http://melissa-k--x.piczo.com/?preview=y&g=29599259&cr=2&rfm=y
(the writing may not be clear, but it is just about readable)
Please please could you help me, the question is:
How far does Source E agree with Source D about why the Ripper was not caught.
make direct comparisons and differences.
Please help me!!
p.s i don't understand Source E with the old language!what is it saying?
2007-11-24 05:17:35 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Source D: The evidence of Elizabeth Long at the inquest into the death of Annie Chapman; she was describing the man seen talking to Annie before she was killed.
He was dark and was wearing a deer stalker hat. I think he was wearing a dark coat but I cannot be sure. He was a man over forty, as far as I could tell. He seemedto be a little taller than the deceased. He looked to me like a foreigner.
2007-11-24 05:46:38 · update #1
Source E: Part of an article published in the local newspaper after the murders of Polly Nicholls and Annie Chapman.
My informant demanded at the time that the police force on the spot should be strengthened and some kind of order created on the streets at night. He warned that the murder would happen again if matters were left as they were. He was referred from one police to another. Then came the first murder. He went to the police again and warned them that there would be more mischief unless they could clear the streets of the open and defiant ruffianism, which continued to make night hideous. Then came another murder. The main streets of Whitechapel are connected by a network of narrow, dark and crooked lanes. Every one containing some headquarters of infamy. The sights and sounds are an apocalypse of evil.
Here you are, i typed it for you guys, please please will you help me now?
2007-11-24 05:47:21 · update #2
My informant demanded at the time that the police force on the spot should be strengthened and some kind of order created on the streets at night. HE WANTED MORE POLICE OUT ON THE STREET AS THIS WAS A FAMOUSLY DODGY AREA. He warned that the murder would happen again if matters were left as they were. He was referred from one police to another. THE POLICE WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE AREA AS THEY THOUGHT OF THEM AS SCUM SO THEY IGNORED THE INFORMANT AND TRIED TO FOB HIM OFF ON TO OTHER OFFICERS PROBABLY HOPING HE'D GET FED UP AND LOSE INTEREST. Then came the first murder. He went to the police again and warned them that there would be more mischief unless they could clear the streets of the open and defiant ruffianism, which continued to make night hideous. HE WENT TO THE POLICE AND TOLD THEM IF THEY DIDN'T START DOING THEIR JOBS AND ARRESTING THE THUGS IN THE AREA THEN THEY WOULD THINK THEY COULD CARRY ON DOING WHATEVER THEY LIKED AND IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE A HORRIBLE PLACE. Then came another murder. The main streets of Whitechapel are connected by a network of narrow, dark and crooked lanes.THE LARGER STREETS HAD LOT OF DARK LITTLE LANES LEADING OFF THEM, WHERE SOMEONE COULD DISSAPPEAR DOWN VERY QUICKLY WITHOUT BEING SEEN. Every one containing some headquarters of infamy. THEY ALL HAD HOUSES WHERE SOME SORT OF CRIMINAL TYPE LIVED, IT WOULD BE VERY EASY TO FIND A HIDEOUT, PERHAPS WITH A FELLOW CRIMINAL. The sights and sounds are an apocalypse of evil. IT WAS A HORRIBLE PLACE TO BE.
Ok, hope this helps you. Good luck
2007-11-24 13:06:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Source E is confusing because things seem out of sequence, but the point is that Whitechapel was a crime-infested neighborhood with many places to hide where the police had little interest in getting involved. Source D gives us a description of a suspect that could fit any number of men lurking about in that area. Both speak to the reasons for the failure to catch the Ripper, but it seems to me that they complement each other but do not necessarily agree with each other.
2007-11-24 06:19:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as I could see the only thing they agree on is that one at least murder had been committed.
The first source is a type of witness.
The second source, the newspaper was only passing on an opinion.
Without the full transcript of what what said it is difficult to be more definitive.
2007-11-25 03:11:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I could cut and paste it I would try and make it easier to understand, but I can't so I shan't.
2007-11-24 05:26:38 · answer #4 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i i have no idea however think the second one is focusing more on the polices actions towards the killer
2007-11-24 05:30:54 · answer #5 · answered by Blub 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋