Was The Ripper A Police Official?

[Mayerling]

The requirement for uniformed constables to wear uniforms at all times was relaxed in the 1860s.

The chances of a uniformed constable murdering whilst on duty are nigh on nil. Regulations were that restrictive.

Monty

Hi Monty,

I really hate to do this, but actually there was a case of a uniformed constable, George Cooke, who in 1893 murdered his ex-girl friend (whom he tried to reform), a prostitute who would not take his final rejection of her and determined to make him rue it. Cooke beat her to death with his truncheon while on his beat near Wormwood Scrubs prison, and subsequently finished his rounds, and then went home. Eventually he was tried, convicted, and hanged for the murder (the only P.C. to suffer that fate in England, although in 1875 Superintendent Thomas Montgomery was hanged after three trials for the "Omagh" murder of a bank employee during a robbery in that town in Ireland). As I say, I hate to mention this because it may give a false sense of triumph to Pierre, but it is true.

Due to the severe provocation Cooke suffered from his vicious ex-girlfriend, there was a serious attempt by the trial jury and the public to get his sentence commuted. It was opposed by the trial judge, Sir Henry "'Anging" Hawkins, Baron Brampton, who felt it would give the law abiding public the wrong idea.

Jeff

[Pierre]

Unidentified uniformed police weren't seen at ANY murder site, and that includes Polly Nichols, or do you have evidence Pierre, that such a police officer was seen?

Hi Rosella,

firstly, please donīt misuse the word evidence. Research evidence is something that can be establish after tests, analyse and interpretation.

I see here that people often speak of "evidence" in a very lofty way. And as I have said many times, proving who the killer was can not be done through pure forensics or in a court room. Therefore, we must use the social sciences and these work with hypotheses and establishing facts from relevant data sources. So it is a complex method.

And it is not possible to speak of the testimony of Lechmere in terms of "evidence". Therefore we canīt take it as evidence that he was the killer or that he saw a policeman at the murder site of Polly Nichols. We can only analyse the sources and interpret them. After that, we must use these interpretations to establish a fact but it has to be done together with other much more well established facts before we can speak of any scientific evidence.


You seem to think, Pierre, that if a man was a plainclothes detective (in any division) in City or Met he was as free as air to go roaming about Whitechapel/Spitalfields including inveighing women into backyards when on duty.

What exactly do you base the argument that I "seem to think" this on?

They were given jobs to do and had to write reports on these, they were supervised by superior officers, they couldn't just go walkabout whenever and wherever they felt like it.

Did I state anything else? Or did I only ask questions about it?

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

The requirement for uniformed constables to wear uniforms at all times was relaxed in the 1860s.

The chances of a uniformed constable murdering whilst on duty are nigh on nil. Regulations were that restrictive.

Monty

Thanks for this, Monty. Much appreciated.

[mklhawley]

And the backbone of Pierre's geology (creation science) is based upon Henry Morris' The Genesis Flood (1961), which he later admitted stealing from George M. Price's The New Geology (1923). He, in turn, took it from the dream of a young female teenager (Ellen Harmon), which showed that fossils were created from the great flood.

Just think if it; creation science is based upon the dream of a young teenager in the nineteenth century.

Morris also lied in his book on where he discovered this idea of the layered sedimentary rocks coming from the great flood. He claimed the early Christian scholars believed it, which is farthest from the truth. They actually rejected the idea, since it clearly stated in the book of Genesis that rocks (the Earth) were formed before life.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Monty]

The requirement for uniformed constables to wear uniforms at all times was relaxed in the 1860s.

The chances of a uniformed constable murdering whilst on duty are nigh on nil. Regulations were that restrictive.

Monty

[David Orsam]

I can't help worrying about how long poor old Pierre spent trawling through the internet, and You Tube, trying to find someone, anyone, who would say that not all circular arguments are fallacious and, bless him he could only come up with a fundamentalist Christian who was slagging off the very scientific principles that he says he adheres too. Ah bless, one just wants to give him a hug and say: Pierre, everything will be alright.

[mklhawley]

A small lesson for everyone here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NqTr2067YA
Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

You need a doze of my first book, Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight. http://www.searchingfortruthwithabro...t_the_Book.php

I have a background in paleontology and I demonstrate why using circular reasoning with fossils is a fallacy, and I do it even if one wants to embrace a literal interpretation.

Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

A small lesson for everyone here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NqTr2067YA
Regards, Pierre

As someone who has come round entirely to Pierre's way of thinking I am delighted that he has selected a video from a fundamentalist Christian to illustrate the truth that can be found in circular thinking. As the lecturer tells us, science is untrue because it has no absolute standard like the bible; and what a perfect illustration of fallacious circular reasoning it provides in respect of an argument that dinosaur bones are ancient.

As we all know from the bible, the earth is only a few thousand years old. How do we know this? Because the bible tells us. And there, at last, is a meaningful circular argument.

Now look at the first YouTube comment by Sergio Eduardo Ribeiro da Silva:

"It's quite obvious that the Bible example is a circular reasoning as well. It is a special pleading, a fallacy, to argue that ONLY the Bible is exempt from circular reasoning."

Gosh. there always people that cannot see the light, the way and the truth.

Praise be to Peirre and his anti-science, pro-creationist, video clips.

[Rosella]

Unidentified uniformed police weren't seen at ANY murder site, and that includes Polly Nichols, or do you have evidence Pierre, that such a police officer was seen?

You seem to think, Pierre, that if a man was a plainclothes detective (in any division) in City or Met he was as free as air to go roaming about Whitechapel/Spitalfields including inveighing women into backyards when on duty. They were given jobs to do and had to write reports on these, they were supervised by superior officers, they couldn't just go walkabout whenever and wherever they felt like it.

[John G]

John, I might have completely misremembered but weren't members of The Met that weren't plain clothes required to wear their uniform at all times when they were out in public? I'm sure I remember reading that was a rule at this time, or maybe it was only until 1869. In which case, in 1888 Jack the Copper might murder when off-duty but I think he would still run the risk of running into a work colleague, considering the tiny area in which the C-5 took place.

Hi Rosella,

I must admit that I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to police regulations at the time-maybe Monty can provide the definitive answer!

However, I cannot imagine that officers would be too happy about having to wear their uniform every time they left home, I.e. when not on duty. I therefore wonder how strictly such a policy would be adhered to and enforced.

For instance, I could imagine that a policeman would be reluctant to report another officer over such a relatively minor breach, particularly if non-adherence was widespread. And I can't see that such an act would go down well with his colleagues!

And, as I noted previously, Sergeant Thick may well have been involved in serious wrongdoing, which his fellow officers must surely have been aware of, but nobody seems to have reported him.

Of course, bring seen near the scene of a murder would be a more serious problem, but a knowledge of police beats would surely reduce this risk to the minimum.

[Pierre]

No-one knows (obviously) what occupation JTR followed, if any. He could have been a tinker, tailor, candlestick maker, who knows!

However, as previously discussed, there are certain problems inherent in his being a uniformed police officer.

Good thinking. Focusing on those problems could give us a map for his thinking about risk. But not in dichotomies like risk / no risk. Rather in the form of a scale from perhaps 1-5 where 1 is the lowest risk and 5 the highest. So postulating that there are certain problems inherent, we could pose a set of interesting questions:

Hypothesizing that the killer was prone to taking a high risk, we have to consider what the scale could mean from his perspective: is 5 a level where he wants to be or not?

Where is the number on the scale that he refuses to cross and why? / How much risk is he willing to take?

And how can risk be played at by using a uniform?

Did he enjoy using a uniform (if he did use one)?

Did it make him feel comfortable?/ Did he have any "need" for comfort - or was he just rationally choosing between a set of options connected to the risk of being caught?

Crossing the lines of different police divisions, and in Mitre Square of a different police force altogether, of knowing exactly which police, including plain clothes ones, were doing what and where at what time, of picking up victims and escaping afterwards without meeting any police officers on the beat or on point duty in a blood-spattered uniform, for example.

I donīt think he used the uniform for any other victim than for Polly Nichols since there is no data supporting that he did. That is - if somebody here hasnīt found any witness statement about someone seeing an unidentifiable policeman at any of the other murder sites.

Detectives in plain clothes would of course not have several of these problems, but they would still be responsible to superior officers and would hardly have been able to wander about alone in Whitechapel/Spitalfields as the spirit took them, still less into the City if they were Met officers.

Yes. And if he used "plain clothes" - who would have known if he was a policeman except for those who knew him?

What limits would that give him, what would he have been able to do and not?

There's also a problem of being seen. What if a person looking out their window at No 29 Hanbury St that September morning had called to his wife and said 'Det Sergeant ---- is down in the yard with some woman! Come and have a look at this!"? It's not as if police officers, of whatever stamp, were unknown in their local communities.

This is always a problem for any murderer. So why would the profession of the killer prevent him from taking this risk if he was a policeman? He was known to his own but was he known to the victims and to other people?

Would he have any special reason for being able to ignore or play down risks connected to the above questions?

For instance, if a witness saw him and he was later on identified by the police: Would they believe the statement of the witness - what could his calculations on this have been and why?

AND: GIVEN all the problems that we see - would he not have seen them?

Thank you Rosella for a fruitful discussion.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Rosella]

Hi Rosella,

There's obviously no inherent reason why JtR couldn't have been a police officer, although you make some good points as to why it would be unlikely. However, what about the possibility of a uniformed officer focussing his activities during off-duty periods, when he could dress in casual clothes?

Moreover, what would be the chances of, say, a beat officer being recognized outside of his normal beat area?

John, I might have completely misremembered but weren't members of The Met that weren't plain clothes required to wear their uniform at all times when they were out in public? I'm sure I remember reading that was a rule at this time, or maybe it was only until 1869. In which case, in 1888 Jack the Copper might murder when off-duty but I think he would still run the risk of running into a work colleague, considering the tiny area in which the C-5 took place.

[Joshua Rogan]

The video on 'logic' posted by Pierre appears to have an agenda, ie to "lay the proper foundation for reasoning from the truth of God". Hence the example it gives of circular reasoning being acceptable - God exists because the Bible says so - seems a little suspect.

[John G]

A small lesson for everyone here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NqTr2067YA
Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Of course, there's also the issue of tautological arguments. Tautologies are not logical fallacies-in fact they're necessary truths. However, because they simply repeat the same idea using different arguments, they could be said to be useless. Nonetheless, Wittgenstein disagreed with this analysis, arguing that whilst they're senseless they're not nonsensical.

[John G]

No-one knows (obviously) what occupation JTR followed, if any. He could have been a tinker, tailor, candlestick maker, who knows!

However, as previously discussed, there are certain problems inherent in his being a uniformed police officer.

Crossing the lines of different police divisions, and in Mitre Square of a different police force altogether, of knowing exactly which police, including plain clothes ones, were doing what and where at what time, of picking up victims and escaping afterwards without meeting any police officers on the beat or on point duty in a blood-spattered uniform, for example.

Detectives in plain clothes would of course not have several of these problems, but they would still be responsible to superior officers and would hardly have been able to wander about alone in Whitechapel/Spitalfields as the spirit took them, still less into the City if they were Met officers.

There's also a problem of being seen. What if a person looking out their window at No 29 Hanbury St that September morning had called to his wife and said 'Det Sergeant ---- is down in the yard with some woman! Come and have a look at this!"? It's not as if police officers, of whatever stamp, were unknown in their local communities.

Hi Rosella,

There's obviously no inherent reason why JtR couldn't have been a police officer, although you make some good points as to why it would be unlikely. However, what about the possibility of a uniformed officer focussing his activities during off-duty periods, when he could dress in casual clothes?

Moreover, what would be the chances of, say, a beat officer being recognized outside of his normal beat area?