This shows how the body was exactly found, and if they could link it with any of the other murders. .
.
Source A is however is sensational, and talks about how extraordinary these murders were. It's likely this person never saw the bodies at all.
Source C supports A because they both agree about the extraordinary murder. But they do disagree. They both talk about different bodies, which could have been different murders. Both sources have different purposes. Source C is primary evidence, and includes facts, whereas source a makes assumptions and is opinionated.
This principle exists between sources C and B, in the same way; evidential fact and assumptive sensationalism.
Q3.).
.
Source D helps us understand why the Ripper avoided capture. The only evidence police had to support the case on was reports from witnesses and either to catch the killer midst act. Elizabeth Long was one of the only witnesses of seeing Annie Chapman with a man before she was killed. .
Elizabeth Long was asked to give evidence at the inquest, which shows just how important her statement was. Reading her "vague" evidence, we come across how unsure she was about the appearance of whom she was supposed to have seen with the deceased. "I think", "I cannot be sure" etc suggests weakness in her evidence /source. She also claims that he looked foreign. This raises questions that I would like to ask regarding foreigners. What would she class as a foreigner? What nationality was he? If she couldn't even tell if he was wearing a dark coat or not, that limits the usefulness of the source and her accuracy. The police had no choice but take her word. it isn't useful because it shows how people were willing to speak out and testify against Jack the Ripper. .
Source E is useful because it shows how the authors "informant" was referred from one policeman to another. This was good news for Jack as it shows how the police were ignoring the public.