Tweet
Hi everyone,
The person I have found and think was the killer was a police official. I am sorry about this.
I have historical sources with his motives, his name and address, his background, where he were and what he was doing during 1888. There is a confession strongly connected to him but not giving his name. There are also a few historical data sources that connect his name to the victims.
In some of the other known sources there are certain problems and questions which have been discussed for a long time. Knowing who this person was solves these problems and answers the questions.
I will give you two examples here.
1. The V-shaped cuts on Eddowe´s face. What are they? Why did the killer do them, if he did do them?
The cuts represents the symbol on the police uniform called a chevron. The killer did them to give the police a clue about his identity. He thought he was smarter than the rest and was not worried about being caught. He knew the beats of the PC:s and was able to escape the police. It was harder for him to escape unexpected witnesses.
2. The next problem is connected to Polly Nichols and such a witness. Christer Holmgren has hypothesized that Charles Lechmere was the killer. He has also constructed a problem he calls the Mizen scam. It is built on a question about why Charles Lechmere, during the inquest, was lying about seeing a policeman on the murder site.
On the night of the Nichols murder Charles Lechmere told PC Mizen that Mizen was wanted by another policeman at the murder site. When Lechmere showed up at the inquest he stated, contrary to what he told Mizen, that there was no policeman at the murder site. Why did he lie?
Charles Lechmere might have been a witness to the killer and could have arrived at the murder site just when the killer was performing the mutilations. Polly´s dress was pulled down over the mutilated area. The killer should have pulled down the dress quickly and asked Lechmere to go and look for another policeman.
Lechmere also turned up late at the inquest and he lied about his own name. Why?
If he saw a policeman at the murder site performing mutilations on a woman or having intercourse with her, which he might have thought, he must have been frightened. And then it is easy to understand that he lied about his name, since he must have been afraid of having his name published in the newspaper where the killer could read it. So he gave his name as Charles Cross.
These two examples are not included in the sources that give the identity of the killer but they can be understood and explained from the perspective of his profession.
I am truly sorry about the fact that the person I think was Jack the Ripper was a police official. The police shall protect people and not murder them. But he thought he had more than one strong motive for doing it.
Regards Pierre
The person I have found and think was the killer was a police official. I am sorry about this.
I have historical sources with his motives, his name and address, his background, where he were and what he was doing during 1888. There is a confession strongly connected to him but not giving his name. There are also a few historical data sources that connect his name to the victims.
In some of the other known sources there are certain problems and questions which have been discussed for a long time. Knowing who this person was solves these problems and answers the questions.
I will give you two examples here.
1. The V-shaped cuts on Eddowe´s face. What are they? Why did the killer do them, if he did do them?
The cuts represents the symbol on the police uniform called a chevron. The killer did them to give the police a clue about his identity. He thought he was smarter than the rest and was not worried about being caught. He knew the beats of the PC:s and was able to escape the police. It was harder for him to escape unexpected witnesses.
2. The next problem is connected to Polly Nichols and such a witness. Christer Holmgren has hypothesized that Charles Lechmere was the killer. He has also constructed a problem he calls the Mizen scam. It is built on a question about why Charles Lechmere, during the inquest, was lying about seeing a policeman on the murder site.
On the night of the Nichols murder Charles Lechmere told PC Mizen that Mizen was wanted by another policeman at the murder site. When Lechmere showed up at the inquest he stated, contrary to what he told Mizen, that there was no policeman at the murder site. Why did he lie?
Charles Lechmere might have been a witness to the killer and could have arrived at the murder site just when the killer was performing the mutilations. Polly´s dress was pulled down over the mutilated area. The killer should have pulled down the dress quickly and asked Lechmere to go and look for another policeman.
Lechmere also turned up late at the inquest and he lied about his own name. Why?
If he saw a policeman at the murder site performing mutilations on a woman or having intercourse with her, which he might have thought, he must have been frightened. And then it is easy to understand that he lied about his name, since he must have been afraid of having his name published in the newspaper where the killer could read it. So he gave his name as Charles Cross.
These two examples are not included in the sources that give the identity of the killer but they can be understood and explained from the perspective of his profession.
I am truly sorry about the fact that the person I think was Jack the Ripper was a police official. The police shall protect people and not murder them. But he thought he had more than one strong motive for doing it.
Regards Pierre
Attached Files
Comment