Source C is a description of where the body is found and how it is cut up. Source C also shows that the crime scene is not preserved. “There was no money on the body”. Elizabeth Long would’ve carried the minimal of amount of money as she was a prostitute, this puts forward a motive that the customer did not want to pay her so therefore killed her. Also from source C we can tell that the crime scene was not preserved. Because there is no description of the blood on the floor, therefore passers by could’ve destroyed or displaced vital evidence. But source C does not gives us clues as to who carried out the murders
Source’s C and A contain similarities; these similarities are that the murder was carried out by a madman. The description in source C tells us this and in source A is plainly says that the murders were carried out by a “demented being”. In source A it say’s “the excess of effort that has been apparent” this is similar to source C “In the neck there was a long incision which commenced on the left side”, this suggests an overall picture of mental man and the attack being frenzied.
The differences between source C and A are that source A is a newspaper article which purpose is to sell copies and source C is a report on the body which purpose is to inform the reader. Also source A writes about Martha Tabram and Polly Nicholls whilst source C is the description of the body of Elizabeth Long.
The similarities between source C and B are; they are both reports that describe the bodies. And the differences between these source is that source B hints that the murderer had anatomical knowledge whilst source C is an only a description of the body and how it was placed.
Overall the evidence that the sources present is that of a mad man who is committing these murders. The impression the person gets from theses sources is, the public at the time not having a clue who is committing these crimes, because source A says the murders seem motiveless. We also learn that the police investigation was not progressing because in source C there is evidence that the crime scene is not preserved. We also get the first clue that the murderer has anatomical knowledge; we know this from the coroners report.
Question 3:
Sources D and E are the reason why Jack the ripper was not caught.
Source D is a description of the ripper by Elizabeth Long. Her statement is evidence that she was very unreliable witness for the reasons that, she says “He was dark complexioned” this was not helpful as it was late night and there would’ve been no street lighting. She then goes on to say “he was a man over forty, as far as I could tell” this indicates she was unsure, and that knowing the ripper was over 40 did not narrow the ripper’s identity. “He seemed a little taller than the deceased”, in England the men were averagely taller than women so the police knowing this would not have helped. “He looked like a foreigner” this is another statement which is not useful for the police as in the east end of London there was a high population of foreigners due to docks and no controls like passports and identity papers.
Source E is a picture of the scene where Annie Chapman’s body was found. The picture shows that the area was a dark shaded place without any lighting. This made it easier for the ripper to kill his victim as he could not be seen. But then the houses were attached so therefore the neighbors should’ve heard screams or strange noises coming from the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. Also when the ripper escaped there would’ve been sounds of foot-steps or even louder noises if he ran and this would have alerted the neighbors. From source E one cannot tell whether there were occupants living on either side of 29 Hanbury Street.
Overall Elizabeth Long’s testimony is useless for the reason that it does not give a clear description of the Ripper, but the source is useful as it shows that the police had no idea who was committing these crimes. The purpose of Elizabeth Long’s testimony would’ve helped the police look for a certain individual, but it did not because the testimony was very vague. Source E shows the conditions in which the murders took place, a dark, murky and lightless place, this could be the reason for the vague testimony of Elizabeth Long.
Question 4:
Use sources F and G, and your own knowledge, to explain how the police tried to catch Jack the Ripper.
Source F is a police leaflet published after the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Kate Eddows. The problem with the leaflet is that it is in English whereas most of the population of East London were foreigners and could not speak English let alone read it. The was a culture gap between the population and the police because in foreigners origin countries police were hostile and were corrupt so the population thought the same of the metropolitan police force. The police did not visit community gathering places like the so there was a link between the police and the population. The number of patrols increased in East End, the police started interviewing more people (suspects), the police brought hounds in to smell the Ripper’s scent and lead the police to him or his resident. Bringing in the hounds proved unsuccessful as they were brought in from Lancashire and the police were unwilling to pay for accommodation for the dog-keeper, so each time a murder occurred the hounds had to be brought in from Lancashire which took about one and half days. By this time the scent would have dispersed. The police started to officers to dress as prostitutes in order to lure the Ripper. The police also started to photograph the victim’s eyes as there was a theory that stated, the last image a person saw became imprinted on the person’s eyes.
Source G is a letter by the Mile End Vigilance Committee to the home secretary asking for him to put a reward. Mile End Vigilance Committee believed that a reward would increase the chances of capturing the Ripper also they were scared as the murders were taking place close to their region. But the home secretary refused the reward because he believed that is caused more harm then good. If a reward was issued the reward would have been low for the reason that, the murders were carried out in a very poor part of London/England and the victims were prostitutes who were not cared about at all.
Overall from sources F and G we can tell that the police were unprepared for these types of murders. No reward was issued because the victims were the poorest of the poor but if this occurred in richer parts of London more action would’ve taken place. If the leaflet was produced in Yiddish or Hebrew more people would have been able to read and report any suspicious activities.
Question 5
I believe that the police are partially to blame for not capturing Jack the Ripper.
When the metropolitan police force was first set up, it was setup in order to stop a revolution from occurring. The main task of the metropolitan police force was to maintain order but not to maintain order. The police’s task was to stop the destruction of wealthy Londoner’s. This is one reason, because the police was organized enough to deal with a serial killer.
Source A is evident that the case was becoming a very public affair, and the police at the time did not know how to cope with this “new” type of murderer.
Source B shows that the ripper knew what he was doing, the report states “The injuries have been made by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge” this brings forward the idea that the ripper was clever and would’ve cleared the evidence left behind.
Source C makes presents a motive for the murders because the deceased Elizabeth Stride did not have any money, so therefore the ripper may have killed her for the reason that he did not pay her. But this motive is not very clear and adds to the confusion because prostitutes at the time did not earn a lot of money and the money they had, would be only sufficient for their rent and food. Source C also present forward that the crime scene was not preserved so the police were unable to analyze it properly for clues.
Sources D and E prove how hard it was to track the ripper. As Elizabeth Long’s testimony is useless for the police to follow up on as most of the general population would’ve fitted that description. Source E shows the conditions in which the murders took place, a dark and shadowy place with no lamps.
In Sources F and G the police’s faults become apparent because a leaflet is produced after the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Kate Eddows which was late as people might have forgotten event that may have taken place. Also the leaflet is produced in English whereas most of the residents in East London were foreigners with little or no knowledge of how to read to write English. Source G is available to different interpretations because on one hand the home sectary could’ve been right not to have given the reward, for the reasons that “more harm than good” may have resulted due to the reward. Other criminals may have “grassed” up people they may have had grudges against. Other people may have put forward names for the reason of publicity and money. On the other hand if the murders took place in West London were wealthy Londoners resided; the home secretary may have taken more action to capture the Ripper.
Source H shows the amount of publicity that was created due to the murders, because the story is covered by a national and famous newspaper “The Times”. The police are shown to be hopeless “All the police can hope is that some accidental circumstance will lead to a trace which may be followed to a successful conclusion”. This shows that people started believing the ripper could not be caught; this could be the reason for some bizarre conspiracy theories of who the ripper was.
Source I is a map that illustrates how close the murders were but this was not for the advantage of the police as there was many alley ways and very poor lighting. This made the police’s job much harder.
Overall the police were partially to blame for not capturing Jack the Ripper as the police were not set up to do this. The police officers which were deployed in the East End did not have local knowledge as they came from different areas such as Dorset. From the first ripper victim to the last victim the police investigation became more and more thorough. The numbers of patrols increased and bloodhounds were brought in. What made the investigation more difficult was that the police could not distinguish a motive for the murders therefore the police had no idea of whom and where the next victim was. The only thing they did know was that prostitutes were attacked who were in Whitechapel. The police at the time did not have the methods which are in use today i.e. a CSI unit to examine the crime scene, no DNA identification. But due to the Ripper murders the police investigation process improved.
