Jack the........ Police Officer??

[Jason]

I have always considered the month of October 1888 to be massively intriguing. The significantly raised levels of policemen on the streets , two coppers on a beat ...etc did this interrupt his routine ? Quite possibly .....

[Errata]

Hi Errata

I kind of get what you're saying...when I was a teenager I briefly ran with a gang who had the knowledge that a particular house was unoccupied (and had been for nearly twenty years), yet still had all the original furnishings and possessions of the family who'd lived there. We also had the expertise to restore the (long cut off) power...and for a while we used it as a sort of occasional clubhouse...

We knew this, we knew the rather obscure access to the property, and shared it with nobody, particularly with anybody who lived nearer (it was two patches at least away from ours) yet there was evidence of at least one other mob visiting...

But the local neighbours didn't seem aware of youthful gangs visiting, (we were careful), there were no visits (at least that we heard of) from the police, nor any encounters from the local thuggery...who'd have loved some of the (absent) family possessions...

So I guess what you're saying is that it isn't just local knowledge, but local knowledge held explicitly by a particular type of person? Is that right?

All the best

Dave

Yes, but not any particular kind of person. I knew the tunnels because my dad was a doctor at that hospital, and I grew up running the halls. So anyone who knew the hospital knew those tunnels. So finding a blonde 14 year old daughter of an employee with a penchant for stupid pranks was in the end not that hard.

If a butcher never locked his back door, that wouldn't be common knowledge. But if someone used his shop to commit a crime, clearly whoever did that had that knowledge. Narrowing the suspect pool down to the maybe 20 people who knew that. So it's a bad idea. But if you're going to axe murder someone, an empty shop where you KNOW you won't be interrupted is hard to pass up.

But these kinds of things do generally get out to mildly nefarious types. Especially public ones. I know every public place in this city where people go to shoot up. I know because of a needle exchange, but dealers know these places, fences know these places, thieves know these places. Under a bridge seems kind of obvious, but why only under three bridges, when there are maybe a dozen downtown? Why the playground next to a police station and not the abandoned one in the middle of nowhere? Why one storm drain and not another? These aren't places some tourist stumbles into. If I commit a crime on the junkie playground, I betray myself as someone who knows the junkie playground. Using the steam tunnels, I betrayed myself as someone who knew the steam tunnels.

And everyone knows places in their hometown where they could kill someone without notice. I live by a river. There are maybe three or four places along the river you could get away with killing someone. Anywhere else and you'd be filmed or caught. Everyone who lives here knows that. Kill someone in one of those places, and you've betrayed yourself as a local.

[Bridewell]

Evidence?

A full decade after the Autumn of Terror an unfortunate who has a knife wound claims that she has been attacked by a police officer. The newspaper article itself doesn't appear to offer much credence to her tale which seems to be directly contradicted by a police witness who saw her the same night. Even if there is a shred of truth to what she said - which must be doubtful - I don't see how it constitutes evidence that the same individual was responsible for a series of fatal attacks which took place more than ten years previously.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Errata

I kind of get what you're saying...when I was a teenager I briefly ran with a gang who had the knowledge that a particular house was unoccupied (and had been for nearly twenty years), yet still had all the original furnishings and possessions of the family who'd lived there. We also had the expertise to restore the (long cut off) power...and for a while we used it as a sort of occasional clubhouse...

We knew this, we knew the rather obscure access to the property, and shared it with nobody, particularly with anybody who lived nearer (it was two patches at least away from ours) yet there was evidence of at least one other mob visiting...

But the local neighbours didn't seem aware of youthful gangs visiting, (we were careful), there were no visits (at least that we heard of) from the police, nor any encounters from the local thuggery...who'd have loved some of the (absent) family possessions...

So I guess what you're saying is that it isn't just local knowledge, but local knowledge held explicitly by a particular type of person? Is that right?

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

If he was well known to the women of the area , then his face may well have been trusted . It also stands to reason that he may have well been recognisable in his civilian clothes . No one is saying he slayed them in his uniform.

I think if he was recognizable to the ladies, that would be more a hindrance than a help. Sure they would have no problem going off somewhere with him if they knew he was a cop, but then after the murder everyone would say "Oh we saw her go off with Steve" or whatever. Anonymity is really the way to go on this.

Which doesn't mean it wasn't a cop. It would just mean it was a cop from a different precinct. And one who didn't insert himself in the investigation. Which is smart. If the same cop kept finding bodies, and it's a cop from the theater district, that would stand out. Being a cop would help him arrange his murders to foil the investigative process. But not being from the area means he isn't getting away through some little known alley. And that would also be a red flag. If only 30 people know of a yard you can cut through to a main street, and if were determined that Jack used that yard, that would have gotten him caught.

And thats the kind of specific area knowledge that foils criminals all the time. When I was a stupid kid I was running from the cops (when staying would have gotten me a lecture but nothing more) And I cut through a tunnel system under a local hospital. So narrowing down teenage girls who knew about those tunnels was not that hard, and they were at my door within two days. And the truth is, if Jack had really known the area, there were a ton of places, very private places, he could have taken his victims. Some guy never locks the backdoor of his shop, or the third warehouse on the right is empty and you can get in through the windows... these are things thieves know, kids know, the homeless know, but prostitutes don't. Jack either didn't know, or chose not to use that knowledge. And in the end it may sound insane for him to murder someone in the street under a bedroom window, but using a space very few people use would have been suicidal. So it may have been dumb, but it was less dumb than giving himself away by exposing how much he knew about the neighborhood.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Richard

I suspect you're right...of course it's a possibility we ought to acknowledge, but not a highly likely one

All the best

Dave

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would say we are clutching at straws suggesting that the killer was a police officer with or without uniform.
Over the years we have all suggested types of professions, from the obvious a doctor, to a person of trust a priest, or a policeman, even a female confidant .
simply because we have no idea who the assailant was .
Sooner or later[ hopefully] we may have a lead to who the culprit was, and what profession he was in , then we won't have to speculate.
How much trust do you have to obtain, to attack a feeble woman suddenly?
Regards Richard.

[Jason]

If he was well known to the women of the area , then his face may well have been trusted . It also stands to reason that he may have well been recognisable in his civilian clothes . No one is saying he slayed them in his uniform.

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Neil

Dave

[pinkmoon]

It is tempting to try and make our killer have super human powers or maybe be a master of disguise so to explain why he was never seen or caught.When you take into account the area where these murders occurred it is quite possible that some one did see him at it and never reported it.

[Monty]

Started at 5'7", raised to 5'11" but dropped to 5'9" by 1888, with 5'10" also being used.

The alterations was due to the fact they wanted imposing men however not many 5'11" were applying.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

I think in the Met there was a 5 ft 10inch lowest height restriction during the LVP, but it really needs someone like Neil or Colin to give an authoritative answer!

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Not sure about the Met (will keep looking) but according to "I Spy Blue" the City Police had to be 5 feet 7 inches without shoes...this was in the 1850s...

All the best

Dave

[Kitnkaat]

Why not tall enough

from all the eye witness accounts jack could not have bee a policeman
he wasnt tall inof

Was there a height requirement for policemen? I don't recall seeing one anywhere

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Well, the first time I heard about Jack the Ripper was back in the 1970s, while the British police was chasing the Yorkshire Ripper.

I read briefly and superficially about it at the time. Then my first thought was. "He must have been a policeman!"

All the best
Jukka