View Single Post
Old 13-01-2019, 05:01 PM   #694
Premier Subscribers
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,171
Likes: 1,044 (634 Posts)

Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
The London police had been forbidden to arrest streetwalkers on prostitution charges without corroborating evidence - this arising from a case which had no evidence in June 1887, leading to a large increase of prostitutes on the streets due to the police reluctance to fall foul of the rules by arresting suspects.

"As a result of Warren’s order arrests for prostitution showed a dramatic decline between 1887 and 1889 as beat officers decided it was better for them to ignore street walkers rather than risk the humiliation that their colleague PC Endacott had endured.
By the time the Jack the Ripper Murders began in August 1888 the local prostitutes felt confident enough to brazenly and publicly solicit for clients and it was almost impossible for a man to walk along certain streets in London without being constantly approached by emboldened street walkers."

It would therefore seem at face value that the operation had indeed been a police one to deter prostitution in the area near to the hospital. Since morality was involved, the Church police would have been brought in. They would have posed covertly as clients initially in order to confirm the acts of prostitution. A request for money would have sufficed as evidence.
The evidence for the summary execution would have been obtained and retained. That way wrongful arrests could be avoided. The slashing and violent attacks on the bodies left in public places meant to strike fear and terror amongst local prostitutes.

I believe this identifies (Detective) Sergeant Robert Sagar and his accomplices as religious police working covertly as City of London detectives, and handling both church and state matters. If similar cases are anything to go by, then he would already have been a Knight of the Church of England, (with additional royal powers to undertake summary executions) - albeit in a clandestine manner. i.e. a top freemason, employed by the Church to undertake ecclesiastical matters under common law, and posing/acting as senior City of London detective sergeant.
This is also formally known (to the few) as the office of the Witchfinder General, as an ecclesiastical appointment, usually running in tandem and covertly with, and under the guise of a senior police London-based state appointment (in this case detective sergeant).
A highly occult appointment with responsibility for satanic rituals and sacrificial cullings.
It is claimed he would never appear in uniform; was often acting undercover in disguise in the districts used by the ripper; and handled blasphemy cases for the church, but seemingly no information about his church connections. A large ritual culling such as this would have been the end of the ecclesiastical engagement, whereupon promotion to higher state appointment would have signalled the end of his witchfinder duties.

Nobody else may suddenly enter the police service with no credentials and no prior experience of police work as "detective sergeant" straight off the street. Only the Church appointment can make this happen. Even where history may have been rewritten to accommodate his appointments, the fact he never wore uniform is a giveaway, and would indicate Church control, as a higher authority. It would also appear that he was co-ordinating senior officers on the case. The guise of labourer would have been to entice solicitations as evidence. Swift summary execution would have followed later for any lady offering such services, as the evidence was then already at hand.

I believe the whole matter had been a sacrificial ritual and an unofficial police "clean-up" operation of the local area in order to entice richer fee-paying national and international students to the new surgical wing and accommodation/courses on offer at the royal hospital, and intended to frighten the local prostitutes to keep them off the streets.

Last edited by grimstock; 14-01-2019 at 08:28 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote