The attempt by the police to have a ripper successfully identified by the police proved to be an attempt in futility. The factor of witness identification should essential be based on the criterion of personal conviction. The fact that a crime has been committed postulates the fact that only the witness bares a legitimate claim on the matter. However, one needs to understand that in as much as this statement holds some credible allegations the virtue of honesty and fear of life are temporarily synonymous. The witness needs sufficient protection in order to remove him or her from the threat of unforeseen fatality. On the account of James Sadler suspicion as being the scion of the series of murder incidents in that locality, this led to his subsequent arrest. This came after a murder incident of a prostitute named Frances Coles at the Whitechapel on the allegation that he was last seen with her.
Buy Lessons from the Daily Telegraphy of 18th February 1891 essay paper online
James Sadler goes on to admit, "The last I had seen of the woman Frances was when I left her in the Lod...when I was turned out..house deputy can give you the precise time" (Geary 230).
The witness who was came forward to identify him failed to do so as one may deem appropriate. First, there was significant neglect of the fact that there is the fundamental need for one to have solid evidence to suit the case. The critical lack of evidence only served to eliminate Sadler from the crime scene going by his testimonials. Another critical lesson is that the requirements provided by legislation regarding evidence are need to be supported or else no witness identification procedures can work especially when no protection for the witness is guaranteed in a court of law.
Fundamental Differences Between the two versions of Macnagten's report on the ripper
Macnaghten was an assistant police commissioner under the then crime division. He categorically took interest in the case of jack the ripper in a bid to establish some of the missing links in the murder counts at Whitechapel. The release of the reports in which Magnagten's reports his findings reveal some glaring gaps both in the technique, reporting style and methodology. The approach used in the translation of the reports served to produce critical details that could be pointed out in both of them. The reports however, provide significant evidence regarding the real jack the ripper's predominantly unknown identity. The versions have been previously acclaimed as the Aberconway version and the Scotland Yard version.
In the former version, which was in possession by the grandson to Macnaugten the details therein appear to be different especially due to the fact that it was never reproduced for record purposes, hence replies primarily upon the memory of the first reader who only provides scantly described details. In the Scotland version there is a clear access to the actual handwritten document derived from the archives. In the second copy the allegations fronted by Macnagten regarding the murder victims appears much in a disconnected fashion in terms of factual analysis.
Macnagten merely appears to make conclusions regarding his observatory mind on the case (Geary 232). However, there is a chance that the former copy could have provided a better understanding from a theoretical approach critical in the police force. The description of a leather apron found in the initial suspect's room lacks fundamental sense as an evidence material. Therefore, one can attest to the fact that there exists a fundamental difference, which creates a significant gap in terms of their theoretical contents.