In 1888, between the months of August and November, the
Whitechapel area of London was plagued with a series of baffling
murders. At least five women met their brutal ends in the unforgiving alleys of London's East End, yet despite serious overpopulation issues, there were no
witnesses to the gruesome crimes. Scotland Yard failed to ever identify this murderer, and he escaped unscathed. They called him Jack the Ripper. But in an era that was still a long way off in the development of forensic techniques, what could have been done to solve this mystery? Even with consideration to the limited technological advances of the day, the Yard failed miserably in their efforts of detection, due largely to the imprecise methods of the Metropolitan Police.
During the Victorian era, many areas of London thrived as a boomtown for industry. Most of the city, however, was destitute, and
Whitechapel reflected the flailing economy. During the period of the Ripper murders, it was the epitome of a slum. Throughout the 1800's, sanitation was virtually nonexistent, causing a number of outbreaks of serious illnesses. Substance abuse was also rampant, and the streets were often overflowing with the drunken, impoverished people. Many were unable to find work except in sweatshops and workhouses. As for women, those who couldn't find work in the sweatshops could certainly find it on the streets. These women, referred to by Victorians as the "Unfortunates," were the sole targets of Jack the Ripper.
Throughout the 1888 rampage, Scotland Yard was criticized relentlessly by the media for their failure to capture the Ripper. Various mistakes could be counted in Scotland Yard's failure, among them the severely understaffed police. During some shifts, there was only one police officer per 4000 citizens, and of those many were out sick or injured, leaving just one police officer per six miles of street. The nearest officer could be miles away, leaving escape easy for would-be murderers. In addition, Scotland Yard did not believe in utilizing plainclothesmen without ample evidence. But without undercover officers, it was extremely difficult to extract reliable information from witnesses, as the citizens of London were mistrusting of police and therefore quite uncooperative.
Another issue was inadequate lighting for night beats. Many people associate night patrols in London with a bull's-eye lantern glaring into the fog, however, this image is highly exaggerated. Without proper lighting, it is possible that any police patrolling at night may have missed over important evidence, perhaps even the murderer himself.
Inefficient use of evidence was another deficiency in the investigation. For example, today, convictions may hinge on fingerprinting. Although it has been used as identification for thousands of years, in London, fingerprints were neither understood nor recognized in court. More careful study of fingerprinting may have quickly closed the case. Instead of relying on fingerprinting as reliable identification, however, the Metropolitan Police relied heavily on a pseudoscience known as anthropometry, which held that certain measurements could unmistakeably identify a person. This theory was dangerously similar to physiognomy, a pseudoscience proven unreliable at best. When witnesses have seen a suspect, relying on facial features and physical characteristics is an acceptable way to identify criminals, but when no witnesses emerge, relying heavily on stereotypes results in overlooking the true culprit entirely.
The Whitechapel murders of 1888 are among the worst human atrocities of all time. Even worse is that the killer was never identified. Had the Metropolitan Police used more efficient methods, Jack the Ripper may have been caught, quickly ending his spree. Because of their carelessness, the world may never know the true identity of the Whitechapel Murderer.