The Missing Evidence II - New Ripper Documentary - Aug 2024

[The Baron]

I actually like your post.

I actually don't care.


It's a good thing that we don't agree and you clearly give as good as you get.


Again I don't care.


The passive aggressive thing amuses me more than anything and doesn't affect/effect me in the slightest


God knows I don't care.


so that approach certainly won't get you anywhere, but I admire your effort nonetheless.


Pretty certain I don't care.


If you believe that a series of dismembered women found dumped in various places were not murdered, then you're entitled to your opinion of course

The modern construct of Wokeness means that anyone is allowed to believe what they want and pedal to others their beliefs.

Good on you sir for your stoic stance.

I might also choose to state that it can't be proven conclusively that 2 plus 2 is...4




I would be wrong, but if I believed I was right, then nobody could tell me otherwise because it's my opinion and etc...etc...


The only thing I can prove is that regardless of your valid and warranted opinions on the Torso women having not been murdered,

You're still wrong


I challenge you to show where I stated that it is MY opinion that the torsos haven't been murdered.

If you can't, and you can't, then, surprise .. I don't care.


But that's okay, respect to you for being wrong


I know someone who has been shown to be wrong


I am also wrong, moreso than you...believe me.


I don't care either way


But anyway, back to earth...

The so called missing evidence is interesting because that idea can be applied to almost every person of interest and suspect.


And who would have believed MJK committed suicide?!


You can't prove she didn't after all


It is not my opinion, so I don't care


RD

My comments in bold above.


As I told you in my last post, you should be now working on yourself so to keep open minded and live up to the ethics you were preaching.


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

I completely agree but then he should have challenged what the documentary said after all it was using 'his' work. Surely after seeing the video and finding 'inaccuracies' he should have done something about it or his credibility not just as a Ripperoligist, an author on the subject and in his professional capacity as a journalist would be dented.
Alas he did not.

I feel inclined to defend Christer, which is a bit surprising because I don't accept his theories of the case.

The video didn't attribute the discovery of Cross's birth name to Christer Holmgren but to a "group of amateur enthusiasts" working in 2005. It never implied that it was Christer's discovery, so the thought of correcting them wouldn't have presented itself.

How they came up with the date 2005 is unclear. You can find the comment and the discussion of the name at the 16:30 mark on YouTube.

I don't agree with Holmgren's views of the case, but I've never doubted that he believes what he says, and I don't think he is the sort who is deliberately dishonest or misleading.

Rather, I think he has convinced himself that his methodology and opinions are legitimate.

[Geddy2112]

I feel inclined to defend Christer, which is a bit surprising because I don't accept his theories of the case.
The video didn't attribute the discovery of Cross's birth name to Christer Holmgren but to a "group of amateur enthusiasts" working in 2005. It never implied that it was Christer's discovery, so the thought of correcting them wouldn't have presented itself.
How they came up with the date 2005 is unclear. You can find the comment and the discussion of the name at the 16:30 mark on YouTube.
I don't agree with Holmgren's views of the case, but I've never doubted that he believes what he says, and I don't think he is the sort who is deliberately dishonest or misleading.
Rather, I think he has convinced himself that his methodology and opinions are legitimate.

OK, that is fair enough. Although I've done a more in depth dissection of the video on another thread today. Christer does contradict himself on occasions. The video/narrator does it a lot.

…but James Scobie suggests the evidence drawn together by Christer.

This seems to suggest it was Christer's evidence given to Scobie. The problem is the video is misleading and biased and he has put his name to it. If I were in his shoes I would have made sure it was a true representation of the 'story' I wanted to tell before it was aired. It certainly does not help his theory or his credibility.

[rjpalmer]

This seems to suggest it was Christer's evidence given to Scobie. The problem is the video is misleading and biased and he has put his name to it. If I were in his shoes I would have made sure it was a true representation of the 'story' I wanted to tell before it was aired. It certainly does not help his theory or his credibility.

Hi Geddy -

I'm more inclined to use the word misguided than deceptive when it comes to the Lechmere theory, but I suppose it's often a thin line.

[The Rookie Detective]

My comments in bold above.


As I told you in my last post, you should be now working on yourself so to keep open minded and live up to the ethics you were preaching.


The Baron

Thank you for your continued contribution to this forum; you appear to have some fantastic views; I think?

I'm not one to get into a Christer style tit for tat, although for you I had briefly considered making an exception.

But then you helped me in your previous post by making me realise that I don't care about what you say or think either, and so there's no point engaging with you any further.


But as a sincere gesture of humility and good will...

I am willing to let you have the last word, because I don't want to make your self-confessed lack of caring any worse by me having to respond to any more of your peculiar posts.

The last thing I'd want to do is irritate you any further, as all that matters to me is the integrity of this wonderful forum; which I have NO intention of disrupting or disrespecting by having to come down to your level...of care.

Therefore, I will allow you to have the last word.


I bid you well dear old boss



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Right... pointless distractions aside... Let's get this thread back on track...

Where were we?

Ah yes, The Missing Evidence sequel


It's gonna be divisive that's for sure


RD

[Lewis C]

I believe it was the presenter who said that, Christer would not claim credit for the discoveries of others.

Steve

You're probably right. It has been awhile since I've seen that video.

[Lewis C]

Good morning Lewis and welcome to Casebook



The video came about by all the posting on Casebook about Lechmere. It was a constant topic of discussion. As it still is.

Neil Bell, who posted as 'Monty' and authored the book Capturing Jack the Ripper: In the Boots of a Bobby in Victorian London related here that he received a telephone call one day from someone at Blink films, who asked was there a suspect being discussed online, and he casually answered, "yes, Lechmere.'

Neil didn't agree with the theory, none of us here did, nor do we now, obviously.

But that's not the point. Christer won. We all gather here on the top line to talk about Lechmere. And it's been this way for years. It would be more precise to say -

"Welcome to Lechbook"

Hi Paddy, and thank you for the welcome.

Christer and Stow have also won in the sense that they have succeeded in convincing a large number of Youtube posters (and probably others) that Cross is guilty.

[Lewis C]

Just something I'm getting confused about....





Can we assume Robert Paul meant it was exactly 3:45 when he 'entered' Bucks Row or was a good way up it? It does not really matter but if PC Neil was certain he found the body at 3:45am as per his testimony I'm not sure how he could have missed Lechmere, or Lechmere and Paul together. Surely we have to give Paul at least a minute to get to Lechmere (according to the video we do) and the faffing about with the 'touch her' 'no you touch her' routine along with the discussion to leave to find a copper would have say taken at least another minute, if not more then according to PC Neil he would have been on the scene and found Lechmere or Lechmere and Paul by the body but he did not.

Something does not add up here unless erm that 'gap' proposed did not actually happen.

For me, this is the biggest problem with the time gap argument. It assumes that Paul's time estimate is accurate, but PC Mizen said that he talked to Cross and Paul at 3:45, and PC Neil estimates that he found the body at 3:45. If we use Mizen and Neil's time estimates, there is no time gap.

[Geddy2112]

I'm more inclined to use the word misguided than deceptive when it comes to the Lechmere theory, but I suppose it's often a thin line.

Hi, I totally agree, I do not like using outright lying bastards unless I'm really really sure but that is usually never I think the last time was 12:45, 21st Oct 1978. I do not believe Christer and Ed are out to 'deceive' but the documentary is certainly misleading and certainly biased... and I really dislike they still push it no matter how many times it's pointed out to them, they expect us to take their theory without judgement or question and that is the worrying part.

[Geddy2112]

For me, this is the biggest problem with the time gap argument. It assumes that Paul's time estimate is accurate, but PC Mizen said that he talked to Cross and Paul at 3:45, and PC Neil estimates that he found the body at 3:45. If we use Mizen and Neil's time estimates, there is no time gap.

Hi Lewis, completely agree. Like I said it's odd the documentary used to finger Lechmere actually appears to give him an alibi for the first three murders including Tabram.

[John Wheat]

Hi Lewis, completely agree. Like I said it's odd the documentary used to finger Lechmere actually appears to give him an alibi for the first three murders including Tabram.

At the end of the day whatever the motives the documentary is a bias piece of crap.

[Geddy2112]

You're probably right. It has been awhile since I've seen that video.

I decided, since I'm housebound with a fractured spin and not much else to do or rather can do I'd watch the video again and do a dissection on it so to speak. I thought it better to make a new thread here https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...nce-dissection

I may be wrong with my conclusions but the video is very misleading, contradictory and well biased to say the least, in my opinion.. before I get shot.

[Geddy2112]

At the end of the day whatever the motives the documentary is a bias piece of crap.

I agree but I was trying to be more diplomatic or rather less direct haha

[Tom_Wescott]

'The Missing Evidence' was a television series, not a documentary. One episode was devoted to Jack the Ripper. The other episodes were on totally unrelated topics. I've been able to see most of them and found it to be an exceptionally produced series. What makes the Ripper episode a piece of crap? Does one have to buy into what a show is about in order to enjoy it? I don't think Lechmere was the Ripper and still find it to be one of best-produced Ripper docs ever.

It's unfortunate Christer is being quoted so much and isn't able to respond.

Why is Rookie Detective taking such a beating? He seems like a nice guy and his posts are often interesting.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott