The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Rob Clack]

I would have thought after watching the documentary you might have wished it wasn't there.

[Robert]

Ed, I don't have a record of what Stewart might have said over the years. I do know he sometimes gets fed up, goes off and then later comes back. The thing is, he doesn't use the Casebook to promote Tumblety. The only time in the last few years that I can remember him talking about Tumblety is in relation to the bail. Often he comes on to post something from his archives. You on the other hand are using Casebook to publicise (and, you hope, make converts for) your suspect, so it seems perverse for you to slag off the site and its members. Whatever you do, Ed, don't go into politics and if you do, don't stand in Rochester.

[Lechmere]

As I said Robert I am a cad,
Sally was trying to make out that the posters on this site (collectively not individually) are representative of something that grants it some sort of status as the arbiter of what is right (we actually saw that arrogance in full flood over the shawl). I merely said some home truths.

[Lechmere]

Robert
I have never particularly expected or sought converts to 'my' theory.
However, I will say one thing, the discussions are in some respects useful in allowing me to fully appreciate whatever counter arguments there may be.

[Robert]

Ed, remind me again why Crossmere would want to know where Paul worked. This isn't the 'Crossmere tries to frame Paul' idea again, is it?

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, Robert
Yes I'm a cad, and you're not the first to notice.
But that don't change the truth none.
And, dare I say, Stewart Evans has made essentially the same observation on numerous occasions without you demuring.

We might have the first time, just not the next 99. I think you've only been around for the last 60 or so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I would have thought after watching the documentary you might have wished it wasn't there.

Rob,

So you didn't enjoy the doc at all?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rob Clack]

Rob,

So you didn't enjoy the doc at all?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Actually I did enjoy. The graphics were well done and I liked the idea of the lights on a map to show peoples movements.

The mention of the Shawl DNA belonging to 95% of the population was good.

The photo of Charles Lechmere as well is a high point.

But, the documentary was all about showing Charles Lechmere as the Ripper. And this is my problem with it. It was full of misleading crap. Made by people who have no idea what they were talking about. Being drip fed by poorly researched nonsense.

Other then that, it was good.

Rob

[tji]

Hi Lech

Sally was trying to make out that the posters on this site (collectively not individually) are representative of something that grants it some sort of status as the arbiter of what is right (we actually saw that arrogance in full flood over the shawl). I merely said some home truths.

People on the boards said the shawl and the information regarding it in the book didn't stand up to the scrutiny, people on the boards were correct ........not my definition of arrogance.

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar
I see you have been discussing the likelihood of the mutual audibility of the footsteps of Lechmere and Paul.
Remember first of all that Neil heard Thane walking at a distance of150 yards in the same street.
If Lechmere was innocent he will have walked past the end of Foster Street at the same time as Paul emerged from his house. One hopes that Paul shut his front door quietly. The front door was 39 yards (approximately) from the junction Lechmere passed and we know Lechmere was only 30-40 years in front of him. Thereafter Pail will have followed behind Lechmere. It seems very unlikely tgat there steps will have been synchronised allergy way until Lechmere walked into the middle of the road and stopped.
When closely looked at, this aspect of the story makes no sense - unless Lechmere was not actually walking 40 yards in front of Paul.

This is all of course if he stopped dead in his tracks , then immediately noticed Paul , 30-40 yards behind him . We know that even in the dark recess CrossMere knew that it was a woman, not a tarp , not a man, but a woman , which should lead us to conclude that he had already checked her out , I don't mean prodded or examined but merely had a closer look . Lets say a conservative 20 -30 seconds before he hears Paul clip clopping up the Row .. How many extra yards could Paul walk in that extra 20 or 30 seconds ?

Also , When Neil heard Thane , he was stationary . If both officers were walking at pace 150 yards apart I doubt very much if one would hear the other . And I am also pretty sure that Paul would not have slammed his front door , just in case it would have alerted all them pesky cut throat gangs he was so worried about

moonbegger

[Chris]

People on the boards said the shawl and the information regarding it in the book didn't stand up to the scrutiny, people on the boards were correct ........not my definition of arrogance.

I'm just watching the documentary now, and was amused to hear the 95% figure quoted in relation to the DNA. It's nice to feel that we've contributed something ...

[Tom_Wescott]

Actually I did enjoy. The graphics were well done and I liked the idea of the lights on a map to show peoples movements.

The mention of the Shawl DNA belonging to 95% of the population was good.

The photo of Charles Lechmere as well is a high point.

But, the documentary was all about showing Charles Lechmere as the Ripper. And this is my problem with it. It was full of misleading crap. Made by people who have no idea what they were talking about. Being drip fed by poorly researched nonsense.

Other then that, it was good.

Rob

At any point did you find yourself thinking 'Hmmm, maybe Cross was the Ripper'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm just watching the documentary now, and was amused to hear the 95% figure quoted in relation to the DNA. It's nice to feel that we've contributed something ...

I'm not surprised that a DNA enthusiast such as yourself would like it. The law enthusiast in you will really enjoy the end segment.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rob Clack]

At any point did you find yourself thinking 'Hmmm, maybe Cross was the Ripper'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

For 0.33 of a second.

[tji]

Hi Chris

I'm just watching the documentary now, and was amused to hear the 95% figure quoted in relation to the DNA. It's nice to feel that we've contributed something ...

It is indeed - of course would have been nice if the other 4.2% could have been contributed as well....but maybe I am just being picky, not like it is a show about facts

Tracy xx