Jack the ripper - Source related study.

Authors Avatar

GCSE HISTORY COURSEWORK

JACK THE RIPPER

4. STUDY SOURCES F AND G

USE SOURCES F AND G, AND YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE, TO EXPLAIN HOW THE POLICE TRIED TO CATCH JACK THE RIPPER.

 

Sources F and G give us two different methods the police used to try and catch Jack the Ripper. Source F is a police leaflet published after the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Kate Eddowes. The aim of it was to get people to come forward with any information they had on who the murder was. Already without even reading the leaflet you notice that there is a problem with the police using this form of communication to the public. In the nineteenth century there were a lot of illiterate and uneducated people living in the Eastend who would not have been able to read this leaflet. Also even if some people could read this leaflet it would have been unlikely they knew the killer. The leaflet asks people ‘Should you know of any person to whom suspicion is attached, you are earnestly requested to communicate at once with the nearest Police Station Metropolitan Police Office …’ This statement is far too general and would have only confused the public. It shows lack of thought by the police, because by asking this they are inviting a whole range of false accusations to be made. It would have stirred up a lot of commotion between the locals and they would have started being prejudice towards certain groups of the community. For example it may have turned people against the Jews because they were viewed differently and had always been outsiders. Also if the people who read this leaflet were aware of the evidence in source D this statement could have also attracted a lot of false claims towards foreigners. If people kept on giving false information to the police they would have become swamped an unable to concentrate on the job in hand. This method of trying to catch the Ripper would have been very ineffective and would have got the police no further in their investigation.

Join now!

Source G is part of a letter from the Home Secretary to the Mile End Vigilance Committee on 17 September 1888. It shows that there was no reward offered and the Mile End Vigilance Committee (who were a neighbourhood watch) wrote to the Home Secretary to ask for a reward to be offered. They wrote back and said ‘ The practice of offering reward for the discovery of criminals was discontinued some years ago because experience showed that such offers of reward tented to produce more harm than good.’ This shows that even the high authorities were not willing ...

This is a preview of the whole essay