripper "...practising of offering reward for the discovery of criminals was discontinued some years ago." And the Secretary of State felt that there was nothing to justify "a departure from this rule". The declined request could either have been an advantage or a disadvantage for the Metropolitan Police. It may have been an advantage as if it was accepted they could have ended up with a lot of false evidence that had to be investigated, wasting their precious time, just so that people could get a reward. On the other hand, it may be a disadvantage because people would have been more likely to come forward if they did receive a reward, if they knew anything about the person that was Jack the Ripper. As the Vigilance Committee had to resort to requesting to be exempt from the rule, it shows that the public was not accepting the police tactics, as they were not coming forward with any evidence or relevant information on Jack the Ripper.
Source F, a leaflet, of which there were 80,000, was distributed after the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Kate Eddowes, even though there were four previous murders to these two. The leaflet is explaining about Jack the Ripper and encouraging people to come forward with any evidence they may have of who the murderer might be or if they had seen anything around the neighbourhood. However, this was not a very successful step towards finding Jack the Ripper, mainly because more or less all of the residents living in Whitechapel were undereducated or not educated at all. This meant that the residents could not read, and therefore didn't respond to the leaflets that were sent out to them. Also, a lot of people who did respond to things like this gave false evidence to the police, as the police had to follow up everything that was given to them, this wasted a lot of their time when they could have been carrying out other measures to try and capture Jack. However, the police are showing that they are taking everything seriously, by investigating all of the information received. Yet, the fact that the police were still appealing for information regarding suspicious characters proves that standard methods of detective work were still being carried out, even after the great mass of evidence that had been accumulated about the Ripper and his victims. Also, for many weeks the police were turning away any public input into the investigation, then suddenly they are appealing for information. Therefore, the public will be reluctant to help the police, as they were previously turned away.
The Metropolitan Police also took many other measures to try and capture the person that was carrying out these atrocities. In the beginning of October the police activity was intensified largely. Extra police patrolled the streets and assistance was sent to the Metropolitan Police from the Central Office at Scotland Yard and reinforcements were drafted into the area to supplement the local men. This helped to increase the security in the area of East London, as there were a lot more police officers patrolling the area, on a more regular basis, i.e. every 10 minutes, where the Ripper may have taken out his next offence. It also increased the amount of police officers working on the case, using the evidence that they were being provided with to try and catch the Ripper, with extra experienced police men - detectives - who knew what to look for in the case, compared to those who had never handled anything like this before. But was this the right path for the police force to go down, as it was expensive and this came to little result, although there were fewer murders carried out since the police force was significantly enlarged in the area of Whitechapel.
A major thing that the police intensified on was trying to get evidence from the scene of the murders, the bodies of the women and local people. The police repeated the autopsies that were carried out on the bodies to see if any further evidence could be found to lead them towards the killer. Pictures of every crime scene were drawn to see if there was anything linking the murders, and if there is any evidence present. One thing the police really stepped up on was taking statements from the local people, trying to get as much out of them as they possibly could.
Something that the police thought would help them to find the Ripper first hand was to send large bodies of plain clothed men out onto the streets of the Whitechapel district. To help increase the amount of officers, police officers were drafted in from other parts of London. This would have significantly helped the police, as there would have been more men on the beat in the area where the murders were taking place. This could have resulted in one of two ways, either the murderer would have been caught, or he wouldn't get the chance to commit any murders, as people would have been present there on a regular basis. The fact that they were plain clothed men helped, as they wouldn't be as noticeable as uniformed police officers.
Experimental alternatives, compared to traditional investigation methods, were also tested. Such alternatives included the use of sniffer dogs and acting prostitutes that were actually undercover police officers. Still, these were not followed through fully, yet if they had have been the police may have been more successful in their ploy to catch suspect.
The police also attempted to jog the memories of the public by publishing the "Dear Boss" letter. This helped the police in no way, and did nothing except to create even more attention to the murders and increase public alarm. The name 'Jack the Ripper', which Jack gave himself in the letters added extra enthusiasm to an already gruesome and very out of the ordinary story.
However, there was a major limitation in the investigation, compared to if it was being carried out in present day. This limitation is that the police have no scientific methods of collecting concrete evidence from the scene and the victims. Also, due to the inexperience that the local police force had in a case like this, it was extremely hard for them to know what process of investigation would be the most appropriate to carry out.
Many people, including Queen Victoria began to voice opinions on how the police were not doing enough to try and find Jack the Ripper. However, The Times gave a more balanced verdict on the efforts that the police were putting into finding the Ripper. "The murders, so cunningly continued, are carried out with a complete ruthlessness, which altogether baffles investigators. Not a trace is left of the murderer, and there is no purpose in the crime to afford the slightest clue. All the police can hope is that some accidental circumstance will lead to a trace which may be followed to a successful conclusion." This statement shows that the police were doing everything they felt they possibly could do to try and catch the murderer, but nothing they were doing was ending in triumph.
In conclusion, the police drafted in extra officers, dressed men in plain clothes so that they blended in with the local people, increased investigations within the district, stepped up on finding evidence from the crimes and from the local people and sent out leaflets pleading for people to come forward if they have any evidence on who the murder possibly could be. In the end, the police came to the conclusion that publicity was the greatest aid they had to try and detect the perpetrator, but nothing they did, to this day, led them to "Jack the Ripper".
5. "The police were to blame for not capturing Jack the Ripper"
Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain whether you agree with this view.
Surrounding area
Police
No eyewitnesses Split in
Police
force
The local people not co-operating
No trace of the murderer
No purpose
Murders committed in night
The police had a major part to play in the reason why Jack the Ripper was never captured for all the murders that he committed. The police believed that they were doing everything that the possibly could to try and find Jack the Ripper. The only way to catch a murderer at these times was to physically catch them in the act. The police were finding this extremely hard, due to many reasons. To try and help lead them towards the capture of the Ripper, the police increased their forces, dressed officers in plain clothes and tested out sniffer dogs. The police were using both existing and new methods if investigation. This shows they were taking out extra methods of investigation to try and catch Jack the Ripper.
The police decided not to offer a reward for the capture of Jack or for any concrete evidence given, as seen in Source G. This was a sensible step for the police to take, as it meant they weren't receiving masses of information, which would in turn have to be investigated. This gave the local people the impression that the police didn't want their help! However, just thirteen days later the completely changed their tact on gathering evidence, due to complete desperation, when they sent out over 80,000 leaflets pleading for help from local, as seen in Source F. By now, four murders had taken place and the local people were against the police. If the leaflet had been published and distributed earlier, all these murders may not have taken place and Jack the Ripper may have been captured. Therefore, the police were inundated with masses of evidence, whether it was true or false was another question, but it all had to be investigated. The police investigating all the evidence that they received shows that they were taking everything they received seriously. Nevertheless, the police pleading for help made them look weak and just gave the impression that they had insufficient methods of investigation.
Another thing that contributed to the police forces downfall in catching Jack the Ripper was the fact that they had never been faced with such a huge crime! This was the first time anything of this level had ever happened, so the police had no experience in solving such a high profile murder investigation. Overall, the police obviously weren't doing enough to find Jack and therefore had a massive part to play in the freedom of Jack the Ripper, but there were many other factors that in addition contributed to his freedom.
Firstly, there was very rarely a trace of the person who was carrying out these terrible happenings. As shown in Source F, 'Not a trace is found of the murderer'. The only time that anything was ever left after a murder was a piece of leather apron, but this didn't helped the police in anyway when investigating the crime. Therefore, the murderer himself had a hefty part to play in his freedom. The way that he planned the murders, down to the very last detail, ensured that he infrequently left a trace of himself, or any of his instruments, for the police to follow up on. Also, the police force could not find a purpose for the murders that had taken place '...there is no purpose in the crime to afford the slightest clue.' Therefore, the murderer was either choosing his victims at random, or was choosing them so that no one could possibly find the link between him and his victim. This meant that there was no way of tracing the person committing the biggest crime the Metropolitan Police had even been faced with. However, if the police had scientific methods of investigation, like we do today, they may have found more of a lead towards this 'demented being'.
Secondly, the fact that very few people saw Jack, e.g. Elizabeth Long was extremely beneficial for him. Also, the statements that were given conflicted each other. For example, Mrs Elizabeth Long, in her statement, stated that the person she believed to be Jack was wearing deerstalker hat. Later on, after the murder of Elizabeth Stride, a witness known as William Marshall states that the man he saw was wearing a round cap. Therefore, this evidence helps the police in no way, as they are complete opposites. There were very few details the same in any of the statements, which led to police into great difficulty when searching for Jack.
The statement that Elizabeth Long gave at the inquest into the death of Annie Chapman was filled with very limiting resources. She used words such as "I think" " As far as I could tell" "I cannot be sure" and "As well as I could make out", this shows that she is not completely sure on what she saw the night that Annie Chapman was murdered. The fact that she was one of the only people believed to see Jack increased the need for a clear statement, however this was not given. Consequently, Elizabeth Long, and others who believed they saw Jack the Ripper were slightly responsible for Jack never being captured, due to the vagueness of what Elizabeth believed she saw that night, and the conflicting statements that the different witnesses produced.
The areas around Whitechapel had a huge part to play in the continuing freedom of Jack. Whitechapel is described as an area containing 'a network of narrow, dark and crooked lanes...' in Source E and also shown in Source I. This contributed hugely to Jack never being caught as he had a constant escape route and it was extremely easy for him to hide without getting seen or caught. The darkness in the crooked lanes at night also contributed largely to his independence because if somebody did walk past and see him, they may not have noticed him, or got a clear description of him due to the light restrictions.
The area of Whitechapel is seen as violent and dirty. Source E states, "...containing some headquarters of infamy. The sights and sounds are an apocalypse of evil. " The East End at the time was described as a shocking place, an evil collection of slums that hide human creeping things; where filthy men and women were on gin, where collars and clean shirts are unknown; where every citizen wears a black eye, and never combs his hair. This shows that bad things happening in Whitechapel weren't uncommon; therefore the local residents weren't surprised and didn't pay attention anymore when bad things did happen. This has to be taken into consideration when sharing out the blame for Jack's freedom, as the people in the area were used to horrendous things happening in the dark of the night, and therefore no longer paid massive amounts of attention to what did happen.
Also, the local people themselves have to take some responsibility for the freedom of this 'demented being'. The amount of hoax letters and false information that the police received from local residents was massive around the times of the murders. The police had an obligation to their community to take everything that they received seriously, therefore they had to follow up every lead they had. Due to the excess of false information received from the local people, the police ended up wasting a huge amount of time, when they could have been working on other things to try and catch the murderer. Eventually the local residents turned against the police, as they believed that they were not doing enough to try and find the slaughterer. This meant that nobody was now coming forward with information, whether they knew anything or not. This hindered the investigation massively, and could have been avoided if the local people had just been patient and cooperative with the police. Therefore, the local people contributed to the freedom of Jack, as there weren't cooperative with the police, who were doing the best they could.
Another factor, relating back to the police, was the fact that there were two separate police forces trying to solve the big question, Who is Jack the Ripper? This caused many problems during the investigation, especially on the evening of the double murder, as the police forces would not mix to share ideas or evidence. On the night of the double murder, one was committed in London and the other in Greater London. This caused huge problems, as the police were not allowed to cross-territory, which meant that the case was now split between two police forces who weren't willing to help each other. However, if they had have helped each other the may have ended up closer to discovering who the murderer actually was.
In conclusion, the police do have to take a huge amount of blame for the continuing freedom of Jack the Ripper, but they cannot take all of the blame. For example local residents did not help the police in any way, shape or form to find the killer; in fact they made their job harder. The reality that there was only one eyewitness, who gave an extremely unclear account, again, made the job for the police even harder! If just one person had seen the killer very briefly, but with certainty of what they saw, the police may have been able to use this to lead them towards the murderer. Therefore, the police are mainly to blame for the progressing independency of Jack the Ripper, but many other factors contributed to them not being successful, where as if these problems weren't present the police may have been successful with the measures they took to try and improve their investigation and find Jack the Ripper.
History - Jack the Ripper Coursework Becca Dash
