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. An journalist from the Herald succeed in locating the woman and received further details of her story, which the paper relates in the same issue. Her story seems culled from various newspaper reports, and two details are striking in connection with Bachert: the boarder "was in the habit of spending his evenings at the Tuns. . . ." and that he frequently used the term "Boss." They recall the "Toby Baskett" letter of October 1888.
In February of 1891, excited talk concerning a possible return of Jack the Ripper resumed when Frances Coles was found murdered in Swallow Gardens and police arrested Thomas Sadler for her murder. Albert Bachert was present for at least part of the Coles inquest, and possibly was there to witness Joseph Lawende's attempted identification of Sadler as Catherine Eddowes' assailant (Lawende was unable to make the identification). On 16 February, when the inquest reconvened after an adjournment, Coroner Wynne Baxter found himself short of jurymen to hear the case. Bachert offered himself as a substitute but Baxter, seemingly all too familiar with Bachert's reputation, refused him. Bachert was furious and demanded an explanation:
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. (The Times {London}, 16 February 1891).
It's clear from the exchange that Wynne Baxter did not have a high regard for Albert Bachert. One wonders if other authorities felt the same. Indeed, by 1893, even the press would describe him as an "agitator" (The Times {London}, 8 March, 1893). At some point prior to March 1893, Bachert took a salaried position (25s. a week) as secretary of the Unemployed and Investigation Relief Committee (or Tower Hamlets Unemployed Investigation and Relief Society). The organization, formed to distribute food and clothing to the poor of Whitechapel, was at the time temporarily headed by the Reverend Richard Wilson (acting for his brother Harry, who was ill that March). Rather than provide materials directly to applicants, the Relief Committee instead gave them written orders, which they could then redeem with participating tradesmen. On March 8, Albert Bachert was indicted for providing false orders to benefit a Mrs. Avenell, for six loaves of bread and six quarterns (quartern=quarter pound) of flour. Bachert had obtained the orders from Rev. Wilson with the understanding that Mrs. Avenell's case was "urgent and deserving" and that Bachert had done so with the approval of the committee. However, it transpired that Bachert had never approached the committee with Mrs. Avenell's case and they knew nothing of her, a situation that was quickly remedied. Mrs. Avenell was found to be not deserving of charity-she was a widow who kept a beer shop and whose actual name was, aptly, Beers (Avenell was the name of a former husband). Bachert's defense called two witnesses, but they were unable to contradict the prosecution's evidence. Albert Bachert was found guilty and sentenced to three months imprisonment with hard labor (The Times {London}, 8 March 1893 and East London Advertiser, 11 March 1893).
A DOCTOR'S CLUE.
HE GIVES INFORMATION OF A MAD MEDICAL ASSISTANT.
Just Such a Man as Archibald Forbes Described - The Practical Joker Threatens Another Murder - A Night of Comparative Quiet. A medical gentleman called at The Star office yesterday to give us some important information regarding a suspicion which he entertains as to the murderer. But his first words were of protest against the manner he was received at Scotland-yard. He went there in company with another medical gentleman and announced that he had some important information to communicate. He was shown into an underground room where two or three police clerks were standing about. He was not attended to, and after waiting some minutes he said to his friend, "Well, if this is the way we are to be treated I am going." Thereupon one of the subalterns said, "Beg pardon, sir, but we are very busy." This came from one of the men who was busy talking to his colleagues. At last the doctor received some, but not too polite, attention. He was conducted upstairs to see "SOMEONE IN AUTHORITY," but that "someone" refused to see him. His statement was then taken down in a perfunctory manner. "The man," he says, "didn't put down half that I told him, and I was disgusted at the manner we were received and at the careless way Scotland-yard does its duty." The only explanation they gave to his protests was that "There's so many people call here, you know." Having extricated himself from Scotland-yard red tape and Warrenism, the gentleman came with his story to the Star office, not because he sympathies with the paper politically, for he is a "rank Conservative," but because of the importance he attaches to the news. It has been more than once suggested that the murderer is a MONOMANIAC WITH MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE. The doctor had an assistant who has gone mad recently, and who is exactly the sort of man Mr. Archibald Forbes had in his mind in his diagnosis of the murders. "Clearly," said Mr. Forbes, "the murderer is a man familiar with the geography of the Whitechapel purlieus. Clearly he is a man not unaccustomed in the manner of accosting these poor women as they are wont to be accosted. Clearly he is a man to whom the methods of the policeman are not unknown - the measured pace, the regular methodic round, the tendency to woodenness and unalertness of perception which are the characteristics of that well-meaning individual. "Probably, a dissolute man, he fell a victim to a specific contagion, and so seriously that in the sequel he lost his career. What shape the deterioration may have taken, yet left him with a strong, steady hand, a brain of devilish coolness, and an active step, is not to be defined."
"The man's physical health ruined," continues Mr. Forbes, "and his career broken, he has possibly suffered specific brain damage as well. At this moment - I cannot use exact professional terms - there may be mischief to one of the lobes of the brain. Or he may have become insane simply from anguish of body and distress of mind. Anyhow, he is mad, and his mania, rising from the particular to the general, takes THE FELL FORM OF REVENGE
against the class, a member of which has wrought him his blighting hurt, against, too, the persons of that class plying in Whitechapel, since it was from a Whitechapel loose woman that he took his scathe." Now this exactly describes the man whom the doctor suspects. He is a man of about 35. He was not a fully qualified surgeon, but had a certain amount of anatomical knowledge, and had assisted at operations, including ovariotomy. He was the assistant to a doctor in Whitechapel, and KNOWS EVERY ALLEY AND COURT in the neighborhood of the places where the murders were committed. He has been the victim of "a specific contamination," and since then has been animated by feelings of hate, not to say revenge, against the lower class of women who haunt the streets. When