Episode 3 – The Ripper

1. After Josephine Whitaker’s murder, the police re-evaluate their conclusions about the killer.
To what extent does the audience share their re-evaluation? How have the creators guided the
audience to this attitude?
The police re-evaluate their conclusions about the killer after Josephine Whitaker’s murder since
she was a middle-class woman with no association to the red-light areas which meant that the
police finally understood that the Ripper would kill any woman. The audience shared their re-
evaluation to a significant extent since this information was now frightening. The creators guide
the audience to this attitude through the immense pressure on the task force to catch the killer as
well as build tension by providing new evidence to the case reconsidering the initial
assumptions.

 The police believe that the Ripper is no longer targeting only prostitutes & will attack any
woman who is out alone at night in an isolated area.
 The audience have had a more holistic description of the case: we have been reminded
that other victims were not prostitutes (but were overlooked as flukes) and have received
a more objective view of the victims.
 The audience has been prepared for this conclusion and may believe that the police are
ate to make this change.
 We may still not agree with the motive the police attribute for the change (female
interviews)
2. ‘The tape’ is the first significant piece of evidence that has arisen in some time. How does it
match the rest of the evidence? Are there any discrepancies?
‘The tape’ is a crucial piece of evidence after a huge gap of nothing occurring. This evidence
brought phone calls and handwriting from the suspect himself. In terms of matching the rest of
the evidence, it only provides a new lead for the investigators, however there are quite a few
discrepancies. These include how its challenging to connect it to any existing material that the
investigators have. The documentary especially documents this by showing its significance but
also the potential limitations that this ‘evidence’ may have.

 It is believed the tape came from the same person that sent the letters.
 The tape’s arrival seems incongruous for someone who has evaded capture for so long.

3. What effect does Mo Lea’s narration have on the pacing of the documentary? Why is it
coupled with Joan Smith’s viewpoint? Is this a shift in the storytelling?
The effect that Mo Lea’s narration has on the pacing of the documentary is impactful. She
provides personal account with the killer which has an emotional layer to it so that the audience
can connect with the human side of the investigation as seen in the second episode with the
female experts. Her perspective coupled with Joan Smith’s viewpoint shifts the case from factual
reporting to empathic exploration of the impact on the victims and their families.

 Slows the pace down, shifts the focus to a personal narrative/experience seemingly
unconnected to the case (background and context of the era are given)
 Initially, Lea’s presence is unexplained as it doesn’t seem to be connected.
 Both Lea and Smith offer a more subjective viewpoint, not detached or as observers, but
pointing at the benefits (and necessity) of seeing the case from within
 Contrast between their feelings at the time: Lea (student) was carefree, unaffected while
Smith (reporter) was aware, anxious, troubled.

4. Does the documentary evaluate the measures suggested by the police for women’s safety? If
yes, how? If not, why not?
The documentary does not necessarily evaluate the measures but rather indicated the questions
that arose around the effectiveness of them. The measures were quite sexist and misogynistic
letting men go out and only if women were with a man they could go out. They also highlight
that the measures did not necessarily help the case by only underscoring them and showing that
they needed better safety measures and ways to alert society.
5. Why didn’t Mo Lea report her attack? How are we meant to feel about her decision? Is it
justified? Do we understand it? Are you convinced by her interpretation of the police’s
attitude?
Mo Lea did not report her attack since she was ashamed that people were going to think she was
a prostitute too and not that he killed any woman he saw. We are meant to feel empathic,
frustrated and understanding of her decision and its justified due to her fear, trauma, and lack of
trust in the law enforcement which also added to the decision.
6. What attitude is portrayed about the ‘Reclaim the Night’ marches? Are there different
reactions to them? If so, how are they communicated?
The attitude towards the ‘Reclaim the Night’ marches are multifaceted. Some view that it is
empowering and necessary to provide women’s voices and their demand for safety. Although
others perceive them as insufficient or symbolic gestures. They are communicated by showing
the varied reactions and reflecting on the societal differences around women’s rights and safety.
7. Explain the significance of Joan Smith’s experience with the case.
Joan Smith’s experience with the case holds immense significance. Since she is a journalist and
radio host, she really became the voice of all the victims and their families. She sheds light on all
the systematic issues that came with the investigation as well as the societal response to all this.
Her narrative adds significant relevance to the true amount of human cost of the Ripper’s crimes.