Source A is however is sensational, and talks about how extraordinary these murders were. It’s likely this person never saw the bodies at all.
Source C supports A because they both agree about the extraordinary murder. But they do disagree. They both talk about different bodies, which could have been different murders. Both sources have different purposes. Source C is primary evidence, and includes facts, whereas source a makes assumptions and is opinionated.
This principle exists between sources C and B, in the same way; evidential fact and assumptive sensationalism.
Q3.)
Source D helps us understand why the Ripper avoided capture. The only evidence police had to support the case on was reports from witnesses and either to catch the killer midst act. Elizabeth Long was one of the only witnesses of seeing Annie Chapman with a man before she was killed.
Elizabeth Long was asked to give evidence at the inquest, which shows just how important her statement was. Reading her ‘vague’ evidence, we come across how unsure she was about the appearance of whom she was supposed to have seen with the deceased. ‘I think’, ‘I cannot be sure’ etc suggests weakness in her evidence /source. She also claims that he looked foreign. This raises questions that I would like to ask regarding foreigners. What would she class as a foreigner? What nationality was he? If she couldn’t even tell if he was wearing a dark coat or not, that limits the usefulness of the source and her accuracy. The police had no choice but take her word. it isn’t useful because it shows how people were willing to speak out and testify against Jack the Ripper.
Source E is useful because it shows how the authors ‘informant’ was referred from one policeman to another. This was good news for Jack as it shows how the police were ignoring the public. We have to take into consideration that Whitechapel was a crime-ridden place, so officers probably were too busy trying to solve the murder cases than to deal with petty crimes.
This source also contains a description of the layout Whitechapel; a network of narrow, dark, crooked lanes, which meant that the police could never catch Jack in open spaces. Each lane was infamous for one reason or another. Jack never killed in broad daylight, so the police had very little chance in catching him at night.
Q4.)
Source F is a police leaflet published after two of the murders. These raised awareness by appealing for witnesses to come forward and identifying the murderer. This is a reliable, primary source. The police couldn’t lie to the public about the recent events and the source shows how .the police were in close contact with the public.
The police were using very basic techniques at this time. We have to take into consideration that this is the 1880’s so the police didn’t have modern scientific methods. They had no means of a fingerprint classification system; the police at one time used footprints as a means of evidence. Another technique was undercover work, which required the police had to dress up as prostitutes. At this time, police weren’t allowed to be seen with prostitutes. They had to go undercover.
They relied heavily on evidence from the community. The police did house to house enquiries but gained little. Because interviews were the only real way to get information, police were often led into suspicion based on prejudice. Hence so many random arrests. At this time many immigrants from Poland, and Jewish people had settled in Whitechapel. The English population were very suspicious of them. The police possibly had this view too because they mainly focused on foreigners. They also concentrated on butchers and doctors, due to the disagreement whether the killer knew what he was doing or not (on said he had ‘known the anatomy’ and ‘no mere butcher could have carried this out’). But the police could only solve this aided by the public; they were very reliant on the community, hence the leaflets.
Source G is considered reliable because it sent between two main features of the law system at the time. This shows us how they thought about offering a reward but wouldn’t because previously, the evidence had been faulty and wasted police time and effort.
The source shows us how the police used orderly means and procedures at the time. They didn’t introduce special measures, and they didn’t offer any reward. So at least rewards were considered, which is evidence in itself that they were thinking about the case in the right way.
Without evidence, police work increased on the streets. But they were not all working for the same reason. There were many different police forces using different techniques, finding evidence, almost a competition of who could solve the murder first. This prevented forces exchanging evidence and therefore working against each other.
Forensic evidence was in its infancy.
Q5.)
To solely blame the police for not capturing Jack, we would be ignoring some of main factors. I partially agree with the statement but it wouldn’t be fair to just blame the police. We have to considerate all the factors.
There were two forces both working on the case. You could say there was conflict between the two. They didn’t exchange evidence, methods, or acknowledge each other’s work.
The police used very primitive methods (no scientific knowledge). Without this, they couldn’t have taken fingerprints, or DNA samples, etc. Instead of DNA, they used criminal types. The theories were recognised by Cesare Lombroso, who claimed to have found certain characteristics, including large jaws, high cheekbones, large ears, extra nipples, toes and fingers.
All the police had to rely on was witnesses. But, as source E shows, the police often ignored many people trying to give evidence. This is unjust because some could have reliable evidence. But, the police were working in a crime-ridden area anyway, so might have turned a blind eye because they were too busy to deal with petty crimes. Source H is an article supporting the police and raising awareness about the difficulties the police were facing.
The question of having a reward is raised in source G. The police were in a quandary whether to offer a reward. Whitechapel was home to the poorest of the poor; money was what the public wanted. If they did release a reward, the police were under threat to capricious evidence. This is still the case today. For example in the Jill Dando investigation, people did come forward with evidence inaccurate maybe, but only to have a share of the money.
But maybe the police weren’t to blame.
The Metropolitan police operated under the home secretary, which meant closeness between the Met force and the Home Secretary. This means that the City police had only themselves to work with.
Sources B and C show how the doctors and coroners were under lots of political pressure from the police and the home secretary. They could have been more detailed in their assumptions as to the skill of the murderer, but would have caused significant problems for the same reason above.
Source D shows how the police concentrated on foreigners, due to the prejudice of the public. There are 2 possible reasons for this. One was to misdirect the police from the royal family, and the sentiment agreed with that of the country at the time because of political unrest and war campaigns.
Source A states that newspapers sensationalised everything. It was the first serial killing and the police were in their infancy. The police were more military than brains. The police were under intense pressure dealing with newspapers making assumptions etc. A also shows that there were no motives, the killings were random, which made the investigation much harder. Source J shows how Jack was risky because the picture shows how close to civilisation the killings took place. Whitechapel was a very populated part of London and there was bound to have been inhabitants of the surrounding houses.
Source I supports this because it shows the layout of Whitechapel and how there was a random pattern to the killings. This increased the level of difficulty of the investigation because the evidence was a poor standard. The police were desperate for witnesses. Source F shows how the police did appeal for witnesses but maybe relied too heavily on them.
From looking at the sources and from my own knowledge, I have come to a conclusion. It would be unjust to blame the police. They had a part in not capturing Jack, but there were many other factors why he wasn’t caught. The setting, the public, the random movement of the killer, the insufficient knowledge, and the police all played a part.
