Which is the correctly joined sentence?

[kohyoongliat]

The police had been looking for the snatch thief for the past two weeks. Rupert was the snatch thief.

I have joined the sentence as follows. Which is the correctly joined sentence? Thanks.

Rupert was the snatch thief, whom the police had been looking for the snatch thief for for the past two weeks.

Rupert, whom the police had been looking for for the past two weeks, was the snatch thief.

 

[MikeNewYork]

The police had been looking for the snatch thief for the past two weeks. Rupert was the snatch thief.

I have joined the sentence as follows. Which is the correctly joined sentence? Thanks.

Rupert was the snatch thief, whom the police had been looking for the snatch thief for for the past two weeks.

Rupert, whom the police had been looking for for the past two weeks, was the snatch thief.

Is the "snatch thief" a title? If so, I would capitalize the S and T.

The second sentence is OK, but I would reword it to get rid of "for for". The first is not OK.

 

[kohyoongliat]

Thanks, Mike. "Snatch thief" is not a title.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Thanks, Mike. "Snatch thief" is not a title?

Then just "thief" would be more common.

 

[5jj]

Is the "snatch thief" a title?.

[h=3]Snatch theft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]

 

[MikeNewYork]

Snatch theft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, that is a new one for me.

 

[5jj]

Well, that is a new one for me.

I came across it only recently. It's not used much in Britain - except by those who have been victims of the crime when travelling in countries where it is common.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I came across it only recently. It's not used much in Britain - except by those who have been victims of the crime when travelling in countries where it is common.

I certainly can understand it in context. But we would call the person a mugger, a robber, or a thief, not a "snatch thief'.

 

[Raymott]

The police had been looking for the snatch thief for the past two weeks. Rupert was the snatch thief.

I have joined the sentence as follows. Which is the correctly joined sentence? Thanks.

Rupert was the snatch thief, whom the police had been looking for the snatch thief for for the past two weeks.

Rupert, whom the police had been looking for for the past two weeks, was the snatch thief.

Most likely the second sentence gives the wrong meaning. The police weren't looking for Rupert independently of the fact that he was the thief. They were looking for the thief, who turned out to be Rupert.
But is there really a correct way to join sentences if the intended meaning isn't known? There's usually no such thing as the correctly joined sentence. Certainly neither of these is at all natural.

"For the past two weeks the police had been looking for the snatch thief, who turned out to be Rupert." (The reason for the use of the past perfect here is not obvious).