Was The Ripper A Police Official?

[pinkmoon]

A policeman? not very likely but a member of the Whitechapel vigilance committee is more likely I wonder what their vetting procedures were like probley a case of you've got two arms and legs right you're in then.

[Natasha]

A policeman? not very likely but a member of the Whitechapel vigilance committee is more likely I wonder what their vetting procedures were like probley a case of you've got two arms and legs right you're in then.

If I had to suggest someone from the vigilance committee as a suspect, I would say Albert Bachert. One of the puzzles that has stumped alot of people was Kelly's locked door. Well Bachert talks about about a string being used to lift the latch to gain access to the houses in regards to the Pinchin murder in 1889. So is that how the murderer gained access to Kelly's room?

He had opportunity. He was 'targeted' by the ripper in the form of letters, people say perhaps he wanted to make himself important and part of the ripper case, but I think if he sent them to himself no one would see him as a suspect. He may have written the letters to Lusk. He may have hated the attention Lusk was receiving for 'his work' (Bachert).

Just an idea.

[Natasha]

Albert Bachert: To Add Further

In August 1887, Albert Bachert made a strange appeal to Godfrey Lushington, in which he cited a police conspiracy to bring false, or "trumpery," charges against him. Bachert stated that two weeks previously, he came to the aid of a female acquaintance whom two constables had evidently mistaken for a prostitute. After vouching for the woman, Bachert demanded the constables' identification numbers. In reply, according to Bachert, the police responded by striking him, throwing him to the ground, arresting him, and "dragging him along the road" before they released him.
Prior to his appeal before Lushington, it seems Bachert made a complaint to an inspector, and that there was an effort made to identify the offending constables (or Bachert was told to keep an eye out for them), but he was unable to make an identification. He told Lushington that he feared the police would bring a future unfounded charge against him; Lushington assured him that he would remember Bachert's complaint if that were to happen (The Eastern Post and City Chronicle, 20 August 1887). It is unclear if embarrassment prevented Bachert's female friend from corroborating his story.

Who was this prostitute I wonder. One of the ripper victims maybe. Also it's worth pointing out that the killings began around the same time the incident with the police happened, a year later.

[Rosella]

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.

[Natasha]

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.

Yes he does, but how true is that statement? We don't know, so I'm looking at the possibility that she was, which is why I deliberately ignored his statement.

[Bigbellabongo]

Could it have been a policeman? You should read East End Underworld by Raphael Samuel, from the life of Arthur Harding, an east end criminal born in 1886 in the Old Nicol, and who frequented Brick Lane and its surroundings. There was plenty of corruption, with some of the policemen picking up "brides" (prostitutes) for their own use. For me, reading that book was a complete eye-opener, and let you see how the police and the underworld interacted.

[Natasha]

Could it have been a policeman? You should read East End Underworld by Raphael Samuel, from the life of Arthur Harding, an east end criminal born in 1886 in the Old Nicol, and who frequented Brick Lane and its surroundings. There was plenty of corruption, with some of the policemen picking up "brides" (prostitutes) for their own use. For me, reading that book was a complete eye-opener, and let you see how the police and the underworld interacted.

Hi Bigbellabongo,

Thanks for the book suggestion.

[Hercule Poirot]

Almost anyone could have been the Ripper hence a police officer would also fall within the thousands of potential murders. The problem is coming up with what I would call a 'beginning of truthful evidence' and I don't see any of it on the chessboard. This may be an interesting idea but the theory is IMHO incomplete. It's like asking if Peter Pan could have been gay!

Until then, the police officer theory offers a rather interesting potential in terms of historical fiction where all that is required is a plausible plot although non-probable one.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[GUT]

Almost anyone could have been the Ripper hence a police officer would also fall within the thousands of potential murders. The problem is coming up with what I would call a 'beginning of truthful evidence' and I don't see any of it on the chessboard. This may be an interesting idea but the theory is IMHO incomplete. It's like asking if Peter Pan could have been gay!

Until then, the police officer theory offers a rather interesting potential in terms of historical fiction where all that is required is a plausible plot although non-probable one.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Like!

So many ideas postulated here would make great novel plots.

[Hercule Poirot]

Getting into the JTR case for fiction novelists is like entering an 'All you can eat for 9.99$' buffet where you can pick whatever you like for your first plate, take all the time you need to empty it, go for a second plate, third, fourth plate till you die, re-incarnate and start all over again's, each time trying out something new!!! And Jack, the cook, keeps knifing up something different almost everyday. LOL

That's what I did for my upcoming novel (I mean my first plate). LOL

[GUT]

Getting into the JTR case for fiction novelists is like entering an 'All you can eat for 9.99$' buffet where you can pick whatever you like for your first plate, take all the time you need to empty it, go for a second plate, third, fourth plate till you die, re-incarnate and start all over again's, each time trying out something new!!! And Jack, the cook, keeps knifing up something different almost everyday. LOL

That's what I did for my upcoming novel (I mean my first plate). LOL

As long as it's clear that it is a novel you are, in my opinion, free to write whatever you like, it is when the distinction isn't made that I get shirty,.l

[GUT]

Oh and that wasn't aimed at you specifically HP

[Hercule Poirot]

Oh and that wasn't aimed at you specifically HP

Didn't felt at all as if I were a target. And totally agree with the need to make it clear from the beginning.

The fun thing about working on a fiction is that your imagination can have you come out with something that could have actually happened if you respect the mechanics of 'coherent plausibility' and leave it the researchers to see what they can do with it.

I hope that no one will think that my novel is introducing a theory. In my mind, it's a fiction based on historical elements which is quite different.

Cheers,
Hercule

[GUT]

Didn't felt at all as if I were a target. And totally agree with the need to make it clear from the beginning.

The fun thing about working on a fiction is that your imagination can have you come out with something that could have actually happened if you respect the mechanics of 'coherent plausibility' and leave it the researchers to see what they can do with it.

I hope that no one will think that my novel is introducing a theory. In my mind, it's a fiction based on historical elements which is quite different.

Cheers,
Hercule

Yep a totally different cup of tea.

[DaveShuts]

It's interesting and an idea I've had before - I have a name for you below, but I don't think it's JtR....

I've often thought when pondering how JtR managed to avoid capture, and I'm sure in one of Paul Beggs books he mentions a witness who swore that she saw a policeman walk past shortly before a murder when there was no police officer supposed to be there.

Anyway, Pearse went on to become a landlord, so I doubt it's him, but in line with the idea that JtR might have killed himself after Kelly, I went and checked the records to see if any Police officer had killed himself shortly afterwards, and there was one....

PC William Crook warrant card no. 47028 who worked for the 4th division (docklands), suicide by hanging on 12th November 1888, like I say though, I don't think it's him.

I did have trouble trying to find his birth certificate, but in perhaps an odd coincidence (if you're into conspiracy theories) there was a William A Crook born in the right year who is then on record as having died in 1922 after being confined to a mental hospital in Bucks for some years....

Didn't get any further than that - don't think it's him, and don't think the guy in the asylum is the same person, just a coincidence.

PS - PC William Crook (if I have the right person in the birth records) was born in Bucks.