A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So in a sense, he wasn't raised as Jewish, so in a way you are right, but still, his parents were of German (Ashkenazi?) Jewish heritage.

Where is the evidence that Johann Backert was of Jewish ancestry?

[The Rookie Detective]

Are you sure that John Backert / Bachert was Jewish?

I have read that he and his wife Georgina were German and his physical description, as given in one newspaper, seems typically German, which causes one to wonder why another newspaper would have described him as being of Jewish appearance:


Age 54, but looks 10 years younger; height 5ft. 7in., complexion fair, light hair, blue eyes, and heavy sandy moustache.

(Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper Sunday, 25th September, 1887)

Yes, I can confirm that Albert Bachert was Jewish.

He was also much younger than reported.

He was born in 1862 and so would have been around 26 at the time of the murders

He was born Albert Wilhelm Bachert, but Baptized on the 7th September 1862

He had several siblings, including an older brother called Wilhelm and another called Ludwig

His father was called John Bachert, a successful local businessman.

However, his father's full BIRTH name was...

Johann Gustav Jacob Bachert

And his mother was called Georgina (nee Fischer) but born...

Georgine Elise Emilie Dorette Fischer


Now because of his Baptism, it does strongly suggest that although he was ethnically Jewish, his parents were not practicing Jews and the fact they anglicized their names would also support this.

So in a sense, he wasn't raised as Jewish, so in a way you are right, but still, his parents were of German (Ashkenazi?) Jewish heritage.

Based on his physical appearance you are completely correct
And he wasn't raised as Jewish and so you are correct again

But his parents were both of Jewish Descent.

And so it highlights that appearances can be deceptive (quite literally).

Charles Reeves also didn't look Jewish IMO, but he was another member of the vigilance committee who certainly was Jewish.

In terms of the Ripper murders, I have always favoured Bachert as one of my top 10 suspects.

If you look closely at his life, he made a concerted and continued effort to be close to the investigation at every turn; similar to how a killer responsible for the abduction and murder of a child, would turn up at the street search party to try and look like they're helping as part of the community effort.

Bachert reminds me of a man who relished being in the limelight.
He even went to socialist rallies on Tower Hill...as an antagonist who riled up the crowd deliberately to cause trouble. He had a dislike for socialists, and it's fair to say that the idea of a Socialist Jewish movement like the club on Berner street, is somewhere he would have also despised.

The Jews from the Berner Street club were generally disliked by the more orthodox Jews, and the Conservative Jews like Bachert who appear to have abandoned their heritage for the sake of social acceptance within the English middle classes.

RD

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

For example, a certain Albert Bachert; the man who claimed to have replaced Lusk as head of the WVC in 1889
(despite the 1888 WVC having disbanded by this point, having morphed/reformed into the "Spitalfields & Whitechapel Vigilance Committe")

Albert himself seemed to have an issue with the idea of someone being described as looking Jewish.
So much so, that he wrote directly to a newspaper, to ask them to correct an article they'd previously published in their newspaper, in which they had "described" his father John as being/looking Jewish.
His father had gone missing and was presumed dead; although he later resurfaced alive and well.
In his letter (which was also published) he tells the newspaper that he has no connection to the Jews whatsoever, stating that his father wasn't Jewish, requesting they amend their mistake accordingly to print that his father wasn't a Jew after all.

The problem was...Albert Bachert WAS Jewish.

His father was also a Jew

Are you sure that John Backert / Bachert was Jewish?

I have read that he and his wife Georgina were German and his physical description, as given in one newspaper, seems typically German, which causes one to wonder why another newspaper would have described him as being of Jewish appearance:


Age 54, but looks 10 years younger; height 5ft. 7in., complexion fair, light hair, blue eyes, and heavy sandy moustache.

(Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper Sunday, 25th September, 1887)

[The Rookie Detective]

I would say that it is not a question of whether one thinks that a person looked Jewish but how he would have looked in London at that time.

In Whitechapel, it seems to have been quite obvious who was and who was not Jewish, and there was no political correctness at that time to inhibit people from noting the differences in their writings.

I see your point and I agree to a certain extent.

But I feel there's more to it than that and it's more of a grey area than just a simple case of black and white.

It's important to note that there were different social classes of Jews in the area, and it would be misleading to place all of the same Jews into the same social category.

This is relevant contextually because I don't believe that it was as obvious as you suggest.

For example, a certain Albert Bachert; the man who claimed to have replaced Lusk as head of the WVC in 1889
(despite the 1888 WVC having disbanded by this point, having morphed/reformed into the "Spitalfields & Whitechapel Vigilance Committe")

Albert himself seemed to have an issue with the idea of someone being described as looking Jewish.
So much so, that he wrote directly to a newspaper, to ask them to correct an article they'd previously published in their newspaper, in which they had "described" his father John as being/looking Jewish.
His father had gone missing and was presumed dead; although he later resurfaced alive and well.
In his letter (which was also published) he tells the newspaper that he has no connection to the Jews whatsoever, stating that his father wasn't Jewish, requesting they amend their mistake accordingly to print that his father wasn't a Jew after all.

The problem was...Albert Bachert WAS Jewish.

His father was also a Jew

Bachert was a German Jew with mixed ethnic heritage.

However; and this is the point; he was staunchly conservative in his political leaning, and the idea of him or his father being described as Jewish; or looking Jewish, seemed to be a real issue for him.
It suggests that he didn't want to be associated with being Jewish, despite him being Jewish.

In fact, many of the members of the original WVC were also Jewish.
e.g. Charles Reeves, one of the founding members, was a Jewish actor who changed his name from Samuel Isaacs, to sound more English.

So we have Jews seemingly denying their heritage, just for the sake of not being tarnished with the same brush.

And this is why it's relevant to the Ripper case.

The Ripper may have been Jewish, but it doesn't mean he LOOKED Jewish.

It is not accurate to suggest that all Jews were easily identifiable, because that has implications on the process of trying to identify potential suspects.

The interesting thing about Albert Bachert, is that being Germanic, he didn't necessarily "look" Jewish... but he WAS a Jew, regardless of his attempts to disassociate himself from his own heritage.
Being a staunch conservative, he was against the Socialist movement; in particular the idea that Jews should be Socialists...the EXACT discussion that was being held in the club the night Stride was murdered.

I find it rather fascinating that Stride, a Scandinavian Non-Jew who could speak Yiddish, was murdered outside a Socialist club filled with Jews who represented everything that Bachert resented in Jews.
And then after Eddowes is murdered; another Non-Jew who had connections with the Jewish community, we find the Goulston Street graffiti...

Now if you ever wanted an example of the kind of man who could have written the GSG...

Albert Bachert is your perfect candidate.

Now I am not saying that Bachert was the Ripper, but he did subsequently fantasize about the Ripper sending him letters, and he was proven to have had an unhealthy obsession with the Ripper case.
I just find it interesting that Bachert; a Jew who disliked Jews, in the context of the Ripper crimes, is something that could be more relevant than we realize.

RD

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would say that it is not a question of whether one thinks that a person looked Jewish but how he would have looked in London at that time.

In Whitechapel, it seems to have been quite obvious who was and who was not Jewish, and there was no political correctness at that time to inhibit people from noting the differences in their writings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d say that the guy in the middle looks Jewish but the other two don’t. And even at a distance I would expect the guy in the centre to have been identified as Jewish every time (especially in poor lighting…or at a quick glance)

[The Rookie Detective]

Such an excellent photo and brings the past to life.

In the wedding photo, he does have rather unusual eyes IMO. Quite piercing and distinct.

His left eye in particular.

May just be the shadow from his hat.

interesting...


RD

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In answer to # 862 of Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

I think that all of the people in the photograph in # 1 of this thread would have been considered to be recognisably Jewish in Whitechapel at that time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Swanson then provides a different scenario on the endpapers, that 'a' suspect was taken to a witness for identification, which is the opposite of Anderson, yet he seems to think he is still talking about Anderson's own suspect. This is the suspect that was called Kozminski.

He doesn't say that Anderson's suspect was called Kozminski.


But does he need to?

He calls Anderson's suspect the suspect, which means that he at least thinks that Anderson meant Kosminski.



This is why I think we have two different suspects, the one Swanson is talking about was called Kozminski, not necessarily Anderson's suspect.


The only Polish Jewish suspect mentioned by Macnaghten is Kosminski, the one mentioned by Swanson is Kosminski, and Anderson's is unnamed.

If Anderson meant someone other than Aaron Kosminski, whom on earth could he have meant?

And if he meant someone other than a Kosminski, how could Swanson and Macnaghten have failed to know of him?

If Swanson's source for Kosminski was not Anderson but police records, then those same records must have been available to Macnaghten, who is aware of only one Jewish suspect and only one Kosminski.

And we are aware of only one Kosminski who could have been a suspect in the case.



If there is a difference, it is subtle, but such differences always are when the writer has confused two different suspects.


I suggest that Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson all meant Aaron Kosminski, but the details they gave are wrong and contradictory because he never was a serious suspect and he metamorphosed into a hybrid suspect, mixed up with Piser and Druitt.

If he had been a serious suspect, Macnaghten would not have used inverted commas when describing him as a suspect, nor indicated that the case against him was entirely circumstantial.

If Anderson had been proven right, as he claimed to be, then he would have been able to refer to some incriminating evidence to explain why Kosminski could have become a suspect PRIOR TO his incarceration.

And if Kosminski had really been a police suspect, then Swanson would not have got his date of death wrong by about three decades.

He was obviously confusing him with Druitt.

[Wickerman]

...

I am afraid that that only reinforces my argument, previously stated, that Kosminski did not come to the police's attention until after he had been certified or, as Anderson put it, safely caged in an asylum.

Was that Kozminski though?

Anderson himself has the Polish Jewish suspect already in an asylum when his alleged identification took place and it is, as I argued before, no accident that he has no identity parade - because such a procedure could hardly have been conducted in an asylum.

That was the one who Anderson suspected, but Anderson didn't name his suspect.
Swanson add's his first note -
"because the suspect was also a Jew.......", then a marginal note "And after this identification.....", so he certainly is in agreement with Anderson at that point.

Swanson then provides a different scenario on the endpapers, that 'a' suspect was taken to a witness for identification, which is the opposite of Anderson, yet he seems to think he is still talking about Anderson's own suspect. This is the suspect that was called Kozminski. He doesn't say that Anderson's suspect was called Kozminski.

This is why I think we have two different suspects, the one Swanson is talking about was called Kozminski, not necessarily Anderson's suspect.

If there is a difference, it is subtle, but such differences always are when the writer has confused two different suspects.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Jeff
I have to concur here. What evidence could they have ? No DNA , CCTV etc A lot of it was, as you say Jeff gut instinct and experience etc Unfortunately the police didn't have anything to fall back on, as in past serial murders of this kind.

The reason I favour Kosminski within the named police suspects is down, mainly to the police officer who in my opinion who would have the most in depth knowledge of the case, Swanson. And he names Kosminski as the killer. Was he right ? I am not sure about that at all. What I do believe however is that there were grounds for suspicion against him, and some form of ID [ whether it would stick or not ] , did take place.

Regards Darryl

The only grounds for suspicion that we know of are that Kosminski had been certified as a lunatic after allegedly threatening a relative with a knife.

Some members have been suggesting that that is the incident that brought him to the police's attention.

I am afraid that that only reinforces my argument, previously stated, that Kosminski did not come to the police's attention until after he had been certified or, as Anderson put it, safely caged in an asylum.

Anderson himself has the Polish Jewish suspect already in an asylum when his alleged identification took place and it is, as I argued before, no accident that he has no identity parade - because such a procedure could hardly have been conducted in an asylum.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Such is of course totally pointless, as no one is suggesting that Jewish men in the East End, regularly attacked Gentile women.

An exception evidently needed to be made.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I doubt Anderson because the fact that different contemporary police officers of high enough rank that one would expect them to be aware of all the evidence all seem to have had their own ideas about who JtR was, and they all suggest different people. It seems to me that the police didn't really have any hard evidence against anyone, and each had their own "gut instinct" as to who it was.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
I have to concur here. What evidence could they have ? No DNA , CCTV etc A lot of it was, as you say Jeff gut instinct and experience etc Unfortunately the police didn't have anything to fall back on, as in past serial murders of this kind.

The reason I favour Kosminski within the named police suspects is down, mainly to the police officer who in my opinion who would have the most in depth knowledge of the case, Swanson. And he names Kosminski as the killer. Was he right ? I am not sure about that at all. What I do believe however is that there were grounds for suspicion against him, and some form of ID [ whether it would stick or not ] , did take place.

Regards Darryl

[JeffHamm]

It is not just that you can't name another example of a Victorian era Polish/Jewish serial killer in the UK.

It's also that you can't name a Jewish serial killer in the UK in ANY era.

It's also that, so far, no-one here has been able to cite a record of a Polish Jew attacking a Gentile woman in the East End of London.

These are the people who according to Anderson were so unscrupulous that they were prepared to allow one of their own to continue eviscerating women and bringing their organs home with him, yet there seems to be no record of one of them actually assaulting a Gentile woman.

Does that not cause you to doubt Anderson's claims?

Hi PI1,

I do doubt Anderson's claims, just not for the reasons you list as they are not reasons to doubt him. For example, it could be that JtR was the only Polish Jewish UK Serial killer in history, and if so, Anderson was right despite my doubts. Although I personally don't subscribe to any of the suspect theories, I'm just saying that if Anderson was correct, then it would appear that would indeed be the case.

I doubt Anderson because the fact that different contemporary police officers of high enough rank that one would expect them to be aware of all the evidence all seem to have had their own ideas about who JtR was, and they all suggest different people. It seems to me that the police didn't really have any hard evidence against anyone, and each had their own "gut instinct" as to who it was.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no reason why JtR couldn't be Polish and Jewish. He doesn't have to be, of course, but just because you can't name another example of a Victorian era Polish/Jewish serial killer in the UK doesn't really mean much.


- Jeff

It is not just that you can't name another example of a Victorian era Polish/Jewish serial killer in the UK.

It's also that you can't name a Jewish serial killer in the UK in ANY era.

It's also that, so far, no-one here has been able to cite a record of a Polish Jew attacking a Gentile woman in the East End of London.

These are the people who according to Anderson were so unscrupulous that they were prepared to allow one of their own to continue eviscerating women and bringing their organs home with him, yet there seems to be no record of one of them actually assaulting a Gentile woman.

Does that not cause you to doubt Anderson's claims?