How were murder investigations handled in the 1800's? Not the cases where you know who did it.?

Question

But cases where the murderer was an unknown person.

Answer 1

Remember, crime solving was in its infancy back then. They didn't know anything about DNA, so even if they found blood, they couldn't prove who it came from. Fingerprint identification was also unknown, so even if they could have found that type of circumstantial evidence, it didn't help. They had to deduce who the killer might be based on any eyewitness accounts, who might have a motive for the killings, who had the ability to do it, etc.

For example, look at the Jack the Ripper murders. With all the clues we could find now, White Chapel (the area of London where the murders took place) would have been safe again pretty quickly. Instead, they had to deduce from the way the women were murdered that the murderer might have had experience in medicine or as a butcher. They could have probably found fingerprints on the letters he sent to the police and the papers, and at least matched the handwriting. Instead, without witnesses and no motive, they were pretty much at a loss.

Answer 2

Murders In 1800s

Answer 3

That's a good question that my History class doesn't teach! lol.... I'd like to know too, but if someone wasn't found I think they'll search for them and try them... Well, i could think of Aaron Burr, he got away with killing Hamilton!