Bachert to the future

[Lewis C]

I have found something potentially very interesting...

In June/July 1862 a young boy (9 years old) who gave the name of "Albert Backer," was found sleeping under a barrow in the Whitechapel Road.

My question is...

Was this Albert Bachert?...





The geography fits, as does his approximate age.

We also know that he changed his name to Backert from Bachert.

Did he grow up living a lie and was he the boy who was found in Whitechapel Road?


Fascinating.



RD

Hi RD,

According to Mick Priestly's chapter about Bachert in the book Who Was Jack the Ripper?: All the Suspects Revealed, Bachert was born in the 4th quarter of 1860, which would make him less than 2 years old when this incident occurred.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

According to Mick Priestly's chapter about Bachert in the book Who Was Jack the Ripper?: All the Suspects Revealed, Bachert was born in the 4th quarter of 1860, which would make him less than 2 years old when this incident occurred.

Ah, but Albert Bachert wasn't born in 1860.

He was born in 1862; making him 26 at the time of the Ripper murders.



Wilhelm Albert Bachert was born in 1860...but he wasn't "the" Albert Bachert, because Wilhelm died young.


There was a Wilhelm Albert Bachert in 1860, baptised on Christmas day in 1860.

And his younger brother, Albert Wilhelm Bachert born in 1862, baptised on the 7th September 1862


With all due respect to Mike; he has the wrong brother.



Here is Mike's...





But HERE is the correct Albert Bachert...





Mike is an exceptional writer and researcher of course, but like with most suspects/persons of interest, there are always news things that come to light over time.


Albert Bachert being General Charrington and heading the notorious "Skeleton Army" who opposed the Salvationists...

...Despite Albert Bachert having joined the Salvationists when he was young.

IIRC , Albert is mentioned in the newspapers much earlier than Mike mentions in his book. I'd need to check that of course.

Everything about Bachert's life is shrouded in mystery; ironic considering he appeared in the newspapers over a hundred times under various names.

Even the fact that Albert Bachert later made an attempt to Anglicise his name by stating his middle name was Edward.

This is not true.

He denied his Jewish ancestry through his paternal Grandmother and did everything he could to try and show himself off as an English Conservative. In reality his immediate family were all Lutheran German.


Albert changed sides and coats depending on what was popular at the time; a real chameleon.

In reality he was a compulsive liar who drunk far too much and soon got a reputation for being full of BS.


Such a fascinating character and for me; one of the top 5 persons of interest in the Ripper case.



RD

[Lewis C]

Ah, but Albert Bachert wasn't born in 1860.

He was born in 1862; making him 26 at the time of the Ripper murders.



Wilhelm Albert Bachert was born in 1860...but he wasn't "the" Albert Bachert, because Wilhelm died young.


There was a Wilhelm Albert Bachert in 1860, baptised on Christmas day in 1860.

And his younger brother, Albert Wilhelm Bachert born in 1862, baptised on the 7th September 1862


With all due respect to Mike; he has the wrong brother.



Here is Mike's...





But HERE is the correct Albert Bachert...





Mike is an exceptional writer and researcher of course, but like with most suspects/persons of interest, there are always news things that come to light over time.


Albert Bachert being General Charrington and heading the notorious "Skeleton Army" who opposed the Salvationists...

...Despite Albert Bachert having joined the Salvationists when he was young.

IIRC , Albert is mentioned in the newspapers much earlier than Mike mentions in his book. I'd need to check that of course.

Everything about Bachert's life is shrouded in mystery; ironic considering he appeared in the newspapers over a hundred times under various names.

Even the fact that Albert Bachert later made an attempt to Anglicise his name by stating his middle name was Edward.

This is not true.

He denied his Jewish ancestry through his paternal Grandmother and did everything he could to try and show himself off as an English Conservative. In reality his immediate family were all Lutheran German.


Albert changed sides and coats depending on what was popular at the time; a real chameleon.

In reality he was a compulsive liar who drunk far too much and soon got a reputation for being full of BS.


Such a fascinating character and for me; one of the top 5 persons of interest in the Ripper case.



RD

If you're right that our Albert Bachert was born in September 1862, that would mean that he couldn't be the boy described in this incident, because that occurred in June/July 1862.

[The Rookie Detective]

If you're right that our Albert Bachert was born in September 1862, that would mean that he couldn't be the boy described in this incident, because that occurred in June/July 1862.

Excellent observation.

That brings me to the crux of my point.

It revolves around the fact that there appears to be no BIRTH record for Albert in 1862; although he was baptised in September 1862.

It is often the case that when a Baptism record exists without a comparative birth record, that the ACTUAL birth may have occurred a considerable time beforehand. Not always, but often.

Up to the point I found the Vagrancy document from 1862; mentioning a 9 year old Albert Backer found under a barrow outside a hall in the Whitechapel Road, I had believed that Albert was indeed born in 1862, as per my past post.

However, when we compare the July 1862 vagrantcy document with the Baptism of Albert Bachert just a couple of months later, it made me wonder whether there was a link.

What if Albert Bachert was actually born several years earlier, and baptised as a 9 year old just 2 months after being found on the street?

Interestingly; when writing to a newspaper concerning the disappearance of his father John (albeit a shortlived disappearance) he gives a description of John's age, but adds the phrase "...but looks 10 years younger"

If my hypothesis does hold any water, then that phrase could be more relevant than we realise.

It would make Bachert around the age of 36 at the time of the murders instead of 26, and also perhaps explain the many age discrepancies that have been associated with Bachert.

It may also explain why he reverted from Bachert to Backert.

It's just something new that I wanted to throw into the mix. It may be nothing, but I prefer to try and fail miserably, than to accept everything as it is.


RD

[Belloc]

It revolves around the fact that there appears to be no BIRTH record for Albert in 1862; although he was baptised in September 1862.

RD

This may be Albert Bachert’s birth registration.



The parents’ names and the father’s trade are consistent with those of Albert’s siblings.

At his Lutheran baptism on September 7^th of the same year, he was re-named Albert Wilhelm Bachart but his birth registration was never updated with the change of name.

Incidentally, the birth was registered in the St. Mary district, part of St. George in the East.

EDIT: The linking of this birth registration to Albert Bachert was first proposed by Debra Arif in 2017.

[The Rookie Detective]

This may be Albert Bachert’s birth registration.



The parents’ names and the father’s trade are consistent with those of Albert’s siblings.

At his Lutheran baptism on September 7^th of the same year, he was re-named Albert Wilhelm Bachart but his birth registration was never updated with the change of name.

Incidentally, the birth was registered in the St. Mary district, part of St. George in the East.

EDIT: The linking of this birth registration to Albert Bachert was first proposed by Debra Arif in 2017.

Ah yes, thank you for highlighting that; it was indeed Debra who first proposed that connection.


A boy born on 2nd June 1862, and named Charles Frederick Bachert by the 14th July 1862...

...who is then Baptised in the September, BUT his name having been changed from Charles Frederick (on his birth certificate) to Albert Wilhelm (William) for his Baptism.


The key point being that the parents are the SAME for both Charles Frederick and Albert Wilhelm.

One born in 1862 with no baptism
One baptised in 1862 with no birth record.


There is only ONE other potential candidate for the individual who could have been Charles Frederick Bachert; a boy named Charles Lewis Bachert who died in 1864 in Whitechapel...but seemingly born in 1863?
The address is given as Mulberry Street; a small street running just south off of the Whitechapel Road close to the junction with Commercial Road.


Now if there's any proof that John and Georgine Bachert lived in Mulberry Street, then Charles Lewis could be an outside option.


Regardless, the fact remains that John and Georgine had a boy born Charles Frederick, and since there's no death record (except possibly Charles Lewis) then Charles Frederick had to go somewhere.
And since they had Albert Wilhelm baptised in the same year of 1862, and there's no birth record corresponding to that name, then the only logical explanation is that Albert Wilhelm was born as Charles Frederick.

And so "our" Bachert was born Charles Frederick Bachert in 1862.

One thing is for certain; the Wilhelm Albert Bachert born in 1860...was NOT Albert Bachert.

Wilhelm has a death record


I know that I may have been looking at a long shot with the 1862 Vagrancy document I found for an Albert Backer; but on reflection I feel that there's little value in that data without any other corroborating data to support it.

In comparison to Debra's suggestion that Charles Frederick's birth corresponds with the baptism of Albert Wilhelm; where everything fits (apart from an unusual name change by the parents), my own attempt falls way short.

It's why I admire Debra so much...because her logic is sound, her knowledge is extensive and her research is exceptional beyond comparison.




I think that another key point; which may be even more significant than the name of the child born; is the address for the BIRTH of Charles Frederick Bachert in 1862...

38 Lower Grove Street


Now, this document provides proof that the child was born at this address, so in 1862 the Bachert's are living here...in St George in the East.

IIRC, Lower Grove Street no longer exists...but it was located approximately where Golding Street is now.

Golding Street is just east of Christian Street.

Now, we know that Albert Bachert lived for well over 20 years in Newnham Street... but it would appear that he may have been born within a 2 minute walk of where Stride was murdered.

Working out when the Bacherts moved to Newnham Street may be an important factor to determine just how well Bachert may have known the streets around the Stride kill site.


Could Bachert have reverted back to his birth name of Charles?

After 1901 he disappears...


In summary, I think I concur with Debra on this, and I believe that Albert Bachert was born Charles Frederick (Friedrich), baptised as Albert Wilhelm, but went by the name of Albert Edward.

Confusing much



RD


p.s. exceptional work as always Belloc

[The Rookie Detective]

In addition to my comments, I think its also important to acknowledge the work carried out by the likes of JerryD and the late Mr Chris Scott.

Their respective work on Bachert; combined of course with Debra's, has been absolutely exceptional and shone a light on how Bachert should at the very least be considered a person of interest.

And of course, Mike's quite brilliant book on Bachert, has been the key piece of literature supporting Bachert as the Ripper.

The wonderful thing about Bachert..is that there is still so much more to come.

We may have barely scratched the surface so to speak.


RD

[Lewis C]

I think that another key point; which may be even more significant than the name of the child born; is the address for the BIRTH of Charles Frederick Bachert in 1862...

38 Lower Grove Street


Now, this document provides proof that the child was born at this address, so in 1862 the Bachert's are living here...in St George in the East.

IIRC, Lower Grove Street no longer exists...but it was located approximately where Golding Street is now.

Golding Street is just east of Christian Street.

Now, we know that Albert Bachert lived for well over 20 years in Newnham Street... but it would appear that he may have been born within a 2 minute walk of where Stride was murdered.

Working out when the Bacherts moved to Newnham Street may be an important factor to determine just how well Bachert may have known the streets around the Stride kill site.

I'd say that regardless of when Bachert moved to Newnham Street, he probably knew the area not only around Stride's murder site but in Whitechapel in general that he could have been the Ripper. One can question his strength as a suspect for other reasons, but I think that his knowledge of Whitechapel was sufficient.

[jerryd]

In addition to my comments, I think its also important to acknowledge the work carried out by the likes of JerryD and the late Mr Chris Scott.

Their respective work on Bachert; combined of course with Debra's, has been absolutely exceptional and shone a light on how Bachert should at the very least be considered a person of interest.

And of course, Mike's quite brilliant book on Bachert, has been the key piece of literature supporting Bachert as the Ripper.

The wonderful thing about Bachert..is that there is still so much more to come.

We may have barely scratched the surface so to speak.


RD

Very kind of you to say, RD. I don't think I deserve that much credit, though. Thank you, none-the-less! And, good work on your part.

Here is an 1868 map showing Lower Grove Street.



A couple of extra things to say regarding Bachert. I believe he grew up in Duke Street very close to Mitre Square. No. 49 Duke Street if I'm not mistaken. He worked for an engraver that had a shop a few hundred yards from the Shoe Lane workhouse where Catherine Eddowes stayed when returning from hop-picking. He admittedly was drinking in a pub a few doors up from where Catherine Eddowes was arrested, on the same night she was arrested. See what dots you connect? I have my own idea.

[Pcdunn]

There was a man who was a British subject through foreign parentage, describing himself as a single Engraver of the same age boarding with a family in Wales in 1911

His name was "Roland Joe"

However, that was a false name as Roland Joe never appeared elsewhere.

The name "Roland" in German means...

"Famous across the land"


Was this Albert Bachert?

And was this his message to highlight that it was HE who was famous across the land?

Was this a subtle message from the actual Ripper himself?


RD

In 1911? What was the age of 4"Roland Joe" at this time? Do you suggest he was JtR in retirement?

[The Rookie Detective]

In 1911? What was the age of 4"Roland Joe" at this time? Do you suggest he was JtR in retirement?

Roland was listed as 49 on April 2nd 1911.

Albert Bachert; who was baptised in 1862; would have been 48/49 at the time of the 1911 census.


All of the data submitted on the census matches Bachert, except for birthplace; Bachert born in Whitechapel, Roland listed as being born in Bristol.

Not at face value that would automatically rule him out but...

...we know that Bachert spent time in Bristol after he left London in the 1890's.
He was of course back in London by 1901, but his connection with Bristol may have a geographical escape for him after 1901.
The point being that there are NO individuals named Roland Joe who were born in Bristol, but we know that Bachert DID have connections to Bristol.

The question is; where would a chameleon like Bachert hide himself?
Well, like anyone trying to hide themselves; a narcissist like Bachert wouldn't have been able to resist leaving nuggets of truthful information; all of which is found on the 1911 census, excluding name and birthplace.


I am eager to find another individual named Roland Joe who can provide proof that I am WRONG.


It may sound counterintuitive; but I like to create a hypothesis, work towards providing data to support a theory, and then aim to prove I am wrong...so that I can move on to the next idea.

The problem is that with my hypothesis on Roland Joe, I can't seem to find any data to destroy my own idea, and that is frustrating and exciting in equal measure.


Someone please find Roland


Haha!


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Very kind of you to say, RD. I don't think I deserve that much credit, though. Thank you, none-the-less! And, good work on your part.

Here is an 1868 map showing Lower Grove Street.



A couple of extra things to say regarding Bachert. I believe he grew up in Duke Street very close to Mitre Square. No. 49 Duke Street if I'm not mistaken. He worked for an engraver that had a shop a few hundred yards from the Shoe Lane workhouse where Catherine Eddowes stayed when returning from hop-picking. He admittedly was drinking in a pub a few doors up from where Catherine Eddowes was arrested, on the same night she was arrested. See what dots you connect? I have my own idea.

That is very intriguing indeed.

It would seem highly probable that IF the lead up to Eddowes arrest caused any audible commotion; that individuals within close proximity would have been made aware of it.

in other words, if Bachert was sitting in a pub just a few doors away from a drunken woman being arrested in the street; there's a fairly high chance that Bachert would have observed; or at least heard the incident.

His physical childhood link from Lower Grove Street to Dukes Street, may be of particular symbolic significance when looking to a double event involving 2 women murdered along the same geographical path; metaphorically speaking of course.


The route from Lower Grove St to Dukes Place is similar as the route from Berner St to Mitre Square.

I think unravelling Bachert's childhood is the key to deciphering his likelihood as the Ripper.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

That is very intriguing indeed.

It would seem highly probable that IF the lead up to Eddowes arrest caused any audible commotion; that individuals within close proximity would have been made aware of it.

in other words, if Bachert was sitting in a pub just a few doors away from a drunken woman being arrested in the street; there's a fairly high chance that Bachert would have observed; or at least heard the incident.

His physical childhood link from Lower Grove Street to Dukes Street, may be of particular symbolic significance when looking to a double event involving 2 women murdered along the same geographical path; metaphorically speaking of course.


The route from Lower Grove St to Dukes Place is similar as the route from Berner St to Mitre Square.

I think unravelling Bachert's childhood is the key to deciphering his likelihood as the Ripper.


RD

CORRECTION...




Dukes STREET




Where '"Place" came from, I have no idea.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

There's another crucial aspect to Bachert that is often overlooked, but IMO could be rather important.


In addition to being an "Engraver" (Copper Plate) Bachert also described himself as a "Compositior" and as a "Reporter.'

I am assuming that he was a 'Hand' Compositor


What's interesting is that he used the term in conjuction with his claim of being a "Reporter"


To me, that highlights his belief that he actively worked for the press in several different guises.

The tricky thing is; knowing how was true and how much was BS.


And Bachert was full of BS.


Of that there can be no doubt.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

And not forgetting that the name "Joe" was linked to MJK.

Another "Joe" we don't know the identity of.


Roland Joe perhaps?




RD