Investigative Methods and the Jack the Ripper Inquiry

The murders that tested investigative policing

Between August and November 1888, five women were murdered in cases commonly associated with the killer known as Jack the Ripper. Mary Ann Nichols was killed on 31 August in Buck’s Row; Annie Chapman on 8 September at 29 Hanbury Street; Elizabeth Stride in Berner Street and Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square on 30 September; and Mary Jane Kelly at 13 Miller’s Court on 9 November. The killer was never caught.

The murders demanded more than ordinary street patrols. Investigative policing meant collecting evidence, reconstructing events and identifying a suspect whose involvement could be proved. Detectives used observation, sketches, photographs and interviews. These methods represented developments in policing, but their usefulness depended on preserving evidence, obtaining reliable information and coordinating the investigation.

Preserving and recording the crime scene

A crime scene could contain clues about the victim, the attacker and the sequence of events. Instructions known as the Police Code encouraged officers to keep onlookers away and make detailed notes about bodies, injuries and other evidence. Recording these details allowed detectives to examine information after the scene itself had changed.

In practice, evidence was not always preserved effectively. After Nichols’s murder, her body was taken from Buck’s Row to a mortuary before the scene had been fully documented. This limited the opportunity to record the body in its original surroundings. Nevertheless, the inspector’s report described her clothing in detail, showing that police did make careful written records.

Scientific investigation was also much more limited than today. Detectives in 1888 could not use DNA testing or routine fingerprint identification. Observing and recording a clue did not necessarily give them a way to connect it to a particular person.

What sketches and photographs could reveal

Sketches recorded the arrangement of a crime scene. After Eddowes’s murder, the City of London Police produced detailed sketches of Mitre Square, and the attending doctor also made a sketch. These could preserve the position of the body and its relationship to the surrounding space, helping investigators reconstruct events and compare accounts.

Photography provided another way to preserve visual evidence. Photographs were taken inside and outside Kelly’s room at Miller’s Court. Unlike a description written from memory, a photograph retained visible details that investigators could examine again. The City of London Police had experience in photography, offering skills from which Metropolitan Police officers could learn.

Neither method automatically identified the murderer. A sketch depended on what its maker noticed and included; a photograph recorded only what was visible from the chosen viewpoint. Their value was in preserving evidence for investigation, not in guaranteeing a solution.

Newspaper illustrations served a different purpose. Speculative pictures of the supposed killer were not the same as police sketches based on a crime scene. A dramatic image could influence public ideas without providing reliable evidence of the murderer’s appearance.

Interviews: gathering information and testing leads

The police needed people to explain what had happened before a body was discovered. Detectives conducted door-to-door enquiries and visited places such as pubs and hospitals. After the murders of Stride and Eddowes, more than 2,000 people were questioned. Police pursued about 300 lines of enquiry and arrested 80 people for further questioning.

Interviews could establish movements, suggest suspects and test alibis: accounts of where someone was when a crime occurred. Written witness statements preserved information so that detectives could compare accounts. Procedures included recording witnesses’ exact words, obtaining signatures and crossing out errors rather than silently changing the record.

However, a carefully recorded statement was not necessarily accurate. Witnesses could be mistaken, and distrust of the police made some residents reluctant to cooperate. Whitechapel’s shifting lodging-house population also made it difficult to trace people again. The scale of questioning demonstrates considerable police effort, but collecting many accounts did not guarantee a reliable identification.

Cooperation across police boundaries

Most of the murders fell within the Metropolitan Police’s area, where H Division policed Whitechapel. Eddowes, however, was killed in Mitre Square, within the jurisdiction of the separate City of London Police. An investigation into the same suspected murderer therefore crossed a police boundary.

Scotland Yard was the Metropolitan Police headquarters, not another independent force. Specialist detectives from there supported local officers. Inspector Frederick Abberline of the CID was assigned to assist H Division. Effective investigation required information to move between local officers, central detectives and the independent City police.

Cooperation could bring advantages, including the City police’s experience of recording scenes. However, the forces had separate leadership and a history of rivalry. Sir Charles Warren, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, did not command the City of London Police. Differences over responsibility and the handling of evidence could obstruct a shared investigation.

The dispute over writing on a wall in Goulston Street, discovered after the murders of Stride and Eddowes, illustrates the problem. City detectives wanted the apparently antisemitic writing photographed. Warren ordered it washed away before a photograph was taken, fearing that it could provoke attacks on Jewish residents.

This decision exposed a conflict between preserving possible evidence and maintaining public order. Removing the writing prevented investigators from retaining a photographic record, although its connection with the murderer was uncertain. Some historians have suggested that rivalry also influenced Warren, but this should not be treated as a proven motive.

Newspapers, fear and misleading information

The murders became major newspaper stories. Sensational reporting increased fear, encouraged speculation and frequently portrayed the police as incompetent. This damaged public confidence at a time when detectives needed residents’ cooperation.

The press also helped turn unsupported accusations into police leads. John Pizer, a Jewish cobbler associated with the nickname ‘Leather Apron’, was linked to the murders in newspaper coverage. He was arrested but released after his alibi was established. Investigating such accusations diverted time from other enquiries and reinforced antisemitic suspicion.

Letters claiming to come from the murderer created another burden. Inspector Abberline received more than 300 letters and postcards from people claiming to be ‘Jack’. Police had to assess information whose authorship and truth were uncertain.

The ‘Dear Boss’ letter, received by the Central News Office on 27 September, was signed ‘Jack the Ripper’. The police released it publicly on 3 October in the hope that someone would recognise the handwriting. Publication spread the name, but did not establish that the real murderer had written the letter. This shows the double-edged nature of publicity: it could invite useful information while also spreading deception and encouraging further hoaxes.

The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee

Frustration with the investigation prompted local businessmen and residents to form the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee on 10 September 1888. Its leader, George Lusk, was a local builder. Members were dissatisfied with the authorities’ failure to catch the killer and the absence of an official reward.

The committee funded a reward, employed two private detectives and organised night patrols. Patrol members used whistles and carried burning pieces of wood for light. These activities attempted to encourage information and increase the presence of people watching the streets.

The committee demonstrated local determination to act, but its patrols and private investigation did not catch the murderer. Its public criticism also increased pressure on the police. Some historians interpret its activities partly as an attempt to embarrass the authorities; members’ expenditure on detectives and rewards also supports the view that they genuinely wanted the crimes solved.

Why improved methods did not guarantee success

The Ripper inquiry was not simply a case of police doing nothing. Detectives recorded scenes, used images, questioned thousands of people and investigated numerous leads. Yet limited scientific methods, difficulties obtaining reliable testimony, divided police responsibilities and misleading publicity restricted what those efforts could achieve.

The central distinction is between improving the collection of evidence and being able to identify and prove the guilt of an offender. Investigative policing had developed, but the Whitechapel murders exposed the remaining limits of those developments.

Methods and their limits

• Observation: preserve scenes and record details. Nichols’s body was moved before full documentation, although her clothing was carefully described.
• Sketches: City police and the doctor recorded Eddowes’s scene at Mitre Square.
• Photographs: Kelly’s room was photographed inside and outside.
• Interviews: over 2,000 people questioned after Stride and Eddowes; about 300 lines of enquiry and 80 arrests for questioning.
• Better records did not guarantee identification. Scientific methods were limited, witnesses could be mistaken and residents could be difficult to trace.

Cooperation

• Metropolitan Police: H Division, supported by CID detectives including Abberline from Scotland Yard.
• City of London Police: independent force responsible for Mitre Square.
• Separate commands and rivalry complicated coordination, although expertise could be shared.
• Goulston Street: City detectives wanted a photograph; Warren ordered the writing erased because he feared antisemitic violence. Possible evidence preservation conflicted with public order.