Source’s C and B generally contradict one another. Source A describing a mad and frenzied killer and Source C relating a more calculated and methodical one. Source C shows that Elizabeth Stride’s face looked placid and that she still had her cachous in her hand. If she had come up against a demented being, she would surely not have held on to her cachous. No fight
The evidence of the cachous in her hand gives more support to Source B, which describes the killer as knowing what difficulties there would be to contend with and having some anatomical knowledge. This seems to me to indicate that he would know how to killer Elizabeth Stride quickly and without much commotion, by cutting her windpipe ’completely in two.’ The way that Ms Stride’s throat has been cut, ‘long incision’ ‘cutting the windpipe completely in two’ seems awfully vicious albeit still incredibly precise and purposeful. As source B says ‘There are no meaningless cuts.’ Nevertheless this method of killing someone does show horrific brutality therefore backing up Source’s A point regarding ‘extraordinary violence.’
3/ How useful are Sources D and E in helping you to understand why the ripper was available to avoid capture?
Source D is the statement given by Elizabeth Long at the public enquiry into Annie Chapman’s murder. Elizabeth Long is describing the man she saw with Annie Chapman. What she says is very vague, she mentions that the man in question was ‘foreign looking’ and taller than the deceased. She is very uncertain in her statement saying things such as ’as well as I could make out’ and ‘ I cannot be sure.’ This would be a very unhelpful statement, seeing as Whitechapel was full of people that would have been foreign looking to Ms. Long. This statement as well did not give a specific height or a definite description of his clothing on the night of the murder. She is very vague in his height, just describing him as taller than the deceased. She is also unsure about his attire saying that she thought he could have been wearing a dark coat. To the police this could have described nearly three quarters of the men in Whitechapel. She does not say what his faces was like and fails to give an approximate age, which would even further hinder the police. For our purposes this source is only reliable for a lose description of the killer, maybe not even that much. The witness is very unsure and what she does say cannot be of very much help to us or the police in 1888.
Source E, an article published in a local newspaper, is an attack on the policing in Whitechapel at the time of the first two murders. It is however more useful as a description of Whitechapel. The warren of streets passages and alleys described as ‘a network of narrow and dark crooked lanes.’ This invokes the image of a labyrinth of dark twisting streets, which would be extremely hard to navigate. This article, although written from a biased point of view is useful to us in understanding how hard it would have been for the police, who would have been on foot, to catch Jack the Ripper. We can see that by the time had reached the body the killer could have put a substantial distance between himself and the body. The article is also useful for ascertaining the levels of crime and also policing around Whitechapel at the time. It says that the journalist’s informant had called upon various police officers to increase the numbers of officers but to no avail. It also describes scenes of open and defiant ruffianism. The article however is meant to stir annoyance at the police, and show the force in the worst light possible. This is why we cannot use it as fact but merely as an indication as to what Whitechapel was like for the people living there in 1888.
4/
5/ In the Jack the ripper case the police could only gather strong evidence from the statements they took from witnesses and next of kin. What information they did gather could not always be trusted, the sense of community in the East End meant that if someone had recognised Jack the Ripper, as a friend or family member, they would probably not report him for fear of the repercussions. There evidence had also sometimes been violated, for example in the case of Mary Ann Nichols the body had been moved from the scene and all the blood washed away before any senior members of the investigative team had arrived on the scene. When the body of Catherine Eddowes was found there was a message written in chalk in a doorway next to a piece of her apron, which the ripper had used to wipe off his knife. The message said ‘The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing’ The City of London police wanted to photograph it as evidence but the commissioner ordered it washed away. It was only Mary Jane Kelly who was photographed at the scene. It was also rumoured that the press would plant false evidence to make the story either gorier or more interesting for their readers. The press also pressurised the police to follow up the lead of ‘The leather apron’, even though they had reason to believe he was not responsible. The fact that both Scotland Yard and the City of London police force were both involved caused problems too. The lack of communication between the two forces meant that evidence was not shared which could prevent vital evidence form being followed up. They also had different policing methods, The City of London police force believed in taking photos at the scene of the crime and studying the scene and the surrounding area in great detail for any evidence. Scotland Yard, or the Metropolitan Police would move the body to perform autopsies as close to time of death as possible and take many statements. The angst between the two forces was probably one of the greatest problems in the Ripper case.
