If

[caz]

Many words for a simple matter - if Mizen WAS told that there was another PC in place, then he would potentially have good reason to make haste. So much more so if he was told that the woman could be dead/dying. End of story...

1/ If Lechmere was not a liar, then he told Mizen that there was a potentially very grave errand to tend to in Bucks Row. Basically, the carmans story would have been along the lines "Officer, we just came from Bucks Row. Thereīs a woman lying in the street there, and she is either dead or drunk". The possibility that she was not dead but instead dying would have been very realistic.
Processing this, Mizen would have had very good reason to make haste. And we know that he did not scamper off immediately, which makes him look bad - but only if the carman was truthful.

2. If Lechmere was a lying son of a bitch and an adept killer who told Mizen the story I am suggesting, then it will have gone something along these lines: "Evening, officer! Me and my pal over there just bumped into a colleague of yours in Bucks Row. It seems he stumbled over a wretch who was unable to stand on her own two feet, and for some reason he told us to try and find a colleage who could help him. Could you tend to that, please - me and my mate need to press on now, since we are late for work, if thatīs fine with you?"
Processing THAT, Mizen will have had a lot less reason to rush off - it was probably just another ginsoaked woman who needed escorting to the police station, and at any rate, that colleague of his had the matter in hand, so letīs give Mr Jones that knock-up before we set off, shall we?

What a lot of hot air from you, Christer, while studiously avoiding my original point. This is what you wrote previously, to argue against Mizen inventing or imagining a PC who had sent the carmen for his help:

If he DID invent the "other PC" lie, he stood to BOTH be faced with both of the carmens denials, blowing him out of the water, plus having a PC in place that had specifically requested his help without defining why,and that would be a very compelling reason to make haste. It could potentially be very pressing.

Either a claim that a PC was specifically requesting Mizen's help for an undefined incident should have sent him hot-foot to the scene in case a life was in danger, or he can be excused for dilly-dallying in those exact same circumstances. You can't pick and choose depending on the source of the claim, which according to Mizen (your only source) was simply that he was wanted by a policeman in connection with a woman lying on her back in Buck's Row. That's it. That's all there is when you believe Mizen. A specific request, which you argued would have been a very compelling reason not to dilly-dally, but to drop everything and dash to where the PC needed his assistance with a potentially 'very pressing' matter.

1/ If Lechmere was not a liar, then he told Mizen that there was a potentially very grave errand to tend to in Bucks Row. Basically, the carmans story would have been along the lines "Officer, we just came from Bucks Row. Thereīs a woman lying in the street there, and she is either dead or drunk". The possibility that she was not dead but instead dying would have been very realistic.
Processing this, Mizen would have had very good reason to make haste. And we know that he did not scamper off immediately, which makes him look bad - but only if the carman was truthful.

No, not only if Lechmere was truthful, because you previously argued that Mizen's reason to make haste and scamper off immediately would also have been 'very compelling' (your own words) if specifically requested by a fellow officer!

2. If Lechmere was a lying son of a bitch and an adept killer who told Mizen the story I am suggesting, then it will have gone something along these lines: "Evening, officer! Me and my pal over there just bumped into a colleague of yours in Bucks Row. It seems he stumbled over a wretch who was unable to stand on her own two feet, and for some reason he told us to try and find a colleage who could help him. Could you tend to that, please - me and my mate need to press on now, since we are late for work, if thatīs fine with you?"
Processing THAT, Mizen will have had a lot less reason to rush off - it was probably just another ginsoaked woman who needed escorting to the police station, and at any rate, that colleague of his had the matter in hand, so letīs give Mr Jones that knock-up before we set off, shall we?

What a load of nonsense, Christer! Mizen said nothing of the sort, did he? If he'd had all THAT to process, why did he testify that he was simply told he was wanted by a policeman but nothing about a murder? And why wasn't Mizen also able to process that he had been royally lied to, if he was told anything like your War & Peace version above?

And you may have forgotten that Mizen lied by denying that he had continued to knock up before responding to whatever he was told. Why lie if he had the perfect excuse for his own lack of urgency in the form of some cockn'bull story told by Lechmere of a PC wanting an escort for a drunk, as and when Mizen could tear himself away to provide one? And wasn't it his duty as a police officer to report the full details, if it must have been so obvious to him that Lechmere had lied his head off about the circumstances? And what about Paul, who must also have lied about telling Mizen the woman was, or could be dead? Yet instead of Mizen making a huge fuss about such lies, he lets both men off the hook by lying himself about going straight to the scene. It doesn't add up, Christer.

It might be best if you stick to what Mizen was actually reported to have said, rather than make up stuff that would only make his conduct look more questionable than it may have been in reality.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz: What a lot of hot air from you, Christer, while studiously avoiding my original point.

You donīt have an original point, Iīm afraid. It is all very unoriginal. And it always the same (which is the very definition of unoriginal). Howīs that for "hot air"?

Either a claim that a PC was specifically requesting Mizen's help for an undefined incident should have sent him hot-foot to the scene in case a life was in danger, or he can be excused for dilly-dallying in those exact same circumstances. You can't pick and choose depending on the source of the claim, which according to Mizen (your only source) was simply that he was wanted by a policeman in connection with a woman lying on her back in Buck's Row. That's it. That's all there is when you believe Mizen. A specific request, which you argued would have been a very compelling reason not to dilly-dally, but to drop everything and dash to where the PC needed his assistance with a potentially 'very pressing' matter.

Sigh. If Mizen was the liar - and he was decidedly not, since the evidence is against it - then he would have had less reason to make haste than he had if the carman was the liar, thatīs the long and the short of it.
As such, he could not stay put and take care of all the wake-up calls he had on his agenda if he had been told that there was another pc in place in bucks Row, requesting his help, so itīs very undertandable that he settled for finishin the errand he had already begun only, before setting off for Bucks Row.
In BOTH scenarios, he would have reason to make haste, but it was only if the carman was truthful that he would have ended up in a situation where his arrival in Bucks Row could be the difference between life and death. In the other scnario, he could rely on a colleague already being in place, so although he meeded to get to Bucks Row pronto, he did not need to get there as pronto as in the first scenario.
How hard can it be? Surely, Caz, you can understand how that works?

What a load of nonsense, Christer! Mizen said nothing of the sort, did he? If he'd had all THAT to process, why did he testify that he was simply told he was wanted by a policeman but nothing about a murder? And why wasn't Mizen also able to process that he had been royally lied to, if he was told anything like your War & Peace version above?

The nonsense here is all courtesy of you, Caz - repeatedly so. I know full well that Mizen is not recorded as having said this, and so I was hoping that you would be able to see that I was exaggerating to clarify the message. But no - you think you havce caught me out lying about what Mizen said. Great!

And you may have forgotten that Mizen lied by denying that he had continued to knock up before responding to whatever he was told.

Read the inquest reports, Caz. It helps. Mizen did not lie, he explicitly said that he finished the knocking-up errand he had started before going to Bucks Row.

Why lie if he had the perfect excuse for his own lack of urgency in the form of some cockn'bull story told by Lechmere of a PC wanting an escort for a drunk, as and when Mizen could tear himself away to provide one?

Once more: He did not lie. Once more: He was not very tardy. Once more: He did not violate the rules. Once more: If he was lied to, he acted perfectly logically and with as much haste as we could ask for.

And wasn't it his duty as a police officer to report the full details, if it must have been so obvious to him that Lechmere had lied his head off about the circumstances?

Donīt get overenthusiastic, Caz - the ensuing scenario after leaving Bakers Row was more or less exactly along the lines Lechmere had foreshadowed. So why would Mizen think that the carman lied?

And what about Paul, who must also have lied about telling Mizen the woman was, or could be dead?

In the paper interview, yes. But we know that this interview IS lacking in the truth department. At the inquest, Paul said nothing at all about having spoken to Mizen himself. He said that "we" informed the PC.

Yet instead of Mizen making a huge fuss about such lies, he lets both men off the hook by lying himself about going straight to the scene. It doesn't add up, Christer.

Once again, he did not lie. In the Times, it says: "He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up." Wow - that looks as if you are correct, Caz! But hey, wait a second: the East London Advertiser it says
"A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness: No; I only finished knocking up one person."
So, Caz, unless this was an invention on account of the reporter, what we have is a situation where Mizen is asked whether he continued knocking people up, and answers that no, that he did not do - but he DID finish the errand he had begun when the carmen arrived.

This is a reoccuring mistake on behalf of those who have not done the whole homework, but instead found something they cannot be bothered to check. It is not a group of people you want to belong to. But you obviously do anyway, Caz.

It might be best if you stick to what Mizen was actually reported to have said, rather than make up stuff that would only make his conduct look more questionable than it may have been in reality.

After my last point, you need to excuse me for giggling incoherently!

By the bye, there are people who have feigned being upset about how I accuse Lechmere of murder. But it seems in order to accuse a perfectly soundly acting PC of being a half-arsed excuse for a human being?
Where did Mizen fail, if he was lied to?

I also want an answer to my question about Mizens report: Why did his superiors not accept that the carmen were the finders of the body, if the report said so? And who could it not have, if Mizen was not lied to?

Have a go on that one, Caz. Maybe you will come up with something new!

[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.

OK.

But 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?

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"?

Why did not Lechmere just play along with Mizen?

Why did he change his statement?

What motives could he have had?

What could he have gained?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;367941]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:
QUOTE]

Keppel is using the popular view on JtR.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;367953]

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:
QUOTE]

Keppel is using the popular view on JtR.

Regards, Pierre

Not sure what is meant by "popular view". Anyway, it doesn't negate the fact that, apart from possibly Kelly, there is no indication of a change in MO characteristics in respect of the murder sites, i.e. because they were all equally risky.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=John G;367955]

Not sure what is meant by "popular view". Anyway, it doesn't negate the fact that, apart from possibly Kelly, there is no indication of a change in MO characteristics in respect of the murder sites, i.e. because they were all equally risky.

ahhh but you forget after the Stride murder the ripper was trying to be more "Caschous". LOL!

[John G]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;367957]

ahhh but you forget after the Stride murder the ripper was trying to be more "Caschous". LOL!

Of course, Abby. Surprised Pierre didn't point out this glaring error himself!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;367955]

Not sure what is meant by "popular view".

The popular view means sorting the murder in "outdoors" and "indoors" and believing that he got interrupted with Stride.

Anyway, it doesn't negate the fact that, apart from possibly Kelly, there is no indication of a change in MO characteristics in respect of the murder sites, i.e. because they were all equally risky.

"...they were all equally risky."

Maybe they were. They were at least high risk locations, all of them.

But Polly Nichols was killed in the street, Annie Chapman, Stride and Eddowes in courtyards or in a square, Mary Kelly in a room and Elizabeth Jackson and the other dismembered victims in the West End.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;367960]

"...they were all equally risky."

Maybe they were. They were at least high risk locations, all of them.

But Polly Nichols was killed in the street, Annie Chapman, Stride and Eddowes in courtyards or in a square, Mary Kelly in a room and Elizabeth Jackson and the other dismembered victims in the West End.

Regards, Pierre

Which suggests no change of MO, i.e. because there was no fundamental reason why victims were killed in different types of location. Regarding the dismemberment victims, there is no proof they were murdered and, arguably, little evidence they were killed by the same person let alone by JtR: as I've noted before, several of the victims were dismembered in different ways, which indicates different killers to my mind, i.e. if a perpetrator has developed a successful strategy for dismembering the victims, why alter that strategy?

Moreover, they were all decapitated-none of the C5 victims were-and in all but one case, the perpetrator successfully prevented the victims from being identified. Coupled with the fact that the dismemberment victims were dumped, i.e. killed elsewhere, this suggests to me a relatively organized perpetrator(s), unlike JtR, who was relatively disorganized.

[David Orsam]

But Polly Nichols was killed in the street, Annie Chapman, Stride and Eddowes in courtyards or in a square, Mary Kelly in a room and Elizabeth Jackson and the other dismembered victims in the West End.

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.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;367961]

Coupled with the fact that the dismemberment victims were dumped, i.e. killed elsewhere, this suggests to me a relatively organized perpetrator(s), unlike JtR, who was relatively disorganized.

What do you think indicates that the killer was disorganized?

[Fisherman]

OK.

But 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?

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"?

Why did not Lechmere just play along with Mizen?

Why did he change his statement?

What motives could he have had?

What could he have gained?

Regards 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.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;367957]

ahhh but you forget after the Stride murder the ripper was trying to be more "Caschous". LOL!

Bravissimo, Abby!

[Mayerling]

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.

My God David, we almost forgot the diabolical unifying piece of his MO. All his murders were on the planet Earth!! I defy anyone to show they were on Saturn, Mars, or even "Transfalmador"!!!

Jeff

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;367963]

What do you think indicates that the killer was disorganized?

Hi Pierre,

Actually, this is a very good question. Thus, it could be argued that JtR exhibited many disorganized characteristics: overkill, blitz attacks, no attempt to remove or otherwise conceal the body after the murder, the removal of body parts as trophies, victims killed in the open (except Kelly).

However, Canter carried out a study into serial murder, and the organized/disorganized classification. He concluded, "The results demonstrate that instead of being a basis for distinguishing between serial killings all such crimes will have a recognizable organised quality to them, as might be postulated from the very definition of a series of vicious crimes in which the offender was not detected until he carried out a number of the offences. Rather than being one subtype of serial killer, being organized is typical of serial killers as a whole." (Canter et al., 2004).