One thing that all the witness testimonies agree with is that the “Ripper” was well dresses, and maybe a foreigner or Jew. “Foreigner, aged 37, dark beard and moustache. Wearing a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, a black scarf and felt hat.” (Emily Walter’s testimony). What we have to keep in mind is that there was a population of 900,000 people in London and nearly 3/4s of them were foreigners and Jews that had fled persecution from Europe. This was very hard for the police, because they didn’t have a valuable and accurate description of “Jack”.
Another thing that we have to take into consideration it the fact that some of the people that had given eyewitness statements had been under the influence of alcohol. If the consumption of alcohol was to high, then this could have affected their vision and might have affected their right to judge the sex, age, height of the person that they thought was “Jack The Ripper”.
Most of the time the eyewitness accounts were often describing a totally innocent person that just happened to be in that place at that time. For example an eyewitness account from Emily Walter of whom she saw with Annie Chapman before her death, “Foreigner, aged around 37, dark beard and moustache. Wearing a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, a black scarf and felt hat.” And another eyewitness account from PC William Smith of a man that he saw with Elizabeth Stride before her death, “Age 28, clean shaven and respectable appearance, 5’7’’, hard dark felt deerstalker hat, dark clothes. Carrying a newspaper parcel. It is quite obvious that the descriptions of the men that were seen that night are totally different.
However the fact that there were too many contradicting eyewitness accounts is not the only reason that the Metropolitan police could not catch “Jack”. Another reason that the Metropolitan could not catch “Jack” was because of the fact that forensic science had not developed much, and was not used much either. In the late 19th century the use of fingerprints or footprints had not been herd of. The only way to prove if someone was a murderer was to catch him or her in the act. So the only way that the Metropolitan could have caught “Jack” was by catching him in the act. This would prove to be very hard, because “Jack” was a fast worker, it took him less than half an hour to kill and mutilate a victim. “Jack” was also very aware of his surroundings and fled the scene when he heard someone coming. This would prove very hard for the police to catch him.
Another reason that the police found it hard to catch “Jack” was not because of the public, but was because of what the police did wrong themselves. After the deaths of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman the police only started realising that the 2 murders were connected. At first the police did not really bother with the murders, because the death of a prostitute was a common occurrence in London during the 19th century.
The police also destroyed or erased what potentially could have been a very useful piece of evidence. “Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing,” this was written in chalk on an ally wall. The reason that the police destroyed this piece of evidence was because they feared that there would be an uproar inflicted upon the Jewish community of London.
However the police were not the “reason” that “Jack The Ripper” was never found or identified. The metropolitan police force did all that they could to solve this case. However the aims of the Metropolitan were to stop street crime, not to solve murders. The metropolitan did contribute to this case well. For instance after the Metropolitan found out what exactly they were dealing with they immediately placed more policemen on the beat. They also put 15 detectives on the case to see if they could come up with any theories. Another thing the Metropolitan did was to dress their officers up as prostitutes, trying to see if “Jack” would pick them up.
Another thing that the police did wrong is that they had so many suspects. It comes as no surprise that the case was never solved with so many suspects suspected. Many of the suspects that were named were not even in Whitechapel when the murders were committed. So much rubbish was accumulated that blew the situation out of proportion.
The Metropolitan police could not catch “Jack” because there was not a relationship between the murders and murder victims. The fact that all the victims were prostitutes is the only relevant connection between the murders, apart from that there are no other connections what so ever. This made it even harder for the police to catch “Jack”. The police could not even find a motive for these murders to be committed. Some historians believe that the “Ripper” murders were purely sexual, but evidence shows that the murders were definatly not sexual because there were not any signs of violence or sexual struggle.
Another reason that the Metropolitan police could not catch “Jack” was because of the Press. The press were on to a good story and they milked it for what it was worth, they discriminated the police, saying that they were “useless” and a failure. It has also been proved that a journalist wrote the “Dear Boss” letter just to increase publicity to the story. The publishing of misleading murder letters and false leads were common. Hundreds of letters were sent to all the papers claiming that they were the real; “Jack The Ripper”. The press also published “untrue” information about the suspects, they also came up with new suspects just for publicity. This was just stirring up all the information and making it harder for the police to catch “Jack”.
All of the points made in this essay are all the main points that the Metropolitan could not catch “Jack”. The fact that there were too many contradicting eyewitness accounts, the amount of prostitutes on the streets that were on the streets that were potential “victims”, the use of forensic science had not developed much in the late 19th century, the right and wrong actions of the Metropolitan Police Force, the tactics of “Jack” and how he attacked his victims purely at random, the connections between the victims, and how the Press confused the whole situation. All theses points accumulated up and made it even more difficult for the police to catch “Jack”.
All the reasons combined made catching “Jack” virtually impossible, however I feel that the most important reason that the Metropolitan could not catch “Jack” was because of all the contradicting eyewitness accounts. Most of the time the eyewitness accounts were often describing a totally different person. They were often too vague, and inaccurate. The police could not even publish posters about “Jack” because they did not have enough substantial evidence to base it on. Another thing that we have to take into consideration it the fact that some of the people that had given eyewitness statements had been under the influence of alcohol which made their testimony inaccurate and untrustworthy. Most of the time different people were being described, this became disappointing for the police. It can be said that the contradicting eyewitness accounts definatly slowed down the investigation and maybe prevented the Metropolitan from catching the real “Jack The Ripper”