Source G shows us that the home secretary refused to offer any sort of rewards for information about the murders which could have help the police find the murderer. Rewards were not offered because the Home Secretary believed that from other experiences that offering a reward would only cause more trouble than actual help in the investigation, anyone could come up with evidence to claim the reward even if the evidence was not true. Source G also suggests that the government’s attitude towards prostitutes was extremely low. They seemed to care little about trying to find the killer, which suggests that they do not see prostitutes as very important. Source G is a reliable source because it is a primary source and has a date of when written. It is not reliable though because it is only part of the letter written to the Mile End Vigilance Committee and is also published after the police turn to the public for help.
The other methods that the police used apart from trying to get public help, which was a last resort, they started posting leaflets trying to get the public involved with evidence, disguising as prostitutes to try and con Jack the Ripper. After the murders of Martha Tabram, Polly Nicholls and Annie Chapman, the police began to investigate slaughter houses and abattoirs. Sailors were also questioned, number of police patrols in Whitechapel increased, police investigated a man called ‘Leather Apron’ after the murder of Annie Chapman, seventy six butchers and slaughters were questioned. When the police also received the ‘Dear Boss’ letters they began to post them in newspapers, hoping these letters would jog the public’s memory and give the police more clues, this did not help but created more hysteria. After the murder of Mary Kelly a description given by William Hutchinson was circulated around all police stations, but it was seen as too good a description.
Police had so much trouble trying to find ‘Jack the Ripper’ was because they had so many limitations on the investigation. The police had little evidence to go on; no clues were left by the killer which made it practically impossible to have a lead. The evidence they did get from witnesses was so vague or over exaggerated that it couldn’t really be used. An example of this would be Elizabeth Long’s statement after the death of Annie Chapman. None of the evidence was sure, she would end most of her sentences with ‘I think he was’ or ‘I cannot be sure’. Elizabeth Long also seemed to have a clear image of the man seen with Annie Chapman, even though it was at night and she was not near by, she also led suspicion to a foreigner, even though she most likely would not be able to tell.
Another problem the police faced with evidence was that it was conflicting; one person’s description would be very different to the description of another. The police also had to face the lack of technology; they didn’t have the equipment to make accurate accusations, or even to get clues of the murderer. The police had to face the fact that there were slight differences between the murders that some killings had very serious mutilation and others didn’t; there wasn’t a pattern to the killings to follow. The public showed lack of support to the police, they did not come forward with evidence to help find the culprit, seemed unconcerned at the killings of prostitutes.
The press used sensationalism over what had happened which often mislead the public about the murders, they could dramatise their articles.
The most important thing which was against the police in the investigation was that they were not trained to deal with this sort of crime, they were not trained to deal with a serial killer, and they did not know how to act or what to do.
In conclusion the police tried hard to catch Jack the Ripper, they used a variety of methods on trying to catch him yet they all failed. Though they could have improved on some of their methods, they did have a lot of events against them, especially in the lack of training, support from public and sensationalism by the press.
