If

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

I may be very stupid but I donīt understand what you are writing here.

What did the police deny on the 2:nd of September?

Neil did not even testify on the 2nd - or did he?

Who claimed - and where - that Neil was the finder?

Sorry. I am confused.

Regards, Pierre

Neil claimed he was the finder, in a press conference on the evening of the 2:nd. In the same conference, it was denied that he was shown to the body by two men. The police put him on the stand, witnessing on the 1:st, telling the world that he was the finder.

If Mizen had been told by Lechmere that Lechmere and Paul had been the finders, Mizen would have had ample time to correct Neil between the first inquest day and the press conference of the 2:nd.
Similarly, Mizen would have handed in his report on the murder night, a report that would have evoked tremendeous interest on account of his superiors if it had stated that Mizen was alerted to the errand by two carmen who claimed to have found the body. Apparently, no such report was read by the superiors. Instead, it would seem that whatever Mizen wrote was perfectly compatible with Neils claim to have found the body.
I can find one explanation only for such a thing.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by David Orsam:

For anyone also confused about how the killer could possibly be said to have had an MO from a single murder, I am sure Pierre will explain everything to your entire satisfaction.

Thank you David. I shall eagerly await his response.

There is nothing strange about this. Serial killers can show different MO characteristics from one murder to another. See for instance Keppel, Robert D., Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer (2004), p 125.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Neil claimed he was the finder, in a press conference on the evening of the 2:nd. In the same conference, it was denied that he was shown to the body by two men. The police put him on the stand, witnessing on the 1:st, telling the world that he was the finder.

If Mizen had been told by Lechmere that Lechmere and Paul had been the finders, Mizen would have had ample time to correct Neil between the first inquest day and the press conference of the 2:nd.
Similarly, Mizen would have handed in his report on the murder night, a report that would have evoked tremendeous interest on account of his superiors if it had stated that Mizen was alerted to the errand by two carmen who claimed to have found the body. Apparently, no such report was read by the superiors. Instead, it would seem that whatever Mizen wrote was perfectly compatible with Neils claim to have found the body.
I can find one explanation only for such a thing.

OK. And what is this explanation?

(Sorry but I still donīt get the picture).

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

OK. And what is this explanation?

(Sorry but I still donīt get the picture).

Regards, Pierre

The carmen were not mentioned, since Mizen will have worded himself in a manner that allowed hm to leave them out. For example: "I was summoned to Bucks Row by PC Neil, who had found the murdered woman lying on the pavement there".

If Mizen was lied to, he could have left the carmen out.
If he was not lied to, he could not have left the carmen out.

[David Orsam]

Serial killers can show different MO characteristics from one murder to another.

That's exactly the type of unassailable answer I was hoping for from Pierre. A serial killer whose modus operandi is that he uses different a method of operating when carrying out each murder. It's perfect.

[Pierre]

The carmen were not mentioned, since Mizen will have worded himself in a manner that allowed hm to leave them out. For example: "I was summoned to Bucks Row by PC Neil, who had found the murdered woman lying on the pavement there".

If Mizen was lied to, he could have left the carmen out.
If he was not lied to, he could not have left the carmen out.

OK, I see.

But didnīt Mizen just assume that Neil was the policeman who Lechmere had referred to?

("Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance.

At that time nobody but Neil was with the body." =

"I was summoned to Bucks Row by PC Neil, who had found the murdered woman lying on the pavement there"."

And couldnīt "who had found" mean that Neil had found her - and that Cross also had found her?

There is no statement in the text about being "first".

Is there anything I write here above that you find totally impossible?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

What I particularly like about Pierre's way of thinking is that he is able to discern a pattern, or method of operating, by a serial killer in that serial killer's very first murder. Most police enforcement officials would need at least two murders to identify a modus operandi but Pierre is able to do it from the very first murder. That is just one reason why I am now his biggest supporter, nay disciple.

[Fisherman]

OK, I see.

But didnīt Mizen just assume that Neil was the policeman who Lechmere had referred to?

("Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance.

At that time nobody but Neil was with the body." =

"I was summoned to Bucks Row by PC Neil, who had found the murdered woman lying on the pavement there"."

And could "who had found" not mean that Neil HAD found her - and that Cross also had found her?

Is there anything I write here above that you find totally impossible?

Regards, Pierre

Mizen would have assumed that Neil was the PC Lechmere had spoken of.

"Who had found" would indeed mean that Mizen thought that he had done so. Mizen would have been of the meaning that A/Neil found the body, whereupon B/ Lechmere and Paul arrived at the murder spot, Neil standing by the body whereupon C/ Neil sent the carmen for Mizen.

Of course, Neil never met the carmen, but since he was in place when Mizen arrived, it all added up in Mizens eyes anyway.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

Well, I think there are other aspects of this historical problem that could be discussed to develop some thinking and questions about it.

Firstly, just a small detail:

Mizen said that Cross had informed him that Mizen was wanted by “a policeman” in Buckīs row – not “a constable”.

The juryman, on the other hand, asked Cross if he told Mizen about a “constable”.

But Cross refers to what Mizen said instead, and does not use the word “constable” to answer the question of the juryman. Instead he says that he did not see “a policeman” there.

“Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.
…
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.”

http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

I donīt say that this is important. I just want to mention it and hear if some of you have some thoughts about that.

From my point of view, looking at the case from the perspective of the theory about a police official being the killer, I find it hard to explain why Lechmere (Cross) would have lied to Mizen, since there is no evidence for Lechmere being the killer.

And since there is evidence for the police official being the killer, I find it easier to hypothesize that Lechmere did see a policeman in Buckīs Row.

And one good reason for lying in court would then be the risk of the killer finding Lechmere (Cross) and his family, since, If Lechmere saw the killer, he would have been able to identify him.

Supportive of the hypothesis that Lechmere became a witness to the killer would then also be the fact that the killer changed his MO after Nichols and stopped killing and mutilating his victims out on the street. After that he started using courtyards and a "square".

Regards, Pierre

So Lech did see a policeman in bucks row, tells Mizen the same, but then changes his story at the inquest to a lie that he didn't see a policeman in bucks row?

Is this is what your saying?

[drstrange169]

Re: Two men,

By the time PC Niel took the stand at the inquest, stories of two men being involved had been printed in newspapers across the UK.

By the time his denial was printed in Monday's papers, Paul's story had already been published in Sunday's biggest circulated paper.

Since Niel didn't see Xmere and Paul his denial is not surprising.

The same cannot be said for the reports of Mizen's denial in the same papers.


Re: Xmere being frightened by the killer,

Why did he go to the police (the killer) and offer his story?

[Elamarna]

"And since there is evidence for the police official being the killer, I find it easier to hypothesize that Lechmere did see a policeman in Buckīs Row."


May one ask what evidence this is?
there is certainly speculation, but I see no EVIDENCE!


"Supportive of the hypothesis that Lechmere became a witness to the killer would then also be the fact that the killer changed his MO after Nichols and stopped killing and mutilating his victims out on the street. After that he started using courtyards and a "square"."


No, it has been suggested that the killer changed his MO, is is not a fact; it is an opinion which may be part of an hypothesis, but it is just that!
To refer to it as a FACT is dishonest, morally and academically.

I see that its now and "a square", so i suppose that is a step in the right direction.
However when will the Pierre realise that a square in England is normally seen as a street, indeed the houses in the square had proper street addresses.
The square was an open public thoroughfare. it was not private, but regularly patrolled by two police officers and had an active night watchman in one of the warehouses.

Pierre has been told this numerous times now, and his only reply was to post a plan of the square, which could for the uninitiated make it look like a closed yard, and on the same post to say it was a square, which is more like a yard than a street.

This closed thinking, coupled with the severe lack of general knowledge of the murders exhibited , allows for no advances in any form of research, be that scientific or historical.

Steve

[Fisherman]

So Lech did see a policeman in bucks row, tells Mizen the same, but then changes his story at the inquest to a lie that he didn't see a policeman in bucks row?

Is this is what your saying?

I find it strange too, but that seems to be the gist of Pierreīs take on things. It involves Lechmere telling Mizen that a colleague of his awaits him in Bucks Row, although Lechmere is quite aware that the killer cop is no longer there, as far as I understand.
It makes very little sense to me, to be fair.

[GUT]

I find it strange too, but that seems to be the gist of Pierreīs take on things. It involves Lechmere telling Mizen that a colleague of his awaits him in Bucks Row, although Lechmere is quite aware that the killer cop is no longer there, as far as I understand.
It makes very little sense to me, to be fair.

Not much Pierre says makes sense to many people, I'm afraid.

I've had heated debates with a few people here about their theories (not you of course Fish) but can respect their well articulated ponts of view even when I don't agree.

But half the time I'm not sure what Pierre is even trying to say and he is saying very little at that, at least most people spell out their hypothesis so it can be debated, not Pierre I'm afraid.

[John G]

Originally Posted by David Orsam:

For anyone also confused about how the killer could possibly be said to have had an MO from a single murder, I am sure Pierre will explain everything to your entire satisfaction.



There is nothing strange about this. Serial killers can show different MO characteristics from one murder to another. See for instance Keppel, Robert D., Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer (2004), p 125.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

I realize a serial killer's MO characteristics can change but, in respect of murder site locations, I see no sign of this- apart from possibly Kelly, but in that instance he was probably just fortunate that she had access to her own room.

In fact, it's interesting that you site Keppel, because that is clearly his view as well:

"Victims Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes were all attacked outdoors. When the opportunity presented itself, however, the killer moved indoors, into Kelly's residence, to carry out a more brutal and time consuming experience in private. This is not a significant deviation from his characteristic pattern, but rather a natural progression of the killer's needs. In several of the murders, that of Stride and Eddowes in particular, the killer had been interrupted by the arrival of witnesses on the scene. And the killer changed his MO during the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, in that the murder took place indoors and the victim was attacked from the front as she was lying in bed." ( Keppel et al, 2005).

[John G]

Correction: That should be "cite" not "site" Keppel! Another predictive text/ semi illiteracy/ subliminal (I'd previously referred to "site") issue!