3)How useful are Sources D and E…?
The evidence of Elizabeth Long, the rippers only survivor, described the man she had seen Annie Chapman, another victim talking to prior to her death. The description is quite vague as she only comments on what she could make out when it was dark and from far away, so it seems quite unreliable and it doesn’t tell us enough, so concentrating on this to find the Ripper would be a waste of time. But it was an eye witness account so it would be quite useful. Source E relies on an article published in a local newspaper, so it could be biased, and it also relies on the information of only one informant and that could also be biased. The source was produced to inform the neighborhood about they could be on the look out and be aware that there was a murderer loose. The article says that it is basically the police’s fault that these murders keep happening because they should have strengthened and he went from each police station to another, but with no avail. This is saying that the police didn’t pay any attention until the first murder happened. Then the informant claimed he told the police more was to happen unless they acted on the “ruffianisms” on the streets and night. This had no effect. This gives a large effect of bias, because this is all based on the story of one man. But it talks about the back streets of Whitechapel which are all connected in a network of crooked lanes, which is where they found most of the victims. They are both useful but Source D seems more useful because it gives a description of the Killer, while Source E just basically concentrates on what happened with the informant and doesn’t help much.
4) Study Sources F and G-sources and own knowledge to explain how the police tried to catch the police
Source G is a part of a letter from the Home Secretary to the Mile End Vigilance Committee on 17 September 1888, and it is saying that the reward system for the discovery of a criminal was discontinued some years ago because it caused more harm than good, and that recent events circumstances cant justify the rule being brought back. This shows that the police tried to offer a reward to help along the investigation of the case, but it didn’t work. The police generally tried to catch the Ripper in the act rather than to solve the crimes. This is illustrated by an article published by the Times Newspaper (source H), “…some accidental circumstance will lead to a trace which may be followed to a successful conclusion.” This was done by increasing the number of police officers on the ‘beat’ and by the use of decoys (for example police officers pretending to be prostitutes as to lure the Ripper into a trap. This is saying that the police have found no clues that could lead them onto anything, and they are relying on luck or accidental circumstance really to find anything. The police tried to do a lot to get the Ripper. They relied heavily on any line of enquiry released but they turned out to be false such as ‘Leather Apron’ and Elizabeth Long’s statement. They looked for a man fitting the statement given by Elizabeth Long, and gave out handbills to people asking them to look out for ‘suspicious’ characters and because he struck in Whitechapel, they assumed he was local and they were unable to. None of this seemed to work. They took simple methods to try and catch him by increasing the number of police on the beat at that time even after the great mass of evidence that had been collected about the Ripper and his victims, but this couldn’t solve anything because the Ripper covered his tracks very well. The police didn’t have much to work on as in those days, there was no identification, no fingerprint testing or forensic evidence that could help out.
5)‘The Poilce were to blame for not capturing Jack the Ripper’
I agree with this statement because Police in the 1880’s wouldn’t have known about serial killers and even known how to deal with them. Also they wanted to put up a reward to motivate the people to help but the Home Secretary refused to let the rule up. They were also given false lines of enquiry and they relied heavily on the press that also led them on wild goose chase. The detective methods were also slowly evolving, so no fingerprints, DNA tests or anything could be used as they were all in the early stages of their development. There were also differences in opinion. For example Mary Kelly- Dr. Bond though her time of death was between 1:00 AM and 2:00 AM, and Dr. Phillips thought that is was between 5:00 AM and 6:00AM. This didn’t help the police with the evidence of the witnesses either. The primitive ways of the police and the fact that the Metropolitan Police didn’t get along with the City of London police, they were un-cooperative so this slowed down things even further.
When the first victim was killed, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police was out of the country, so the officers were left to figure things out for themselves whit no guidance.
