Cautious?

[Elamarna]

Perhaps it would be helpful to provide some links on how this word is pronounced. Pierre seems to think that cautious and cachous are homophones.
Perhaps the fact he has told us in the past that he is not English, and suggested that it is not his first language explains this.

therefore, (cachous is the plural of cachou)

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjY-YjbgZbKAhVCXBoKHT0MDusQtwIIJjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVHf9DZQl5us&usg=AFQjCNHiIsmvsqi-K8yWB0t7p13RESjRZQ&sig2=ZFfs4YFHzViVxgRYtiqjtA

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cachou

and http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pron...glish/cautious

That should answer the question i hope

respectfully Elamarna

[JadenCollins]

How do you go from cauchous to cochon? It doesn't make any sense.

[DJA]

cadaveric spasms

Given Stride's placid face and partially open mouth,it is quite likely that accepting the cachous was the last thing she did.

[David Orsam]

"It's perfectly obvious that the cachous were a clue to the police but nothing to do with the word "cautious".

The cachous were undoubtedly a play on the French word "cochon" meaning pig."

Pigs for number one. Chevrons from number two. Could make sense.

HE LOVES IT!!!!

I am truly son of Pierre.

[Craig H]

I just I found something in the inquest, and I am wondering if this could be a communication from the killer at the murder site of Stride.

My friend Pierre

You know I have enjoyed your posts. While not necessarily agreeing with some of your insights, I think you have provoked discussion about a wide range of issues relating to the JTR murders.

I also believe the amount of time you have spent researching and posting shows that you have a strong interest in this mystery.

However you must also know that these type of posts about metaphorical actions just add fuel to the fire. There will just be another wave of responses similar to the past.

When we write anything (as you well know) we need to also consider how our "audience" will respond. How do you think others will respond to this post ?

Do you have anything from your research, that is more factual, that would reassure others on this forum that there is something more concrete in your theory ?

Respectfully,

Craig

[Pierre]

Yes, I am beginning to sense that Pierre has a tendency to imaginatively interpret evidence in a way that is consistent with his own preconceived ideas.

Cadaveric spasms? Wouldn't that involve a scientific explanation? Not sure Pierre would be too interested in that.

"It's perfectly obvious that the cachous were a clue to the police but nothing to do with the word "cautious".

The cachous were undoubtedly a play on the French word "cochon" meaning pig."

Pigs for number one. Chevrons from number two. Could make sense.

Pierre

[John G]

Is Pierre somehow saying there is significance in the fact that the word "cautious" shares some letters which are found in the word "cachous"? (And as I type this I see he has now called them homophones!!!)

He seems to have missed a trick, which is unlike him.

It's perfectly obvious that the cachous were a clue to the police but nothing to do with the word "cautious".

The cachous were undoubtedly a play on the French word "cochon" meaning pig.

A pig is a slang word for a police officer* and the Ripper was clearly telling the investigating officers that he, the Ripper, was a policeman.

Right, all sorted, this thread is now officially closed and no more posts in it are allowed.

*let's not get into an endless debate about whether police were called pigs in 1888 - the OED cites 3 examples of its use prior to this date that they were, so that's that.

p.s. no-one needs to tell Pierre about cadaveric spasms, this is not a sensible thread.

Yes, I am beginning to sense that Pierre has a tendency to imaginatively interpret evidence in a way that is consistent with his own preconceived ideas.

Cadaveric spasms? Wouldn't that involve a scientific explanation? Not too sure that Pierre would be interested in that.

[David Orsam]

Is Pierre somehow saying there is significance in the fact that the word "cautious" shares some letters which are found in the word "cachous"? (And as I type this I see he has now called them homophones!!!)

He seems to have missed a trick, which is unlike him.

It's perfectly obvious that the cachous were a clue to the police but nothing to do with the word "cautious".

The cachous were undoubtedly a play on the French word "cochon" meaning pig.

A pig is a slang word for a police officer* and the Ripper was clearly telling the investigating officers that he, the Ripper, was a policeman.

Right, all sorted, this thread is now officially closed and no more posts in it are allowed.

*let's not get into an endless debate about whether police were called pigs in 1888 - the OED cites 3 examples of its use prior to this date that they were, so that's that.

p.s. no-one needs to tell Pierre about cadaveric spasms, this is not a sensible thread.

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

There have been many arguments concerning the cachous, i.e. how did Stride manage to hold on to them during a violent assault? It has therefore been hypothesized that they could have been placed in her hand, by the killer, after death. However, why a killer would want to do this I have no idea.

To tell the police he was the Ripper being cautious?

The words are almost homophone.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hi,

I found something interesting in the Stride inquest.

Firstly, as we all know, he killer did not perform any mutilations on Stride.
Therefore people have thought that the killer was not Jack the Ripper - or they have thought that he was interrupted.

Did the killer assume that the police would think along these lines, given that he had performed mutilations on Nichols and Chapman and were going to do the same on Eddowes after Stride? And if he did assume that, would he want to tell the police that he was the actual killer of Stride?

Earlier I have stated that he was not interrupted after killing Stride. I said he could not go searching for the next victim and come to her with blood all over him. He would have been caught directly.

I believe that is why he did not perform any mutilations on Stride:

He was being

cautious. (Avoiding risk.)

I just I found something in the inquest, and I am wondering if this could be a communication from the killer at the murder site of Stride. I have not seen it before.

There were discussions on this issue during the inquest. And one problem that was been discussed was why Stride did not drop the thing she had in her left hand when she fell to the ground.
http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...st_stride.html

Could it have been placed in her hand by the killer?

Did he try to identify himself by explaining to the police why he did not perform any mutilations on Stride?

It is not an hypothesis, just a question.

The thing that Stride had in her left hand after death was a paper tissue containing -

cachous.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

There have been many arguments concerning the cachous, i.e. how did Stride manage to hold on to them during a violent assault? It has therefore been hypothesized that they could have been placed in her hand, by the killer, after death. However, why a killer would want to do this I have no idea.

[DJA]

Reckon Jack gave her the cachous.

My data tells me that they are a big clue as to why Stride was not mutilated.

The Inquest tells us that both Elizabeth Tanner and Catherine Lane thought she lived in Fashion Street and that she was often seen there.

Oddly,earlier Catherine Eddowes had given her name and address as Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street,a Jewish "soup kitchen".

Strongly suspect Jack was expecting to have further contact from Eddowes that morning.

[Pierre]

Hi,

I found something interesting in the Stride inquest.

Firstly, as we all know, he killer did not perform any mutilations on Stride.
Therefore people have thought that the killer was not Jack the Ripper - or they have thought that he was interrupted.

Did the killer assume that the police would think along these lines, given that he had performed mutilations on Nichols and Chapman and were going to do the same on Eddowes after Stride? And if he did assume that, would he want to tell the police that he was the actual killer of Stride?

Earlier I have stated that he was not interrupted after killing Stride. I said he could not go searching for the next victim and come to her with blood all over him. He would have been caught directly.

I believe that is why he did not perform any mutilations on Stride:

He was being

cautious. (Avoiding risk.)

I just I found something in the inquest, and I am wondering if this could be a communication from the killer at the murder site of Stride. I have not seen it before.

There were discussions on this issue during the inquest. And one problem that was been discussed was why Stride did not drop the thing she had in her left hand when she fell to the ground.
http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...st_stride.html

Could it have been placed in her hand by the killer?

Did he try to identify himself by explaining to the police why he did not perform any mutilations on Stride?

It is not an hypothesis, just a question.

The thing that Stride had in her left hand after death was a paper tissue containing -

cachous.

Kind regards, Pierre