The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Elamarna]

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Actually the door was ajar when Watkins, entered the Square, Morris having opened it just before he arrived.

If the killer was so careful and itelligent as you claim one assumes he had visited the scene before or at least investigated the location and made himself aware of any possible risks or are you suggesting he just plucked the name from a map because he believed they looked safer.?
or is it more likely that the murder took place in a dark corner where he had been led by the victim?

The second choice is at least as valid as your suggestion unless you can supply evidence to back you statement up.

"But not from the perspective of the killer, since he chose this place."

You do not know that! That is not a question it is a fact!
You have no way of knowing if he led Eddowes or Eddowes he into the square, as stated above.


" he had a motive to work in high risk places.

So we canīt apply our own view of risk on the killerīs view of risk.

The killer LOVED taking risks. It made him feel superior."


Again that is your opinion, it is NOT a fact nor is it supported by any evidence, it is your personal opinion, which you have told us have no place in History.
you are entitled to your opinion, but stop stating YOUR ideas as FACTS, they are not.


"But working directly on a street was too risky. He could not afford to look like a fool."

Look like a fool, to whom?

Once again he WAS on the streets, he was not in a private backyard or club yard, he was in a public thoroughfare, do you understand what that means?


You could say "I believe", or "it is my view", but No you say they are facts,

and this is my problem with your postings, not that you will not say who your suspect is, that is your right, but that time after time you state that your unproven statements are facts.

NO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHER WITH ANY RESPECT FOR THEIR WORK OR CREDIIBILTY would continue to do this.

[Elamarna]

Which also means that the police would have to cover three exits in order to catch him surely? More likely than an accomplice, in my view, is knowledge that Watkin used Kearley & Tonge as a tea-spot (probably spending the duration of one circuit of his beat, but no longer, with Morris). There is an old saying in the trade:

"A good policeman never gets wet".

It had not long stopped raining when the body was found, which must raise this as a possibility. My view is that Watkin sheltered from the rain and Lawende was mistaken in thinking that the woman he had seen was Eddowes.

Bridewell

I agree with you 100% on both issues, I have always had grave doubts about the sighting by Lawende, mainly due to the timing of Kate's release and the short distance from the Police station to the square.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Regards, Pierre

"Because he wrote to the police about the murder sites."


I take it you have evidence, in plain English which reveals the names of Berner Street and Mitre Square, or is it again coded.

Actually the letters you have posted so far were not sent to the Police but to Newspapers, so do you have communications to the police on top of these letters?

and you seriously do not know who J M Barrie was?

[David Orsam]

Because he wrote to the police about the murder sites.

Well this is new and exciting news. We haven't so far been told by Pierre about any communications to the police by the killer about any of the murder sites. Now I can't wait to find out more.

I seem to recall that Pierre once brilliantly uncovered a letter written by the killer to two newspapers during early November 1888 in which he revealed the next murder site through a clever metaphorical reference to "a quarter of a mile" which was an obvious reference to 13 Miller's Court, and it's inexplicable that the police missed it when they read the newspapers. However, Pierre, with typical humility, branded this letter as being of low validity and not part of his theory so, as it was also not correspondence to the police, this can't be one of the letters Pierre is now referring to.

[Abby Normal]

Well this is new and exciting news. We haven't so far been told by Pierre about any communications to the police by the killer about any of the murder sites. Now I can't wait to find out more.

I seem to recall that Pierre once brilliantly uncovered a letter written by the killer to two newspapers during early November 1888 in which he revealed the next murder site through a clever metaphorical reference to "a quarter of a mile" which was an obvious reference to 13 Miller's Court, and it's inexplicable that the police missed it when they read the newspapers. However, Pierre, with typical humility, branded this letter as being of low validity and not part of his theory so, as it was also not correspondence to the police, this can't be one of the letters Pierre is now referring to.

well considering Pierre uses metaphorical circular reasoning anything is possible.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Actually the door was ajar when Watkins, entered the Square, Morris having opened it just before he arrived.

If the killer was so careful and itelligent as you claim one assumes he had visited the scene before or at least investigated the location and made himself aware of any possible risks or are you suggesting he just plucked the name from a map because he believed they looked safer.?

I suggest that he chose any location he knew would be free from police constables for as much time as he needed.

or is it more likely that the murder took place in a dark corner where he had been led by the victim?

No. He was a serial killer and serial killers usually set the rules. Not the victims.

The second choice is at least as valid as your suggestion unless you can supply evidence to back you statement up.

Serial killers pick up victims, victims donīt pick up serial killers. You hardly have to read any academic literature to know this.


"But not from the perspective of the killer, since he chose this place."

You do not know that! That is not a question it is a fact!
You have no way of knowing if he led Eddowes or Eddowes he into the square, as stated above.

Naturally he did. And what is the point about arguing about this question? Any dark place would fit. And do you suggest that Polly Nichols were prepared to offer her services on the street and "led him" there? Naturally, the street was the choice of the killer.

" he had a motive to work in high risk places.

So we canīt apply our own view of risk on the killerīs view of risk.

The killer LOVED taking risks. It made him feel superior."


Again that is your opinion, it is NOT a fact nor is it supported by any evidence, it is your personal opinion, which you have told us have no place in History.


How could it be reduced to an "opinion" that the killer loved taking risks and felt superior when he chose high risk places at a very short distance from one or more police constables? It is a well established fact that he did. Did he do that because he hated risk? Or did he want to get caught? Did he pick very risky murder locations because he felt inferior to the police?


you are entitled to your opinion, but stop stating YOUR ideas as FACTS, they are not.


I state things as facts sometimes, and I do that when I think they are facts.

"But working directly on a street was too risky. He could not afford to look like a fool."

Look like a fool, to whom?

To the police.

Once again he WAS on the streets, he was not in a private backyard or club yard, he was in a public thoroughfare, do you understand what that means?

Do you understand what this means? He chose these murder sites because of their characteristics.

You could say "I believe", or "it is my view", but No you say they are facts,

And it is. He did chose them because of their characteristics. He tried performing mutilations on the street at Buckīs Row. That was to dangerous. If he had been able to continue with working on the street he would have done so. He wanted the victims to be visible. He did not, as do many serial killers, hide his victims. He wanted people to see them. Otherwise you donīt murder and mutilate women and leave them on the ground.

and this is my problem with your postings, not that you will not say who your suspect is, that is your right, but that time after time you state that your unproven statements are facts.

I donīt think you want to understand anything I write. You have an image of me in your brain. But that image is wrong.

NO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHER WITH ANY RESPECT FOR THEIR WORK OR CREDIIBILTY would continue to do this.

And there is your image of what I can not be, according to yourself. But your comment is of no importance. What is important is: Am I wrong - or am I right?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Am I wrong - or am I right?

There's no need for you to even ask this question Pierre. The answer is perfectly obvious.

[Abby Normal]

Regards, Pierre

would it be impossible to you to reply to people without writing inside their quote box?

[Pierre]

"Because he wrote to the police about the murder sites."


I take it you have evidence, in plain English which reveals the names of Berner Street and Mitre Square, or is it again coded.

Actually the letters you have posted so far were not sent to the Police but to Newspapers, so do you have communications to the police on top of these letters?

Yes, I have.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I have.

Great news Pierre. Looks like you've wrapped this case up. Good job.

[Pierre]

would it be impossible to you to reply to people without writing inside their quote box?

Would it be impossible to you to not interfere with how I write?

[el_pombo]

Which also means that the police would have to cover three exits in order to catch him surely? More likely than an accomplice, in my view, is knowledge that Watkin used Kearley & Tonge as a tea-spot (probably spending the duration of one circuit of his beat, but no longer, with Morris). There is an old saying in the trade:

"A good policeman never gets wet".

It had not long stopped raining when the body was found, which must raise this as a possibility. My view is that Watkin sheltered from the rain and Lawende was mistaken in thinking that the woman he had seen was Eddowes.

I've been reading about Lawende's statement and I agree that he could very well have been mistaken, and it seems the other two witnesses didn't even identify the woman as Eddowes.

Watkins testified he had been at Mitre Square at 01:30 AM, but as you very well point out, he could have lied about that to protect his job and reputation.

As for the three exits, if the murdered had been seen by a policeman while performing the mutilations and the policeman had blown his whistle he would probably have been detained by the crowd if he left the square running (I don't know how crowded the streets were at the time, I'll have to do some research about that, but I'm assuming there was a good number of people on the street). But if he had time to leave just before the policeman entered the square, he'd be almost home free.

I'm probably committing some rookie mistakes, I'm not your league in terms of knowledge of the details and I'm still learning, so please forgive me if I'm wasting your time.

Regards.

[JadenCollins]

Would it be impossible to you to not interfere with how I write?

Oh,

1-0

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

firstly learn how to reply properly, the last posting is anything but clear because you reply in bold under my comments in bold, you could at least reduce mine to normal type so that people can see who is saying what.


I did not suggest the victims picked him up, but that they led him to the sites, that is a difference you again fail to comprehend, given the climate of fear it is likely that the victim s would go somewhere they felt safe, rather than somewhere they did not. Unfortunately you cannot see this.


"How could it be reduced to an "opinion" that the killer loved taking risks and felt superior when he chose high risk places at a very short distance from one or more police constables? It is a well established fact that he did. Did he do that because he hated risk? Or did he want to get caught? Did he pick very risky murder locations because he felt inferior to the police?"



No Pierre, it is not a well established fact that he loved taking risks, it is an interpretation of the evidence, it is certainly not established that he felt superior to the police.
Because you believe something is true does not make it so, it makes it a possibility and therefore still an opinion, NOT A FACT.


"I state things as facts sometimes, and I do that when I think they are facts."


With no evidence given to support you view, that is not scientific, it is a trait of someone who feels superior to those he is replying to.


"And it is. He did chose them because of their characteristics. He tried performing mutilations on the street at Buckīs Row. That was to dangerous. If he had been able to continue with working on the street he would have done so. He wanted the victims to be visible. He did not, as do many serial killers, hide his victims. He wanted people to see them. Otherwise you donīt murder and mutilate women and leave them on the ground."


MITRE Square was on the street!
Its the same over and over again, you may deeply believe what you are writing is the truth, but as you supply no evidence, it is only your opinion, NOTHING MORE!

I HAVE NO IMAGE OF YOU, I vary between thinking you are a serious troll or that you really believe in your theory, I really can't make my mine up, but as you are just someone on a forum, its not really important is it!

You were the one who claimed to be a scientific researcher, but you show no evidence or any scientific thinking in the things you write.

I am prepared to say some of the stuff you post is indeed possible, but you will say NO it is a fact, you give the appearance of being completely inflexible.

This is why I have come to feel that talking to you is pointless.
Your replies to my points in this post are prime examples of this, I say you could say "maybe" or "possibly" and you reject that option, in favour or your being the only view.

"Am I wrong - or am I right?"


I have no idea, because you refuse to say anything to allow people to judge.

However unless you can prove what you say to the World, the World will to judge you wrong. That is how the World works, be in science, medicine or Ripperology.

[Pierre]

"No, it was a "square" and more like a yard than a street."


No Pierre, it was and is a public thoroughfare with 3 entrances/exits. It was regularly patrolled by 2 separate police beats. it is certainly not a yard.

Courtyards are often defined as—private open spaces surrounded by walls or buildings, such as the backyard in Hanbury Street.

Can I ask if have you actually been to Mitre Square rather than just relying on a map.
yet again something we will have to disagree on.

Do you mean that you have been to Mitre Square in 1888?

I did NOT say it was a yard, I said it was more like a yard than a street (see above)

Where is the third entrance/exit?

Regards Pierre