1. Some historians argue that Jack the Ripper was not caught because of police failures.
How valid is this interpretation of the failure to catch Jack the Ripper?
Written in a well structured manner with sound historical knowledge.
Explain and analyse the interpretation and counter interpretation reaching a balanced, well supported judgement.
Explain and evaluate both the interpretation and counter interpretation with reference to the content and also the authorship of the selected sources.

2. Counter Interpretation
Police failures were the main reason why Jack the Ripper was not caught .
Other factors were the main reason Jack the Ripper was not caught .
Tactics
Refusal to cooperate with the press
Police untrained
Not enough officers
Poor public relations
Use of ‘country’ police
Cooperation/relationship between MET and City of London Police
Poor quality of witnesses
High level of crime in East End
Overcrowding/layout of streets
Smog
Varied police tactics
Increased police presence
Lack of forensic understanding/technology
False leads
Skill of the Ripper/lack of MO.

3. Could you weave your explanations together?
Introduction
Your introduction should be (roughly) one side of A4.
You must (briefly) explain the interpretation, then the counter interpretation.
Police failures were the main reason why Jack the Ripper was not caught .
Other factors were the main reason Jack the Ripper was not caught .
Tactics
Refusal to cooperate with the press
Police untrained
Not enough officers
Poor public relations
Use of ‘country’ police
Cooperation/relationship between MET and City of London Police
Poor quality of witnesses
High level of crime in East End
Overcrowding/layout of streets
Smog
Varied police tactics
Increased police presence
Lack of forensic understanding/technology
False leads
Skill of the Ripper/lack of MO.
CHALLENGE!!!
Could you weave your explanations together?
‘However...’

4. For each source! When picking sources: Four from B1-8 Four from B9-16
A variety of types of source.
Make sure they focus on different aspects of the interpretation/ counter interpretation.
How useful is the source to support the interpretation/counter interpretation?
Why does the source hold this view?
What aspect of the interpretation/counter interpretation does the source discuss?
How can it be used as evidence to support the interpretation/counter interpretation?
What are the limitations of the source content as evidence?
Make a judgement!
PANDA!
Does the purpose affect the content?
Does the author have an agenda?
What is the nature of the source, and can it be trusted?
When was the source created and how does that impact on interpretation?
TRY TO GIVE BALANCE, WHAT INCREASES THE RELIABILITY BUT ALSO, WHAT LIMITS IT?!?!