What can you learn from Source A about the murder of Polly Nichols?

3: How useful are Sources D and E in helping you to understand why the Ripper was able to avoid capture.

Having before been given the impression that the murderer was advanced in his knowledge of the body, both Sources D and E cause me to believe that he not only had a clear mind when committing the murders, but his every move was very well thought out, the actions of someone very wise.

   In Source D it is painfully obvious to see how the murderer managed to escape being caught, as the whole source shows many different ways the murderer was able to avoid capture. Firstly, he was described as being a ‘dark complexioned’ man, meaning not so much that he was brown, but probably foreign so darker than a ‘white’ person, and so it may be hard to define his features late at night. The fact that he was also wearing ‘a deerstalker hat’, an item of headwear common in those days, increases the likelihood of him not being unrecognisable as the only description that can be gathered from this person is extremely vague. Or perhaps the murderer is female, purposefully dressing in such a way, as she knows that detectives will assume she is male.

   Another way the murderer is able to avoid capture, shown in Source D, was the only witnesses statement, as it was one based on uncertainty. Anything she tells the newspaper is backed with doubt, “I think he was wearing a dark coat but I cannot be sure” (with this statement she even shows doubt before her account of the murderer), and this continues throughout the rest of her statement, as she cannot confirm anything she says, “ as far as I could tell…he looked to me like a foreigner, as well as I could make out.”

   With source E, my trust had already deteriorated before having read the source, merely for the fact that it is a newspaper extract, meaning the facts would either have been tampered with, to make the truth more exaggerated, or the ‘facts’ would be completely false.

   From Source E it is hard to tell who the Ripper is. The article talks of an informant of theirs who claims to have warned the police of the Ripper murders as a consequence if his demands of a stronger police force were not met, “My informant demanded at that time that the police force on the spot be strengthened…murder would ensue if matters were left as they were”, which could mean that their informant was in fact the Ripper himself, or how else would he know that the murders were going to happen. If they were, then two more ways the Ripper was able to escape capture are shown. Firstly, I noticed that within the article, the informant is disguised, as their name is never mentioned, so even if the police tried to track them down they would be unable to. And secondly, the article says that although the informant did go to the police, he was never really acknowledged, taken into account, as he was more than once dismissed, “He was referred from one police office to another, but without making any impression.” That particular quote shows that from this article the Ripper able to escape capture not only by his name not being mentioned, but by the idiocy, or ignorance of the police – on more than one occasion the police had a possible Ripper suspect giving themselves in, yet they continuously let them go.

   By the end of Source E it is not even the slightest bit surprising that the Ripper was not caught, as throughout Sources D and E there are countless ways the Ripper was disguised. From the newspapers description of the area in which the murders were committed, it becomes immediately apparent how easy it was for the Ripper to avoid capture, as there are yet more ways the Ripper was unrecognisable. The area is described as a scene common in murder films, with each of its dark and narrow alleyways having a reputation of danger, “narrow dark and crooked lanes. Everyone apparently containing some headquarters of infamy”, although the writer gets slightly carried away when the area is described as “an apocalypse of evil.”

   In my opinion, as we already know that the area is dark with many hidden, dangerous alleyways, and is common for being rough, with many dodgy people around at night, the probability is, that even if the Ripper was seen by someone (with a good enough description to be useful to the police) they would not think him unusual and so would not think to report him.

4: Use Sources F and G, and your own knowledge, to explain how the police tried to catch Jack the Ripper.

Although it may not seem it by the lack of secure evidence that was found, the police put in a great deal of effort into catching the Ripper. As discussed in a previous answer, we acknowledge that no matter what evidence there seemed to be against any of the suspects, the chances of the police having the actual murderer were very slim.

   One method that the police did try was to post-up leaflets to get the attention of possible witnesses (probably people living locally), asking them to come forward with any information that may be useful, or the name of anyone they thought might be the Ripper. The leaflet in Source F was noticeably ineffective as there was not much difference after the leaflet was published. Perhaps it was the approach they took – were they too polite? Were they not persuasive, or maybe they did not make the information seem important enough? If a poster was put up, saying that evidence was vital, then it is likely that there would be quite a few witnesses giving evidence (not including those afraid of the consequences of coming forward), whereas, with this leaflet only saying “you are earnestly requested” the importance of the evidence is lost, and people do not feel obliged to respond.

   Source G indirectly speaks of another of the police’s attempts to catch the Ripper. In Source G, the home secretary is expressing his disappointment at the ‘Mile End Vigilance Committee’ (an association similar to a neighbourhood watch group) for breaking the law by using a method of bribe that was banned a while ago, “ was disconnected some years ago”. From what the home secretary says, it seems that after their failed attempt of obtaining evidence through the leaflet, a smaller, less important (more private) committee had been offering rewards for those who came forward with evidence, “The practice of offering reward for the discovery of criminals”. Although the intentions are good and it seems a good idea in theory, in reality people are likely to take advantage of the generosity, and there’s the chance that there may be those who lie and give false information in order to get the reward, as the home secretary is well aware of, “such offers of reward tended to produce more harm than good.”

   I assume there was some sort of forensic testing during the time of the Ripper murders, as there are sources from doctors and coroners with evidence of how the victims were murdered, although the standard of testing has since then improved and so maybe some significant evidence would have gone unnoticed.

   Another way that forensic testing would have failed is at the hands of the public. It is likely that people passing an undressed corpse on the street would re-dress it. This would make it hard to distinguish a stranger’s fingerprint from that of the actual murderer.

   Another way the police tried to catch the Ripper was by trying to find a motive. As any good policeman would, the police researched the backgrounds of the victims to try and find a link between them, and also a motive as to why someone would want to kill them.

   However, this method too proved useless as, although they were able to find a link between the victims (they were all poor, single women, probably prostitutes), they could find no adequate motive for the murders, as there was no gain on the murderers behalf. As far as we can tell, nothing was stolen from the victims.

   Finally, the simplest and most common method that the police used to try and catch the Ripper was by personally interviewing people face-to-face. Police would interview people at the scene of the crime, or those who lived nearby and may have heard or seen anything. Also, it is likely that the police would have interviewed the victims’ friends and family to see if they knew of anyone who would have a reason for murder.

5: ‘The police were to blame for not capturing Jack the Ripper’ –

Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain whether you agree with this view.

I do not necessarily agree with that statement. In fact, I strongly disagree with this statement. Source A, too, does not support the statement. The fact that the police were able to discover that the women were “the poorest of the poor”, and that nothing was stolen from them and the “excess of effort” used to commit their murders says to me that the police thoroughly investigated the cases, although they were unable to find an “adequate motive”.

   Source B once again opposes the statement, supporting Source A instead. This source shows the lengths the police went to to try and discover some evidence. Source B is in some ways an expansion of what Source A grazes over. It describes in great detail the way Polly Nichols was murdered. Considering the fact that at first the police thought the murderer may have been a slaughterer as it would not be considered unusual if they were covered in blood, their dedication to the case is shown by the fact that they investigated the case in enough depth to prove themselves wrong. In the end the police came to the conclusion that the murderer could not have been a slaughterer, yet still have no mention of a suspect, leaving me with the impression that there were still no clues, “no meaningless cuts…done by one who knew where to find what he wanted…no mere slaughterer”.

   One of the police’s main problems was their lack of hard evidence. Source C shows that the doctor noted as much as they could from the murder scene, describing in as much detail as possible, “the neck and chest were quite warm…the left hand, lying on the ground, was partially closed…in the neck there was a long incision”.

   Also, they went to the excess of getting the help of coroners, people advanced in their knowledge of the body, and what it would look like if it was cut or treated in a certain way to help give a clear view of what actually happened, and the murders mentality. In an odd way, Source C gives a possible reason as to why there were no witnesses, whose information would be very valid. It describes the victims face as “quite placid”. This suggests to me that the victim knew her killer and so was not scared of him – there’s a possibility he had been violent in the past and she was used to it, though she did not expect to be murdered, or the murderer may have killed her so quickly that she had no chance to scream. Either way, the main point is that she may not have screamed and so it would be unlikely that there were witness as there was nothing to witness.

   In my opinion, Source D is one of the main sources that oppose the statement. Source D shows the police interviewing one of their few witnesses. In all that she says, she can never be sure of any information she gives, as she says, “I think he was…I cannot be sure…as far as I could tell…He seemed…as well as I could make out”

   So far, Source E is the first source I have found which strongly agrees with the statement. In Source E, a reporter for a newspaper writes about their “informant” who told them that they were trying to help cut-down crime on the streets [Whitechapel]. The article says that an informant went to the police and demanded, “that the police force on the spot should be strengthened…order created on the streets”. He warned the police that if his requests were ignored there would be murder, “murder would ensue”, but was ignored, “He was referred from one police officer to another, but without making any impression”. It seems that the first Ripper murder happened after the informant went to the police, “Then came the first murder.” Source E makes the case against the police as it makes it seem as though the police ignored early warnings that could have prevented death, and went on to ignore these warnings, even after the first death, “He went again to the police and warned them…Then came another murder.”

   However, Source E in some ways opposes the statement. It talks about the appearance of Whitechapel, with its ‘network of narrow, dark and crooked lanes’. It seems it would be easy for someone to hide in a little ditch in a wall, or the corner of an alleyway, and so passers-by would not notice. The alleyways seem even more dangerous when they are described as “containing some headquarters of infamy.” The subject of evidence is brought up again in Source E. Throughout the article the informant is never named, which suggests to me that he went to the police anonymously, or it could be that as it is a newspaper article, the informant is made up.

   Source F returns to the defence of the police. Source F is a leaflet that the police produced after the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Kate Eddowes. This shows that the police did actually try to look for evidence as the leaflet asks, “Should you know of any person to whom suspicion is attached, you are earnestly requested to communicate at once with the nearest Police”

   Although Source G is not pleased with the method taken by the police, it does show an argument against the statement. Source G is a letter from the Home Secretary complaining about rewards being offered as a result of giving evidence, “offering reward for the discovery of criminals”. This once again proves that the police did try to get witnesses to come forward, although they did this through illegal terms, “The practice…was disconnected some years ago” and from what I can see, came no closer to capturing the Ripper.

   Considering I disagree with the statement, Source H is on of my favourite sources. I don’t think it would be possible for it to support the police any more than it does. Source H reinforces what some of the previous sources have been telling us. It talks about the fact that the murders were committed with such “ruthlessness”, and so “cunningly” covered up that there was nothing the police could do, “altogether baffles investigators”. It goes on to prove one of the reasons as to why the police had no evidence to commence their investigation, “Not a trace is left of the murderer, and there is no purpose in the crime to afford the slightest clue.” Source H shows that the police were powerless in this case as the murderer managed to hide their tracks, and in fact even states that investigators best chance is to hope, “that some accidental circumstance will lead to a trace which may be followed to a successful conclusion”, meaning; hope that the Ripper lets down his guard somewhere along the line, leading to him getting himself caught.

   Source I, although it not extremely helpful, does oppose the argument. Source I shows a map of Whitechapel, with all the places that the murders were committed outlined. If the police were not determined to capture the Ripper, then it is unlikely that they would go to the trouble of creating a clear map of the Ripper’s path of murder. Using that map might help them predict where the Ripper will strike next, or at least know where he’s unlikely to strike again.

   Also, I noticed from what the map in Source I seems to show, all the murders were committed in or near alleyways.

   Source J also supports my statement that the police were not to blame. It is a photograph of the backyard of Annie Chapman, one of the Ripper’s victims, and where her body was found. From looking at the picture alone you can tell the poverty of this women. Her shed door is broken down, with the doorway back into the house apparently having no door. There is a puddle of water, suggesting to me that it replaces a ditch that has been steadily expanding there for a while.

   Also from the picture it can be seen, just how many neighbours this woman has. If the woman was killed outside as we suspect, surely someone from the many windows surrounding her would have heard or seen something. This same argument can be used with all of the Ripper’s victims. From what we can tell, they were all murdered outside, it’s almost impossible that no-one saw anything, or perhaps they’re all too scared to speak up.

   I have come to the conclusion that a large majority of the sources oppose the statement that the police were to blame for the Ripper not being caught which makes me believe that even if I supported the statement, I would be proved wrong.