Source B says, "How he should use the knife" and Source C says, "there was a long incision" both the sources suggest that a knife was used so source C only supports source B. Also source C supports source B but not source A, because they are both detailed accounts of the murders " how he should use the knife" this suggests that source B was at the scene of the murder after it happened, also Source C supports source B because it suggests that the person that wrote this was at the scene "There was a long incision." This suggests that they both knew what happened.
However, sources A, B and C describe different things you can still tell which ones are supportive and which one isn't, Source B focuses on the knowledge of the killer, the source was written by a Coroner. Source C was a description of murder, which was a report by Dr Fredrick Blackwell reporting on the examination of Elizabeth Stride. Whereas, source A was a newspaper report, the purpose of a paper is to sell them so that need to make it as sensational as possible. So B and C are supportive because they know what they are talking about whereas Source A doesn't.
Both sources D and E are useful in some ways to help me understand how "Jack The Ripper" avoided capture. Source D is evidence of Elizabeth Long at an inquest into the death of Annie Chapman; she was describing the man seen talking to Annie before she was killed. Source D is very useful, even though it was at an inquest (which was very important) Elizabeth gave a description of a man who was at the scene just before the murder took place, however, she said "He looked like a foreigner to me" at this time the East End had a large immigrant population so he would be very hard to capture. Also the evidence, which she gave to the inquest, was very vague " I think that he was wearing a dark coat but I cannot be sure." Also she said "He was a man over forty, as far as I could tell.
