The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Fisherman]

This is what Ed said on the other forum:

I met and discussed things with Andy Griffiths and you have been told on numerous occasions what he was given - so I find it slightly odd that you keep asking this question.
Very odd indeed.
The film company were only given by me a translation of Christer's newspaper article so they could get a grip on the case outline.
I also sent them a complete set of the newspaper reports of the inquest and around the inquest (from Casebook) and Lechmere genealogical information. I verbally discussed a lot of detail with them. Probably Christer did likewise.
They plundered the Casebook threads and obtained the police files.
I don't know what the guy from Aberystwyth was given - I presume the same as Griffiths. Neither I nor Christer met him.
I don't know what the doctor as given, but it seems to have been a fairly thorough account from the resources we have available.
I had presumed that Scobie had also got the same file - but he got a case summary prepared by Blink as he was too busy apparently to go through too much material. Neither I nor Christer met him either.

I have highlighted in bold the relevant bits. Plenty of opportunity for you and Ed to get your theory across. And it doesn't bother me whether you met these people or not. We haven't met but I know your theories and opinions.

Iīm awfully sorry, Rob, but implying that we somehow cheated the experts into believing that Lechmere is a good suspect is something I wonīt lower myself to discuss. We did not, end of story.

Have a look at more balanced critics of our theory and you will see that it is quite possible to say that you donīt think that we have found the killer - but that we have presented a useful suspect case. David Orsam, posting right ahead of you, is a good example, Mr Barnett is another.

People are beginning to be, as David puts it, perplexed by your resistance against fairly obvious matters. The time may have come to reconsider, and discuss things in a more fruitful way. You donīt need to accept that Lechmere is a good suspect just because of that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

This must be the funnies post on this thread, maybe on the whole Cross issue.

With an idea that is based on the police not making any inquiries, and the Coroner not asking Cross his address [one of the first three questions asked of any witness], we are now expected to "bank" on the coroner asking Paul certain things.

You have a strange sense of humour if you think this is funny. Tell me, Gut, having read some of the material (I donīt know if youīve read it all), and a number of newspaper articles, are you really suggesting that the coroner would not ensure that Lechmere and Paul stated whether they had seen anybody in the vicinity of the murder spot?

As for the police not making inquiries, we have it on record that they failed to speak to all the Bucks Row residents from the outset. It is a proven thing.

We haeīve it on record that they failed to get Lechmeres real name into their reports. It is on record.

These are facts, clear, undisputable, established facts. Not an "idea"; facts.

It is likewise a fact that both Paul, Lechmere and Neil, present at the murder spot close in time to the TOD expand on whether they saw anybody else there or not.
Having the barrister experience that you have - what are the odds that they all came up with the idea that they needed to speak of this themselves?

Really funny would be if you reacted to my post 1103. There are some pertinent questions in it that Iīd like to have answered if you can find the time.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

This must be the funnies post on this thread, maybe on the whole Cross issue.

With an idea that is based on the police not making any inquiries, and the Coroner not asking Cross his address [one of the first three questions asked of any witness], we are now expected to "bank" on the coroner asking Paul certain things.

It is quite funny that when the Lechmerians don't want something to have been mentioned at the inquest, they argue that it couldn't have been, even if it appears in a newspaper report. But when they do want something to have been mentioned, they say it must have been, even if it doesn't appear in any newspaper report.

[GUT]

G'day David

For that reason, the strength of the opposition to Lechmere simply being considered a suspect, or person of interest (call it what you will) is perplexing. I saw a documentary on the murder of Jill Dando a few weeks ago and the woman walking along the street who found the body and called the emergency services said that she was (quite properly) considered by the police to have been a suspect and was questioned on that basis, even though as far as I am aware, she did absolutely nothing suspicious. Here we have an individual who may have lied to the police (even if there was an innocent reason), in which case it stands to reason that he has to at least be in the frame and I see no harm in considering him as a suspect.

But I think you might find, that to many here it is obvious that Cross would have been a person of interest, but the case against him is based on the police not having enough brain power to check on minor things like where he worked [even though he told them] what time he left home [even though he gave his address] and when you accept that the police would have made those inquiries you realise they had to know who he was, they had to know his timings and the house of cards starts to fall down.

It is only by believing that the police didn't know that he was a POI and didn't make even the most basic of inquiries, that you can make any kind of case against him.

[Hercule Poirot]

Duplicate eliminated

[Hercule Poirot]

That works both ways, Chris. It is not as if the evidence tells us that Paul did see somebody, is it?

I would suggest that we can bank on the coroner and inquest having asked whether Lechmere or Paul saw anybody in the streets, just as he would have expanded that question to ask about if they saw anything suspicios at all. That is what is mirrored in Pauls answer, speaking about how he saw no suspicious persons running away, for example.

After that, we really donīt need any report where Paul says that he did not see anybody EITHER coming from his front or overtaking him from behind.

You may want to ask yourself the question how you yourself would have reasoned if you had been involved in a high profile murder inquest, where you knew that somebody had overtaken you and headed for the murder site, where you would yourself arrive two minutes later, and where the coroner asked you if you had met anybody during your trek.

Would you

A/reason that the coroner only wanted to hear about people coming at you from the front, or if he
B/would have asked that question in order to find out whether there had been anyone at all around.

If you want to pride yourself of having found a linguistic loophole designed for desperate/ridiculous flights, then be my guest. You still havenīt found a credible alternative to the coroner and inquest having satisfied themselves that Paul was alone until he met Lechmere, though.

For me, that concludes and finishes that particular part of the issue.

The best,
Fisherman

Not that I want to take sides but reading Paul's rather detailed deposition in page 7 of Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper - Sunday 02 September 1888, had he seen anyone else that Lechmere he would have mentioned it even if it would simply had been ordinary passersby.



In any case we still are in presence with only a location (and possibly time) proximity giving Lechmere an opportunity to murder and mutilate Nichols. IMHO, everything else is an interpretation, an opinion on what might have happened which I tend to believe could be rejected in court. Motive and means are strongly debatable if any.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

There's an Alice in Wonderland logic to the Crossmere theory.

This is one my favourite exchanges—

Me: PC Neil could not have signalled PC Mizen with his bullseye lamp. There was no line of sight between the murder scene and Bakers Row.

Ed: I know there is no line of sight yet nevertheless Neil said he signalled Mizen to come to him.

Duh!

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

It is quite funny that when the Lechmerians don't want something to have been mentioned at the inquest, they argue that it couldn't have been, even if it appears in a newspaper report. But when they do want something to have been mentioned, they say it must have been, even if it doesn't appear in any newspaper report.

Well, you argue that he is a lousy suspect, something that is in total opposition with sense, so I feel I am in good company.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fish ..

So what you briung up is nothing new.

Lets just say for argument sake , we allow the pendulum to swing Team L's way on most of the contentious decisions (ie) CrossMere was indeed crouched over , or standing over Polly's body . Also no one knew him as Cross ( apart from himself and his family ) .

Even considering both of these plausible scenarios , a guilty man it does not make , As many have commented , there Innocent explanations in abundance for both , and furthermore , we know he had good reason to be walking those streets , along with thousands of others ..

moonbegger

I think the new bit here is , I am prepared to play devils advocate , and concede your two uppermost contentious claims ..

But even after doing so , I still fail to see the damming evidence .

One other point ! Paul walks off ahead , CrossMere follows , knowing there is a good chance of running into a Bobby , and absolutely no hindsight as to what the reaction would be towards the two men , or even what Paul would tell a Bobby , or even just how much he actually witnessed himself .. With all these unknown factors at play , and a good opportunity to ditch the knife , we are encouraged to believe he chooses not too ? but instead he risks all these unknown factors blowing up in his face , whilst having the bloodied murder weapon on his person .

But great documentary none the less, well done .

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Hi Chris,

There's an Alice in Wonderland logic to the Crossmere theory.

This is one my favourite exchanges—

Me: PC Neil could not have signalled PC Mizen with his bullseye lamp. There was no line of sight between the murder scene and Bakers Row.

Ed: I know there is no line of sight yet nevertheless Neil said he signalled Mizen to come to him.

Duh!

Regards,

Simon

Simon, Mizen stood up at the intersection Bakers Row/Hanbury Street when he was approached by Lechmere. He had a fair stretch down to where Bakers Row opened up into Bucks Row. He only went there because Lechmere told him that he was needed in Bucks Row, we know that.

So if Lechmere had not spoken to Mizen, he would not have gone to the Bucks Row inlet, and Neil could not have seen him. Thus he would not have been able to signal him either.

Ergo Mizen was already on his way to Bucks Row, and when he arrived Neil THOUGHT he had been the one to get Mizensī attention.

I think this should be obvious.

If Neil managed to signal Mizen right through the many blocks of houses separating the two men, then yes - we are venturing into Wonderland.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

Iīm awfully sorry, Rob, but implying that we somehow cheated the experts into believing that Lechmere is a good suspect is something I wonīt lower myself to discuss. We did not, end of story.

That is your privilege. People an draw there own conclusions.

Have a look at more balanced critics of our theory and you will see that it is quite possible to say that you donīt think that we have found the killer - but that we have presented a useful suspect case. David Orsam, posting right ahead of you, is a good example, Mr Barnett is another.

So, anyone who doesn't agree with you is not a balanced critic?

But you haven't produced a useful suspect case. It is based on everyone lying. Paul, Lechmere and Mizen. Cherry picking what you want to make your case and then you and Ed making things up to cover the large cracks.

People are beginning to be, as David puts it, perplexed by your resistance against fairly obvious matters. The time may have come to reconsider, and discuss things in a more fruitful way. You donīt need to accept that Lechmere is a good suspect just because of that.

All the best,
Fisherman

I am not worried if people are perplexed by me. I'd rather deal in facts and not wild speculation. And what obvious matters?

[Fisherman]

Fish ..




I think the new bit here is , I am prepared to play devils advocate , and concede your two uppermost contentious claims ..

But even after doing so , I still fail to see the damming evidence .

One other point ! Paul walks off ahead , CrossMere follows , knowing there is a good chance of running into a Bobby , and absolutely no hindsight as to what the reaction would be towards the two men , or even what Paul would tell a Bobby , or even just how much he actually witnessed himself .. With all these unknown factors at play , and a good opportunity to ditch the knife , we are encouraged to believe he chooses not too ? but instead he risks all these unknown factors blowing up in his face , whilst having the bloodied murder weapon on his person .

But great documentary none the less, well done .

moonbegger

Thanks, Moon.

You lost me with that "good opportunity to ditch the knife". When did that happen?

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

We haeīve it on record that they failed to get Lechmeres real name into their reports. It is on record.

And if we had all the police reports available to us you may well have a point, bt as most of the file has been plundered, or lost, it is mere speculation.

[Rob Clack]

Letīs therefore turn to the ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser and see what Lechmere said:

It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up.

You might have missed me ask this earlier Christer. Is centre of the road the same as middle of the road?

Rob

[David Orsam]

But I think you might find, that to many here it is obvious that Cross would have been a person of interest, but the case against him is based on the police not having enough brain power to check on minor things like where he worked [even though he told them] what time he left home [even though he gave his address] and when you accept that the police would have made those inquiries you realise they had to know who he was, they had to know his timings and the house of cards starts to fall down.

It is only by believing that the police didn't know that he was a POI and didn't make even the most basic of inquiries, that you can make any kind of case against him.

Hi GUT,

Didn't the police interview Peter Sutcliffe long before he was arrested and fail to make some very basic enquiries about him? It happens all the time. And police procedures were very different in the nineteenth century. In the absence of any evidence that enquiries were made I wouldn't want to rely on any such assumption. Where I do agree with you is that a lot of the points made against Lechmere are not terribly good ones. For me, the sole reason why he should be considered a suspect (and, for the avoidance, of doubt I do not say a good suspect) is because the evidence of a police officer is that Lechmere lied to him about a material fact.