Was The Ripper A Police Official?

[John Wheat]

I think its highly unlikely that The Ripper was a police official.

[GUT]

I think its highly unlikely that The Ripper was a police official.

But what about Pierre's data and metaphorical letters and junk???

[Mayerling]

But what about Pierre's data and metaphorical letters and junk???

G'Day Geoff,

You answered it yourself - it's all junk!

Jeff

[GUT]

G'Day Geoff,

You answered it yourself - it's all junk!

Jeff

Sorry shouldn't have called it junk, meant Horse Twaddle.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Doesn't Bachert say though, that this woman was 'an aquaintance' who the police had evidently mistaken for a prostitute. It could have been a woman who was hanging about on a street corner waiting for a friend or lover when the police nabbed her. That sort of misidentification wasn't exactly an unknown occurrence and the police had received some unwanted publicity in a similar situation (the Elizabeth Cass case) in 1887. I don't blame Bachert for being fearful of persecution and I think he did exactly the right thing in communicating with Lushington.

It was for this precise reason that Warren asked his police force to stop arresting women suspected of sollicitation and focus more on brothels, if I remember my readings correctly.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

my only bug with the possibility of JtR being a police officer is the risk he took by switching murder ground (and police jurisdiction).

Which makes me think that if he was a police officer, he was a city police, and spend a lot of time in Whitechapel / Spitalfieds outside of work.

Frustrated by being interrupted while killing Stride, he went to kill someone else, but he needed to feel a bit safer, after almost getting caught. He spotted Eddowes as she came out of the police station and followed her.

[Pierre]

I think its highly unlikely that The Ripper was a police official.

Hi John,

why do you think that you think it is unlikely?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mikhail-popkov-werewolf-serial-killer-5866206

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

why do you think that you think it is unlikely?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mikhail-popkov-werewolf-serial-killer-5866206

Regards, Pierre

Because it is highly unlikely the Ripper would be a policeman. The Ripper could have any job or be unemployed. Why would he be a policeman? The link to another case only proves that one serial killer was an ex policeman. If you ask me that makes it even more unlikely that another infamous serial killer would be a policeman.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Because it is highly unlikely the Ripper would be a policeman. The Ripper could have any job or be unemployed. Why would he be a policeman? The link to another case only proves that one serial killer was an ex policeman. If you ask me that makes it even more unlikely that another infamous serial killer would be a policeman.

Cheers John

Since the place is already occupied...?

Really!

[John Wheat]

Since the place is already occupied...?

Really!

To Fisherman

All I meant was the chances of two infamous serial killers being policeman are higher than the chance of one infamous serial killer being a policeman.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

All I meant was the chances of two infamous serial killers being policeman are higher than the chance of one infamous serial killer being a policeman.

Cheers John

To me it sounded as if you proposed that since it was so unexpected that ONE serialist was a policeman, it would be stretching things even further to suggest that TWO could have been.
If that was not what you were saying, I apologize.

[John Wheat]

To me it sounded as if you proposed that since it was so unexpected that ONE serialist was a policeman, it would be stretching things even further to suggest that TWO could have been.
If that was not what you were saying, I apologize.

To Fisherman

No need to apologise perhaps I was being vague with my original comment.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

No need to apologise perhaps I was being vague with my original comment.

Cheers John

Thanks for that, John!

[Pierre]

Because it is highly unlikely the Ripper would be a policeman. The Ripper could have any job or be unemployed. Why would he be a policeman? The link to another case only proves that one serial killer was an ex policeman. If you ask me that makes it even more unlikely that another infamous serial killer would be a policeman.

Cheers John

Hi John,

thanks for your answer. But I did not ask you why you think it is unlikely that the Ripper would be a policeman. I was asking why you think that you think so.

And the article illustrates that problem: They did not think that the serial murderer could be a policeman. Why do you think they didnīt?

And how do you think their beliefs can illustrate your own beliefs about a serial murderer not being a policeman?

Oh, and by the way, people thinking in this way must have been a great help to both Popkov and Jack the Ripper in his days.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi John,

why do you think that you think it is unlikely?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mikhail-popkov-werewolf-serial-killer-5866206

Regards, Pierre

Because it is highly unlikely the Ripper would be a policeman. The Ripper could have any job or be unemployed. Why would he be a policeman? The link to another case only proves that one serial killer was an ex policeman. If you ask me that makes it even more unlikely that another infamous serial killer would be a policeman.

Cheers John

Probably without being aware of it you tried to proove your point using circular reasoning as a response to Pierre's question. You sort of said it's unlikely because it's highly unlikely!!! Be careful.

Now if you admit that the Ripper could have had any job, it logically means he also could have been a police officer, don't you think.

To Fisherman

All I meant was the chances of two infamous serial killers being policeman are higher than the chance of one infamous serial killer being a policeman.

Cheers John

Your following post clarified your thought to a certain extent but I think Pierre was refering to a police being a serial killer from a different place and time. It would have been different had the two killers 'performed' in the same area at the same period and chosing the same category of victims.


I don't want to embarrass you. We sometimes get excited and want to add a quick response to a post. I'm not trying to defend Pierre either. It's just that logic is something important to me although I commit errors myself.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot