If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Well Jack being a police officer would certainly answer a lot of questions, but I don't think so. It was just too risky for him.
Remember that one of the nearest neighbours to the site of Kate Eddowes' murder was an off duty police officer. Likewise, PC Smith had passed through Berner Street and saw Liz Stride a matter of minutes before she was killed. In either of these cases, had either of these policemen, on or off duty, bothered to have a good enough look, they would surely have recognised one of their own?
A police officer would have known every nook and cranny and would have been smart enough to kill, if they were intending to do so, in areas where there was no chance at all of being discovered.....this wasn't the case with Jack.
I read this story about a year ago. Interesting enough but reminescient of the kind of "Facts" given by Emma Elizabeth Smith.
If Jack was using various ruises, why didn't he use them during his 1888 murders? All the witness descriptions state normal looking indaviduals.
Seems too odd to be connected to the ripper. If it WAS him, why such a break between killing periods? Does that mean, maybe Coles and Mckenzie were victims too? And also, why did he, once again, if Tabram fell under his knife, did he resort to stabbing? Relapse maybe?
I am extremly interested in this theory. Being a police officer or having the appearance of one would be the perfect alibi if caught during the act of mutilation.
I've heard it been suggested that Jack the Ripper could have been a police officer or someone dressed as a police officer but never took much notice of the theory until I read part of an article I read recently on casebook, which I have cut and pasted below:
Further research by Bernard BROWN has provided an is an addendum to this article:
In the early hours of Friday 7th January 1899 a woman of the "unfortunate classes" walked into Arbour Square Police Station (off Commercial Road) and demanded to see the officer in charge. The woman, well known to the local constabulary, as Emily WOOD, aged 40 years of 11, Hungerford Street, Commercial Road, east London appeared to be in a state of intoxication and was promptly arrested for drunkenness. However, on being searched by a female warder her clothing was found to be saturated with blood. The Divisional Surgeon was summonsed and on his arrival found that the injured woman had been stabbed in "a delicate part of the body" causing a two inch long wound from which she was bleeding profusely. He ordered her immediate removal to the London Hospital where she was treated and later removed to St George's Infirmary.
Due to much loss of blood the victim remained in the infirmary in a very weak state but fortunately recovered sufficiently to tell the authorities a quite remarkable tale.
It would appear that between the hours of 1am and 2am Emily WOOD, a widow, was walking along Commercial Road when she was accosted by a Police Officer in uniform. As they walked towards a street corner she alleges the policeman stabbed her. The victim stated that she had known the officer for some time and would easily recognise him again. She described him as being tall and dark with a black moustache. An unnamed "H" Division (Whitechapel) constable remembered speaking to WOOD by the corner of Stepney Causeway at about a quarter past one when he asked her why she was out at that hour, but she made no complaint. The officer was subsequently pointed out by WOOD as being the constable who spoke to her earlier, but was not her attacker, yet it was at the junction alluded to that police later found pools of blood.
So after reading of this apparently unprovoked attack, I started to consider the police officer theory some more. Has anyone else got anything to add??
Leave a comment: