How did the police not catch the ripper?

Answer 1

There is a problem investigating serial killings. These people kill person not related to them most of the time. It becomes hard to link them to the victims. The next thing is that nobody witnessed the crime so no description could be brought forward. This makes these people hard to catch. Most serial killers are caught by accident. In Ted Bundy's case, he was speeding.

Now, back in 1888, ivenstigating skills weren't like the investigating methods of today. There was no finger printing nor DNA analisis. Large metrolopis weren't used to serial killers and the police was not used to investigate them.

The police put posters about him and the media covered the case and all the world was aware of the news but the lack of investigating methods back then were not enough.

I have heard theories about the reason Jack the ripper quit killing. I have two theories I believe are possible.

1. His family noticed he was a ripper and kept him locked in the families home. A letter reached the police which says so. This is possible.

2. This is the theorie I believe the most. Maybe you have not read about it. As far I know, I had not read about it nowhere and maybe I made this theory. It goes like this:

He didn't quit killing. The fact that he cut a large piece of flesh from the last victim could tell us a lot of things. He didn't used it to mail it to the police to brag. The only reason we could think is that he kept it to consume it. Once he became a canival, he needed a place to cut the victims to pieces and lots of time to eat them. Once a killer goes canival, he quits writing to the police and not leaving the dead to be found. Just like the Damher case.

In 1888 this could go on for a long time before the police caught the culprit.

Answer 2

Some believe it was because he came to America.

It was also due to the small amount of evidence and witnesses available during the middle of the night (when most of his crimes were committed) that he wasn't caught. There were many speculations from many people as to who Jack the Ripper was, but most speculations proved to be false. The most popular theory today is that he escaped to America before getting caught.
In the 21st century it takes on average, 18 months to apprehend a serial killer. With all of our modern technology and forensics this type of killer is extremely hard to catch. Imagine now, in 1888, how difficult it would be to detect the guilty without this technology. Fingerprinting was known, yet not used by police, probably due to lack of understanding how important fingerprints are to a crime scene. Blood typing was decades away, and criminal profiling would have sounded like voodoo to law enforcement at that time. They relied heavily on eyewitnesses, which unfortunately is the least accurate form of evidence.

So, unless a constable actually tripped over the Ripper while he was at his dirty deeds, the chance of capture was remote at best. Most homicides are committed by someone the victim knows, and that makes sense. Husbands kill their nagging wives, business partners kill each other, ect. But victim and killer have a connection. Without a relationship, however casual, it can be very hard to follow a trail of logic. Serial murder makes sense only to the killer.

Answer 3

Police did not possess the tools needed to catch this type of killer. The science was just not there. It had nothing to do with conspiracies involving the royal family or Scotland Yard cover ups, the Ripper case needed modern forensics.

Answer 4

A problem was that they did not apprehend the ripper. At that time, serial killer knowledge was null .The forensics and DNA was not there and through forensics we can tell from a strand of hair who that hair belongs to. So the most important reason why Jack the Ripper was so hard to catch was because of the lack of evidence.

In 1888, the police was learning the significance of footprints to catching a villain. The press did present an obstacle. It led police to investigate the 'Leather Apron' and this wasted a significant amount of time for the investigation. Using time properly, may have allowed them to uncover more information needed to catch him.

Most of the people in Whitechapel did hate the police for so the public reaction was very unhelpful since at the time the police dealt with excessive force to the public and they had a very small force so the lack of policemen did not help either.

There was no reward offered to the public for information because it would bring in false leads and would waste police time or so the police thought. That did not help either.

The crimes were escalating in brutality from victim to victim. The he first murder wasn't terribly gory. She had only one cut which was from ear to ear. The second was worst but the third was even gorier. Now, the last victim was the worst. The whole surface of the abdomen and thighs were cut off, the breasts were cut off, and the internal organs removed. The tissues of the neck were slashed through to the bone. The uterus, kidneys and one breast were found under the head, the other breast by her right foot, and the liver was between her feet. Also the intestines were by her right side and the spleen by her left. Her heart was cut out and could not be found. This murder made Dr. Bond sure that the ripper had any medical knowledge which I agree with him. Just looking at the pictures of the victim you can tell it was not a doctor. He wrote ' I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it.' He didn't even know about blood coagulation. The time investigating doctors and butchers was another good waste of time. That did not help either.

Answer 5

Even with all of the modern forensic tools available to law enforcement today, it is still very difficult to catch serial killers. Especially if they are of the 'organized' catagory. According to FBI statistics it takes 18 months on average to apprehend this type of killer. In 1888 there was virtually no science involved in crime detection. The Ripper would almost have had to have been caught in the act, which he did on at least two occasions, in order to be arrested for the crimes. There are still rumors circulating that Scotland Yard was protecting the killer, possibly on orders from the Queen. This of course is ridiculous. They used the tools that were available to them at the time. They knew very little about blood and blood typing was still decades away. Blood spatter patterns, DNA, fiber analysis, criminal profiling, ect. would have nailed the Ripper but they just were not advanced enough scientifically in the late 19th century.

Answer 6

Catching criminals was the job of Scotland Yard's police force. When the Ripper proved uncatchable of course police were criticized for 'letting him get away.' Most people don't know that the police tried very hard in their pursuit of the Ripper. They just did not possess the knowledge and tools needed to catch the type of killer the Ripper was. Chances are very good that Jack would have been apprehended had the police had modern crime solving techniques.

Answer 7

As I understand it, there were two main reasons. One, he never got caught in the act. Two, forensics were basically non existent in the 1800s, so there was no way to prove anything.

Answer 8

they didnt find him because the methods they had of finding people in those times were not advanced enough and he did not leave any evidence behind at crime scenes