|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 5:26 pm: | 
|
The statement copied below, from the first (1959) edition of Donald McCormick's The Identity of Jack the Ripper, p. 156, is fairly well known.
Its reliability has often been questioned on the reasonable enough basis that no source is given. But in several places (e.g. in the A-Z, and on the Druitt summary page on this site) it is said that McCormick got it from Dr Dutton's Chronicles of Crime. That would be reasonable grounds for definitely rejecting it, as there's good evidence that McCormick fabricated his extracts from Dutton's papers wholesale.
But in McCormick's book, I can't see any indication that he got the Bachert material from Dutton. Can anyone clarify why some people say that he did (is such an attribution added in the second edition of McCormick's book, for example?)
'I was given this information in confidence about March eighteen-eighty-nine,' said Mr. Albert Backert, a prominent member of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, referring to the Thames suicide rumour. 'I had complained to the police that there seemed to be too much complacency in the Force simply because there had been no further murders for some months.
'I was then asked if I would agree to be sworn to secrecy on the understanding I was given certain information. Foolishly, I agreed. It was then suggested to me that the Vigilance Committee and its patrols might be disbanded as the police were quite certain that the "Ripper" was dead.
'I protested that, as I had been sworn to secrecy, I really ought to be given more information than this. "It isn't necessary for you to know any more, I was told. "The man in question is dead. He was fished out of the Thames two months ago and it would only cause pain to relatives if we said any more than that."
'I again protested that I had been sworn to secrecy for nothing, and that I was really no wiser than before. "If there are no more murders, I shall respect this confidence, but if there are any more I shall consider I am absolved from my pledge of secrecy."
'The police then got very tough. They told me a pledge was a solemn matter, that anyone who put out stories that the "Ripper" was still alive might be proceeded against for causing a public mischief. However, they agreed that if there were any other murders which the police were satisfied could be "Ripper" murders, that was another matter.
'I never believed the yarn, though I kept my pledge until after the McKenzie murder in eighteen-ninety-one*. maybe some police officers kidded themselves this was the truth, though I have my doubts about that. Chief Inspector Abberline told me years later that he was quite certain the story was untrue and that the "Ripper" remained alive and uncaught.'
[*It's not clear whether this is meant to refer to Alice MacKenzie in 1889 or Frances Coles in 1891.]
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Just for interest, this must be Albert Bachert's appearance in the 1881 census (the household contains 5 out of the 6 Bacherts in England):
[Edited 4th April to add the address (omitted in a fit of absence of mind:
13 Newnham St, London, Middlesex, England .
NB "Gordon House, Newnham Street" was the address of Mr. Albert "Bechart", who alleged he was assaulted by 2 police constables in August 1887 - see extract from The Eastern Post & City Chronicle, Saturday, 20 August 1887, elsewhere on this site]
John BACHERT Head M Male 49 (British Subject), Germany Tailor
Georgina BACHERT Wife M Female 48 (British Subject), Germany
Albert BACHERT Son Male 18 London, Middlesex, England Engraver (Art)
Emily BACHERT Daur Female 16 Tower Hamlet Tailoress
Flora BACHERT Daur Female 11 Tower Hamlet
I can't find a candidate in the 1901 census.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 10:08 am: |
|
Hi, Chris Phillips:
We do know that Albert Bachert was an engraver so you appear to have identified the right man in the 1881 census. As for the McCormick quote, I believe we know from other sources that Albert Bachert had the impression in 1889 that the Ripper was dead. However what you quoted may not be 100% percent true. For example would a man of that period have used the term "kidded" where Bachert is quoted as saying "maybe some police officers kidded themselves this was the truth. . ."
Best regards
Chris George |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
Tom Cullen quoted Bacherts statement in "Autumn of Terror" and added a footnote:
Bachert's statement is quoted by Donald McCormick, who got it, apparently from Dr Dutton's papers.
I have the second edition, and there is no mention of source for the statement.
I have to admit that since Donald McCormick favoured Dr Pedachenko as Jack the Ripper, printing a statement like Albert Bacherts, wouldn't have done his case any good.
I hope this has been of use.
Rob |
Chris Phillips
Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Chris George
Yes, the census entry appears to link several of what seem to be 10 different references to Bachert on this website. Thus, the Newnham Street address ties up not only with an allegation of assault by police officers in August 1887, but the story of the suspect encountered in the "Three Nuns" (also recounted by McCormick).
And the occupation of engraver links up to the man sentenced to three months' hard labour in March 1893 for "for having obtained six loaves of bread and six quarterns of flour by false pretenses", despite a discrepancy in the age.
Robert Clack
Thanks for pointing out that Cullen attributed the information about Bachert to Dr Dutton.
Perhaps this is the origin of the statement made elsewhere. I'm not convinced it's accurate, or that McCormick necessarily invented this, though.
Howells and Skinner argued that Bachert believed the Ripper was dead, on the basis of a reference by him in February 1891 to the "late Whitechapel fiend", but it seems as though that could natural be interpreted as "recent" or "former", rather than "deceased".
Indeed, a statement by Bachert quoted in the East London Advertiser of 14 September 1889 reads as though Bachert thought the Ripper was still alive and at liberty. Not that this contradicts McCormick's supposed quotation, wherein Bachert is made to say that 'I never believed the yarn'...
H and S also point out that McCormick would have no interest in inventing a "drowned Ripper" story, and argue that this is evidence in favour of the story's authenticity.
I can see the point of that argument, but on the other hand we have statements such as Macnaghten's, in Days of My Years:
At the time, then, of my joining the Force on 1st June 1889, police and public were still agog over the tragedies of the previous autumn, and were quite ready to believe that any fresh murders, not at once elucidated, were by the same maniac's hand.
Likewise other instances that have been pointed out, of police suspicions that murders in 1889 and 1891 could be the work of the Ripper.
On the other hand, there's ample evidence that different elements within the police force had very different ideas about the case, so perhaps it's not impossible after all that some police officer told Bachert this early that the Ripper was believed to be dead ...?
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Gentlemen--For something you might find interesting, see below under "the disappearance of John Bachert." Cheers. |
Chris Phillips
Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 5:45 am: |
|
R.J. Palmer
Thanks for posting the article about the disappearance of Bachert's father, in the "Shades of Whitechapel" section.
Bachert certainly had an interesting life ...
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Police Constable
Username: Chris
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 10:01 am: |
|
Hi all
The Newnham Street address and occupation fit. Interestingly the A-Z gives the date of birth as 1860 and the full name as William Albert Bachert. Not sure where this info came from.
Chris |
Chris Scott
Police Constable
Username: Chris
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 10:05 am: |
|
I have just looked in the England and Wales Civil registration index and there is indeed a record for a William Albert Bachert being born in Whitechapel in December 1860. This cannot be the census one as his year of birth is given as 1863 |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 10:47 am: |
|
Chris (Phillips) --In your post quoting Bachert--
'I never believed the yarn, though I kept my pledge until after the McKenzie murder in eighteen-ninety-one*. maybe some police officers kidded themselves this was the truth, though I have my doubts about that. Chief Inspector Abberline told me years later that he was quite certain the story was untrue and that the "Ripper" remained alive and uncaught.'
Although the date 1891 is wrong, I think this probably refers to the Alice MacKenzie murder. Bachert was connected to a strange incident at the time which created a certain amount of publicity, details of which are available in an article that appeared in the New York Herald. [more details on this in a moment].
Shortly before the MacKenzie murder, in July 1889, Bachert received a letter, allegedly from "Jack the Ripper", claiming that the murders would resume. Bachert didn't think much of it, and threw the letter away. But shortly afterwards, MacKenzie turned up dead. A reporter for the Herald heard of the incident, and tracked down Bachert, who I believe was then the head of the Vigilance Committee. Bachert, being an engraver, is said to have had a remarkable visual memory, and he attempted to recreate the letter writer's handwriting. The Herald reporter used this as part of his "evidence" in tracking down his Whitechapel suspect --a sailor in Wapping or Limehouse [I forget which].
Anyway, I once made reference to this article on the old message boards. I have a companion piece to this article from another source, but haven't been able to trace the original. If someone in the UK would give it a go, I think it would be of great interest. It appeared in the European edition of the New York Herald on one of the two Mondays following the MacKenzie murder. I have check the U.S. edition of the Herald but it didn't reprint the piece. It is said to be a full six columns in length, and may give some insight into Bachert's views in 1889. If anyone can locate the article, I would appreciate it if they contacted me.
Cheers, RJ Palmer
PS. In regards to Bachert's father's disappearance, I don't know how the story ends. His name doesn't appear in any of the inquest reports printed in The Times in late 1887 or 1888. It would be interesting to know if the East End papers covered the story.
|
Chris Phillips
Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 12:21 pm: |
|
R.J. Palmer
That's interesting. I'll make a note to try to check for that when I have a chance, but it won't be for a while, and someone else may have an opportunity first.
A letter received by Bachert before the MacKenzie murder is referred to in an article in the East London Advertiser for Saturday, 19 October 1889, dealing with a further letter he received that October:
The writing corresponds with that in the letters received by Mr. Backhert previously. The "B" and "R" are a facsimile of those in the two letters that were sent to Mr. Backhert before the Miller's-court and Castle-alley murders, and these two letters turned out to be true.
Chris Phillips
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2869
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 9:43 pm: |
|
David O'Flaherty has written an excellent article on Albert Bachert, which has just tonight been posted to the Casebook. You can find it directly at:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-bachert.html
Thanks again to David for the contribution!
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 726
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 9:46 am: |
|
Re Stephen's message at the head of this thread. The story of the info Bachert was allegedly given is well known, but it is the timing that inetrest me in this instance:
'I was given this information in confidence about March eighteen-eighty-nine,' said Mr. Albert Backert, a prominent member of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, referring to the Thames suicide rumour
While I was transcribing an article for the Press Reports section today (from Trenton Times 17 July 1889) the piece below caught my interest. This specifically says that "four months ago" (i.e. March 1889) that extra police had been withdrawn as "it was thought that there would be no more such terrible outrages committed." This fits spookily with the alleged timing in bachert's story
Chris
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
There seems to be a link too in the fact that the paper speaks of the murderer as still living, and not "still at large" - homing in on the death theory rather than the incarceration theory.
Robert |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Chris, this is an important bit of information
since there is little to corroborate McCormick"s claim about what Albert Bachert is alleged to have recorded.The picture begins to form of strong rumours ciculating[the local press in the West country,Sims who refers to having heard the rumour some time in the early 90"s etc] so it would seem that some police may have shared Macnaghten"s "suspicions" at least.-and thanks yet again for the painstaking research.Natalie. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1259
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 12:28 am: |
|
Albert Backert
Backert's involvement in the context of the Whitechapel murders is well documented. He was a voluble member of the Whitechapel Vigilance committee and later Chairman of that same body. On a number of occasions he made statements directly pertaining to the case, such as his alleged conversation with a man in the Three Nuns Hotel, Aldgate a few hours before the Eddowes murder, and his later version of the "Lodger" story.
Backert, an engraver, (described in one source specifically as a Banknote engraver) led a varied semi public life after the murders as a leading light in one of the labour movements and speaking at many of the rallies of the unemployed. He also had various brushes with the law and on one occasion was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour.
Apart from the reports that directly pertain to his statements regarding the Whitechapel murders, I thought this run down of his career might be of
interest.
11 November 1886
Albert seems to have made his first abortive attempt at public speaking . There was a meeting at the Great Assembly Hall, Mile End Road, chaired by Frederick Charrington, to protest against the sale of intoxicating drinks in the People's Palace. The Times reports "Mr. Bachert attempted to move an amendment, but a declaration of his that Mr. Charrington, after having made a rich harvest out of liquor, had now turned against it, resulted in the meeting refusing him a hearing."
1 December 1887
Backert was himself present at the Trafalgar Square riot of 1887, the infamous Bloody Sunday that did so much to blacken the name of Warren. He appeared as a witness at the hearings at Bow Street, but does not appear to have been charged with any offence himself. The Times reports:
"Albert Bachert, bank note engraver, said he went towards the square. He was not going to take part in the meeting. He was opposed to it. He reached the Strand entrance, where the police were hitting people right and left. He got as far as Morley's Hotel, here the mounted police were charging people on the pavement. He saw a friend there, and while speaking to him the police charged again and they were separated. Shortly afterwards witness took up his position within a yard of the police opposite Morley's Hotel. While standing there he heard a policeman say, "There's Burns," and in a moment the front rank put their hands to their truncheon cases and made ready to pull their truncheons out. Then they rushed past witness, pushing him to one side and one of the police shouted out, "Give it to the _____; smash their _____ skulls in." Witness saw they were becoming desperate and did what he could to get away. He saw the defendants coming from the direction of the Grand Hotel towards the square. He was then himself running across the road away from the police. When he looked round he saw the police had their truncheons out striking at the defendants; one policeman himself had a blow from his comrade's truncheon. They were all trying to have the first blow at the defendants. The police then fell back on the square, taking with them the defendants. Witness jumped on an omnibus to get away from the square, but found that that afternoon the omnibuses were only driving up and down, charging 6d. each time for the people to see the fun. When on the omnibus he saw the defendants. He did not see either of them strike the police. It was perfectly impossible, as they were seized at once by the men who broke out of the front ranks."
5 December 1889
Backert was in court on a charge relating to counterfeit money.
Times (London)
5 December 1889
THE ASSIZED
SOUTH EASTERN CIRCUIT
Albert Backert, Henry Norman, Albert Waple and John Smith were indicted for uttering counterfeit florins at Barking and Hornchurch on November 3 last year. Mr. Wightman Wood prosecuted for the Mint. Mr. J Harvey Murphy defended Norman and Mr. C.E. Jones Waple. The facts were shortly these. Waple and Smith hired two dog carts, and in company with the other two drove down into Essex. Various public houses were called at, and several bad florins were after prisoners had paid for refreshments. The jury acquitted Backert and Norman and convicted Waple and Smith, who were sentenced to four months' and 15 months' hard labour respectively.
16 February 1891
Backert was involved in an altercation with the Coroner at the inquest on Frances Coles. Backert volunteered to sit on the jury but Wynne Baxter refused this offer.
Times (London)
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 this 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.
Later that same year, 1891, Backert was witness to an inquest into an accidental death, an accident in which Backert himself was also injured.
Times (London)
19 November 1891
INQUESTS
At St. Bartholomew's Hospital, yesterday. Mr. Samuel F. Langham, the City Coroner, held an inquest with reference to the death of Arthur Charles Puleston, aged 14 years, a printer's boy, who was killed while passing through the Poultry during the gale on the 11th inst. Albert Edward Backert, an engraver, residing at Aldgate, stated that on the afternoon in question he was in the Poultry. The deceased was walking in front of witness, and was about to pass Pimm's restaurant when some iron ornamentation fell off the roof and struck the deceased on the head felling him to the ground. Witness was also struck and injured by some falling boards. The boy was at once removed to the hospital. It was subsequently that the piece of ornamental iron was a "griffin" made of cast iron, and it had evidently become loosened by being struck by the boards which had composed the lid of the cistern on the roof of Nos. 1 and 2, Poultry. The jury, in returning a verdict of "Accidental death" expressed an opinion that better precautions ought to have been taken to secure the lid of the cistern.
1892 was busy year for Backert in the labour movement. The first mention we see is in a Times article of 26 January 1892. There was on the previous day a mass meeting of unemployed waiters at Tower Hill. The article reports:
"Mr. Backert said that there was already considerable distress among the "extra" waiters and many had had to enter the workhouse. He moved:- 'That this meeting of London unemployed waiters calls for the sympathy and support of the British public, considering they are deprived of employment at one of the busiest times of the year through the official mourning consequent upon the death of the Duke of Clarence, and further requests that a portion of the money collected for wedding presents should be devoted to relieving the wants of the unemployed waiters.' The motion was carried."
On 6 April 1892, the Times reported there was a meeting of unemployed artisans on Tower Hill.
"Mr. Backert, who described himself as an unemployed engraver, said that they were determined to carry this agitation to a successful issue despite the brutality and insolence of the police. They went as peaceable citizens to see the representatives they had elected, and were treated violently by the men whom they had to keep."
Just two days later, 8 April 1892, the Times reported a large meeting of unemployed workers at Tower Hill at the invitation of a body which called itself the "Unemployed Committee."
"Shortly afterwards a man named Backert mounted the extreme end of the parapet, and, surrounded by his supporters, commenced an opposition meeting amid much excitement. He said he was what could truthfully be called an unemployed man and so were his supporters. The other meeting was not composed of genuine working men, and was got up by the Social Democratic Federation for purely party motives. Some of the leaders of the original meeting here interfered, and for a time the greatest confusion prevailed. The police were on the point of interfering, but Backert, being surrounded by a crowd, was compelled to leave the parapet and then went away."
On 9 April 1892 the Times reported two opposing unemployed meetings on Tower Hill.
"Mr. J. (sic) Backert and his supporters immediately after the termination of the first meeting took possession of the improvised platform, and the leader of the opposition movement began to address the crowd amid a perfect storm of hisses and groans. He made a violent attack upon the Social Democratic Federation, and asked his hearers whether they were willing to support a movement which did not discountenance the manufacture of bombs which were to be used for the destroying of human life. Such man, he exclaimed, ought to be beheaded in the Tower. Mr. J. Lloyd replied to the remarks made by Mr. Backert and a disorderly scene ensued. The police, however, did not interfere and the meeting gradually dispersed."
Although this article refers to a J. Backert, other mentions of an Albert Backert, and description of him as an unemployed engraver when it is apparent that the same demagogue is being referred to, make the identification certain.
9 May 1892.
The Times reports on a meeting of London Anarchists in Hyde Park.
"A man named Backert mounted the chair which served for a platform, and, addressing the crowd as "Friends and lovers of life," began a bitter attack on anarchy. Amid considerable interruption he said that the Anarchists were men who publicly and privately advocated force and murder. They were men whom honest persons should shun. He knew all about them from personal experience. Persons who advocated the use of dynamite to destroy life and property were dangerous to the country and should be kept in hand. He was not going to stand by and see his fellow men torn to pieces and terribly injured, while property was ruthlessly wrecked. Anarchists were people who had no hearts. They set men to execute the vilest crimes and then were proud of the fact. He trusted that in the near future the workers would stamp out of existence such a class of people, who were in reality only the scum of the earth. He would move the resolution "That this meeting of English men and women, assembled in Hyde Park, views with horror the action of the so called London Anarchists, and condemns the principles of anarchy, which are in reality murderous and unmanly." Only half a dozen hands were held up in favour of the motion. Then Backert invited all those present who were in favour of blowing up houses and murdering innocent people to hold up their hands. He soon afterwards left the meeting amid hoots and jeers."
The next meeting of the unemployed at Tower Hill which the Times reports was on the 2 November 1892.
"Mr. Albert Backert, who spoke amid continual uproar, moved an amendment calling upon all genuine unemployed men to abstain from being led by a body of Socialist agitators. He, too, had communicated with the Commissioner of Police, and in spite of the letter he had received, which neither gave nor withheld permission, he would attend in Trafalgar square with his supporters on Saturday next and move an amendment. His letter was as follows:-
"New Scotland Yard
Oct. 31, 1892.
Sir,
I am directed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 30th inst. requesting permission to hold a meeting of the unemployed in Trafalgar square at 3 p.m. on Saturday, November 5, and to acquaint you in reply that the Commissioner has already received notice of another meeting proposed to be held in the square at 3 p.m. on the day named by you, and under Rule IV of the regulations made by the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works only one meeting can be allowed to take place at the same time.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
C.L. Bathurst
To Mr. A. Backert."
In reply to this Mr. Backert wrote to say that he intended holding a meeting at 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon in the square, and that he hoped that the Commissioner would notify the leaders of the federation that they would have to bring their 3 o'clock meeting to an end by that time.
Backert was active again the very nest day as reported in the Times of 3 November, 1892. This article reported on yet another meeting of the unemployed at Tower Hill.
At the conclusion of the meeting a scene of great excitement was occasioned by a man named Backert mounting the parapet and endeavouring to address the meeting. His appearance was greeted with a storm of yells, groans and hisses, the crowd assuming a threatening attitude. Notwithstanding this, Backert maintained his position, although several of his friends endeavoured to persuade him to retire. Backert made several attempts to address the meeting, but for a long time the noise was too deafening. Cries were raised of "Throw him over," the hooting and yelling meanwhile continuing. One man who was standing immediately behind Backert endeavoured to push him off the parapet, and Backert only succeeded in maintaining his position by clinging to the lamp post at the extreme end. At this juncture another man jumped up alongside Backert, and called for order, which after a time he, to some extent, succeeded in obtaining. He denounced Backert, who, he said, had broken a pledge given by him on the previous day to refrain from interrupting their meetings provided he was then allowed to speak. In consequence of renewed manifestations of hostility on the part of the crowd it was, at this point, deemed expedient by the police to clear the mob from the rear of the parapet, and a number of constables charged the crowd and cleared that portion of the ground. Thus protected, Backert, amid terrific hooting and groaning, commenced to speak.
He said that the so called leaders of the unemployed would be unable to effect any practical good. They had no regard for the rights of property, and thought only of promoting strikes. (Groans and uproar during which a quantity of mud was thrown at the speaker, but, missing him, struck a reporter.) The meeting broke up abruptly. A few moments afterwards Backert was seen making his way in the direction of Eastcheap, and was immediately pursued by a large portion of the crowd. Seeing he was followed, he commenced to run, the crowd still in pursuit. The contingency, however, had evidently been foreseen by the police, two parties of whom were drawn across the road, thus preventing any further progress. Backert afterwards took refuge in a warehouse in Mincing lane.
The meeting mentioned for Saturday 5 November indeed took place with some distinguished speakers, including Keir Hardie. Backert again attempted to speak.
The Times, 7 November 1892
A Mr. Albert Backert who was stated to belong to a vigilance committee in the east end formed after the Whitechapel murders, with a small knot of dissentients, attempted to address the meeting. But he was hustled and hooted, and two or three others who tried to second his efforts met the same fate. Inspector Peters asked him to produce his authority for holding a meeting. No such authority being produced, the man was quietly conducted from the square and the throng rapidly and peacefully dispersed.
On the 9th November Backert had assumed the title of President of the Anti Socialists at another meeting at Tower Hill.
The Times, 10 November 1892
Before the meeting called by the Social Democratic Federation Committee of the Unemployed, the Anti Socialists gathered together under the presidency of Mr. Albert Backert and passed the following resolution:-
"That this meeting of London unemployed calls upon Her Majesty's Government to fulfil the promises they made at the late general election, whereby they obtained the powerful support of the working classes, and to at once call Parliament together to discuss the labour question and introduce the Eight Hours Bill: and further calls upon the Government to at once stop the importation of foreign labour into the United Kingdom."
Mr. Backert announced that he had sent a letter to the Queen, of which the following is a copy:-
"May it please Your Majesty -
We, the undersigned members of the Anti Socialist Unemployed Committee, beg to cal, your attention to the great distress which exists in London amongst the working classes in consequence of their being unable to obtain employment. At present there are thousands of your loyal subjects in a state of starvation, and if nothing is done at once to relieve the distress of the starving, hundreds will shortly die of hunger in this, the richest city in the world. We therefore trust that Your Majesty, with your usual kindness and benevolence, will see your way clear to assisting your unemployed and starving subjects."
on the 10 November, Backert headed a deputation to St. Paul's cathedral.
The Times, 11 November 1892
At 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon Backert and about a dozen of his followers waited upon the Dean of St. Paul's. Three of them were introduced into the presence of the Dean, who inquired what he could do to further their wishes. Backert asked whether it was not in the Dean's power to influence the church, as far as the metropolis was concerned, to have special sermons and offertories on behalf of the unemployed, and so to some extent to relieve the prevailing distress. Dean Gregory, in reply, expressed his sympathy with the genuine unemployed. He thought, however, that a public subscription on behalf of the unemployed would do more harm than good. The last Lord Mayor's subscription for the unemployed men had been very hurtful, as it had brought from the country into London poor people who wished to participate in the fund, and who were left to compete with the workers in the capital. Backert asked whether it was not possible to start a registry office for unemployed in the City. The Dean, in reply, said there was already a registry office at St. Mary at Hill. He also pointed out that a great many men were at present employed upon church repairing and restoration work, and also upon work in connexion with church schools.
Backert, on behalf of the deputation, thanked the Dean for receiving them and listening to their remarks, and then quietly withdrew.
Albert's moving in such high circles continued on the 16th November when he had a meeting with the Lord Mayor.
The Times, 17 November 1892
Yesterday the man Backert, who described himself as the representative of the Anti Socialist unemployed of London, was received by the Lord Mayor at the Mansion House. He stated in effect that there were 600 men on his register anxious and willing for work - especially ay waterside occupations - who had no sympathy with the paid agitators by whom the unemployed were being misled, and he suggested that the Corporation, the City Companies, and all the large employers of labour might ascertain what necessary works could be begun with a view to giving employment to as many persons as possible during the winter. He further suggested the starting of a Mansion House relief fund to help those who had been six months or more in London. Replying to the Lord mayor, he said he himself was a lithographer out of work. The Lord Mayor, in the course of a brief conversation, said that as a wharfinger himself he was at present employing a large number of men, but he was afraid that the result of recent strikes had been not only to send trade away from the port, but to decrease the number of men required, as, with higher wages, they were obliged to pick and choose their men and not hire them as they came. He had no power or control over the City Companies, but he felt sure that the Corporation would see what works they could start in connexion with their landed and house property. He was very strongly opposed to opening any Mansion House fund, which would attract people to London and swell the ranks of the poor and destitute. He confessed he was puzzled in comparing the alleged decrease in pauperism, as exhibited by statistics, and the statements as to the distress in London. He should be ever ready to do all in his power to remedy the condition of the poor, but he must be careful that what was done did not aggravate the present state of things. At the Lord Mayor's request, Backert promised to supply him with certain typical cases of distress, and the Lord Mayor said if he did he would have them investigated.
Backert seems disillusioned with the Lord Mayor, for the following report concerns another Tower Hill meeting held on 29 November.
The Times, 30 November 1892
The man Backert came upon the scene and induced the crowd to linger. He denounced the Lord Mayor for having, instead of fulfilling his promise to help the unemployed, set an army of detectives at work to pry into their private affairs. He asked the unemployed to meet at Tower Hill one night this week, according to the weather, in order to take part in a midnight torchlight procession to the houses of the rich people who, lying comfortably on their warm feather beds, might thus have brought home to them the condition of their starving brethren, who had not the wherewithal to secure even a two penny doss. If the police made them put out their torches they would know how to relight them. It was said that the police would take advantage of the occasion to land a few "thick 'uns" on the heads of some of their friends, and he mentioned this rumour as a warning to them to come prepared for such an emergency.
However, his plans seem to have changed in the cold light of day.
The Times, 1 December 1892
The section of the unemployed led by Backert, propose to meet at 11 o'clock tonight and to march in procession through the City, Fleet street, and the Strand, by Trafalgar square to the West End, but the idea of carrying lighted torches - and there seems to be some doubt as to whether these would in any case have been forthcoming - has been abandoned, in deference, it is explained, to the objections of the police.
The march went ahead, as reported the next day.
The Times, 2 December 1892
The midnight march of the unemployed took place last night. At 11 o'clock a number of persons had assembled on Tower Hill, and when Backert, the leader of the Anti Socialist agitation gave a brief address, the crowd numbered about 400. There were about 150 City police on duty. On the stroke of midnight a procession was formed, and, headed by Backert, marched, via Eastcheap, Cannon street, St Paul's churchyard, Ludgate hill, and Fleet street as far as the Law Courts in the Strand. The police accompanied them as far as the western City boundary, where a cordon of police of the Metropolitan force not only barred the way but effectually broke up the procession just before half past 12.
Albert followed this up with a complaint the following day.
The Times, 3 December 1892
The man Backert, who organized the midnight procession of the unemployed which was dispersed by the Metropolitan police on Thursday night, went yesterday to Scotland yard and lodged a complaint of the conduct of the police.
Backert announced new plans at the Tower Hill meeting of 10 December.
The Times, 12 December 1892
Backert announced that he had obtained the use of a hall in Cable street, St. George's, where the unemployed could meet in comfort. He said a committee was in course of formation for the purpose of receiving funds in behalf of he unemployed. If they could not get money by fair means they must get it by foul. He said there were between 2000 and 3000 foreign paupers on their way to England, and he proposed to take a deputation to the docks to show these paupers what amount of misery and destitution existed in the land they were coming to. He had given notice of a midnight march on the 14th inst but he would not give the police any information about it. If necessary they would this time take the means of defending themselves with them.
Inspector Vedy here warned Backert against the use of inflammatory language, and he shortly afterwards brought his speech to a close.
Backert's powers of oratory appeared to be growing.
The Times, 14 December 1892
There was a considerable muster of the unemployed on Tower Hill yesterday, and Backert addressed them in a violent harangue. Shortly after noon a procession was formed which marched to Millbank, where the sale of the buildings of the old prison was going forward. Here an attempt was made to interview the buyers of the different portions of the structure with the view of obtaining employment for the processionists in the work of demolition. Those who were approached declined to consider the question at present.
The constitution of the new committee that Backert joined was commented on.
The Times, 22 December 1892
The Unemployed Relief Committee, which was recently formed at the St. Augustine's Hall, Settle street, Commercial street east, and of which the Rev. H. Wilson is chairman, has now got into working order. After exhaustive inquiries a number of cases have been selected, and relief has been granted in a number of instances, in the shape of orders on local tradesmen for food. The committee consists of three avowed Socialists - Juchua, Burrows and Waite - and three anti Socialists - Williams, King and Backert. The members of the committee, who receive an equivalent to a salary in kind, investigate all cases submitted, and as there are some hundreds if names on the books it is anticipated that their labours will extend over a somewhat lengthened period.
The first mention of the case that was to lead to Backert's imprisonment appears in February 1893.
The Times, 16 February 1893
At Thames, Albert Backert, who has figured at the Tower Hill meetings of the unemployed, was further examined and remanded on a charge of obtaining bread and flour from a baker in the Commercial road by false pretences.
Further details were given in the same issue:
At Thames, Albert Backert, 26, well known in connexion with the Tower Hill meetings of the unemployed, who stated that he was an engraver, of Bristol, was charged, on remand, with obtaining a quantity of bread and flour from Mrs. Elizabeth Pascoe, baker, of Commercial road, by means of fraud. Mr. Bryan (Messrs. Waters and Bryan) prosecuted; and Mr. F. Deakin defended. Mrs. Pascoe said that on January 14 Backert, whom she knew as secretary of the Tower Hamlets Unemployed Relief Committee, went to her shop and produced an order for bread and flour which, he said, were to go to Limehouse for an urgent case. Witness said that she could not execute the delivery that night. Backert, therefore, got a man, to whom were delivered six quarterns of bread and six quarterns of flour. On the following Tuesday her attention was called to the order, which she then found had not been signed by Mr. Wilson. Witness believed the prisoner came from Mr. Wilson with a genuine order, or she would not have let him have the goods. The value of the goods supplied was 4s 6d. The Rev. Harry Wilson said he was chairman of the committee and Backert was employed by him as secretary at a salary of 25s a week. Backert's duty was to take all forms to him for approval. He then took the orders to the tradesmen. He had no authority to take the one produced. Mr. Mead again remanded the prisoner.
The paper does not appear to carry a full account of the trial but the saga of Backert ends on this note:
The Times, 8 March 1893
London County Sessions:
Before Sir P.H. Edlin, Q.C., Albert Backert, 25, engraver, formerly salaried secretary of the Unemployed Investigation Committee, was convicted of having obtained a quantity of bread and flour by false pretences, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour.
Thus ends Albert's brief notoriety - I hope this has put his career into a slightly more fleshed out perspective.
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on June 12, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2542
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Blimey, Chris! His career's fleshed out and your fingers must be down to the bone. How on earth do you do it? SSB?
Great stuff, Chris.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 10:26 am: |
|
Thanks Robert
I find it useful sometimes, instead of just a disconnected series of press reports, to follow an individual's story though as a timeline
Glad you found it interesting
Chris |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 885
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,i have just read the above and also want to say thanks for such information.I have been away and intend posting more paintings in a few days by the way!
Best Natalie |
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 2:42 am: |
|
Chris -
Fantastic stuff as usual buddy. Can you do me a huge favor if you find the time and email me at momorris23@yahoo.com? I have one thing I want to run by you to see if it is of any use to anyone and I would appreciate your help if at all possible. Thanks a million
Here's lookin at you kids-
Ken |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 10:38 am: |
|
Hi, Chris
Many thanks for digging up this additional information on Albert Bachert's after life following the Ripper murders, as well as the information on his involvement with the Trafalgar Square riot of November 1887, known as "Bloody Sunday." He obviously had an extended career as a rabble-rouser, didn't he? This is valuable information, Chris, and I appreciate you posting it. The new material helps to shed additional light on Bachert's involvement with the Whitechapel murders. Unfortunately for him it is not a favorable one! 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Is 1893 a wall or what? Has anybody found a post 1893 reference to Bachert anywhere? This seems weird--I can't think of any other figure who received more press attention than Albert Bachert. What are we up to, something like 30 appearances between 1886 and 1893? And then suddenly--nothing (as far as I know). If he had suddenly died (and Bachert seems to radiate vigorous health), you'd think after all these stories, The Times would have mentioned it somewhere.
I don't think his three months of imprisonment accounts for his sudden disappearance. I have a hard time believing this charity fraud incident caused him to go away (I'd hazard a guess that the opposite would be true, that Bachert might have taken the tact that he was being punished for his rabble-rousing).
I suppose he could have moved away, but if you're a rabble-rouser (perfect description, Chris George), then London's a pretty good place to be. Then again, perhaps he was forced to move because of lack of employment--are any of the Bacherts in the 1901 census? Maybe they all packed up and went back to Mecklenburg--or New York.
Where'd he go after 1893?
Dave
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1263
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Hi Dave
I have traced what to my mind is undoubtedly Albert Backert in the 1901 census. The search was complicated on two counts:
His surname is listed as Becker and his age is given as 26. But the following facts convince me he is the right person;
- His trade is given still as engraver
- he is listed as brother of the head of household who is one Flora Stiffens. We know from the 1891 census that Albert Backert had a sister named Flora and there is a listing in June 1894 of a Flora Bachert (sic) marrying a Robert Charles Steffen.
The address for Albert in 1901 is 42 Sidney Street, Mile End. This was these scene of the famous siege of 1911 but I dont know which number the gang holed up in. Anyone know?
The listing is as follows for 1901;
Head:
Flora Stiffens aged 31 - married - born Mile End
Children:
Robert aged 6
George aged 4
Rosa aged 2
Annie M aged 1 month
Brother;
Albert Becker aged 26 - single - born Mile End - Engraver
If the ages given in the 1891 census are to be trusted (and they fit in with the newspaper reports of his labour activities) Albert's actual aged in 1901 would have been 32
I'm attaching a copy below.
I am currently unable to find any trace of Flora's husband Robert Steffen or Stiffens.
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2558
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
According to http://www.met.police.uk/history/sidney_street.htm
it was number 100.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Many thanks, Chris--that's terrific. The age discrepancy doesn't seem like a problem to me, although 40 or so (Bachert was born in 1860, wasn't he?) is a long way from 26. But the Bacherts seem to have been a well-preserved bunch, and isn't the 1891 census off by about ten years as well? The John Bachert story mentions his father's youthful appearance, so I think it's reasonable to speculate that Albert inherited that quality.
Didn't the Siege happen at #100 Sidney Street? Wonder if Bachert was still around in 1911. Donald Rumbelow has written a book about that, by the way (which I haven't read).
Time to look for Albert Becker in the press, I guess 
Thanks again, Chris--excellent find.
(Message edited by oberlin on June 15, 2004) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1264
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Hi Dave and Robert
Many thanks for the info
The question of Backerts age in the census returns shows how unreliable this data field can be:
in 1871 he is shown as 8
in 1881 he is shown as 18
in 1891 he is shown as 22
in 1901 he is shown as 26
Sounds more like Dorian Gray!!!
There is only possible 1860 birth that could relate to Backert (see below). This birth was registered in Whitechapel in the last quarter of 1860. But note that the surname is BACHERT and the first name is actually William.
 |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Hi, Chris and Robert,
At that rate, Albert should be in his fifties today (wink). I wonder why he's not posting!
Dave |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:18 am: |
|
He does indeed sound like a rabble-rouser. It seems to me that the character referred to as George Lusk in the Micael Caine version of "Jack the Ripper" was based more on Bachert than Lusk!
Regards, Vincent |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 8:17 am: |
|
Hi all
I am attaching below an account from the Times of 20 July 1889 which recounts how Backert was personally involved, along with other members of the Vigilance Committee, in the apprehension of a suspect after an attck near Aldgate east Station. The unnamed suspect was later released. The intended victim is not named either.
This same article includes details of Brodie giving himself up to the police.
Chris
Times (London)
20 July 1889
ATTACK ON A WOMAN IN WHITECHAPEL
The neighbourhood of Castle alley, the scene of Wednesday's murder, was last night again thrown into the wildest excitement by an attack on another of the class of women who have been selected for the victims of the recent murders in this district. A woman was heard crying in East Aldagate for help. In the frame of mind that the populace were thenm ut needed but little alarm to bring a thousand persons togther in a remarkably short time, especially in the main thoroughfare at 10 o'clock in the evening. It was about a quarter to 10, when a woman - one of those females whose attire is peculiar to the district - was seen to approach with a man from a dark portion of the thoroughfare near the Aldgate East Station, Whitechapel. The pair did not remain long at the corner before the woman was heard to cry aloud, "No! I won't." The man then seized her, dragged her a short distance along the ground, and flung her upon the kerb. He seized her hair with one hand and with the other produced a knife, with which he struck her. Her screams of "Jack the Ripper" and "Murder" soon attracted attention, and crowds of men and women ran from all directions to the spot when the screams proceeded. The woman was struggling with her assailant, and the blood with which she was covered gave rise to the dreadful suspicion that she was in the hands of the dreaded and mysterious murderer. Amongst those who first arrived on the scene were several members of the local vigilance association, who have only just recommenced their work, and before the man had time to get far he was seized, and a struggle ensued. It was seen that the man had a long knife in his hand, and it was some time before he could be deprived of it. It was eventually taken from him, but even then his fight for liberty was determined, and in the fray the woman crawled away. Police whistles were heard in all directions, and soon a great number of officers, both of the City and metropolitan force, were on the scene. When the police came up the man was cut and bleeding profusely from wounds inflicted by the mob, who had raised the cry of "Lynch him," and were throwing all kinds of missiles at him. Under a strong escort of City and metropolitan police he was got to the Commercial street police station, where he was charged. When asked whether he had anything to say in reply to the charge he replied, "The woman robbed me." When asked why he drew the dagger, he replied, "In self defence." He said he was a sailor and gave a Scotch name, and said he arrived from South Shields about a week ago. When asked where he was on the morning of the 17th inst. he said he could not say. He did not know where he had stayed whilst in London. On being searched a smaller knife was found in his possession, together with a seaman's discharge.
Albert Backert, of 13 Newnham street, Whitechapel, one of the Vigilance Committee, who seized the knife and whose clothes were blood stained, has made a statement which tallies in every respect with the foregoing account and in the course of which he says that the assailant held the woman's hair in the right hand and the knife in the left.
Later:
At 2 o'clock this morning the police had made no fresh arrests. The man had, after careful inquiry into all the circumstances,been liberated, the woman having failed to come forward to prefer a charge.
A man named Brodie, who is well known to the police, having suffered 14 years' penal servitude, and who, in fact, is now a licence holder, yesterday presented himself at the Leman street Police Station and gave himself up as the author of the last eight murders committed in Whitechapel. It was at once seen that the man was wandering in his mind and not accountable for what he stated. On being spoken to he reiterated his statement concerning killing the eight women, and also stated that he had concealed the knife with which with which he alleged he had stabbed Alice M'Kenzie. The absurdity of his statement regarding the first seven poor creatures was at once apparent, for it ws known by the police that when they met with their deaths Brodie was at the Cape of Good Hope, and only returned to England a fortnight ago. It was also conclusively proved that he had nothing to do with causing the death of Alice M'Kenzie. This morning Brodie will be charged before Mr. Lushington at the Thames Police Court with being a wandering lunatic. The report of the capture caused renewed excitement in the East end, and large crowds of persons again visited Castle alley, although there is now nothing to be seen there except the spot where the woman was killed. The district is now well covered with police. One singular feature in connexion with the recent murder is that a man is invariably in charge up to 1 o'clock in the morning of the barrows in Castle alley, but on this particular night, in consequence of not feeling well, he went home at half past 11. Had this unfortunate circumstance not have happened he would in all probability have witnessed the committal of the crime.
(Message edited by Chris on June 30, 2004) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1296
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 9:56 am: |
|
Hi all
Just a footnote about Albert Backert. His labour activities made front page news in the USA in a couple of articles I came across recently
All the best
Chris
Decatur Daily Republican
8 April 1892
DIVIDED FACTIONS
Assaulted and Ejected From a Workingmen's Meeting
For Denouncing Their Leading Men
London, April 8.
After the labor agitator Backert had been assaulted and ejected from the meeting of unemployed at Tower Hill yesterday, for denouncing the organizers of the affair as socialists and revolutionists, the assemblage appointed adeputation to wait upon President Ritchie of the local government board, and present a statement of grievances.
Backert, after the meeting had dispersed, attempted to carry out a declaration that he had made while haranguing the meeting that he would himself organize a genuine workingmen's movement. He began a speech to the remnant of the crowd which lingered in the vicinity, and soon had the satisfaction of seeing his audience increase until it was as large as the one which had a short time before dispersed. Backert exhorted his hearers not to become the tools of anarchists and adventurers, who were playing upon the necessities of the poor for their own benefit. His remarks were well received, and at his suggestion the crowd marched to Clerkenwell Green, attracting new recruits en route. At the latter point a larger meeting was held at which Backert and several others spoke, and a series of resolutions urging workingmen not to follow the red flag, were adopted.
Meanwhile the deputation appointed at the first meeting had waited upon Mr. Ritchie, who received them, though he had declined to listen to a similar delegation Wednesday. He did not give them much comfort, however, as in response to a long recital of their wants he simply expressed his regret that it was out of his power to do anything for them, and bowed them out.
Backert's faction will hold several more meetings today in different parts of the city and will alos send representatives to Mr. Ritchie. It is likely that the two factions will come into collision before the agitation subsides.
Decatur Daily Republican
9 April 1892
Bogus Workmen
Display Their True Character by the Flags They Raise
London, April 9.
At a meeting of the unemployed yesterday, the red flag was waved. This shows that the meeting was a bogus unemployed gathering. They also waved a black flag on which was inscribed, "We demand the right to work." Backert, who has been unsparing in his denunciation of the leaders of the movement, was again present and interjected remarks, to the effect that the persons who had convened the meeting were murderers, anarchists etc. These interruptions gave rise to howls and curses and there were several small scrimmages between the adherents of Backert and those of the opposite way of thinking. Resolutions were adopted that the county council must be compelled to establish works for the relief of the unemployed.
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Stephen has laid his hands on copies of The Daily News. While transcribing some articles for him from the 4 Oct 1888 edition, I saw this:
A representative meeting of working men delegates from the labour organizations of East and Southeast London was held yesterday afternoon at the Three Nuns Hotel, Aldgate, for the purpose of determining what action the organized bodies of working men should take in view of the murders recently committed in the district. Mr. F. Wegington, general secretary of the Watermen’s Society, was called to the chair, and in opening the proceedings stated that the working class leaders in the East-end of London were horrified by the crimes that had occurred, and which they deplored. The working men were now arranging to form themselves into a Vigilance Committee, and he was pleased to say that Mr. L.H. Phillips, representing the district in the Corporation, had promised to become chairman of that committee.—On the motion of Mr. Chandler, seconded by Mr. John McLean, the following resolution was unanimously adopted, “The best thanks of the working men of the East-end of London are due and are hereby tendered to Mr. L.H. Phillips and to the Corporation of the City for their very prompt action in offering a substantial reward for the apprehension of the murderer and this meeting resolves itself into a Workmen’s Vigilance Committee to assist the police in their present arduous duties.” A number of men volunteered to patrol the streets, and their services were accepted.
Bachert's not mentioned by name, and there's another individual acting as chairman at this point, but given some of Bachert's activities, I wonder if he was present at this meeting and if this is the Vigilance Committee he was active with (not Lusk's group). Bachert is associated with both labour organizations and the Three Tuns Hotel.
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on August 19, 2004) |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 238
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Interesting links you found there, that sounds very plausible.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 5:28 pm: |
|
I've just seen a brief item on the Workmen's Vigilance Committee, from the 8 Oct 1888 Daily News.
The Working Mens' Vigilance and Patrol Committee have been augmented by some thirty able bodied men well acquainted with the locality. These were selected by a special meeting of representative working men connected with the dock industries, who assembled at Bow common lane on Saturday night.
I wonder if membership was limited only to watermen (dock industries), or if an engraver like Bachert could have been included.
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3260
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 6:21 pm: |
|
Hi Dave
i wonder whether Kidney joined (given his words at the inquest).
The idea of Vigilance Committees seems to have been very fashionable at that time, but before 1888 they seem mostly to have been bound up with the control of brothels and the protection of young girls from the vice trade.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 481
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Hi, Robert
Could be. "Had I been able to act as a detective. . .if I had the proper force at my command". If he did join, I doubt he lasted long in a group of sane men--Kidney sounds like a real psycho control freak, doesn't he, padlocking Stride into their room? "She got in and out somehow." |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3261
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Hi Dave
Maybe there's a slight clue that he was telling the truth about having been in the army. "If the murder occurred on my beat I would shoot myself." Sort of thing an army or ex-army man would say, rather than a civilian. I think the civilians mainly drowned themselves, hanged themselves, or cut their own throats.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
Given that Backert was a political activist (or to use the parlance of the day "a rabble rouser"), I wouldn't be surprised if it was him who recruited them.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 998
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Hi Robert, John, and David
Robert, you noted in regard to Michael Kidney's statement: "If the murder occurred on my beat I would shoot myself." Sort of thing an army or ex-army man would say, rather than a civilian.
But "on my beat" is a police term not an Army term. It seems to me Kidney's statement is a case of self-aggrandizement more than anything, that he was saying he had the wherewithal to bring the miscreant to justice, just given the chance. We all know the type of person who is all talk and not much action. I doubt if he was the sort of individual that George Lusk and others would want their vigilance committee?
David, I see no reason why they would necessarily have rejected Bachert's help at this early date, simply because he was an engraver. He was a known resident of the area and had not yet shown himself to be the rabble-rouser he was later seen to be. I think it was made public that dockworkers were involved in the effort because that might help send the message to the murderer that the people looking for him would be big muscular men.
David, the point though too about Bachert is that we still don't know exactly when he joined the vigilance committee, do we? As we discussed before, when you were writing your dissertation for Casebook, it seems the committee may have fallen apart after 1888 and Bachert revived it and became the head of it in 1889, and that he was not involved as a member early on.
There are also a couple of open questions that we should bear in mind when thinking about the citizens "vigilance committees."
First is the one brought up by Robert that, before 1888, vigilance committees seem mostly to have been concerned with the control of brothels and the protection of young girls from the vice trade. Second is that you see the Whitechapel committee referred to and sometimes the Mile End committee, and even a Spitalfields committee. Where these all one and the same? It seems that the Whitechapel and Mile End committees were the same since Lusk is given as the head of the organization, but the Spitalfields committee is another question. David, I believe I had not previously seen mention before of this Working Mens' Vigilance and Patrol Committee that you found discussed in the article in The Daily News of 8 October 1888. This might be yet another organization, or just another name for Lusk's committee. Which is it? 
The possible overlapping and shades of meaning of these terms and bodies, if they do overlap, or if they are different or if they are the same entities, is vexing. In fact, this might be an excellent example of why the police don't like such citizens' groups because you don't have the organization and discipline of a regularly organized police force.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on October 20, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Hi, Chris
That Bachert article needs updating big time I think you're right that the Whitechapel and Mile End Committees were one in the same, but that there were others. The vigilance committees need some looking into, if that's at all possible to do.
I'd say we definitely can't say when Bachert joined his committee or even which committee he joined. As far as press coverage goes, everything that mentions him specifically in connection with the Whitechapel murders comes from after 1888. However, in 1889 there's mention of Bachert's being a leading figure of the Vigilance Committee in 1888, but again none of the 1888 press reports seem to support this idea--at least I haven't seen anything naming him.
But maybe we're wrong to totally exclude him from involvement in 1888, while the Ripper was active.
In my article I speculated that perhaps John Bachert, a successful tailor in the district, might have been familiar with other successful businessmen and so might have taken an interest in what Lusk was doing. Perhaps John Bachert provides a kind of bridge between Albert and Lusk. But there's no evidence to support this, and I'm just thinking aloud here.
Or maybe it happened another way:
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov 1888:
"The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, who have recently relaxed their efforts to find the murderer, have called a meeting for Tuesday evening next, at the Paul's Head Tavern, Crispin-street, Spitalfields, to consider what steps they can take to assist the police in this latter matter."
Does "releaxed their efforts" mean the WVC ceased operations sometime before the Kelly murder? As far as I can tell, George Lusk seems to disappear from the scene entirely after receiving the From Hell kidney--whether because of the kidney (which he's supposed to have considered a joke years after the fact) or perhaps the Lusk group ran out of operating funds. I could have sworn I saw a notice from them appealing for funds around the end of October, but I can't find it now, so maybe I'm mistaken there. However it happened, by the time MJK dies, Lusk is now out of the picture. So perhaps Bachert became involved in 1888 and either took over or resurrected the remnants of Lusk's group. That would support the 1889 news article (I'm too lazy to check my article for which one it was) that says Bachert was an active vigilante in 1888.
The third scenario I can think of is the Workingmen's Vigilance Committee, for reasons I went into above, basically because of the labor and Three Tuns angle. Drawbacks to this scenario are that Bachert called his organization the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee after Lusk's group. Also, while some participants are named, there's no mention of Bachert. He seems to be uncharacteristically silent, which might mean he wasn't there. Or perhaps he was one of the able-bodied men who joined later and gained some kind of leadership position in 1889.
Anyway, when I speculate that Bachert might have joined either organization, I'm only thinking aloud. We certainly can't say which happened (if any did), although I am now leaning towards Bachert becoming involved in 1888 versus 1889.
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3266
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Hi Chris, John and David
I agree that Kidney may have mentioned shooting himself because he was talking about the police at the time. And yes, I can't see him as a valuable member of a vigilance committee.
i wonder whether the apparent decline of Lusk's star can be put down to his failure to catch the Ripper - perhaps his reputation suffered the same way the police's did.
Robert |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 999
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
You do make a good point about Lusk's reign perhaps being terminated by the fact that he had not brought results. I also have the impression that perhaps he was shaken by receiving the parcel with half a kidney. I believe the situation was that he first took the communication to be a joke but later on took it more seriously. It does seem to be the case that he kind of fades from view, no more mentions of him in the press or of the committee after a while, and that all might be a function of them not having stopped the murders.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Hi, Chris, Robert, and John
Besides the kidney, there's also the stalker type character whom Lusk's son encountered, also that October I believe. Maybe Lusk found the attention was a little more than he bargained for.
However, it's also possible that the WVC just ran out of money the end of October. I'm looking for that article, it was an appeal for funds.
Cheers,
Dave |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 12:41 am: |
|
An alternative view of Bachert....a suggestion.
I'm not entirely sure that Bachert wasn't already somewhat well-known in the East End in 1888. A letter of his about the Whitechapel crimes was printed in early September. The papers must have received many such letters; the fact that they printed Bachert's probably meant that he had some local status or at least name recognition. (He was also mentioned in the newspaper coverage of the 1887 demonstrations in Trafalgar Square).
Concerning Bachert's later notoriety, I also kind of wonder if he wasn't "railroaded." Being something of a local gad-fly and a labor activist, he wouldn't have been the first such type that was bogged down in legal woes in order to 'shut him up.' A few years back in my community we had a local anarchist who used to raise a lot of hell at the city council meetings. He was fond of protests. Like Bachert, he always seemed to be embroiled in some sort of controversy. Finally, the 'city fathers' bogged him down in so much frivolous litigation that he got the message and left town. In reading the report of Bachert's crime, it seems possible that it was the same sort of thing. If we knew all the details, might the whole affair have been something of a technicality? A convenient way of getting rid of a pest?? RP |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 9:50 am: |
|
Hi, R.J.
Are you referring to Bachert's letter to the London Evening News? Stephen told me last summer he'd found a Bachert letter predating the Chapman murder, but I haven't seen it yet.
Cheers,
Dave |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Dave--Hi. Yeah, I was thinking of the Evening News. I wonder if anyone could put these up on the boards? |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3151
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 9:03 pm: |
|
Here's the article in question, from the Sep. 6 issue of Evening News. Sorry its partially illegible - I intend to go back through the EN once we're done with the Daily News transcriptions and get a complete run from (hopefully) a clearer microfilm copy.
Nevertheless, here's the editorial in question:
(I believe the line which is blacked out reads "that the heads (?) of these police (illeg.) Arnold," - these are my handwritten notes from when I oringally got this copy)
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Thanks very much, Stephen. I went ahead and worked up a quick transcription (excluding that difficult line), just to help eyestrain I'll do a proper one later when the Press Project moves on to the EN. Sorry for any typos.
This is a good find. Look, they had a name for 13 Newnham. I wonder why Gordon House. . .for the war hero?
TO THE EDITOR OF “THE EVENING NEWS.”
SIR—Permit me, as an inhabitant of twenty years in Whitechapel, to express on behalf of a number of tradesmen and shopkeepers in Whitechapel our deepest regret and indignation at the shocking and revolting murders which have further diagnosed the unfortunate district of Whitechapel of late. The question that now arises is what is to be done, and what can be done to check and prevent the further spreading of such dastardly crimes. In the first place I would suggest that the police force should be strengthened in the East End, and secondly that there should be more gas lights in our back streets, courts, and alleys. There is no doubt but that these unfortunate women were butchered by their bullies (men who gain their livelihood from these unfortunates) and were the police to watch the haunts and dens of these villains and thieves, no doubt in a short time we should have a decrease of these crimes which have disgraced the capital of England. There are several supposed clubs in Whitechapel which these villains frequent, which are open all night for the sale of wines, spirits, and beer, and where any non-member can be admitted and served with as much drink as he or she can pay for. It is in these vile dens that the seed of immorality and crime is sown which brings forth the fruits we have just witnessed. The police must know of these places; if not, I am prepared, if required, to give the names of these places to any person in authority. The East End police are, with a few exceptions, a good and noble body of men who at all times have a hard and difficult duty to perform, and I feel sure (illegible line) will do their uttermost to stop the breeding of further crimes by these ruffians. In the second place I suggest more gas lights in our bye-streets, courts, and alleys. We pay rates and taxes, and have a right to have our district properly lighted. Only a little while back a City manufacturer living opposite me was knocked down, beaten, and robbed of a valuable gold chain within a few yards of his own street door, the villains escaping because the spot is dark. My sister also a short time ago was knocked down by some cowards. They also got away, the place being dark. Now, Sir, I hope and trust that the Whitechapel Board of Works and the Commercial Gas Company will awake to their duty, and do their best to have this grievance removed. Apologising for trespassing upon your valuable space, I am, &c.,
ALBERT BACHERT.
Gordon House, Newnham-street, Whitechapel,
September 5.
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 9:50 pm: |
|
A couple of quick observations--I think Bachert's talk about "vile dens that the seed of immorality and crime is sown" is interesting, given his association with Three Tuns or Nuns, and later on, the episode where he's brought in for passing counterfeit coins at taverns. In the letter Stephen's found, Bachert's talking about specialized "members-only" type places, though.
The reference to his sister. . .I wonder if he means the 1887 incident which led to an appeal to Godfrey Lushington? Bachert thought it was two constables accosting the woman, but was unable to identify them later on. I wonder if the "respectable acquaintance" the Eastern Post (20 Aug 1887) mentions was Emily Bachert. Maybe not.
(Message edited by oberlin on October 21, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Hi David
Speaking as a British subject (though now an American citizen--I have dual nationality) I think anyone who has lived in England would be surprised to hear British pubs described as "vile dens [in which] the seed of immorality and crime is sown."
Rather, I think Albert Bachert in this letter from the Evening News of 6 September 1888 is talking about all-night "clubs" as he actually states, places that might be more houses of prostitution or gambling houses, rather than public houses, the latter being licensed by the local authorities and thus regulated whereas a club might or might not be.
While pubs of course do vary as to how high class they might be, most have good reputations.
I should think, but may be wrong, that the Three Tuns (or Three Nuns), Aldgate, had a reasonable reputation and in no way would be viewed as a den of iniquity.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on October 22, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Hi, Chris
Thanks, that makes good sense. I'm sure you're right that Bachert's referring to unregulated "clubs", something along the lines of a 19 Cleveland Street and not your average pub like the Three Tuns or Nuns.
Cheers,
Dave |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
