The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Tom_Wescott]

Posted by Tom :

"Something about the Lechmere theory really has your back up, Robert. I've never seen you so out for blood as you've been on these threads. I'm not judging, just observing."

That's a strange post, Tom. Maybe the reason you think that is because I don't often get involved in protracted JTR discussions these days, unless they're genealogical.

I was simply thanking Mr Scobie for bothering to answer Trevor's enquiry, and Trevor for making the enquiry.

And no, I am not out for blood - cup of tea is my drink, as it doesn't clot.

Much obliged, Robert. Sorry for the strangeness. I suppose it wasn't strange to you. But yes, I was struck because you very rarely engage in protracted Ripper discussions as you say.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

No Tom the subject came up as evans was piously going on about it - despite his churlish denial.

[Bridewell]

I'm just not seeing that those given are any stronger than those from the Lechmere Crew.

I disagree but, even if it is accepted that you are right, it's immaterial. The prosecution has to prove its case. The defence has to prove nothing. You appear to be saying that the cases for and against are roughly equal. That isn't even sufficient for the standard of proof in a civil court (balance of probabilities); it falls miles short of the standard of proof in the criminal courts (beyond reasonable doubt).

[Bridewell]

But didn't you read! Now it's that he was a couple of yards from the body, "we never said he was standing over the body".

The goalposts are shifting if that's the case. I would contend that even the new position is untenable though because, as both Lechmere and Paul make very clear, Lechmere had to draw Paul's attention to the presence of the body and took him to it. So either the body was rather more than a couple of yards away or Paul had seriously defective eyesight.

[Stewart P Evans]

Robert Paul's Public Allegation

Robert Paul's public allegation against Mizen made in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, before Mizen appeared at the inquest to give evidence, on Sunday September 2, 1888 -

"I saw one [a policeman] in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

You see the allegations are that the case against Cross is purely circumstantial we are told that it's based on

The name
The pulling done of the dress
Him standing over the body
Mizen
Not giving his address in Court
The timing

And other things that no seems prepared to put together a full list of.

Now as I said the way to deal with such a case is one thread at a time, others have effectively dealt with some of these issues I am attempting to do the same.

I asked earlier which thread had to go, or how many of them, before we could say, nope not him, you said the blood, well that one is already sinking fast. But as long as new threads are attempted to be added to the list I'll keep picking.

See I'd love it if they were right, or anyone else for that matter, but I want it to be something that stands up to scrutiny.

Must say I enjoy reading your posts GUT. I like the approach - somehow appeals to my way of thinking.

... as usual anytime one thread is unpicked the goal posts move and that thread was not part of/ crucial to, the case.

Somewhat reminiscent of 314.1c and a certain shawl.

And I still am concerned about 3.45am - Paul and PC Neil.

cheers, gryff

[GUT]

GUT
I didn't say the name means nothing.
For someone who pettifogs over the slightest thing you selectively are very loose with your claims.

And in a similar vein I have never said standing over the body - I have often explained how that expression comes into parlance - I have countless times explained that if he was in the middle of the street he still very close to the body.
You're a barrister - right?
You take and listen to evidence in court - right?
I hope you pay more attention when you do that - if you are a practising barrister.

G'day Bridewell

Post 722 see what Kechmere says "I have never said standing over the body"?

[robhouse]

The wording "in company with" does in no way tell us that Paul ever approached Mizen. It does not establish any distance inbetween Lechmere and Paul, it only tells us that Mizen at some stage made the assumption that the two were tied to each other. That could - and to my mind would - for example have happened as the two came down Baker´s Row.

After that, if we go by the Echo, stating that Mizen spoke of "the other man (Paul), who went down Hanbury Street, we get a scenario where Lechmere took on the role of Communicator, where Paul (who was in a hurry) passed by and continued down Hanbury Street, where Lechmere spent few seconds telling Mizen "Officer, there´s a woman lying flat on her back in Buck´s Row. And there´s a colleague of yours awaiting you there, another PC. He told us to tell you!"

That´s a generous amount of speaking, going by the inquest recordings - but it only took me nine seconds to say it, with no stress (I timed it). At that stage, Paul would have gotten around fifteen yards down Hanbury Street at that stage, and it would have been easy-peasy for Lechmere to catch up with him, ensuring Mizen that his estimation that they were Walking together was correct.

This is totally allowed for by the evidence - the Echo is the only paper to in any shape or form place Paul somewhere, apart from the loosely formed and uninformative "in company" - which, as I said, in no shape or form describes any specific distance.

I find this to be an extremely convoluted suggestion... I mean this is really stretching the sources to fit your theory. Stewart's post just above is one example. The Times Sep 18, 1888 gives another:

When Paul testified, the coroner stated:

"The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body. He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away."

Times, sep 18, 88

RH

[Stewart P Evans]

Mizen's Response

Mizen's response to Paul's allegation, and it is clear that this is what it was, made at the inquest on Monday 3 September 1888 -

'...When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.'

This makes it patently clear that Mizen has been asked about the incident and denied that he continued knocking up after being told that a woman was lying in the street instead of immediately attending the scene.

[GUT]

Robert Paul's public allegation against Mizen made in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, before Mizen appeared at the inquest to give evidence, on Sunday September 2, 1888 -

"I saw one [a policeman] in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

G'day Stewart

Which also takes us back, does it not, to the claim that only Cross spoke to Mizen?

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding Polly's abdominal wounds, they were not visible to Cross or Paul, probably due to her stays.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Cross's Response

At the same hearing Cross was asked by -

By a Juryman: "Did you tell Constable Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Buck's-row?"
The Witness: "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

[Lechmere]

Even as the usual suspects wring their hands and suspend their critical faculties to desperately give Lechmere the benefit of doubt at each and every turn - in the real big world outside, the publicity just keeps on a-rollin'. ENJOY!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2842352/Whitechapel-meat-cart-driver-Jack-Ripper-legitimately-blood-spattered-appearance-helped-evade-justice-claims-criminologist.html

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lechmere. Publicity is great but only if you're selling something. Neither you nor Christer thought of that. So a production company and TV station have made gobs of money off you two, you have all this publicity, but nothing of your own to publicize. I wonder if either of you were even paid.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

Even as the usual suspects wring their hands and suspend their critical faculties to desperately give Lechmere the benefit of doubt at each and every turn - in the real big world outside, the publicity just keeps on a-rollin'. ENJOY!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...inologist.html

Yes, you certainly seem to have achieved what you wanted with Joe Public, sadly based on a faulty TV presentation of what actually happened in Buck's Row. You enjoy it - while it lasts.