2006-06-27 23:12:31 · 21 answers · asked by avanldoldy 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
Fanciful theories of Doctors, Royalty and Freemasons aside (they are amusing but unlikely) there are several reasons why the police didn't catch the Ripper:
Lack of resources--there was no forensic science to speak of at that time, fingerprinting did not exist, nor profiling, DNA, blood analysis.
Lack of Experience--There had never been a killer like the Ripper before. Over a hundred years later, serial killers are still statistically unlikely to be caught, despite a lot of knowledge about them. In 1888, only a fluke or a foolish mistake would have caught him.
Lack of Evidence or accomplices--The Ripper left virtually no physical evidence of his crimes, not even enough for the primitive investigative techniques of the time. In 1888, the police relied mostly on catching someone in the act, or having an accomplice turn them in. Neither happened in the Ripper's case.
Interference--The Ripper crimes inspired the public to get involved in the investigation, causing problems and tying up the already stretched resources. Phoney letters, lying witness, vigilantes and the press all muddied the waters. Political ineptitude and the fact that the crimes took place in two seperate jurisdictions who refused to cooperate with each other.
There are other reasons, but I think these are the main ones.
Any suggestion that the police didn't want to catch him or didn't care about catching him are utterly wrong. The Ripper's escape was very damaging to the police force at the time, and they would have done their best to clear the embarassment of the Whitechapel crimes if they could.
edit:
Oh, and btw, it was the Prince of Wales' SON who was accused of being the Ripper and hiring prostitutes, and the theory has been debunked so many times that it's depressing that anyone still believes it.
2006-06-28 07:54:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
1
2016-06-03 05:22:30 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When ever the police found one of the Rippers crime scenes, no records were made of the crime scene, the crime scene was often interfeared with (by the curious public) and the scene was cleaned up as soon as possible leaving no evidance or clues for the police - therefore the police were at a loss. They did have several suspects but no proof or evidance.
Go to your local libary & get a book out on the subject, it will be much more helpful and have more details.
2006-06-27 23:21:49 · answer #3 · answered by byedabye 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is widely supposed that the original Ripper killings were Masonic in nature (disembowelling being the traditional Masonic way of killing people) and that the Ripper left clues at the scenes of his crimes which indicated that he was a Mason. As the senior officers investigating his crimes were Masons, they destroyed evidence (so the story goes) and effectively protected the Ripper from being identified.
The women ritually and gruesomely murdered by the Ripper were all prostitutes whose services had been rented by the then Prince of Wales. The theory is that they had been trying to blackmail His Majesty.
2006-06-28 01:27:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I once heard it was a cover up.. that had something to do with a prince getting a hooker preg. She didnt want to give up her baby.. So she hid. And to cover up her death they killed all her friends who knew about the affair.. and jack the ripper wasnt one person.. if i remember correct it was 3 people one was the chief of police, a doctor, and i cant remember the third.
2006-06-27 23:21:00 · answer #5 · answered by tru1120 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They didn't have CSIs back there and the murderer (or murderers) was probably rich and/or an aristocrat. plus the victims were prostitutes and the police probably didn't do everything in their power
in short - historical, social and economical factors prevented people to find jack the ripper
2006-06-27 23:21:55 · answer #6 · answered by avril r 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the problem was in that time the police did not have a CSI teams or finger printing and such like they had to relie mainly on eye witness evidence so when you consider that maybe only one person may have seen him before one of the murder you then don't have much to go on as to who he was and although many people will tell you there are some suspects one one really knows who he was
2006-06-27 23:37:31 · answer #7 · answered by The Wanderer 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you want to know a very good vocal coach try to visit https://tr.im/6Yy5T an online vocal coaching tutorial. Everything, ranging from breathing fundamentals, vocalizing exercises, techniques on singing high and low notes, how to not go off-key/out of tune/off-sync, musicianship and music theory, proper diction and articulation, and a lot more are covered, all in our native language. It can be quite technical in nature, but it really helps since it covers the musical aspect of singing deeply and not just concentrates on how to impress people with your vocal range, riffs and runs and other cliches that do not necessarily make one a complete vocalist.
2016-05-01 04:32:46 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Things were very different then. l don't necessarily think that he out smarted the police, l just think it's cos years ago there was no such thing as DNA and such so he probably left clues that would now be found out straight away, however all those years ago there was no way of finding out.
2006-06-27 23:26:16 · answer #9 · answered by London girl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
2
2017-02-16 01:00:01 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋