If

[John G]

Absolutely. Pierre makes perfect sense as always.

And using his T.A.I. method of "Tests, Analyse and Interpretation", I discover that the MO of JTR when murdering Nichols was to kill her in the street, his MO when murdering Chapman was to kill her at the back of a house, his MO when murdering Stride was to kill her in a yard, his MO when murdering Eddowes was to kill <script id="gpt-impl-0.42742392034472065" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_78.js"></script>her in a square, his MO when murdering Kelly was to kill her in a building and his MO when murdering McKenzie was to kill her in an alley. Not forgetting the various ways in which he killed the dismembered victims.

So it's clear. The MO of Jack the Ripper was that his MO was different for every murder!! What a cunning chap that Jack was.

Hello David,

I'm beginning to suspect that you might be receiving assistance from the FBI Behavioural Analysis Unit! I mean, your conclusions are suggestive of a true visionary!

[David Orsam]

his MO when murdering Eddowes was to kill <script id="gpt-impl-0.42742392034472065" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_78.js"></script>her

Apologies for the gobbledigook in amongst all the gobbledigook!

[David Orsam]

All his murders were on the planet Earth!!

Yes Jeff, but a certain member of this forum might not be.

[David Orsam]

your conclusions are suggestive of a true visionary!

Just following the New Discourse, John. The Holy Trinity that has been revealed to us: "Tests, Analyse and Interpretation", answers all questions.

[Pierre]

No offense, Pierre, but after this answer of mine, I will bow out of our discussion. I hope you can accept that.

1. ... if Lechmere had stated that he saw a policeman only with the purpose to slip away unsearched, why did he retract his statement at the inquest?

Answer: Because he was quite aware that Paul would deny any PC once he was found.

2. Assuming that people have motives for what they are doing (even when they are telling a lie) and that their motives are connected to rational choices - what would be the motive for retracting the statement, and especially since no one else seemed (if we can use the existing sources for the inquest for this hypothesis) to think about anyone else than of Neil when they heard of a "policeman" or a "constable"?

Answer: Lechmereīs motive to lie on the murder night was to pass by Mizen unsearched and undetained. Lechmereīs motive to deny the lie at the inquest was his knowledge that Paul would deny that there had been another PC in Bucks Row, thus revealing Lechmere for what he was: a liar.

The four other questions you ask are simply the same all over again, and I feel that I have answered it.

Over and out.

OK. I can understand you thinking.

And between the moment when Lechmere is standing in Buckīs Row and the moment when Paul arrives there is a question mark, I believe. Why should Lechmere think that he must deny a lie about a policeman at the inquest because Paul would deny another PC, when Lechmere were at the murder site before Paul?

I can understand if you donīt want to answer this. And perhaps there isnīt a good answer to that question either.

But I happen to think that Lechmere was a good family man, doing his job, protecting his family and IF (just if) Lechmere saw a policeman acting strange on the murder site, he would also have been smart enough to avoid talking about this at the inquest. It is one thing mentioning a policeman in Buckīs Row to another police officer, another thing to state it at a murder inquest, after which you will have your name and adress in the newspapers.

If there was a policeman in Buckīs Row before Paul arrived: What did Lechmere think that he saw - and what did he think when he was informed about the murder?

Thanks for your answers above.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

Yes Jeff, but a certain member of this forum might not be.

Granted David. I suspect he has his own private universe in his stunningly curious mind - probably that, though I also suspect he can be being pursued by his own personal vampyres (I'll use the older, obsolete form - it's meant for scholarly types).

Jeff

[Fisherman]

Why should Lechmere think that he must deny a lie about a policeman at the inquest because Paul would deny another PC, when Lechmere were at the murder site before Paul?

Kind regards, Pierre

Okay, Pierre, one more for the road...

Lechmere was at the murder site before Paul.

He was, however, keen to impress upon the inquest that he was not alone there for more than a few fleeting seconds.

If he did not impress this upon the inquest, he would become suspect; a man who had been alone with Nichols for a long enough time to have been the killer.

Accepting your suggestion, the story he would need to serve would be along the lines: I got to the murder spot, and there was a PC there. And then that PC left, and I was alone with the body. Then this other carman came down the street, and joined me. And then we went to find ourselves a PC together."

This would have been an extremely troublesome testimony to serve up to the inquest, as I am sure youīll agree. Not least, Lechmere would be required to go into detail about the other PC and why he left the scene wothout returning to it. If the police was unable to identify this second PC in retrospect, guess who would be in a very tight spot?

Of course, if this was what happened and if Lechmere was a trusting and benevolent citizen, he could have told that story anyway and hoped for the best. But being trusting and benevolent does not always equal being outright stupid, Iīm afraid.

I think this suggestion of yours is anything but credible. We both reason that Lechmere was probably in place in good time to be the killer himself, but you introduce a PC, an alternative killer, who cut Nichols to pieces while Lechmere watched, and who then intimidated him into staying silent about it. And still, the first thing he does when meeting Mizen is to spill the beans - he says that there is another PC in Bucks Row, in spite of how he knows that this man has left the street already. And in spite of how he has decided not to tell about the second PC. Who, incidentally, none of the REAL policemen or watchmen got a glimpse of - unless you are pointing out Neil, Thain or Mizen.

And then, this alternative killer goes on to kill victims along Lechmeres logical work treks, and in the midst of where Lechmere grew up...?

I have now answered all your questions, Pierre, and I am done with this theory of yours until such time arrives when you produce actual evidence or a name to your killer. I find it is the best way forward for my part.

[Pierre]

Okay, Pierre, one more for the road...

Lechmere was at the murder site before Paul.

So Lechmere could have seen and spoken to a policeman there.

He was, however, keen to impress upon the inquest that he was not alone there for more than a few fleeting seconds.

So why not play along with Mizen and stick to his own old statement. Paul could not contradict him if he had not been there at the same time as the policeman.

If he did not impress this upon the inquest, he would become suspect; a man who had been alone with Nichols for a long enough time to have been the killer.

Sounds risky. Sticking to his old testimony about the policeman, being supported by Mizen, would have looked as an attractive alternative from the point of view of Lechmere. So why didnīt he?

Accepting your suggestion, the story he would need to serve would be along the lines: I got to the murder spot, and there was a PC there. And then that PC left, and I was alone with the body.

The policeman could just have turned around the corner. And "I was alone with the body" - that was what Paul corroborated. So why not fill in the gap between the murder and Paul turning up at the site by simply using his old statement?

Then this other carman came down the street, and joined me. And then we went to find ourselves a PC together."

This would have been an extremely troublesome testimony to serve up to the inquest, as I am sure youīll agree.

But that is what Paul stated:

"Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road."

Not least, Lechmere would be required to go into detail about the other PC and why he left the scene wothout returning to it. If the police was unable to identify this second PC in retrospect, guess who would be in a very tight spot?

Yes. So he could actually have had two reasons for not wanting to keep his old statement at the inquest.

Of course, if this was what happened and if Lechmere was a trusting and benevolent citizen, he could have told that story anyway and hoped for the best. But being trusting and benevolent does not always equal being outright stupid, Iīm afraid.

And since he was both a good man and not stupid - he choose to leave the policeman out of the inquest.

I think this suggestion of yours is anything but credible. We both reason that Lechmere was probably in place in good time to be the killer himself, but you introduce a PC,

No I donīt. But Charles Lechmere did.

an alternative killer, who cut Nichols to pieces while Lechmere watched,

Naturally NOT. The killer must have been finished with his work and about to leave the murder site when Lechmere came along. There is no other possibility if Lechmere saw a policeman there. So what could have made Lechmere suspicious, either directly or afterwards? THAT is an interesting question to discuss.

and who then intimidated him into staying silent about it.

His own understanding of the situation. Talking to his wife about the incident? Talking to a friend?

And still, the first thing he does when meeting Mizen is to spill the beans - he says that there is another PC in Bucks Row, in spite of how he knows that this man has left the street already.

A very possible situation, try this: The killer is finished with his victim, Lechmere turns up, the killer says "There has been an accident here, I believe. Could you please go and look for another constable? I will see if I can find one also." And then he turns around the corner. Lechmere would then naturally have thought that this policeman would return to the murder site.

And in spite of how he has decided not to tell about the second PC. Who, incidentally, none of the REAL policemen or watchmen got a glimpse of - unless you are pointing out Neil, Thain or Mizen.

That is the thing: the murderer would have been able to escape the police since he knew how they worked, but he could never escape the risk of a civil witness coming along.

And then, this alternative killer goes on to kill victims along Lechmeres logical work treks, and in the midst of where Lechmere grew up...?

He did not know anything about Lechmere. A lot of people had their work treks in the area and a lot of people grew up there.

I have now answered all your questions, Pierre, and I am done with this theory of yours until such time arrives when you produce actual evidence or a name to your killer. I find it is the best way forward for my part.

Well, thanks a lot, Fisherman. I find your theory entertaining.

Kind regards, Pierre

[John G]

Just following the New Discourse, John. The Holy Trinity that has been revealed to us: "Tests, Analyse and Interpretation", answers all questions.

Actually, it all seems very simple, David. In fact, the Holy Tritinty approach is so obvious that I'm surprised this case wasn't solved years ago!

[Elamarna]

Well, thanks a lot, Fisherman. I find your theory entertaining.

Kind regards, Pierre

well at least Fisherman has a theory, agree with it or not, I don't , but he has one, he has put work in to it, been attacked here, often for the theory, in a generally friendly way.
All i see from Pierre is an attempt to take what ever he can from the ideas of others to Create one of his own.

i find Pierre's musings to be amusing.

[Pierre]

well at least Fisherman has a theory, agree with it or not, I don't , but he has one, he has put work in to it, been attacked here, often for the theory, in a generally friendly way.
All i see from Pierre is an attempt to take what ever he can from the ideas of others to Create one of his own.

i find Pierre's musings to be amusing.

Hi Steve,

Sure he has. And he has been working seriously with it.

I have a theory as well. And as soon as my work is finished I will give you the result.

And I can assure you that my theory has NOTHING taken from any ideas of others. It is independent of the ideas of others.

One thing I find interesting also is that I believe that when you do find the killer, like I believe I have done, things become simple. You do not need to write long catalogues of facts.

Another thing that I havenīt been discussing here is that I have found a new source from his life. It is interesting because it sheds light on some aspects of the murders that I havenīt been thinking about, since I didnīt know about them.

So I learn a lot about him. But not from other "ideas". I learn from the sources.

And I am truly sorry that I canīt share the theory with you at this point. I honestly wish I could.

Regards, Pierre

[Clark]

....Now imagine that we have a camera recording showing how Charles Lechmere walked up to Jonas Mizen and said:
-Officer, you are needed in Bucks Row. A woman has been found there. She is lying in the street, flat on her back. Another PC sent me, he wants your help....

What conclusions would you draw from it?....

I would have to conclude that Lechmere was probably insane, though not necessarily homocidal.

Lechmere had no way of knowing that a PC would show up before Mizen got there. If Mizen had immediately responded to Lechemere's report and arrived on the scene and Nichols was still alone, he would have immediately known that Lechmere had been lying to him, thus arousing suspicions that Lechmere had something to hide.

It's much more likely that Mizen was the liar, or at least mistaken. He had a motive to lie because he had not immediately responded to the report of a body in the road and he used the excuse that he had been told that a PC was already on the scene - OR - when he arrived on the scene he saw PC Neil and misremembered the statement "you're wanted down there" as "you're wanted by a policeman down there."

There's no reason to suspect that Lechmere had lied. He had no way of knowing that Neil would come upon the body before Mizen got there and Paul could easily have refuted the lie if Mizen had asked him for collaboration.

[Pierre]

I would have to conclude that Lechmere was probably insane, though not necessarily homocidal.

Lechmere had no way of knowing that a PC would show up before Mizen got there. If Mizen had immediately responded to Lechemere's report and arrived on the scene and Nichols was still alone, he would have immediately known that Lechmere had been lying to him, thus arousing suspicions that Lechmere had something to hide.

It's much more likely that Mizen was the liar, or at least mistaken. He had a motive to lie because he had not immediately responded to the report of a body in the road and he used the excuse that he had been told that a PC was already on the scene - OR - when he arrived on the scene he saw PC Neil and misremembered the statement "you're wanted down there" as "you're wanted by a policeman down there."

There's no reason to suspect that Lechmere had lied. He had no way of knowing that Neil would come upon the body before Mizen got there and Paul could easily have refuted the lie if Mizen had asked him for collaboration.

And if he told the truth about the policeman, why should he lie about his name?

Was he the killer? / Or was he a witness to the killer?

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

It seems to me that much of the argument against Lechmere is dependent on Dr Llewellyn's estimate of time of death. In other words, Nicholls must have been murdered close to the time when Lechmere discovered the body.

However is this necessary the case? Well, not according to Dr Biggs. In respect of Nicholls, he reasoned, "Blood is a funny substance and doesn't necessarily 'congeal' in all cases...therefore a lack of congealing doesn't indicate a particular time frame. Nor does the presence of congealed blood for that matter...As I've said before, blood 'still flowing' from a dead body does not necessarily indicate that death has only just happened. I've certainly been at scenes some hours after death (or even the next day) and been able to make more blood ooze out of the wound with very little movement of the body. " (Marriott, 2015)

[curious4]

Hi Steve,

Sure he has. And he has been working seriously with it.

I have a theory as well. And as soon as my work is finished I will give you the result.

And I can assure you that my theory has NOTHING taken from any ideas of others. It is independent of the ideas of others.

One thing I find interesting also is that I believe that when you do find the killer, like I believe I have done, things become simple. You do not need to write long catalogues of facts.

Another thing that I havenīt been discussing here is that I have found a new source from his life. It is interesting because it sheds light on some aspects of the murders that I havenīt been thinking about, since I didnīt know about them.

So I learn a lot about him. But not from other "ideas". I learn from the sources.

And I am truly sorry that I canīt share the theory with you at this point. I honestly wish I could.

Regards, Pierre

Promises, promises.... ��