The identity of the elusive P.C.60.C. - Amos Dudman?

[Astatine211]

I have continued to investigate unsolved questions in relation to the many Ripper letters. This time I have looked into the identity of P.C.60.C. A letter written in 1889 purporting to be from the Ripper states this Police officer can tell you almost as much as them. This lit my interest in trying to find their identity.

To start with I searched through the newspaper archives, police records and trial transcripts. This was to no avail. After I decided to contact the MET Police heritage centre and inquire if they could be any assistance in my search and whilst they could give me and directly further information due to the C Division files being long missing, almost certainly destroyed they did inform me of a surprising bit of information - due to the number being 60 it is much more likely that the police officer in question isn't a constable but sergeant.

I then switched my search to Police Sergeant 60 C rather than Police Constable 60 C. However likewise this got me nowhere. But then, when searching old bailey records, I discovered Police Sergeant 60 City Police in an old bailey record, Amos Dudman.

At this point this was going to be the end of my post. A tenuous link that could easily be dismissed, but then after searching his name on casebook, the coincidences appeared.

Many of you know Amos Dudman, as Sergeant Dudman, known for his involvement in the aftermath at Mitre Square and discovery of blood stains in the area:

"Police-sergeant Dudman had his attention drawn yesterday afternoon to No. 36, Mike-Street [Mitre-street], a house a short distance from where the second murder was committed, and there he found what appeared to be bloodstains upon the doorway and underneath the window, as if a person had wiped his fingers on the window ledge and drawn a bloodstained knife down part of the doorway. Mr. Hurtig, who lives on the premises, said he had only just before noticed the stains. Almost immediately afterwards the same police officer had his attention drawn to similar marks on the plate-glass window of a shop at the corner of Mitre-square; but the occupier ridiculed the idea that they could have anything to do with the murders, as the windows were covered at night by shutters."

Inspector George Izzard, with the assistance of Sgt Dudman and Sgt Phelps, were charged with keeping the excited and curious crowds back at Mitre Sq, that Sunday morning.

Upon learning of this coincidence and connection to the case I know believe Amos Dudman is the identity of police officer referred to in the letter. It's obvious the sender could've made a mistake and they erroneously listed them as PC and I believe the C isn't for C / St James Division, quite a way away from the crimes but actually for City Police.

Points to ponder / further investigation:
1. I believe there is a chance Amos Dudman was dismissed from the Police. If this was the case, when and why I do not currently know but I will try to find out if he was. If he was dismissed around July 1889 or shortly after that would be quite a significant red flag.
2. It's unclear if this is the correct Amos Dudman as there seemed to be 1-3 all born in the same area, but in 1901 an Amos Dudman is listed as living with his with Elizabeth Dudman who was born in Whitechapel in 1856. I would be interested to know her maiden name and if she crops up in the case anywhere.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...dman#highlight

[Astatine211]

This post is definitely incorrect. I have realised a huge issue with it. The writer of the letter specifies Conduit Street. If you look at a map of the MET police divisions it shows that Conduit Street is under the authority of C Division thereby making this post null and void as it almost certainly referring to a C Division officer.

[Wickerman]

...

Upon learning of this coincidence and connection to the case I know believe Amos Dudman is the identity of police officer referred to in the letter. It's obvious the sender could've made a mistake and they erroneously listed them as PC and I believe the C isn't for C / St James Division, quite a way away from the crimes but actually for City Police.

I think you'll find the City police had no letter of ID on their collar, just a number.
If your man had a letter along with a number he was a Met. officer. I'm also intrigued why a number 60 might designate a Sergeant, I'm not sure why you would be told that.
Constables were drafted in to Whitechapel from other divisions, PC Long was from A division, so your man could have been a draft from C division.