Cautious?

[GUT]

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.

Can't be a sensible thread.


Pierre started it.



p.s.

Had to post to see if it was really closed.

[John G]

Inspired by David's example, I thought I'd have a go at Pierre-think myself. Okay, here goes...Was Stride chosen as a victim because her name rhymes with the would "pride"? In other words, to communicate to the police that he was proud of what he was doing.

Eh, not bad at a first attempt, even if I do say so myself! Maybe I, too, could be a pseudoscientist if I put my mind to it!

[David Orsam]

Well, that is what David thinks.

And I just say: pigs for number one, chevrons for number two. THAT makes sense.

But I say nothing about going from cachous to cochon. Because in that case, I have the same question to David as you just posed to me.

My answer Pierre is that I was joking. Do you understand? Not to be taken seriously.

What do you think it says about you that you have adopted my absurd suggestion?

There is as much connection between cochon and cachous as between cautious and cachous. Basically, none.

[Michael W Richards]

So.....a mutilator who is so out of control that he cant resist killing and mutilating a prostitute in the street... then again 10 days later in a dawn lit backyard, suddenly, and just for 1 hour, gains control over his actions?

Better premises make better discussions Pierre. But I suppose there is as much evidence of your suggestion as there is some interruption halted the process.

Heres a thought...Liz Stride was killed because her killer wanted her dead. Not in pieces.

[JadenCollins]

Well, that is what David thinks.

And I just say: pigs for number one, chevrons for number two. THAT makes sense.

But I say nothing about going from cachous to cochon. Because in that case, I have the same question to David as you just posed to me.

Regards, Pierre

I saw that, thanks for the update.

[David Orsam]

I have sources stating his real name, not in any other written form, which are connected to the murders. And I have sources with his real name (again) giving the motive for the murders. There are also sources giving his profession, in real words and not in any other written form. I also have a confession containing data for him but not with his name.

There must be thousands of people "connected" in some way with the murders. And if we are talking about police officers then surely at least hundreds of them can be "connected" with the murders. So your first point is worthless.

Hard to know what you mean about "sources" giving the motive for the murders without knowing what you think the motive is. I mean, maybe you have evidence that your suspect didn't like prostitutes or even women but that's not enough I'm afraid.

Sources giving his profession sound uncontroversial.

If you have a confession which does not bear his name then, unless you have some other way of demonstrating it was written by him, it is not a confession by him. It's hard to know what "containing data for him" actually means.

Sounds to me like you don't have the strong evidence you represented to us that did.

[Pierre]

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

Well, that is what David thinks.

And I just say: pigs for number one, chevrons for number two. THAT makes sense.

But I say nothing about going from cachous to cochon. Because in that case, I have the same question to David as you just posed to me.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

End of debate again. even when one tries to be helpful.

so be it

[JadenCollins]

Hmmmmn. Like you say: it doesn't make any sense.

It was meant for Pierre anyways.

Since he's interpreting every single word differently, there should be a new dictionary out there, the Pierre's bizarre view of words.

[Pierre]

Pierre seems to think that cautious and cachous are homophones.

No Steve. I wrote that they are "almost homophone".

And [U]you can NOT use modern pronounciation for this. It would be anachronistic.

And by saying they are "almost homophone" I allow for the possibility of differences both now and in the 19th century.

respectfully Elamarna

Respectfully, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Why would I address it to you?

Hmmmmn. Like you say: it doesn't make any sense.

[DJA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechu

For use on her lower lip.

[JadenCollins]

I seriously do hope that question is addressed to Pierre and not me.

Why would I address it to you?

[Pierre]

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

Hi Craig,

I understand your concern. I will try to give you an idea of the quality of the sources that give his ID. They are sources that I never discuss here. Not yet.

I have sources stating his real name, not in any other written form, which are connected to the murders. And I have sources with his real name (again) giving the motive for the murders. There are also sources giving his profession, in real words and not in any other written form. I also have a confession containing data for him but not with his name.

Outside of these sources for his ID I have chosen to discuss with you some interesting possibilities concerning other sources, that are NOT giving his ID. I donīt mind being explorative and trying different hypotheses for those.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

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

I seriously do hope that question is addressed to Pierre and not me.