More on Albert Bachert

[jerryd]

So as to not clutter up a thread on another topic, I thought I'd start this thread. It seems there are some questions about Albert Bachert and that is what this thread is for. To start, I specifically wanted to address one point from etenguy that was brought up in another thread.

Hi RD

Some things to think about in relation to your post.

a) how would the killer know where Catherine Eddowes would be on that fateful night?

I think these questions have run through all our minds at one point or another. They are key questions to ask, and it's hard to make them fit into the puzzle. However, I have a theory. Oh no! Here it comes again. Yes, and it pertains to our friend who has been discussed a little bit, lately. Albert Bachert. He is one of my personal favorite characters to research and discuss.

a) how would the killer know where Catherine Eddowes would be on that fateful night?

I think she may have been directed to meet there by someone, maybe Albert Bachert. Bachert was POSSIBLY in two of the same areas that Catherine Eddowes was also in from Thursday (the return from hopping), to the time she was locked up. One place, we know, by Bachert's own words, that he was on the night of her murder, was the Three Nuns Hotel. It is there that he may have created his alibi for the night. He professed he met a man in the pub (at the Three Nuns) that was wondering where he might go to find loose women. Bachert described the man's attire and stated he carried a black bag. A perfect distraction for Bachert, as it fit all the current descriptions of the supposed murderer. The Three Nuns was doors away from No. 29, Aldgate High Street where Kate was found drunk. Who's to say she didn't get her drink(s) from someone at the Three Nuns? Bachert said he left the man near the Aldgate Station shortly after 12 midnight. But did he? Did this man really even exist or was Bachert using the story as an alibi for where he was at midnight? How long had Bachert actually been there before that, and did he leave there to agitate the socialists on Berners Street who he had a grudge for. Namely Lewis Lyons. His house was halfway between Dutfields Yard and Mitre Square.

How would Catherine Eddowes know to go to the Three Nuns in the first place to meet Albert Bachert? Well, it's kind of a stretch, but a certain possibility, that when returning from hopping on Thursday and heading to or from the Shoe Lane Workhouse, she ran into Bachert, who happened to work for Henry Dix, engraver at No. 26, Poppins Court. From the maps I've looked at, it appears this address was about 300 feet or so from the workhouse. So, not out of the realm of possibility to run into each other. It was after this stay at the workhouse that she ended up at the Mile End Workhouse and "supposedly" told the story of knowing who the ripper was.

One last thing about the Poppins Court address. It was directly across the street from the Central News Agency. Convenient for dropping off letters. It was also very close to the King Lud Pub where John Arnold (John Cleary) claimed his informant told him to get his papers ready, a body had been found in Backchurch Lane. It turned out the body wasn't there that night and Arnold's story was dismissed. Then 2 days later the Pinchin torso was discovered near Backchurch Lane and the search was on for John Cleary.

There is so much we know about Bachert and his injecting himself into the case. He lived in the center of all the murders, including the later murders. And then, after injecting himself into everything ripper related, heading the Vigilance Committee, attending dock strikes, leading the skeleton army, meeting Lord Rothschild in person to discuss how Lord Rothschild could use his influence to stop the foreign immigration of the pauper class from coming to the country, namely those of the Jewish persuasion, he disappears off the face of the earth. Out of all the excellent researchers on these forums and others, nobody has found a trace of him after a 1911 census where he was living with a sister of his. After about 1893, press reports about him cease to exist, where they were plentiful for years before. Where, when and why did Albert Bachert disappear?

[The Rookie Detective]

So as to not clutter up a thread on another topic, I thought I'd start this thread. It seems there are some questions about Albert Bachert and that is what this thread is for. To start, I specifically wanted to address one point from etenguy that was brought up in another thread.



I think these questions have run through all our minds at one point or another. They are key questions to ask, and it's hard to make them fit into the puzzle. However, I have a theory. Oh no! Here it comes again. Yes, and it pertains to our friend who has been discussed a little bit, lately. Albert Bachert. He is one of my personal favorite characters to research and discuss.

a) how would the killer know where Catherine Eddowes would be on that fateful night?

I think she may have been directed to meet there by someone, maybe Albert Bachert. Bachert was POSSIBLY in two of the same areas that Catherine Eddowes was also in from Thursday (the return from hopping), to the time she was locked up. One place, we know, by Bachert's own words, that he was on the night of her murder, was the Three Nuns Hotel. It is there that he may have created his alibi for the night. He professed he met a man in the pub (at the Three Nuns) that was wondering where he might go to find loose women. Bachert described the man's attire and stated he carried a black bag. A perfect distraction for Bachert, as it fit all the current descriptions of the supposed murderer. The Three Nuns was doors away from No. 29, Aldgate High Street where Kate was found drunk. Who's to say she didn't get her drink(s) from someone at the Three Nuns? Bachert said he left the man near the Aldgate Station shortly after 12 midnight. But did he? Did this man really even exist or was Bachert using the story as an alibi for where he was at midnight? How long had Bachert actually been there before that, and did he leave there to agitate the socialists on Berners Street who he had a grudge for. Namely Lewis Lyons. His house was halfway between Dutfields Yard and Mitre Square.

How would Catherine Eddowes know to go to the Three Nuns in the first place to meet Albert Bachert? Well, it's kind of a stretch, but a certain possibility, that when returning from hopping on Thursday and heading to or from the Shoe Lane Workhouse, she ran into Bachert, who happened to work for Henry Dix, engraver at No. 26, Poppins Court. From the maps I've looked at, it appears this address was about 300 feet or so from the workhouse. So, not out of the realm of possibility to run into each other. It was after this stay at the workhouse that she ended up at the Mile End Workhouse and "supposedly" told the story of knowing who the ripper was.

One last thing about the Poppins Court address. It was directly across the street from the Central News Agency. Convenient for dropping off letters. It was also very close to the King Lud Pub where John Arnold (John Cleary) claimed his informant told him to get his papers ready, a body had been found in Backchurch Lane. It turned out the body wasn't there that night and Arnold's story was dismissed. Then 2 days later the Pinchin torso was discovered near Backchurch Lane and the search was on for John Cleary.

There is so much we know about Bachert and his injecting himself into the case. He lived in the center of all the murders, including the later murders. And then, after injecting himself into everything ripper related, heading the Vigilance Committee, attending dock strikes, leading the skeleton army, meeting Lord Rothschild in person to discuss how Lord Rothschild could use his influence to stop the foreign immigration of the pauper class from coming to the country, namely those of the Jewish persuasion, he disappears off the face of the earth. Out of all the excellent researchers on these forums and others, nobody has found a trace of him after a 1911 census where he was living with a sister of his. After about 1893, press reports about him cease to exist, where they were plentiful for years before. Where, when and why did Albert Bachert disappear?

A very interesting post indeed

I was only introduced to Bachert a few days ago and I must to have known absolutely nothing about him up until very very recently.

He is absolutely someone to be considered and in my opinion one of the likeliest to have written the majority of the written correspondence. It's between Albert Bachert and Thomas Bulling for who was the likeliest to have written the letters.

However, being the author of the letters doesn't necessarily make him the killer

What is absolutely certain about Bachert is that he was a narcissistic fantasist.

He almost certainly perpetuated the myth surrounding the killer by repeatedly telling the press and authorities that he was being sent letters from the ripper.

He was obsessed with the case and seemingly not in a healthy way.

The press and police ended up just rejected everything he said because it was clear he was fabricating stories to try and make himself look more relevant.

He was said to have replaced George Lusk as the head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. However, from my research it would appear that the committee disbanded once Lusk and yet Bachert insisted he was the new man in charge, without any corroboration from official sources.

One of his last "stories" was that he ended up catching the real killer after he saw him about to attack a woman with a knife.
He intervened, took the knife/made the killer drop knife and then he was there when the police took the killer away.

He wanted others to believe he was the hero of the day.

That makes him either a sad isolated fantasist desperate for attention OR a person we should take seriously as being involved in some way.

The fact he seems to have disappeared is particularly interesting and that itself warrants further investigation.

Its also very VERY interesting that you say that Bachert disliked the socialist agenda.
Is that something that can be corroborated?

What better way to get back at the socialists...murder Stride outside one of their buildings as they gather for a meeting.

The anti-Semitic angle also works for Bachert.

Was it Bachert and Le Grand who were the 2 men who killed Stride and did Le Grand call over Bachert as he threw Stride to the floor, the word "Lusk OR Luski" and NOT Lipski.

Bachert was also obsessed with Lusk and it may have been the reason why he focused on Lusk and so could the murder of Stride almost have been staged? As a way to try and put Lusk in the frame?

And what better way to win than to claim you've replaced the man as the head of the committee which in reality no longer existed in the same capacity.


And so the question is..how much of Bachert's involvement was complete fabrication in a practical sense?

Was he the modern equivalent to a media influencer or keyboard warrior?
Was he all bark and no bite?

Or was he the ripper?

Certainly a person of interest at the very least

[Aethelwulf]

Or was he the ripper?

I think it's unlikey TBH. Apart from there being no evidence he was capable of murder, surely someone like Bachert, a well-know figure living right in the middle of the killing area would have been recognised?

If you're interested in the letters, have a look at this one, I only found it myself the other day- the Jekyll and Hyde letter accusing Richard Mansfield of being the ripper sent 5th Oct 88 (https://umsi580.lsait.lsa.umich.edu/...ics/media/1015). It's unsigned apart from what looks like m.p. and supposedly from a concerned member of the public. I don't know though, it does have the same sort rambling nature as some of the ripper letters and there are a whole load of barely believable spelling mistakes (see the transcription pdf as the second page is quite hard to read). The handwriting looks sort of similar in places and the handwriting seems to change the last line and a half to something more like some of the ripper letters. Worth a look anyway.

These two are also very interesting https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...um-and-wouster. Have a look at the handwriting on the envelope of the Brum letter certainly has something of from hell about it. Is that Stride's blood?

[Aethelwulf]

However, being the author of the letters doesn't necessarily make him the killer

If Bachert was such a well known hoaxer isn't it strange that he doesn't ever appear to have been charged? The police did track down and charge numerous hoaxers, including women. Seems a bit odd. Also the first letter he recieved was after an encounter with black bag man. The letter accuses him of wanting to get his name in the papers and threatenting to punch his nose in. Doesn't sound like a letter you would write to yourself. Of course Bachert may have been a man leading a very boring and ordinary life who suddenly found he had a role in something important and just wanted to liven up his life. He may have wanted to get involved, but that doesn't mean he wrote the letters. He may not have written any of them. the fact that he wasn't charged makes me think he didn't.

[jerryd]

If Bachert was such a well known hoaxer isn't it strange that he doesn't ever appear to have been charged? The police did track down and charge numerous hoaxers, including women. Seems a bit odd. Also the first letter he received was after an encounter with black bag man. The letter accuses him of wanting to get his name in the papers and threatenting to punch his nose in. Doesn't sound like a letter you would write to yourself. Of course Bachert may have been a man leading a very boring and ordinary life who suddenly found he had a role in something important and just wanted to liven up his life. He may have wanted to get involved, but that doesn't mean he wrote the letters. He may not have written any of them. the fact that he wasn't charged makes me think he didn't.

Hi Aethelwulf.

Writing a letter sounding as if it came from the killer would detract attention somewhere else. That is the possibility I see with Bachert. If that is he wrote any letters, which some believed he did at the time. Regarding Bachert living a boring life, history seems to show his life was far from boring. He was involved in everything it seems. This goes back well before 1888.

You say, "He may not have written any of them". the fact he wasn't charged makes me think he didn't". This is true but it applies to Bury as well. Was he ever charged for writing any of the letters, even though you think he might have written some of them? The Eastern Hotel Pop_ letter was re-written by Bachert because he was an engraver and said he could replicate the letter. The original was discarded, IIRC.

[The Rookie Detective]

It seems that in terms of the letters, Bachert or Bury could have written the letters.

They both had the ability to write those letters.


The main differences between them being that Bury later became a convicted murderer, he lived in the area, inflicted particular wounds on his wife that were similar to those inflicted by JTR and wrote correspondences in different written styles, but he has no particular connection to the case.
Whereas Bachert was obsessed with the case to the point he wrote letters that he claimed were from the ripper. He claimed to have replaced Lusk as the head of the vigilance committee and tried to get himself involved with the case by repeatedly contacting the press and police.He later claimed to have caught the killer. He was a proven liar, fraud and fantasist but he appears to have no history of violence. He also lived in the area.

In terms of them both i believe that on balance Bury is most likely the real ripper whereas Bachert is more likely to have fabricated the letters.

If the letters are real then Bury stands out
But if they were all fake, then it was all part of Bachert's fantasy and narcissistic trait.

Not forgetting that Bachert kept telling others that the ripper was sending him letters and wanted everyone to believe he was the killers primary focus after he replaced Lusk as the head of the committee.
Now considering that he was a compulsive liar, then it almost certain that he was the one who tried to keep pushing the agenda of the ripper by writing fake letters to himself to try and get attention.

Bury was capable of writing the letters and if the letters are real then I think Bury stands out and Bachert doesn't fit.
But if the author of the letters WASNT the killer and they were faked, then Bachert stands out.
Bachert was obsessed and used the murders as a way in to try and become popular.

In short, Bachert wasn't the ripper but probably wrote the letters.
But Bury is likely to have been the ripper ahead of Bachert because of his proven history.



Thoughts?


RD

[Aethelwulf]

It seems that in terms of the letters, Bachert or Bury could have written the letters.

They both had the ability to write those letters.


The main differences between them being that Bury later became a convicted murderer, he lived in the area, inflicted particular wounds on his wife that were similar to those inflicted by JTR and wrote correspondences in different written styles, but he has no particular connection to the case.
Whereas Bachert was obsessed with the case to the point he wrote letters that he claimed were from the ripper. He claimed to have replaced Lusk as the head of the vigilance committee and tried to get himself involved with the case by repeatedly contacting the press and police.He later claimed to have caught the killer. He was a proven liar, fraud and fantasist but he appears to have no history of violence. He also lived in the area.

In terms of them both i believe that on balance Bury is most likely the real ripper whereas Bachert is more likely to have fabricated the letters.

If the letters are real then Bury stands out
But if they were all fake, then it was all part of Bachert's fantasy and narcissistic trait.

Not forgetting that Bachert kept telling others that the ripper was sending him letters and wanted everyone to believe he was the killers primary focus after he replaced Lusk as the head of the committee.
Now considering that he was a compulsive liar, then it almost certain that he was the one who tried to keep pushing the agenda of the ripper by writing fake letters to himself to try and get attention.

Bury was capable of writing the letters and if the letters are real then I think Bury stands out and Bachert doesn't fit.
But if the author of the letters WASNT the killer and they were faked, then Bachert stands out.
Bachert was obsessed and used the murders as a way in to try and become popular.

In short, Bachert wasn't the ripper but probably wrote the letters.
But Bury is likely to have been the ripper ahead of Bachert because of his proven history.



Thoughts?


RD

My main thought is that you're saying bachert could have written a load of letters. There is no evidence he wrote any letters and him being so well known I'm sure the police would have charged him as a hoaxer.

I'll just point out that for once it wasn't me that introduced bury to this thread. That being said he was a forger, at his trial it was said he could write in different hands and apparently the police made a study of his writing and said it matched the letters. Which letters we don't know. There is also the chalk messages at his flat. Three of the letters have some odd similarity of phrases and come from places of significance for bury.

I suspect bachert was one of those people that just liked being involved and feeling important. Doesn't mean he wrote anything.

[The Rookie Detective]

Something interesting to add regarding Bachert.


In late September 1887 he wrote to the Eastern Post the following...

(PRINTED 1st October 1887)

"Sir, while sincerely thanking you for the description of my father, John Bachert, who is missing, I trust you will be kind enough to correct a mistake you have made, viz, by stating he was a Jew. With all due respect to our Jewish brethren, I beg to state that he is not a Jew, nor are our family in any way connected with Jews, as he is a 30 years ratepayer in Whitechapel, and highly respected. Kindly permit me to thank your numerous readers for their kind letters and notes of condolence with our family. Believing that he has met with foul play, we trust the mystery will soon be solved."
I remain,
Yours Faithfully,
ALBERT BACHERT

Gordon House
13 Newnham Street
Tenter Ground, Whitechapel E


There are several things that stand out here.

Firstly, it's clear that he wanted to clarify that he and none of his family were connected to the Jews in any way whatsoever. That's not to say he had anti-Semitic views but rather that he wanted the newspaper to acknowledge and rectify their mistake in describing his father incorrectly.

Secondly, with reference to his father being respected and having been a man who paid his way, it perhaps suggests that he viewed the Jews in a lesser way and wanted to make it clear that his father was of a higher standing than a Jew.

Thirdly, it appears that his father had disappeared and it was presumed that his father had met some foul end, perhaps even murdered. It is also apparent that others in the community believed the same because they had sent various correspondences of condolence to the family, presumably for their loss of John Bachert.

The interesting point to take from the last point is that his father John Bachert appears in the 1891 census and so it would seem apparent that his father was fit and well after all.

And so...

Where was his father in 1887 when it seemed he had disappeared?
When did his father reappear between 1887 and 1891 (the time of all the murders)
Was it ALL one big fantasy? Did his father really go missing?
Was the census falsified and was his father actually murdered?
Was his father John always safe and well and part of Albert's fantasy was to imagine his father had been murdered?
Why was Albert charged and sentenced in 1891 for fraud and for stealing food, when his father was meant to be a successful and well-respected businessman?
What was the relationship between Albert and his father John?

Does this letter enhance his chances of being the author of many of the JTR letters?


Thought please?

RD

[Abby Normal]

Something interesting to add regarding Bachert.


In late September 1887 he wrote to the Eastern Post the following...

(PRINTED 1st October 1887)

"Sir, while sincerely thanking you for the description of my father, John Bachert, who is missing, I trust you will be kind enough to correct a mistake you have made, viz, by stating he was a Jew. With all due respect to our Jewish brethren, I beg to state that he is not a Jew, nor are our family in any way connected with Jews, as he is a 30 years ratepayer in Whitechapel, and highly respected. Kindly permit me to thank your numerous readers for their kind letters and notes of condolence with our family. Believing that he has met with foul play, we trust the mystery will soon be solved."
I remain,
Yours Faithfully,
ALBERT BACHERT

Gordon House
13 Newnham Street
Tenter Ground, Whitechapel E


There are several things that stand out here.

Firstly, it's clear that he wanted to clarify that he and none of his family were connected to the Jews in any way whatsoever. That's not to say he had anti-Semitic views but rather that he wanted the newspaper to acknowledge and rectify their mistake in describing his father incorrectly.

Secondly, with reference to his father being respected and having been a man who paid his way, it perhaps suggests that he viewed the Jews in a lesser way and wanted to make it clear that his father was of a higher standing than a Jew.

Thirdly, it appears that his father had disappeared and it was presumed that his father had met some foul end, perhaps even murdered. It is also apparent that others in the community believed the same because they had sent various correspondences of condolence to the family, presumably for their loss of John Bachert.

The interesting point to take from the last point is that his father John Bachert appears in the 1891 census and so it would seem apparent that his father was fit and well after all.

And so...

Where was his father in 1887 when it seemed he had disappeared?
When did his father reappear between 1887 and 1891 (the time of all the murders)
Was it ALL one big fantasy? Did his father really go missing?
Was the census falsified and was his father actually murdered?
Was his father John always safe and well and part of Albert's fantasy was to imagine his father had been murdered?
Why was Albert charged and sentenced in 1891 for fraud and for stealing food, when his father was meant to be a successful and well-respected businessman?
What was the relationship between Albert and his father John?

Does this letter enhance his chances of being the author of many of the JTR letters?


Thought please?

RD

only if he spelled jews, juwes. hehe. jk. hes an intriguing fellow for sure, and def warrants more looking into!

[etenguy]

Does this letter enhance his chances of being the author of many of the JTR letters?
Thought please?
RD

Hi RD

This guy seemed to love the attention of being in the press. There is a useful site which contains a lot of his letters and notes his disappearance from public life after being released from prison (he said he was going abroad) in 1893.

https://www.jack-the-ripper.org/albert-bachert.htm

I don't think his letter writing suggests he was JtR, he wrote on a number of subjects. Also he he seems to have loved the attention and so I think it unlikely he wrote anonymous letters.

Colourful and interesting character nonetheless.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD

This guy seemed to love the attention of being in the press. There is a useful site which contains a lot of his letters and notes his disappearance from public life after being released from prison (he said he was going abroad) in 1893.

https://www.jack-the-ripper.org/albert-bachert.htm

I don't think his letter writing suggests he was JtR, he wrote on a number of subjects. Also he he seems to have loved the attention and so I think it unlikely he wrote anonymous letters.

Colourful and interesting character nonetheless.

Thank you for the link. I will take a look.

One of the things I find interesting about Albert Bachert is that he wrote to the papers specifically to correct them for describing his father as a Jew and he denies having any connection to the Jews at all.

However. this is not true.

His father was John Bachert, but his father DID have Jewish ancestry.

So he is trying to deny his own Jewish heritage for some reason?

He also began as a conservative but ended up being a socialist for the annual unemployed marches in London and very much a 'Red.'

Everything he states is either a lie or contradictory to the evidence that exists.

He inserts himself into the investigation at every turn, from being the alleged recipient of JTR letters; to becoming a key witness who eventually saves the day by apprehending the ripper.

He was an absolute fantasist for sure...but what if the fantasy breached over into murder?


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Just an important update regarding my previous thread. I made a factual error concerning Albert Bachert regarding his political views.

He began a conservative and remained a conservative because while he did indeed appear and speak at the annual socialist unemployment gatherings on Tower Hill, but as an AGITATOR and not in favour of the socialist movement, despite him being unemployed himself.

Therefore, my comment about him being a socialist is completely false and the opposite to the fact he was anti-socialist in his beliefs.

I find it's always good to admit when you've made a key error and so I admit to my mistake (and having not cross-referenced my research data)


RD