The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Pierre]

LOL every Copper is under suspicion in this thread from Commissioner Warren and Assistant Commissioner Monro all the way down to Sergeant Thick and Constable Andrews. But that is what it is for to advance the theory of a policeman as JTR. Even'in all.

Yes, Whitechapel. Remarkable isn´t it?

I mean, since they say don´t believe me.

Why would they want to discuss Jack the Ripper being a policeman? They think I am liar.

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

Pierre,

First off, I must say I have a personal belief that McKenzie was a ripper victim. I have never said that I think Andrews was the serial killer know as Jack the Ripper. There is no way to even prove, at this point, that he killed McKenzie. There are many circumstances, however, that show Andrews was much closer to the crime scene that put him in the line of fire as being the killer or knowing who was. I've presented a case, on the jtrforums, with research, inquest testimony and press reports to at least substantiate my claim. I did not rely on one metaphorical piece of evidence to try to back my claim.

With a little research you would understand my claim better and know that it is not another case of someone standing over a dead body and a researcher jumping to claim it the same scenario as Charles Cross. And while I mention it, Christer and Ed Stow (and others) have put a good amount of research into their claim, as well.

You, it seems, want to try to fit your [square] suspect into round holes without even researching the possibility that he/she could have even been near the area at the time. You claim your suspect was involved in the McKenzie murder. Do you know enough about the details of that murder to know when he committed the offense? If he were available at the time? etc. There was a small window of opportunity in that murder.

You are correct in saying I have no evidence to point to motive for Andrews other than the fact that he misled the jury at the inquest. Why would he do that? His mother did die in the 4th quarter of December. That is a fact. He was an illegitimate child, born in 1856 under the name Walter Mountain. That is a fact I uncovered by doing a thing called research. You might try it sometime.

[jerryd]

Made correction above-sorry.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

First off, I must say I have a personal belief that McKenzie was a ripper victim.

Hi Jerry, I agree with Monro on that also.

I have never said that I think Andrews was the serial killer know as Jack the Ripper. There is no way to even prove, at this point, that he killed McKenzie. There are many circumstances, however, that show Andrews was much closer to the crime scene that put him in the line of fire as being the killer or knowing who was.

The police should be close to crime scenes.

I've presented a case, on the jtrforums, with research, inquest testimony and press reports to at least substantiate my claim. I did not rely on one metaphorical piece of evidence to try to back my claim.

And those who can read understand that I don´t do that either.

With a little research you would understand my claim better and know that it is not another case of someone standing over a dead body and a researcher jumping to claim it the same scenario as Charles Cross. And while I mention it, Christer and Ed Stow (and others) have put a good amount of research into their claim, as well.

A lot of digging in the rubbish bins without finding the killer.

You, it seems, want to try to fit your [square] suspect into round holes without even researching the possibility that he/she could have even been near the area at the time.

He was near the area. What makes you think I don´t know that?

You claim your suspect was involved in the McKenzie murder. Do you know enough about the details of that murder to know when he committed the offense? If he were available at the time? etc. There was a small window of opportunity in that murder.

He was available. And he had a clear motive. By the way, do you think that MacKenzie was murdered by a left handed killer?

You are correct in saying I have no evidence to point to motive for Andrews other than the fact that he misled the jury at the inquest. Why would he do that? His mother did die in the 4th quarter of December. That is a fact. He was an illegitimate child, born in 1856 under the name Walter Mountain. That is a fact I uncovered by doing a thing called research. You might try it sometime.

Thank you. I did, and found the motives of the person I think was the killer.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Whitechapel]

Pierre acolyte, moi ? I'm not even a Fisherman's Friend.

Well it seems we have a MOUNTAIN to climb. I think Pierre's point is that in both the Nicholls and McKenzie cases the PCs are at the least misleading and at the worst telling porkies. PC Mizen says Cross/Lechmere says there was a policeman in attendance with Nicholls (Cross/Lechmere denied this) and PC Mountain/Andrews is a late whistle blower. Is there a pattern here ? and who is PC Mountain/Andrews hiding ? another PC ?

It's been driving me nuts but if a cachous in Stride's hand is worth a Crook in Shepherd's Bush, is a Bronze farthing on Alice McKenzie worth a Copper in Whitechapel. I'm cautiously optimistic even though I can't find a fair cop.

[Michael W Richards]

Summary thus far;

711 posts
0 evidence provided
0 suspects named

Nice thread, very instructive.

[Hercule Poirot]

Summary thus far;

711 posts
0 evidence provided
0 suspects named

Nice thread, very instructive.

Quite similar to our House of Commons Question Period in Canada.


Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

[David Orsam]

The Tangled Web

From #709

Jerryd - I did not rely on one metaphorical piece of evidence to try to back my claim.

Pierre - And those who can read understand that I don´t do that either.

It is not true, however, that Pierre does not rely on metaphorical evidence to try to back his claim.

He expressly confirmed that he does rely on such evidence in the thread "He gave police his name". In that thread (#1) he told us that he had found some data - a letter written by the killer to the police - which "contains the full name of the person I think was the killer" and he later (#13) confirmed that this was "metaphorical".

Elamarna asked him (#10):

"pierre,
does your new data count as part of your evidence ?"

to which Pierre replied (#12)

"Yes.

Regards, Pierre"

So Pierre there confirmed that he is relying on a metaphorical piece of evidence.

Anyone who can read can see this.

Pierre has said so many different things that he seems to have forgotten himself what he has told us he is relying on as evidence.

Furthermore, on 18 September 2015, Pierre said "So what do I think I know about him?" and then listed 9 numbered points which included at 5, 6 & 7:

"5.He wrote to the police.
6.He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.
7.If the police had understood his communications, they would have caught him. "

We know that the letter to the editor was written in metaphorical language and, in saying "If the police had understood his communications", Pierre was confirming that those communications were metaphorical and needed translation.

He has subsequently tried to claim that the letter to the editor is not party of his theory but there is no doubt that Pierre has relied on "metaphorical" evidence to back his claim, and, in respect of the letter to the police, continues to rely on such evidence, so that his response to Jerry was untrue.

[Abby Normal]

Kind regards, Pierre

I think Pierre just dropped another hint that the killer was left handed.
Very sinister.

[GUT]

You wouldn't be a Pierre acolyte by any chance, would you? Just thought I'd ask.

Seems to be few of 'em

[Rosemary]

Spirochete

Are we doing Old World or New /World transmission of initial disease from contact?

[DJA]

I think Pierre just dropped another hint that the killer was left handed.
Very sinister.

Suspect Jack was born left handed.

Quite sinistral.

[Rosemary]

Lefty

Suspect Jack was born left handed.

Quite sinistral.

So am I

[Mayerling]

So am I

Then you are in a very special group Rosemary. I believe Da Vinci was, and some graphologists think Shakespeare was.

Queen Victoria was also - maybe we should consider her a suspect (oh, but she was not a police official or constable, though I'm sure she could have gotten a uniform (black or dark blue) if she asked for one).

James Garfield was ambidextrous - but unfortunately he was still dead from an assassination and botched medical treatment since September 1881. Physically (if not metaphysically or metaphorically speaking).

Jeff

[GUT]

Then you are in a very special group Rosemary. I believe Da Vinci was, and some graphologists think Shakespeare was.

Queen Victoria was also - maybe we should consider her a suspect (oh, but she was not a police official or constable, though I'm sure she could have gotten a uniform (black or dark blue) if she asked for one).

James Garfield was ambidextrous - but unfortunately he was still dead from an assassination and botched medical treatment since September 1881. Physically (if not metaphysically or metaphorically speaking).

Jeff

Add Clinton, Ford, Bush and the current chap to left handed Presudents.

Princes Charles, and William And George's Ii and VI as royalty.

Musicians and Actors almost too numerous to kep track of.