|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 122
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 7:14 pm: |       |
I found this amazing letter from Albert Backert in an Autralian newspaper from 1890. It is part of a much longer article which includes a follow up interview with the woman who made the statement:
Port Philip Herald (Australia) 22 November 1890
A REMARKABLE LETTER
Mr Albert Backert, Chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, has written the following letter to the Chronicle:
"In connection with the late Whitechapel murders, the most remarkable and sensational statement was made to me this morning at my place. At eleven o'clock this morning a very respectable middle-aged woman called at my house, and wished to see me. She was asked in, and then made the following statement to me, which she declared was all quite true:
About two years ago, she said, she was living in the model dwellings close by here and had a bedroom to let, furnished. A young man called and engaged the room. After living some time with her he stated that he had been to sea, and that at the present time he was receiving £1 a week from his father, and was also receiving an allowance from his brother, who was a doctor, and that he did not work himself. She also noticed that he had plenty of clothes, including hunting breeches, revolvers, guns, and many other articles, which an ordinary working man would not have. He had the door key, and could go out and in at all hours of the night, and used generally to get up about 5 p.m., but she could not say what time he arrived home at night. On several occasions she noticed that his towels were very bloodstained, for which he accounted by saying that he was fond of painting, and had wiped his brush on them. She also stated that she knew he had sent the liver, because one afternoon she happened to go to his room, and saw him with several pieces of liver on a newspaper, which he stated he had got from a New Zealand boat, as he knew a friend who was on board a frozen mutton boat. She saw him pack it in the box and address it to the then Chairman of the Vigilance Committee. He also put some papers into different envelopes, which he intended sending to the Central News and the Press Association, and the police, but he forgot them, and she threw them into the dustbin. She noticed also that he had several brass wedding rings on the mantel shelf, and on one or two occasions he brought home a white apron blood stained, and gave them to her, which she has at the present time. He always seemed to have plenty of money, and on the morning of the last murder (the Castle Alley) he left and has never returned. He left a pair of silent shoes, several bags, which she says are blood stained, and a long overcoat, which is also blood stained. I asked her if she had been to the police, and she said she had not, as she was afraid of getting into trouble for not having given information before. She said she could hold the secret no longer, and also feels convinced that the man she had lodging with her was the real "Jack the Ripper" and Whitechapel murderer. I feel sure that she was in earnest about this statement and she appeared very nervous, and did not wish her name to be published. I have no doubt that the police will make inquiries into the statement at once, and I directed her to go to Leman street to give all particulars. I may add that there was another person present when this statement was made this morning." |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 123
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 7:04 am: | |
Here is the full text of the lengthy article which accompanied the Backert letter quoted above. It is an amazing story and a version of the Lodger story I had not seen before, as well as being a very early one.
Port Philip Herald (Australia) 22 November 1890
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
REPORTED CLUE TO THE MURDERER
A SENSATIONAL STORY
"The People", a London Conservative paper, has the following remarkable statement regarding the supposed perpetration of the Whitechapel murders in the issue of 12th October last:-
"A number of curious and interesting details have transpired with regard to the story of a woman who, in an interview with Mr. Blackert (sic), chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, declared that she knew the man who committed the late mysetrious murders. The letter sent by Mr. Blackert to the press for publication is quoted below, and the statement therein contained are of an extraordinary character. A reporter, in the course of inquiries yesterday, however, ascertained some important facts. The police have for the past fortnight been exceedingly vigilant, and owing to the recurrence of the threatening letters various extra precautions have been taken in order to detect the offender should another murder be attempted. Though the autorities have protested against attaching any importance to the strange communications, the latter have produced much sensation in the East-end, and are one of the causes which have led to the extraordinary statement of the woman. Her story, the chief fact of which she has endeavored to keep secret, is a very strange one. Much difficulty was experienced in obtaining it, the chief reason being that she is hiding her identity, as she does not wish to be mixed up in the affair, and declares that she is afraid the man she suspects will do her bodily injury. So careful has she been that the police had not up to yesterday afternoon, succeeded in finding her, or obtaining the following details of her statement. It appears that while living on the top floor of a block of model dwellings in the neighborhood of Aldgate, a man engaged on the floor below a bed-room, with lumber-room adjoining, and paid her to keep the former clean, her occupation being that of an office cleaner. The lumber-room, which maintained a sink, was always kept locked , and although she did a portion of his washing, it was evident he did much of it himself. She describes him as young, of middle height, well-built, with a small, fair moustache and light brown hair, although she had frequently remarked that he had means by which he made his moustache and eyebrows much darker on some occasions than others. His movements during the time the murders were occurring were very mysterious. He had not the appearance of a working man and admitted that his parents, although in a good position, would have nothing to do with him, as he had been a scapegrace. His brother, who she understood was a doctor, visited him on two occasions and appeared much older than he. She has no doubt the man she suspects is English, but he spoke with a nasal twang, evidently affected, and used the word "Boss" very frequently in conversation. He usually rose at two in the afternoon, and would go out about five o'clock, invariably wearing a tall hat and dressed very respectably, but as he had a large number of suits of clothes, he often dressed differently, or as she puts it: "He was a man who could so alter his appearance that if you met him in the street once you would not know him again." His clothes were mostly of the best quality, and included dress, shooting and morning suits. On one occasion he gave the woman a dark-coloured overcoat to sell, and she offered it to the wife of a working man. The latter, however, pointed out that it was so stained with blood that she would not let her husband wear it. The patches, which were of a dull brown, were thought by the woman to be paint, but when she returned it to the mysterious lodger with an intimation that she could not sell it because of the blood, he laughed lightly, saying the stains were nothing. Nevertheless he burnt the coat, for she subsequently discovered the remains, together with the horn buttons, in the grate. As the murders were committed, her suspicions were increased, but she did not communicate them to anyone until the day following the discovery of the body in Pinchin street. She went to clean the bedroom as usual, when she found upon the three mats footmarks of blood, and upon one a large clot of the same substance. She then spoke of her suspicions to an official connected with the model dwellings but he evidently believing that an arrest would bring the buildings into disrepute, advised her to say nothing of the matter. As time went on, and the murders continued, she saw in his room many articles which were blood stained, although he never would allow her to enter the room alone, but remained with her while she performed her work. The lumber-room she never entered, for he kept the key, and on occasion when she wished to enter it for various purposes he always told her to go upstairs to her own apartments. With regard to the "Jack the Ripper" post-cards, the man always wrote his letters in red ink, of which he had a large bottle on the mantel-shelf. Upon the same shelf, too, she first noticed one brass wedding ring, but the number was afterwards increased until there were five, and these he left when he suddenly disappeared. On one occasion she found a piece of dirty rag screwed up and concealed behind a chest of drawers. This she discovered to be a portion apparently from a woman's print apron, and on taking it upstairs she saw it was blood stained. She washed it, and has it still in her possession. The pattern of the apron may form an important clue. The most remarkable fact, however, is that on the night of each of the murders he was absent, returning at early morning. On the morning of the Castle Alley murder he disappeared, having previously sold the whole of his belongings.
LATEST DETAILS.
A representative of the "People" who visited Whitechapel last night succeeded in obtaining some additional particulars which add considerably to the sensational character of the woman's story. She states that several times during the period the man lived in the model dwellings she informed her husband of her suspicions, but until the discovery of the blood upon the mats, he treated the matter indifferently. Afterwards, however, he urged her to make a statement to the police, but the reason she refused was owing to the representations made to her by the official connected with the buildings. The strange man she describes an accomplished linguist and able to speak French and German fluentlym as she frequently heard him in conversation with some foreigners who lived on the same floor. His general demeanor was sullen and uncommunicative, although at times he would speak freely of his relations, who, according to his account, were in good positions, one brother, the doctor who visited him, residing in the neighborhood of Oxford street. He also told her he had travelled for several years in the United States and Canada, and that the refusal of his relations to recognise him preyed upon his mind. One incident she relates is particularly gruesome. His favorite dish was sheep's liver, which he usually ate several times a week, and on entering his room on one occasion he had a quantity of it upon the table. He offered her some, which she accepted. She cooked it for dinner for herself and her husband, but after they had both eaten a small quantity the latter remarked upon its unusual color. They agreed that it tasted peculiar, and subsequently she threw it away. Later the same day she again went into the man's room, and it was then she observed him packing up a portion of the liver, and addressing it to the Chairman of the Vigilance Committee. Her horror when it was afterwards stated that the packet the committee received contained a portion of human viscera, may readily be imagined. Upon another occasion she found secreted in the room a colored linen shirt, the cuffs and sleeves of which were still wet with blood. She did not remove it, but on the next day, when entering the room, she observed that the shirt, which had been washed, was hanging upon a chair and drying before the fire. She also states that the man was in the habit if spending his evenings at the Tuns (?), at Aldgate, and was well known among the regular customers at that house. He usually sat in the private bar, and on many occasions she saw him carrying beer in cans up to his room. Another fact that increased her suspicions was that immediately after one of the murders he locked up his rooms and remained away for about two months, during which period no crimes of this particular character were reported in the vicinity. When he returned, he remarked that he had been living in the West End, but was glad to return to his old lodgings, as in the West people kept such a strict watch over a perons's movements, when in the East he was not subjected to that annoyance. Three nights afterwards another murder was perpetrated with the same daring, and enshrouded in the same mystery as its predecessors. So convinced was she that he was the Whitechapel murderer, and so frequently did she observe blood in his room that she gradually grew to regard him with awe, and this, in a great measure accounts for her previous silence. Throughout the whole period his conduct was so strange that it coulds scarcely fail to awaken suspicion, and this, together with the locked room, and the mysterious boxes which he admitted contained things he could not allow to be seen even if it cost him his life, were circumstances which caused both husband and wife much conjecture. There was little doubt, too, that he sent communications to the Press Association and Central News, for she declares that she once saw either envelopes or postcards addressed to them, although she believes that those she saw were subsequently destroyed. After he had disappeared so mysteriously prior to the Castle Alley murder, he sent her a letter which she received on the following day, stating that he had met with an accident, and that she need not expect him home. It was eventually discovered, however, that before his departure he had sold all his belongings - including many suits of clothes and several revolvers - to a ship's mate, who, a few days later, called and took them away. After the lapse of a few weeks, the woman and her husband removed from the model dwellings to the house in which they now reside, and as the sensation caused by the mysterious crimes died out of the public mind, so the suspicion seems to have died out of her's until three days ago. On Wednesday evening she was walking in Commercial road, when, to her astonishment, she recognised the man, standing on the kerb in conversation with a well known tradesman of the district, whose name she declines to divulge, but who, she has acsertained, is a friend of his. Thefactof the recent "Jack the Ripper" letters, coupled with his sudden reappearance, again aroused her suspicions and she subsequently discovered his abode, also that during his absence from the East End he has married. Shehas seen his wife, and had entered into conversation withher. The latter she describes as a rather pretty young woman of about twenty five, but whose face wears a strange look. and by whose manner she same to the conclusion that it was slightly deranged. The woman has not the slighest doubt as to the sanity of the man. She firmly adheres to her statement, and, according to the person who was present when she told her story to Mr. Backert, she declares herself unable to keep the secret any longer. Although she is endeavoring to avoid being interrogated by the police, there is reason to believe that the latter are already making most diligent inquiries into the truth of the statement and endeavoring to discover the individual she refers to. It is known that he lives near Aldgate Station.
|
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:21 am: | |
Hi, Chris:
Well this is indeed an incredible story and a great find. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. The pub mentioned would be "The Three Tuns" sometimes called "The Three Nuns" in Aldgate which features in another story on the Casebook. This reported information from Bachert once more confirms that Albert Bachert appears worthy of close scrutiny.
All the best
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 125
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hi Chris G
Glad you found the account useful and I have plenty more to post once it is typed up!!!
ChrisS |
Scott Nelson
Police Constable
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
I echo CG's sentiments, a great find Chris. However I would caution against accepting that a "woman" told this story to Bachert. Recall, Bachert told a similar story about meeting a man in the bar of the Three Nuns Hotel on the night of the double murder. Here, two years later, we get a few extra tidbits thrown into the "woman's" story, events which by then were well know to the public: the red ink, postcards/letters to the press/police, the use of the word "boss', the kidney, the piece of Eddowes' apron, wearing disguises, missing rings, etc. It's an early lodger story, similar to the one known about a man who lived above a fish shop in the Minories who burned his blood-stained clothing and stayed out all night wearing different clothes each night. Bachert was untrustworthy and may have invented the story of the woman and her lodger for publicity.
On the other hand, there may be a kernel of truth to Bachert's story about the woman's mysterious loger. The time of the story is interesting, November 1890. City Detective Robert Sager said that the police kept surveillance on a man who they thought was JtR in Butchers' Row, Aldgate (essentially Aldgate-High Street). This may be reflected in the journalist's closing remarks that the police "are already making most diligent inquiries ...and endeavoring to discover the individual she refers to."
Bachert also seems to have been connected with Aldgate-High Street area and possibly Butchers' Row. An article in a police file copied from the New York Herald (September 1889?) states that Mr. Albert Backert has said that the police at Leman-street Station received a letter stating that a tall, strong woman attired as a man has been working at slaughter-houses in Aldgate and Whitechapel. Again, Bachert's story of the letter may be questionable, since police records do not indicate such an inquiry occurred (from the Ultimate Sourcebook pp 536-7) |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 126
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 5:31 pm: | |
Hi scott
Thanks for the comments:-)
I also appreciate your caution - I believe no one involved in this case - least of all Mr bachert!
But I think as a version of the Lodger story- and the earliest Ive seen - it is of interest
Thanks again for your post
chris S |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 10:45 am: | |
Hi, Chris and Scott:
I do think Albert Bachert deserves closer scrutiny given all the connections that he appears to have with the case. At the very least, he seems to have been a "stirrer" wishing to involve himself in the case, whether everything he had to say about the case was true or not. In this sense, he seems very much like D'Onston who similarly willfully inserted himself into the investigation at various points. Whether that makes either of them any more than a busybody or an interesting party, I don't know, but certainly the connections of both Roslyn D'Onston and Albert Bachert to the case are curious and intriguing.
All the best
Chris |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
There are at least two other ‘Lodger' reports that pre date this article. The first, and perhaps earliest known example, was published in the Daily News on 16 October, 1888. This article tells of the lodger who disappeared from his rooms in Batty Street part of which reads:
"The lodger, it is stated, returned home early on the Sunday morning, and the landlady was disturbed by his moving about. She got up very early, and noticed that her lodger had changed some of his clothes. He told her he was going away for a little time, and asked her to wash his shirt which he had taken off, and get it ready for him by the time he came back. As he had been in the habit of going away now and then, she did not think much at the time, and soon afterwards he went out. On looking at his shirt she was astonished to find the wristbands and part of the sleeves saturated with blood. The appearance struck her as very strange, and when she heard of the murders here suspicions were aroused."
The most famous ‘Lodger' story is the one first told by Forbes Winslow to a reporter from the London edition of the New York Herald published on 19 September 1889, (pre dating the People article by fourteen months). This story created a storm of interest from several British newspapers and resulted in a press conference held on the 20th of September where the story was elaborated on. The result was a visit to Forbes Winslow by Chief Inspector Swanson himself who wanted to know the details of the lodger story and why none of the information had been given to the police.
Although the story from the People, reported in the Port Philip Herald, is not the same as Forbes Winslow's tale there are enough similarities in the details of the two lodgers to wonder if parts of the later article was not merely copied from the earlier reports.
Both men came from "superior" backgrounds. Both men were described as having large wardrobes. Both men owned revolvers. Both men had been to North America. Both men were fluent in several languages. Both men kept peculiar hours. Both men were seen with blood on their clothes. Both men wrote letters or missives that they left behind. Both men also left behind what were described as "silent" shoes and an overcoat. Both men were later seen and recognized after they had supposedly disappeared
Add to this some serious flaws in the People's story such as a portion of liver having been sent to George Lusk, rather than a piece of kidney, or the tangled timeline. We are told of the lodger that "On the morning of the Castle Alley murder he disappeared, having previously sold the whole of his belongings," and yet we are also told that the lodger was still living in his rooms at the time of the Pinchin Street murder. The murder of Alice McKenzie in Castle Ally took place on 17 July, 1889 while the Pinchin Street torso was found on 10 Sept. 1889, or, two months after we are told the lodger had already disappeared. This might be explained if the two had become transposed.
The article mentions that the lodger had left after the Castle Ally murder more than once but it is interesting to note that the letter states "on the morning of the last murder (the Castle Alley) he left and has never returned." As of 22 November 1890, when the article appeared, the "last" murder had not been the Castle Ally murder but the Pinchin Street murder. Did the lodger disappear after the discovery of the Pinchin torso? If so, then this was also the date that Forbes Winslow's lodger disappeared.
Wolf. |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 142
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi Wolf
many thanks for the very useful notes and comments
Chris S |
John Ruffels
Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 7:03 am: | |
Interesting stuff.
I first encountered the November 1890 "Lodger" story in the Australian newspaper the ST ARNAUD MERCURY of 29 November,1890.As mentioned in the"A to Z of JTR", this was reprinted from the NEW YORK WORLD.(11 November,1890).Much truncated.
The only portion not quoted in the version by Chris Scott from the PORT PHILIP HERALD (also an Australian newspaper) but in the ST ARNAUD MERCURY, is a brief mention that during the "Jack The Ripper" scare, women were employed as detectives.
The ST ARNAUD MERCURY article was given, in my opinion, undeserved prominence as possibly, being the elusive "THE EAST END MURDERER: I KNEW HIM"
document, spoiling an, otherwise excellent chapter on the mysterious Dandenong document, by Messrs Howells & Skinner in their well-researched book, THE RIPPER LEGACY.
The only interesting thing to note was that the article was published in a country town in Victoria, Australia in 1890 whilst a medico named Dr Lionel Druitt was in the town.
F.Eric Hermes first told me the original of the lodger story eminated from THE DAILY CHRONICLE.London.(Possibly around 11 November 1890).
I find it interesting that Forbes Winslow's early lodger story was revealed in another New York newspaper, the NEW YORK HERALDand the Australian one from the NEW YORK WORLD.
Well done, again, Chris Scott. |
scott chapman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 4:14 pm: | |
Hi,
Some of you may have noticed me before, i am Albert Bachert's Great Great Nephew! I also believe that my uncle requires further investigation, if only for the fact that he always got involved in the Ripper case.
|
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hi, Scott:
Any more information on Albert Bachert? If you have anything fresh and interesting we would be interested in publishing it in Ripperologist. One big thing would be to know if a photograph or other portrait of Mr. Bachert is known. Feel free to e-mail me at editorctrip@yahoo.com.
All the best
Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist |
Pete Lang
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 7:03 pm: | |
Re:Chris Scott`s Latest Details article.They sold beer in cans in 1888 ??? |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:20 am: | |
Hi Chris Scott:
This material you have discovered is astounding. If the information proves to be as credible as it first sounds, this is potentially the most revealing evidence to turn up since the murders.
Your wrote: "I have plenty more to post once it is typed up!!!" For heavens sake, man, TYPE!!!
You also wrote: "I believe no one involved in this case - least of all Mr bachert!"
It's fine to be skeptical. But let's not write off anyone without just cause. There are too many people named in this account for it to have been just the figment of a vigilante's imagination.
I am not clear on at least one key point. Everything you posted came from the Australian newspaper -- which refers to articles in "The People," a Conservative London newspaper. Has anyone checked out what what actually printed in "The People"? What I do not understand is this: if this material was published in The People in London in 1890, and if the police were actively investigating this woman's claims, then how come this woman's information is a revelation in 2004? I know there are several other Lodger stories. But none as detailed and apparently authentic as this one. I would have thought that the Victorian press would have had a field day with this story, and it would be common knowledge today. How is it possible that this woman's identity was never discovered, even if she wanted to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. The People's reporter who interviewed her not only saw her, he had enough information in his article for the police or any reporter to track her down. Where are the police reports investigating her story? In sum, how could something like this come out 116 years later in Australia -- and not in London in 1890? Didn't Backert contact every London paper with this story? Even in 1890, after the Ripper hysteria had died down, a story like this one would have been printed in every paper. And sold tens of thousands of copies. Then there was lots of reward money posted by various individuals for Ripper information. The landlady and her husband were not interested in this reward money if it led to the RIpper's arrest? Something doesn't add up here.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 11:46 pm: | |
After re-reading yet again the material published in the Port Phillip Herald and The People, one point stands out as absolutely incomprehensible. Why didn't the landlady name her lodger?
The reporter for The People wrote: "Much difficulty was experienced in obtaining [the interview], the chief reason being that she is hiding her identity, as she does not wish to be mixed up in the affair, and declares that she is afraid the man she suspects will do her bodily injury. So careful has she been that the police had not up to yesterday afternoon, succeeded in finding her, or obtaining the following details of her statement."
OK, the landlady was hiding HER identity in fear of retaliation. But here she was, first speaking to Albert Bachert, and later speaking to the reporter from The People -- giving a detailed description of The Lodger's appearance, activities, and supposedly his family relations. From her tale, one can deduce that she hosted The Lodger for at least a year -- from the time of Whitechapel Murders until the Castle Alley Murder. She describes many conservations between herself and The Lodger. She HAD to have known his name. How did she address him for a year???
Even more amazing than the fact that she did not volunteer HIS name is the fact that no where in this account does Bachert say he asked her the Lodger's name. Same with the reporter for The People, he never asks her the Lodger's name. She gives a detailed description of the Lodger, claims he was Jack The Ripper, and then she never reveals the man's name? It makes no sense. If she was afraid of retaliation (even after she and her husband had moved from the rooming house,) then why did she speak to the press? Obviously, the Lodger knew who his landlady was, and where he could find her to do her harm. Did this landlady believe that if she spoke to the press, and her description and account appeared in the London papers, the Ripper would never see it?? There must be more to this story than meets the eye.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hi, Mark:
You wrote:
"What I do not understand is this: if this material was published in The People in London in 1890, and if the police were actively investigating this woman's claims, then how come this woman's information is a revelation in 2004?. . . Where are the police reports investigating her story? In sum, how could something like this come out 116 years later in Australia -- and not in London in 1890?"
To clarify, this is an old news story that Chris Scott found in an Australian newspaper of 1890, not a story that has just come out recently in Australia in a newspaper of today.
While there may be something to the story, I believe that Scott Nelson in his post of Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 4:51 pm above is probably correct that the story is more probably a concoction by Albert Bachert, a known publicity seeker, who for some reason or another inserted himself into the Ripper investigation, possibly in his eagerness to get the police moving on the case, or simply because he enjoyed being in the limelight.
As Scott pointed out, there are too many ingredients in the story that are a bit too good to be true--the bloodstained clothing, the red ink for writing letters, the disguises, the piece of apron, the stolen rings, his use of the term "Boss" and the pieces of "liver" which the lodger was going to eat or send in the mail. . .
All the best
Chris |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
For me, the biggest warning sign in the this story, as Scott Nelson wrote, is the "Three Tuns" reference. The appearance is that Bachert is trying to use this lodger story to confirm his own alleged encounter in 1888, and the Toby Baskett letter he was supposed to have received that same year. There was another Bachert letter from 1889 which also had the term "Boss" in it, as well (very near the first anniversary of the Toby Baskett letter).
I think it's interesting that Bachert felt the need to say that someone else was present when he first heard this woman's story. It's almost as if someone was questioning his reliability. Maybe I'm reading too much into that one short statement, but I wonder if Bachert hadn't begun wearing out his welcome.
If I'm not mistaken (and I very well might be), this 1890 lodger story is kind of Bachert's last hurrah, isn't it? After it, it seems all downhill for him: Wynne Baxter dresses him down during the Frances Coles inquest, The Times calls him an "agitator" and then he gets locked up for charity fraud.
Cheers,
Dave |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 460
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 6:05 am: | |
For the record, the exchange at the Coles inquest as reported in the Times was as follows:
On the names of the jurymen summoned being called out by the Coroner’s officer, it was found that only eight answered, the remainder of those present being substitutes. Some of the latter were accepted, but when Mr. Backert, the chairman of the so-called Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, offered himself as a substitute in place of a Mr. Fielder, the Coroner declined to allow him to serve.
Mr. Backert. - Why?
The CORONER. - Because I decline.
Mr. Backert. - You decline simply because I happen to be chairman of the Vigilance Committee, and you think I shall fully investigate this matter. I have a right to be on the jury.
The CORONER. - I have decided you are not to serve on this jury.
Mr. Backert. - Yes; because you know I shall inquire into the case.
The CORONER. - You have already been told I shall decline to accept you.
Mr. Backert (walking to the back of the court). - You will hear more of this.
The jury, having been sworn, proceeded to view the body. On their return Mr. Backert, addressing the Coroner, said:- "It was only after you heard who I was that you would not allow me to serve on the jury."
The CORONER. - If you do not keep quiet I will have you ejected from the room. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 2:41 am: | |
Could The Lodger in the Aldgate Rooming House have been Walter Sickert?
I have been examining Chris Scott's amazing evidence with this question in mind. I am not
claiming now to have a clear-cut answer. There is so much evidence in the landlady's testimony to sift through, weighing it for clues will
undoubtedly be a long and laborious process -- undertaken by many hands.
Nevertheless, there are certain statements in the Port Philip Herald's account that literally
jump off the page. For me, the most important by far is the landlady's statement about the Lodger's linguistic abilities.
While many aspects of this Lodger's appearance and actions might be explained away by theories about disguises, makeup, eccentricities, etc., there is no way anyone could have faked, over
an extended period of time, the remarkable linguistic abilities ascribed to this lodger by the landlady.
First, Bachert stated: "She has no doubt the man she suspects is English, but he spoke with a nasal twang, evidently affected, and used the word "Boss" very frequently in conversation.."
Second, Bachert adds: "The strange man she describes an accomplished linguist and able to
speak French and German fluently, as she frequently heard him in conversation with some foreigners who lived on the same floor."
While no one knows the linguistic abilities of each and every Ripper suspect, it has been
documented in numerous sources that one of these suspects, Walter Sickert -- an Englishman born in Germany who considered himself a French painter -- spoke fluent English, German and French.
Every word in the landlady's testimony indicates that we are not talking about an Englishman who tried out some phrases of tourist French or rudimentary German on some foreign visitors.
The landlady may well have been incapable of understanding a word of French or German. But that does not mean that she could not judge -- by sound, speed, and the length of the conversations between the lodger and the foreign roomers -- that the Lodger was indeed fluent in French and German. Fluency in these three particular languages is an not unknown skill, of course, especially among educated people -- but everyone must admit that it is certainly rare. If the
landlady's Lodger was indeed Jack The Ripper, then his trilingual fluency could help serve to eliminate just about every other suspect except Walter Sickert.
Then there is also the matter of nasal twang when the lodger spoke English. And the landlady
thought the twang sounded affected. Cornwell documented in great detail Sickert's love/hate
fascination with his mentor, the American painter James MacNeil Whistler, and how this fascination became an obsession -- pushing Sickert to imitate
Whistler in his dress (including the string bbowtie) and his personal mannerisms. Whistler
spoke American, with a pronounced nasal twang. And according to Cornwell, Whistler was fond of
exclaiming "Ha, ha, ha" and using the word "boss." The possibility that Sickert affected a nasal twang when he resided in this
rooming house also suggests to me that Sickert might have been leading a double life at that
point in his strange existence. On one hand, as the absentee husband of Ellen in North London;
and on the other, as the mysterious English "scapegrace" with Whistler's twang in Aldgate.
Moreover, it must be recalled that in 1890, Sickert was not yet an established painter. It was only a few years before the Whitechapel Murders that Sickert had abandoned his attempts at an acting career.
These are not the only clues in the landlady's description that lead me in this direction. But as I noted, there is much to ponder in this material. What remains to do in the case of
Walter Sickert is to examine each of the clues in the Port Philip Herald against Sickert's known
activities. And in cases of conflicts, one must try out alternate possible explanations before throwing Sickert out as a mismatch.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 1:45 am: | |
Christopher George wrote:
>To clarify, this is an old news story that Chris Scott found in an Australian newspaper of 1890, not a story that has just come out recently in Australia in a newspaper of today.
Maybe, I didn't express myself clearly. I understood from the outset that the story came out in 1890, first in The People, and soon after in the Port Philip Herald -- and not out of an Australian newspaper today.
There is a substantial quotation of Bachert's letter in David O'Flaherty's dissertation on Albert Bachert on Casebook.org. However, because O'Flaherty's dissertation is undated, it is not clear to me whether Chris Scott arrived first with the material published in the Port Philip Herald and David O'Flaherty used it without crediting Scott, or O'Flaherty discovered it on his own before Scott. Either way, it is plainly evident that this woman's account was not common knowledge among Ripperologists.
When I wrote "how come this woman's information is a revelation in 2004?", I meant to say: not anyone on this thread, not the anonymous author who wrote The Lodger article for Casebook.org, not Sugden, not Rumblebow, not Begg, not RIpper Notes, not even the great great nephew of Albert Backert himself was apparently aware of the existence of this unnamed woman's Lodger story. It is clear that this woman's story is not the same story as the Lodger of Batty St., nor the Lodger tales told by Forbes Winslow, nor by Belloc Lowdnes in a piece of short fiction, nor by Walter Sickert (to OSbert Sitwell and also the subject matter of Jack The Ripper's Bedroom.) Somehow, this amazing account never attracted any public attention back in 1890. It got buried in the morgue of old newspaper files. While it was Chris Scott's good fortune to have stumbled upon this 1890 review of the woman's account in the old files of an Australian newspaper last May, I am wondering: How come in 114 years other researchers did not come upon the original material published in The People of London. That is why Chris Scott's Australian discovery qualifies as a revelation in my book.
Perhaps the most shocking omission is in the recently published book "Jack The Ripper and The London Press" by L. Perry Curtis Jr. This is an erudite, academic study of London press coverage of the Whitechapel Murders -- and it not only goes through microscopically a vast number of London newspapers and magazines, it also mentions many articles in The People. However, there is no mention in Curtis' book of this woman's story nor of Albert Bachert. Curtis lists a huge amount of material under 'The Aftermath' of the Whitechapel Murders. But, evidently, 1890 was no longer the aftermath.
Finally, I find bewildering the several attempts on this thread thus far to discredit this woman's account -- not by carefully examining her testimony, but rather by attacking the credibily of Albert Bachert. Albert Bachert, unreliable scoundrel that he may have been, is not the issue here. If it was simply a matter of Bachert's word, then his credibility and motives might indeed be suspect. However, The People sent out its own reporter and interviewed this woman. This reporter, in an article much more detailed than Bachert's letter, corroborated that the woman had indeed said what Backert said she said. And then the reporter continued to reveal an astounding trove of highly detailed information from what must be considered a highly credible source. There is nothing in any of Scott's material that casts any suspicion on the woman's veracity -- even though, as I have pointed out in previous posts, some aspects of her story do not make sense, at least to me. But that is probably because her account is incomplete.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 7:24 pm: | |
Mark:
You wrote: "There is a substantial quotation of Bachert's letter in David O'Flaherty's dissertation on Albert Bachert on Casebook.org. However, because O'Flaherty's dissertation is undated, it is not clear to me whether Chris Scott arrived first with the material published in the Port Philip Herald and David O'Flaherty used it without crediting Scott, or O'Flaherty discovered it on his own before Scott."
To answer your question, I did not originally introduce the Port Phillip Herald article on Casebook. I wrote my summary in October 2003 (I know it's grouped with the dissertations, but it's actually just meant to be a summary). That's well after this thread was started. Actually I'd missed this thread entirely until you first posted here, so I was unaware Chris was the person who initially found it. If you're familiar with the Casebook's Press Project, you'll know that usually the provider of any article is generally not named--you can see this is the case with the Port Phillip Herald story. That's where my access to the article in question comes from--The Press Project. So Chris did not receive any credit for the article, nor did Adrian Phyper (Viper), who probably was responsible for the appearance of some of the other articles I reference. Probably the best thing to have done was reference the Press Project, but I figured that was understood (since the articles are all linked at the bottom of the summary), and I was writing specifically for Casebook. But what I didn't figure for was the person who might read it and not be overly familiar with the Press Project. It seemed to me that it was enough to reference the date and name of the appropriate newspaper.
Anyway, if you read the rest of my summary, you will see that Chris Scott is actually referenced four or five times in connection with the census information he provided to me. Because I traded quite a few e-mails with him regarding Albert Bachert and William Avenell while I was writing, I showed Chris the summary before it went live--probably because he's a modest person, he never mentioned being the person who came across this article. I also reference Chris George, who, in some private correspondence, gave me an opinion on when Bachert might have joined the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. I also referenced Casebook dissertations and archived Casebook conversations which were not linked at the bottom of the summary, and which the reader would not find on this current incarnation of Casebook.
So I hope I've cleared up this misunderstanding--I don't take credit for other people's work, and never wrote that I was the person responsible for finding the Port Phillip Herald article, or intended to give that impression. Actually as far as credit goes, I didn't even bother to add my byline to either the Bachert summary or Blanchard article--Stephen Ryder was kind enough to tack that on for me. I hope this answers your question.
If you have any other questions or criticisms, feel free to drop me a line. I'm always glad to hear from people here at Casebook, and appreciate constructive criticism.
Apologies for going off-topic. I would have answered you privately, Mark, but I wanted to respond to your question in public, lest people should think I'm some conducting some sort of rip-off here.
Best,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on February 25, 2004)
(Message edited by oberlin on February 25, 2004) |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:06 pm: | |
Mark,
I can't help but think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the person referred to here is Sickert. We know Sickert was in France for the time that the crimes took place.
It's one thing to suggest he's popping over for a quick kill, but I don't see how he could be maintaining "dual" lodgings in both France and London without someone noting the absences at either end.
Regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:07 pm: | |
I'd have to agree with Wolf Vanderlinden's assessment above that the Port Philip Herald article is probably a slightly garbled version of Forbes Winslow's lodger story, featuring G. Wentworth Bell-Smith. (See Evans & Skinner's Companion, pg. 538-540 for Swanson's report). Among other things, Bell Smith was said to be heard "speaking several languages"...which fits the story exactly.
I've long suspected that the lodger story has some basis in reality, as there was a prominent artistic family call Bell-Smith or Bellsmith in the Toronto area. Chris Scott has posted some information along these lines recently. The most interesting fun-fact I've found is that there was definitely a "H.W. Bellsmith" (probably the same Henry Wentworth Bellsmith mentioned by Mr. Scott) who was in the UK in the Autumn of 1888. He is listed as leaving Southampton aboard the steamer "Fulda" shortly before the Kelly murder, landing in New York City on 14 November, 1888. Was G.W. Bell-Smith related to him? RP |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
John Hacker wrote:
"I can't help but think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the person referred to here is Sickert. We know Sickert was in France for the time that the crimes took place. It's one thing to suggest he's popping over for a quick kill, but I don't see how he could be maintaining "dual" lodgings in both France and London without someone noting the absences at either end."
John,
I just finished posting a long article on this very subject in the Suspects/General Discussion Section. But since I would like to be sure that you see it, and I have no idea how to link this post to my earlier one, I will just copy and paste what I just wrote elsewhere.
There is no factual case whatsoever for a claim of alibi in France for Walter Sickert.
First of all, we are not dealing here with a closed universe of crimes. There is no proof, only speculation, that all five of the Whitechapel Murders were committed by one man, Jack The Ripper. On the contrary, many serious investigators claim that Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were not slain by Jack in the Double Event. Others claim that Mary Kelley was not slain by Jack. And there is no proof, only speculation, that Jack The Ripper killed only the five canonical victims in Whitechapel. On the contrary, Jack is a serious suspect in the eyes of many in at least six murders and perhaps as many as the combined total of 18 who are listed as victims on Casebook.
Consequently, even if Sickert were factually eliminated as a possible suspect in one or even several of these murders, that would still not prove Sickert couldn't possibly have been Jack The Ripper. So even before I examine the separate claims of alibi, it is obvious that the premise for any claim of alibi for Walter Sickert is fundamentally flawed -- unless it can document that Sickert was in France at the exact moment each and every one of these crimes was committed in London.
If you claim that Walter Sickert could not have been Jack The Ripper, and it is not known today exactly which women Jack The Ripper killed, then you cannot pick and choose your victims to fit your alibi theory. Walter Sickert may well have killed some of the canonical Whitechapel victims and some of the other victims, and have been Jack The Ripper. Or Walter Sickert may well have killed some of the Whitechapel victims, and some of the other victims, and someone else was Jack The Ripper.
Matthew Sturgis, a biographer of Sickert, started the alibi ball rolling with an article in the Sunday Times in Nov. 2003. However, his evidence is either full of holes or inadmissably vague. For reasons of conciseness and convenience, I will use Stephen Ryder's resumé of Sturgis' evidence in the article "Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert: A Primer" on Casebook; and also a post by Wolf Vanderline on Jan 30.
Exhibit 1:
"According to Sturgis, although the exact date Sickert left for France can not be determined, he apparently departed sometime in mid-August. His last London sketch is dated August 4th, and there are no sources to indicate that he was in London after that date."
This is a perfect example of the specious logic on which Sturgis built his alibi house of cards. He says that Sickert's last sketch is dated Aug. 4, and there are no sources documenting that he was in London after that date. Sturgis then claims that the lack of sources documenting that Sickert was in London means that Sickert departed London in mid-August. A non sequitur, if there ever was one! What if Sickert had been working on an oil painting (which usually took him several months to paint)? There would be no entry dates on the painting if he had not finished it. Because Sturgis could not find any sources documenting that Sickert was in London after that date, therefore Sturgis maintains that Sickert was not in London after that date. This is patent nonsense. No one, not Sturgis nor any of the alibi claimants, can prove that Walter Sickert left London for France in August, 1888.
Sturgis' claim that no documents show Sickert was in London after August 4 is also factually false. Cornwell repudiates Sturgis' claim with her own research. In her book, she states: "Dates in Sickert's handwriting on music hall sketches prove that in 1888, [Sickert] was in London from February 4 through March "and after", in his words, and including in the spring, on May 25, and at some point during June, July, August, September and October." The fact that Sickert was definitely in London at times during August, September and October is suffient evidence to totally demolish any claims that Sickert could not have traveled back and forth to France.
Exhibit 2:
There is a letter by Sickert, written in France some time in the autumn of 1888. It is undated. No envelope with a postmark survivies. So while I will concede that this letter does document that Sickert was indeed in France during the autumn of 1888, the letter does not say when he was France; the letter does not say for how long he was in France; the letter does not say where he was in France; the letter does not say if he traveled back to England, even briefly, during his stay in France. So by itself, this letter only serves to document that Sickert traveled to France in the autumn of 1888 at least once, but no one knows when he returned to London..
Exhibit 3:
On September 6th, Sickert's mother wrote from St. Valéry-en-Caux, describing how Walter and his brother Bernhard were having such a "happy time" swimming and painting there.
Accepting this letter on its face value, Sickert must have been in St. Valery-en-Caux on or before Sept. 6. (Of course, Sickert's mom could have gotten the date wrong, but I will let that slide.) Sickert's mother did not say in her letter when Walter arrived in St. Valery-en-Caux. She did not say on what day (or days) he and his brother were swimming and painting. She did not mention how long he had been staying there. So, this letter does not eliminate Walter Sickert as a suspect in the murder of Polly Nichols in London on August 31. Moreover, Sickert's mother did not say on Sept. 6 if Walter would be leaving St. Valery-en-Caux soon, possibly for Dieppe -- where he often stayed. He could have left on the 7th, been in London on the 8th, killed Annie Chapman during the night, and have returned on the ferry to Dieppe by the 9th. Such a trip was not only easy, quick and cheap, it would provide a perfect cover for anyone so clever as Jack The Ripper or Walter Sickert.
What neither Stephen Ryder nor Wolf Vanderline point out is another letter, mentioned in Cornwell, in which Sickert's mother claimed she never knew when her son would suddenly go to France or suddenly come back. Cornwell also states "Crossing the English Channel could take as little as four hours in good weather. One could travel by express train and "fast" steamer seven days a week, twice daily, with the trains leaving Victoria Station at 10:30 in the morning or London Bridge at 10:45. The steamer sailed out of Newhaven at 12:45 pm and arrived in Dieppe around dinner. A single, one-way first-class ticket to Dieppe was 24 shillings, second class was 17 shillings." Cornwell also documents that "In the late 19th Century, passports, visas, and other forms of identification were not required to travel on the Continent."
Exhibit 4
"A letter sent by a French painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche, to his father described a visit with Sickert on September 16th."
It was not until Sept 30 that the next murders took place in Whitechapel: the Double Event. So Sickert's visit to Blanche on the 16th does not remotely conflict with the Double Event. A time-gap of two weeks in an alibi is rubbish.
Exhibit 5
"There is a letter dated 21 September from Sickert's wife, who stayed in London, to her brother-in-law in which she states that Sickert was in France and had been "for some weeks with his people," i.e. his family."
On vagueness alone, this letter has no factual significance. Moreover, Sickert's wife Ellen knew only what she was told by Walter -- whom Ellen would eventually divorce because of his infidelities, lying and absenteeism. She had no way of verifying his whereabouts. And this was at a time when she herself was frequently traveling to and from Ireland and various English cities as part of her activities in behalf of women's sufferage. If Sickert returned to England from France to committ murders in Whitechapel, he certainly would not have stayed overnight with his wife. There is no way in the world she could have known whether or not he was in London.
Exhibit 6
"Sickert friend, Daniel Halévy, wrote in his diary that "This summer Sickert came to see Mama" presumably in Paris but possibly in the French countryside or seaside."
So what! Sometime in the summer? When was that? June? July? August? If anything, this letter indicates that Sickert made more than one trip to France that year.
Exhibit 6
"There is evidence to suggest that Sickert stayed in the Dieppe area at least until early October, 1888. He painted a local butcher's shop, "flooded with sunlight" in a piece he titled The October Sun."
There were no murders in Whitechapel in OCtober of 1888. The Double Event took place on September 30. Mary Kelly was murdered on Nov. 9. Who knows when or where Sickert painted this butcher shop. This is the sort of flimsy speculation that tries to pass as proof of an alibi in a serial murder case.
In sum, there is no substance whatsoever to any claim of alibi. What does an alibi mean? It means proof that someone was in another place, not the scene of the crime, at the exact moment a crime was committed. There is no alibi for Walter Sickert for any of the five canonical Whitechapel Murders. There is no alibi for Walter Sickert for any of the other potential RIpper-victims listed on Casebook. It is about time that this canard was laid to rest.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:57 pm: | |
Hi David:
Thanks for your clarification. My comments were not meant to imply that you had ripped Chris off or taken credit for the material he posted. I only meant that because your dissertation was not dated, it was not clear to me which one came up with the Port Philip material first, or whether you both came up with it independently at more-or-less the same time. My point was: either way, it does seem clear that prior to Chris' posts and your dissertation appearing on Casebook, none of the expert Ripperologists or publications for 114 years has ever mentioned the existence of this remarkable Lodger story. And that would still seem to be true taking into consideration that the Port Philip material has also appeared in the Casebook Press Project.
I think that the material first published in'The People' (to give it a more accurate name) posted in this thread by Chris Scott can be called potentially the most important hard evidence about the Whitechappel Murders ever to surface in more than a century. I hope the discussion here does not become blindsided with arguments about Albert Bachert's credibility. Bachert is not the witness in this account. The landlady is the witness -- and suddenly, out of the blue -- we have her detailed direct testimony. Moreover there is corroboration of her story by the reporter from The People -- a Conservative London newspaper which, if L. Percy Curtis' new book is to be trusted, was one of the more responsible newspapers covering the Whitechapel Murders. The People's reporter did not verify that the Lodger was Jack The Ripper. But By interviewing the landlady, he verified that the story Bachert told in his letter accurately represented her testimony. The reporter also extracted many more valuable details from her. The reporter's interview makes this landlady's account virtually unique among possible eyewitnesses. (The landlady was not an eyewitness to the murders, but potentially an eyewitness to The RIpper's ancilliary activities -- which are extremely suspicious, if not actually incriminating.) She was questioned thoroughly by a professional investigator looking into the case: the reporter.
I see no basis whatsoever for Christopher George's allegation that "the story is more probably a concoction by Albert Bachert, a known publicity seeker, who for some reason or another inserted himself into the Ripper investigation, possibly in his eagerness to get the police moving on the case, or simply because he enjoyed being in the limelight." Similarly, I think that when George states "there are too many ingredients in the story that are a bit too good to be true--the bloodstained clothing, the red ink for writing letters, the disguises, the piece of apron, the stolen rings, his use of the term "Boss" and the pieces of "liver" which the lodger was going to eat or send in the mail," the obvious explanation is: those are the details the reporter questioned her about.
Before anyone discards the landlady's testimony because it was first brought to the attention of The People by Albert Bachert's letter, I think it is incumbent on that person to first compare the details in this testimony with each of the 57+ suspects advocated on Casebook. That, it would seem to me, is the first order of business for everyone on Casebook. For my part, I have already started. And in several key points, I see the landlady's testimony pointing directly to Walter Sickert.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
