Was The Ripper A Police Official?

[Pierre]

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.

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

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

[Rosella]

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.

[John Wheat]

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

Pierre you write like you know who Jack the Ripper was when in fact all you've got is a theory. I say put your money where your mouth is and show everyone your theory and any proof you think you have or shut up.

[GUT]

Pierre you write like you know who Jack the Ripper was when in fact all you've got is a theory. I say put your money where your mouth is and show everyone your theory and any proof you think you have or shut up.

Got to agree "Put up, or shut up"

But I suspect there nothing to put up, but horse twaddle of course.

[John Wheat]

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.



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

To Hercule Poirot

To clarify things what a should have said was probably what are the chances of the Ripper being a policeman out of all the jobs available assuming the Ripper had a job and wasn't unemployed?

Cheers John

[RavenDarkendale]

There was a policeman who lived in Miter Square was there not? He might be suspected in Catherine Eddows' murder as it was right outside, but like people have said it would be hard to tie any officer to most of the crimes.

[Hercule Poirot]

To Hercule Poirot

To clarify things what I should have said was probably what are the chances of the Ripper being a policeman out of all the jobs available assuming the Ripper had a job and wasn't unemployed?

Cheers John

Hi John,
Given the validity of the evidence submitted by anyone at this point, pick any number of chances out of 10 and your choice would be as good as mine probably even better. Hence, I agree with you.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.