Could the Ripper have been a Policeman?

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

Bit of blood? The killer put his hands right inside Eddowes.

Yes he could say "I just discovered the body. I got my hands rather bloody because I touched it. Oh, and I found this knife lying on the pavement." Taking a bit of a chance, though.

Why would Watkins want to make it look like a Ripper murder? That was the one way of making sure that the police threw everything at the investigation, with Watkins in the spotlight.

Your point about the apron piece is still valid of course....unless he had an accomplice who dumped the piece for him. But if you're killing someone to shut them up, the last thing you need is an accomplice.

So I very much doubt if Watkins did it.

[Monty]

I'd be intetrested to know where Mrs Pearce fits in to all this, and their son.

"Of course, before one gets too excited over Watkins, please to recall the apron piece and Goulston street."

To be fair, I don't think anyone with a sound knowledge of the case and Police procedure (which has clearly been overlooked) would be getting 'too excited' over this suggestion.

Monty

[lynn cates]

motive

Hello Raven. Thanks.

"But what I was saying was every possibility should be checked."

Completely agree. I like to check ALL scenarios without compunction or being called daft; however, one can go off the other deep end as well.

"It needn't have been Watkins, for one thing PC Richard Pearce and family lived at number 3. Pearce is lookout, perhaps even a delaying tactic, the Ripper finishes and it's off to Goulston Street."

OK. But now Pearce and X need a motive. What is it? Difficult for an old lad like me to understand motiveless crime--as also sexual serial killers, masons, etc. Can, however, understand extortion, revenge, blackmail, greed--the standbys for human behaviour.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

outdoor killing

Hello Robert. Thanks.

"Plus, how is Watkins supposed to have cleaned himself up, ready to meet Morris?"

Well, according to the medicos, not much to clean--just a bit of blood and faecal matter on the hands. The apron piece might do the trick. But, again, what of the apron piece?

"And why do it on his beat . . ."

No difficulty there. He would know his beat intimately.

"If he was spotted, he'd have to abandon his beat and run through the streets in his uniform."

But in what way spotted? If the knife is not seen, then he could be bending over the woman he had found, checking for signs of life.

"Much better to do it off duty, in another place, and in plain clothes."

Don't think so. If this is to approximate a ripper killing it had better be outdoors.

And if a clever chap wished to follow up with this line of thinking, he could offer Watkins' strong reaction when he chatted up Morris. No one else EVER reacted that strongly--with the possible exception of Bowyer to "MJK." And surely if you had just done such a deed, you'd be a bit unstrung?

Of course, before one gets too excited over Watkins, please to recall the apron piece and Goulston street.

Cheers.
LC

[RavenDarkendale]

Hello Raven.

"Was JtR a policeman? Two Words. Mitre Square. The time table for the murder and mutilation makes more sense if the murderer (of Eddows only, for this to work, because this is a questioned JtR murder, perhaps a copycat) was one of the patrolmen. Perhaps he only SAID he walked his beat and saw nothing. Perhaps he was there doing his slasher thing!"

OK, I presume we mean Watkins here? Very well. Let me:

1. Propose a motive.

2. Show where the glitch is.

Why would Watkins kill Kate? Well, Neil Bell has shown (in an excellent Rip article) That Watkins had once been reprimanded, many years before, for having sex whilst on the beat. Let's suppose that a few days before this that Kate was actually soliciting and her customer was Watkins. Now, let's say that she decided to hold this over Watkins' head unless money were forthcoming.

There you have motive AND opportunity.

PROBLEM: how could Watkins transfer the apron piece to Goulston street? How did it get there?

See what I mean?

Cheers.
LC

Indeed! But what I was saying was every possibility should be checked. I have always wonder about the Mitre Square murder. It was the most destructive yet, and the timing of Patrolman Watkins was a regular thing. And despite all that, JtR murdered a woman and cit her to pieces, removing a kidney in the process before the constable returned.

Now that is just a little suspicious. But that is why I proposed scenario 2: a policeman accomplice. It needn't have been Watkins, for one thing PC Richard Pearce and family lived at number 3. Pearce is lookout, perhaps even a delaying tactic, the Ripper finishes and it's off to Goulston Street.

Oh, and this wasn't exactly my original idea, it is in a Sherlock Holmes VS The Ripper book, I'll have to look it up on my shelf when I return home. I am in Nashville visiting my daughter. In the book Holmes discovers that Pearce is JtR.

Always thinking, sometimes outside the box, sometime blinded by the box,

RD

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

Plus, how is Watkins supposed to have cleaned himself up, ready to meet Morris?

And why do it on his beat, the very part of London where he is known? If he was spotted, he'd have to abandon his beat and run through the streets in his uniform. Much better to do it off duty, in another place, and in plain clothes.

[ChrisGeorge]

If a Policeman was alone on a beat he would have had time and opportunity to commit the murders and would not have been suspected, I don't personally think it was a Policeman but I don't think it's entirely outside the bounds of possibilities either.

Does anyone know if anyone suspected this at the time, or if there is any books or websites that mention this theory? I have looked it up but haven't found much on it.

What is your own opinion on the possibility that a Policeman could have been responsible?

Hello TypeWriter

Have a look at this blog posting of mine, about a Jewish policeman who committed suicide in Hyde Park at midday on Friday, November 16, 1888 by shooting himself in the head. He may not have been Jack the Ripper but we have to wonder if he might have had some sort of involvement in the crimes.

The Mysterious Life and Death of P.C. Richard Brown.

Best regards

Chris

[lynn cates]

exploration

Hello Raven.

"Was JtR a policeman? Two Words. Mitre Square. The time table for the murder and mutilation makes more sense if the murderer (of Eddows only, for this to work, because this is a questioned JtR murder, perhaps a copycat) was one of the patrolmen. Perhaps he only SAID he walked his beat and saw nothing. Perhaps he was there doing his slasher thing!"

OK, I presume we mean Watkins here? Very well. Let me:

1. Propose a motive.

2. Show where the glitch is.

Why would Watkins kill Kate? Well, Neil Bell has shown (in an excellent Rip article) That Watkins had once been reprimanded, many years before, for having sex whilst on the beat. Let's suppose that a few days before this that Kate was actually soliciting and her customer was Watkins. Now, let's say that she decided to hold this over Watkins' head unless money were forthcoming.

There you have motive AND opportunity.

PROBLEM: how could Watkins transfer the apron piece to Goulston street? How did it get there?

See what I mean?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Unlikely

I find it very difficult to envisage a policeman as the killer here. The officers of both forces worked relatively small beats and were required to adhere to strict timings, including making 'points' at any one of which the sergeant or inspector might be waiting. Not impossible, but very unlikely indeed.

Regards, Bridewell.

[sleekviper]

No, not in a kill such as these. Back then the police were on the street walking, that made them 100-1; for every 1 person that they could spot as knowing as a possible witness, there had to be 100 that they would have zero clue could spot them. It would be like a school teacher going to another classroom to kill, with the idea that no one there would know who they are, does not work that way. Coming from another part of town is still a problem since just as he would have, others may have worked in his area and know of him, or are visiting in that part of town. Knowing a route is fine if you snatch and run, but this is way too tight to risk a fellow officer spotting him in the wrong place, wrong part of town, let alone a citizen that would know him from a route and spot him. It would take zero witnesses to have ever seen him that know of him, and that is a tough sell.This guy would have to be a doppelganger of someone else when he kills, and good luck with that theory.

[Supe]

Curious, yes, but also erroneous in several important elements.

Oops, I see Neil just anticipated my remarks.

Don.

[Monty]

Its also misleading.

Monty

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

This article [By Derek F. Osborne ] is also curious

Long stated that he did not know of Eddowes' murder when he made his find. If this is true, then why did he seize on that apron rag in the first place? For at that time (in his professed ignorance), it clearly had no meaning whatsoever for him. When the body of Catherine Eddowes was found, it was discovered that she had been disemboweled, "cut up like a pig, " her old and distressed clothing pushed up above her waist And no-one knew then that part of her apron was missing. How could they, considering the ghastly, blood-soaked sight that confronted them?

Goulston Street was part of Long's beat. It was a street he had already patrolled earlier at 2.20am. But at that time, there was no sign of any writing or rag in the entrance to Wentworth Dwellings - a fact also recorded by Halse, who had checked the entrance himself at 2.20am, when he passed along the very same street. And in doing so, he must have encountered Long, who was also in Goulston Street at this time. Now we find two sources - two policemen and two different notebooks - both recording their presence and times in the same street. And Halse would naturally have informed his brother officer as to the murder which had so recently taken place in Mitre Square. Thus, Long was made aware of two facts: a woman had been murdered, and her killer was on the loose. There had been no mention of a missing piece of apron, because at that time no-one knew of its existence.

[Phil H]

Scenario 2: What if a policeman was not the murderer, but an accomplice covering for the real JtR. That would assure JtR would escape, and most of the time, be uninterrupted. If Elizabeth Stride were actually a JtR victim, which has been questioned time and time again, it could be how he was warned of the approaching wagon in time to duck and run.

A) As has been said before, policemen had their beats and, Mitre (sic) Square was in London Police territory, so it would be difficult for one man to be everywhere with a reason.

B) The rattle of iron-rimmed wheels on cobblestones would surely have been their own warning?

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

Speculation into areas where even a faint possibility could give us clues.

Was JtR a policemean? Two Words. Miter Square. The time table for the murder and mutilation makes more sense if the murderer (of Eddows only, for this to work, because this is a questioned JtR murder, perhaps a copycat) was one of the patrolmen. Perhaps he only SAID he walked his beat and saw nothing. Perhaps he was there doing his slasher thing!

Scenario 2: What if a policeman was not the murderer, but an accomplice covering for the real JtR. That would assure JtR would escape, and most of the time, be uninterrupted. If Elizabeth Stride were actually a JtR victim, which has been questioned time and time again, it could be how he was warned of the approaching wagon in time to duck and run.

Thoughts, anyone?