The Missing Evidence II - New Ripper Documentary - Aug 2024

[John Wheat]

'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

Hi Tom

Documentaries are not supposed to be bias. If a documentary shows an extreme level of bias then in my opinion it has failed miserably. The Lechmere documentary is in my opinion extremely bias therefore in my opinion the Lechmere documentary is a bias piece of crap .

Cheers John

[Geddy2112]

'The Missing Evidence' was a television series, not a documentary.

With all due respect that is rather nit-picking and to what end? If we talk about the missing evidence documentary (which it is advertised as in the UK) then on these boards we know exactly what is meant, not sure what your comment is trying to point out. Was it not meant to be factual or accurate? Was it just rather a Miss Marple style 'who done it?' Really...

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 claims to have solved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jack the Ripper was Lechmere. This was shown on National TV stations across the globe. It was billed as a factual account. It's not a factual account hence its a 'piece of crap' as you put it, I did not. I said it was inaccurate, biased and misleading. What about his living grandchildren or great grandchildren that have to have his name dragged through the mud? As you would put it next it's unfortunate they (or Lechmere himself) are not able to respond. Dear me...

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

Why? Is PC Neil, Mizen et al who are getting quoted so much able to respond, no. Your point is irrelevant. I'm sorry but if anyone goes on the record they are fair game, just like if I quoted someone from a news broadcast or newspaper. I don't want Christer to respond, it will descend into a pointless argument, petty abuse and twisting of words. If he can't stand by what he said on the 'television series' then that is not my problem, it's his. By going on record he has to allow himself some scrutiny. Sorry your comment is just plain wrong. I quoted Scobie, Andy Griffiths etc and the narrator, why not stand up for them? Double standards I see...

[Geddy2112]

documentary
/ˌdɒkjʊˈmɛnt(ə)ri/

a film or television or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject.

[Fiver]

'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.

'The Missing Evidence" has good production values and is entertaining and persuasive. What makes it a piece of crap is that it repeatedly presents speculation, and sometimes even outright lies, as fact. Geddy has also shown that 'The Missing Evidence' frequently contradicts itself.

A far better coverage of the Lechmere theory was done by Lemmino in part of his overview of the case. Though it's a streamlined, not a thorough presentation, it clearly separates theory from fact and shows original sources. It far more professionally done that the supposed professionals who made 'The Missing Evidence".

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

It's hard to discuss a theory without discussing the views of Butler and Holmgren, the most visible proponents of the theory.

But when it comes down to it, Christer doesn't respond to criticisms of the theory. When asked why he ignores the majority of the witnesses on timings, he ignores the question. When asked why he considers certain actions of Lechmere to be suspicious, but not suspicious when identical actions are taken by other men, he ignores the question. When asked why he ignores the bloody garment found in Hooper Street, he ignores the question. When asked why he thinks the location of the Pinchin Street Torso points to the killer, but the location of the Battersea Park, Shelly Estate, and Scotland Yard deposits don't point to the killer, he ignores the question.

I could provide other examples, but the point is that when Christer has had the chance to respond, he has repeatedly chosen not to.

[Tom_Wescott]

With all due respect that is rather nit-picking and to what end? If we talk about the missing evidence documentary (which it is advertised as in the UK) then on these boards we know exactly what is meant, not sure what your comment is trying to point out. Was it not meant to be factual or accurate? Was it just rather a Miss Marple style 'who done it?' Really...

Is factual accuracy nit-picking? Perhaps to some. But the title of this thread is Missing Evidence II. That already exists as episode two of The Missing Evidence series, and it is not about Jack the Ripper. Some people might appreciate knowing that.

It claims to have solved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jack the Ripper was Lechmere. This was shown on National TV stations across the globe. It was billed as a factual account. It's not a factual account hence its a 'piece of crap' as you put it, I did not. I said it was inaccurate, biased and misleading. What about his living grandchildren or great grandchildren that have to have his name dragged through the mud? As you would put it next it's unfortunate they (or Lechmere himself) are not able to respond. Dear me...

I recall Ed Stow saying on numerous occasions that he was long ago in touch with Lechmere's descendants and made them fully aware of his theory. IIRC correctly it's mentioned in this piece of crap doc that it was his descendants who provided the extant photo used. The phrase 'piece of crap' was quoted from John Wheat, who posted on this very thread, and not aimed at you. It's informative that you thought my post (which was general in nature) was directed towards you personally.

Why? Is PC Neil, Mizen et al who are getting quoted so much able to respond, no. Your point is irrelevant. I'm sorry but if anyone goes on the record they are fair game, just like if I quoted someone from a news broadcast or newspaper. I don't want Christer to respond, it will descend into a pointless argument, petty abuse and twisting of words. If he can't stand by what he said on the 'television series' then that is not my problem, it's his. By going on record he has to allow himself some scrutiny. Sorry your comment is just plain wrong. I quoted Scobie, Andy Griffiths etc and the narrator, why not stand up for them? Double standards I see...

You don't want Christer to respond? That doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of debate and free exchange. It occurs to me now I may have unwittingly stepped into someone's echo chamber. Or Safe Space. As for the professional men: Scobie, Griffiths, Neil, and Mizen, I've never noticed them to be active on the boards. Same with the producers of the Missing Evidence series. And you are perfectly correct in stating that once someone publishes or gives public statements on a topic, their work or statements are open for discussion. That is why I provided my opinion on the statements I read in this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom

Documentaries are not supposed to be bias. If a documentary shows an extreme level of bias then in my opinion it has failed miserably. The Lechmere documentary is in my opinion extremely bias therefore in my opinion the Lechmere documentary is a bias piece of crap .

Cheers John

Hi John, if only that were true! Documentaries, though, are simply narrative storytelling. Unless you're Ken Burns with 10 hours at your disposal to tell your story, a producer will settle on a central figure and that person's story. In other words, tell that one character's truth. For ME-JTR, the central figure was Christer. It was his story they were telling, and his truth is that Lechmere was the Ripper. I was impressed they reached out to noted authorities to get their opinion. Of course, they didn't provide these men with a 6,000 page dossier covering the entirety of the known evidence and every suspect theory. They provided them with a dossier specifically on Lechmere, presenting the argument for his guilt. Not surprisingly, they were impressed by it and presented their thoughts on camera. Perhaps they would have been similarly impressed with a dossier on Tumblety put together by Mike Hawley? Or on Druitt by Jonathan Hainsworth? We'll never know, because the central figure of this documentary was Christer Holmgren, who believes Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Since documentaries are about people - or a person - and people are by nature biased, I never approach documentaries (or books) with the idea that they're free of bias. I don't see how they can be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Wheat]

Hi John, if only that were true! Documentaries, though, are simply narrative storytelling. Unless you're Ken Burns with 10 hours at your disposal to tell your story, a producer will settle on a central figure and that person's story. In other words, tell that one character's truth. For ME-JTR, the central figure was Christer. It was his story they were telling, and his truth is that Lechmere was the Ripper. I was impressed they reached out to noted authorities to get their opinion. Of course, they didn't provide these men with a 6,000 page dossier covering the entirety of the known evidence and every suspect theory. They provided them with a dossier specifically on Lechmere, presenting the argument for his guilt. Not surprisingly, they were impressed by it and presented their thoughts on camera. Perhaps they would have been similarly impressed with a dossier on Tumblety put together by Mike Hawley? Or on Druitt by Jonathan Hainsworth? We'll never know, because the central figure of this documentary was Christer Holmgren, who believes Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Since documentaries are about people - or a person - and people are by nature biased, I never approach documentaries (or books) with the idea that they're free of bias. I don't see how they can be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

Documentaries are still supposed to be balanced. And the documentary on Lechmere is about the least balanced documentary I have ever watched.

Cheers John

[Geddy2112]

Is factual accuracy nit-picking? Perhaps to some. But the title of this thread is Missing Evidence II. That already exists as episode two of The Missing Evidence series, and it is not about Jack the Ripper. Some people might appreciate knowing that.

However it's not factual accuracy is it? If we are allowed nit-picking I'll more accurately called it a TV series of documentaries. Is that okay? I've already posted the definition of a documentary i.e. a film or television or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject. and also shown you a picture for the TV company's website over here in the UK who hosted it and guess what, yip it's in the documentary section. You stating it's not a documentary is correct in the fact it's not a 'factual report' however that is not what you meant hence it's bloody nit-picking and a pointless irrelevant comment to make. Is claiming it's a 'TV show' supposed to mean we go more leniently on it for it's factual content? Are we to put it in the same bracket as From Hell with Mr Depp or Jack the Ripper with Michael Caine?

I recall Ed Stow saying on numerous occasions that he was long ago in touch with Lechmere's descendants and made them fully aware of his theory. IIRC correctly it's mentioned in this piece of crap doc that it was his descendants who provided the extant photo used. The phrase 'piece of crap' was quoted from John Wheat, who posted on this very thread, and not aimed at you. It's informative that you thought my post (which was general in nature) was directed towards you personally.

From what I've head yes, his partner is the descendant. I know the 'piece of crap' was quoting John, hence I said I never said it. Did you miss that bit? Nowhere in my previous post did I claim you were quoting me. So not very informative sorry.

You don't want Christer to respond? That doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of debate and free exchange. It occurs to me now I may have unwittingly stepped into someone's echo chamber. Or Safe Space. As for the professional men: Scobie, Griffiths, Neil, and Mizen, I've never noticed them to be active on the boards. Same with the producers of the Missing Evidence series. And you are perfectly correct in stating that once someone publishes or gives public statements on a topic, their work or statements are open for discussion. That is why I provided my opinion on the statements I read in this thread.

I would not mind Christer responding if he did that in the 'spirit of debate and free exchange.' However he won't even if he could. Like most of the threads here and other forums, social media etc he can't 'debate' like you suggest because that would imply he has an open mind, no blinkers on and can actually admit he is wrong. Something I've not seen him do once, of course I could be wrong but it appears that every time someone posts against his theory he attacks, throws out petty insults, twists people's words and refuses to answer basic questions. His latest post on FB being the classic example. He want's to distance the theory from 'found the body' to 'was found near the body' but when challenged about this and he was shown in his very book and on the 'video' he states numerous times '...found the body' he just twists it to claim that is not what he meant. I would love Scobie and Griffiths to reply too. Neil and Mizen are unlikely to be able to but no doubt some people can 'reach' them and it would be great to hear from them...imagine that!

So yes I would love Christer to engage in a debate but it appears he is not capable through blinkeredness to do so. That is not my fault or anyone else's here, it's his.

[Geddy2112]

For ME-JTR, the central figure was Christer. It was his story they were telling, and his truth is that Lechmere was the Ripper. I was impressed they reached out to noted authorities to get their opinion. Of course, they didn't provide these men with a 6,000 page dossier covering the entirety of the known evidence and every suspect theory. They provided them with a dossier specifically on Lechmere, presenting the argument for his guilt. Since documentaries are about people - or a person - and people are by nature biased, I never approach documentaries (or books) with the idea that they're free of bias. I don't see how they can be.

Apologies I know this post was not aimed at me. I totally agree they were given a dossier on Lechmere presenting an argument for his guilt. I understand that. However they still did not do it in a none biased, factual way. Hence my other thread where I find 30 or so 'inaccuracies' in a 48 min film. Like I said in post #78 a documentary is supposed to be a factual report. This is by no way a factual report.
Please also bear in mind the last sentence by the narrator a long the lines of '..but Christer believes unless solid evidence emerges to the contrary he has found the man behind the legend and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Charles Allen Lechmere was Jack The Ripper.' That is a pretty bold statement to make.

So yes I totally agree it was a documentary to show Lechmere was guilty but it failed dramatically, in my opinion.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom

Documentaries are still supposed to be balanced. And the documentary on Lechmere is about the least balanced documentary I have ever watched.

Cheers John

Perhaps I've seen too many then. I'm struggling to think of one I'd called balanced or unbiased. But I enjoy them or dislike them nonetheless based on their presentation. Documentaries are first and foremost entertainment. Same with books. It's our choice how seriously we take them. If someone is so engaged, they'll seek out literature for further enlightenment. Most documentaries focus solely on the five victims between Nichols and Kelly, which I don't consider balanced. But I also understand and appreciate the limitations of a documentary, particularly within the confines of a TV series. Very tight time constraints and limited budgets. It's not like a book. In fact, now that Christer has published his book, I would think discussion of the 2015 documentary would be considered obsolete, because Christer had full control over the content of his book, whereas he certainly did not with the documentary.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Missing Evidence JTR episode for its wonderful visuals, tight editing, and the fact that they presented the argument in such a way that - even for a moment - it makes you wonder "Did he do it?" Whereas I found it thrilling, I suspect this last point is what sparks so much passion about this particular documentary, whereas almost all others pass by with little or no comment. Of course, the other reason people have (or give) for their disdain of the Lechmere theory is Ed's personal/political history. Fair enough. I voted for Bernie Sanders. Twice. You're welcome to burn your copy of Ripper Confidential if you'd like. Mostly, though, I think people resent the energy that has surrounded the Lechmere theory for the near decade since the documentary has come out. No other theory has that kind of energy behind it. I find all of this very interesting and thought-provoking.

I say all this merely as a curious observer who has been in the field for a long time and on these very boards since the previous century. I should point out that I was thoroughly annoyed by the Lechmere theory for many years as it seemed to seep into every thread I was actively engaged in and that had nothing to do with Lechmere. Massive annoyance. What was truly annoying was that I couldn't follow the argument in any cohesive manner because it was all back-and-forth arguing. I'm operating on an Oklahoma public school education, and I don't think I comprehended what the 'Mizen Scam' was until I read Christer's book. I'm by no means a Lechmere apologist, in case this is how I appear. I've studied and written on the Buck's Row murder at a depth and I can see weaknesses in the Lechmere theory. I'm also impressed by its strengths and the amount of effort put into building the argument and presenting it. It's surprisingly thorough. I can think of many researchers who should be taking notes. I certainly have been.

I think debate and even argument is good and healthy. But I see no sense in beating each other up. I'm an American, and we often say the Yanks and the Brits are two people separated by a common language. Ripperologists are a mass of people separated by a common interest. Think about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Geddy2112]

Tom,

Great post, thank you.
Regards

[Tom_Wescott]

I would not mind Christer responding if he did that in the 'spirit of debate and free exchange.' However he won't even if he could. Like most of the threads here and other forums, social media etc he can't 'debate' like you suggest because that would imply he has an open mind, no blinkers on and can actually admit he is wrong.

Wrong about what?

I appreciate you had back surgery and are recovering. I've never had back surgery but I imagine it comes with some pretty sweet meds. Right now, you're probably higher than Bruce Robinson at a Masonic temple, but surely you must appreciate that Debate is not one party standing up and admitting they're wrong. For Christer (or anybody) to admit being wrong, surely they must be proved wrong? If Christer states 'I believe Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper' and I reply 'You are wrong!' without proof to the contrary, then which one of us is the more closeminded?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

Great post, thank you.
Regards

And you as well. And John, Fiver, etc. I don't engage in the boards that often anymore and occasionally enjoy an excuse to. I probably wouldn't have jumped in this thread if it wasn't for what I perceives as the unfair treatment of another poster. It's not a rare thing to see a Lechmerian taking a beating a Lechmere thing, but seeing two non-Lecmerians going at it was rather novel.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I can't wait for the upcoming Kosminski documentary to come out. It's tentatively titled 'Definitely Ascertained Fact'.

[Lewis C]

And you as well. And John, Fiver, etc. I don't engage in the boards that often anymore and occasionally enjoy an excuse to. I probably wouldn't have jumped in this thread if it wasn't for what I perceives as the unfair treatment of another poster. It's not a rare thing to see a Lechmerian taking a beating a Lechmere thing, but seeing two non-Lecmerians going at it was rather novel.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I can't wait for the upcoming Kosminski documentary to come out. It's tentatively titled 'Definitely Ascertained Fact'.

Hi Tom,

To clarify, I believe that the poster that you mean was treated unfairly is Rookie Detective, and I agree that earlier in this thread he was addressed in a way that was non-constructive and unkind.

[jmenges]

While I agree with Tom in part- that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I see Christer’s work being attacked when he’s not here to defend himself- I would like to step back and remind everyone that he is not here because he violated the rules and got himself temporarily banned. His own repeated misbehavior led to his present absence. No one else is to blame.

I take the liberty of sharing our personal attack policy when it comes to published authors and media/content creators. Read it carefully. This is not a wholesale free pass to insult the author freely throughout time.

Slander/Libel/Personal Attacks of Published Authors and other Media/Content Creators and Professional Experts

Comments on published works will generally not be considered libelous or fall under the personal attack policy (even though some Authors/Creators post here) unless they are completely off the wall or not based on evidence. If there is evidence that an author deliberately left out information, failed to do research, plagiarized, fabricated evidence, whatever the criticism may be, then people's honest opinions -of the work and the author - will not be considered libelous/attacking. Media creators are Public Figures and they cannot expect to have everyone love and admire their work. There is also protection for the poster from claims of libel when it comes to discussing public figures. We are based in America, and we base our Public Figure/Libel rules on U.S. standards. If there is evidence of wrongdoing on an author's part then a poster has the right to express their opinion of the work and the author when discussing the author's work or contributions. This is not a wholesale free pass to insult the author freely throughout time (especially if they are posting on unrelated threads or topics). If the author's work is being discussed, any criticism is valid, as long as it pertains to the work and is evidence-based or an honest opinion of generalities. "I think this book and author are biased crap" is a personal opinion and valid, and doesn't require any evidence, because it is the poster's opinion and while it is not supported, it is an opinion on the work.

Have a good weekend and please behave yourselves.
I’ve got a magazine to finish up.

JM