Police had no experience of this type of killer before..to this degree, which had a knock on effect regarding organisation and investigation. It would be like me blaming you for not knowing the answer to the question you have just asked. Not only is it hard even today to catch a suspect, it is even harder to prove it.I suggest you read this dissertation Brian Schoeneman. Many murder investigations take a year after the suspect is in custody to complete.The police material in the "Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook" is very informative, as is Casebook itself, e.g.
Introduction History Coursework (Question 1) By Thomas Stevenson Describe Law and Order in the late 18th century?
Law and order in the 19th century was a very primitive version of security.
There were many slaughterhouses and such in those parts, and it wasnt odd for men to walk around in dirty and even blood stained clothes.
Although people perhaps expected Jack the Ripper to have been all covered in blood after each murder, this probably wasnt true.
The tension between groups made it much more difficult for the police and the busy working streets also washed away a lot of evidence. Due to the circumstances of the time, the police did the best they could apart from not cooperating with each other (e.g.
washing away the chalk writing.) They had unfortunate circumstances such as the place of the murders and lack of technology to help them through the investigation.It takes a lot of hard evidence to get a conviction.It was many times harder back in 1888 as they just didn't have the tools to do the job.Although officers were told to patrol the streets for at least 14 hours of a day, it was still extremely hard to prevent crimes due to the old winding streets in the big city.One place that was extremely difficult to police was the slum of the east end, Whitechapel.The eyewitness description of the killer did not help either as it was very vague and left room for almost every man in Whitechapel to be investigated.Although the suspect obviously had medical knowledge, it still was not enough to narrow down the suspect list.Robert Acacia, Yeah, Answering that aint gonna take a while is it ?My reasons (others may disagree) follow, Forensics was in its infancy. To lay the blame squarely on the police is unfair and unjust.By leaving no clues or evidence, and working quickly (e.g.double murder with Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes.) Suspects were investigated but often they had alibis or no connections at all.