The Missing Evidence II - New Ripper Documentary - Aug 2024

[caz]

Last I heard, Trevor's suspect was Carl Feigenbaum. The theory was that Feigenbaum, who isn't known to have lived in England, was a sailor that killed the Ripper victims when his ship stopped in London. I find the theory extremely unlikely, but it would be even more far-fetched if a sailor had to make enough trips to London to kill not only the Ripper victims, but also the Torso victims. So my guess is that he wouldn't have settled on Feigenbaum as a suspect if he hadn't rejected the idea that JtR also killed the Torso victims.

That's generous of you, Lewis, concerning dear Trevor. Too many suspect theorists do it the other way round: pounce on a suspect that floats their boat, then stamp on any evidence that would give that man an alibi or otherwise make them an unlikely murderer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Geddy2112]

While documentaries should always be as factually accurate as possible, and be balanced where balance is due, I don't see how it would be possible to produce a JtR doc, based on someone's theory of who dunnit and why, without polarising the viewers and ruffling feathers. If you insist on watching it, you suck it up and either buy into it or spit it out. Nobody is forcing you to believe a word of it, if the evidence isn't made to stack up or the speculation levels are sky high. Who among us would expect such a documentary to keep pointing out to the intellectually challenged that the theory being explored isn't definitive and may well be wrong? If it comes across as a piece of fanciful or egotistical crap, that's for Christer to worry about. I didn't watch it because from what I've read here on both sides of the divide, in Christer's posts as well as many others, I doubted I would learn anything new or surprising, and life's too short!

I completely agree. By definition a documentary should be factual. This one is most certainly not, and its purpose was to portray Lechmere as Jack The Ripper. I guess they did that but not in the correct way. Like I said I found 30 or so inaccuracies, the video (as I like to call it) actually gives Lechmere an alibi for the first three murders if we include Tabram. That is just sloppy. All the sheep replying on YouTube, akin to HOL love it, thinks it’s great, case closed etc. It would have been nice to have more balance and erm… truth, but alas, like you say I guess that is difficult in ‘our’ scenario.

His worst offence, however, from where I'm sitting, was not when he once suggested I go away and do some baking or knitting, but when he tried to deny that it was a sexist remark, claiming that one of his best male friends liked knitting! It was the moment when I realised that being wrong was not one of Christer's faults, living in a world where white can be black.

I’ve said it a few times, any respecting author would put his book out and leave it as that, stand by it and gracefully take any hits on the chin. No need to ram it down people's throats who dare disagree or challenge it. It's very sad. The bloke is like a rabid dog. How on Earth he can stand by the video and allow his name to it is beyond me, yes it might get him past the YouTube sheep but dear me on 99.9% of the forum posts I’ve recently sifted through he is a complete laughing stock.
Black and white… mmmm

Narcissism is an exaggerated, excessive interest in oneself. Black and white thinking can be a symptom of this personality disorder. People who have it will often find it challenging to get help because they quickly dismiss doctors and therapists.

On a side note I love cooking, well baking - subtle difference and I'm a whizz on the old sewing machine, not a fan of over lockers as they scare me but none the less I've been known to run up the odd pair of curtains so to speak.

As for Ed Butler.... unprintable.

Teddy is the silent assassin. Typical of the Politician in him. Read his posts on the JtR Forum, he sneaks in replying to people’s requests, gives answers, seems polite, posts ‘valuable’ press cuttings and the like all to gather trust and ‘friendship.’ The gullible ones then think he is a mate and once the HOL hit the stores they think ‘wow, that is my mate – I know him’ and by association think he is the bees’ knees. He’s not, it’s an age-old slimy technique used for generations to gain support. Egotistical and always with an agenda. Needs his face on the telly. Let’s face it he does not need his mug on the HOL videos, but he has to, it’s ego. It’s arrogance. Also read his posts advertising HOL, he speaks over and over about the numbers, the clicks, the views. It’s all about the likes and the cha-ching. Hence the ever-growing number of ‘House of Tenuous Links’ videos that come out. What have we had now Nichola Bulley, Bagels and Tigers. He is getting desperate… but he needs to keep getting on the Telly and like I said if it was not about the £££ then let him donate all the proceeds to the local Mosque.
From where I’m from his is akin to this Viz character… (surely now I've earned a mention on the next HOL.)

[Lewis C]

That's generous of you, Lewis, concerning dear Trevor. Too many suspect theorists do it the other way round: pounce on a suspect that floats their boat, then stamp on any evidence that would give that man an alibi or otherwise make them an unlikely murderer.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

It may well that I got the order of events wrong. Rather than speculate on that, it would have been better if I had said that I doubt that anyone who thinks that the Whitechapel murders and the Torso murders were committed by the same person would also think that the best suspect was someone who didn't even live in England, and would have had to take a ship to England every time he committed one of such a large number of murders.

[caz]

I completely agree. By definition a documentary should be factual. This one is most certainly not, and its purpose was to portray Lechmere as Jack The Ripper. I guess they did that but not in the correct way. Like I said I found 30 or so inaccuracies, the video (as I like to call it) actually gives Lechmere an alibi for the first three murders if we include Tabram. That is just sloppy. All the sheep replying on YouTube, akin to HOL love it, thinks it’s great, case closed etc. It would have been nice to have more balance and erm… truth, but alas, like you say I guess that is difficult in ‘our’ scenario.



I’ve said it a few times, any respecting author would put his book out and leave it as that, stand by it and gracefully take any hits on the chin. No need to ram it down people's throats who dare disagree or challenge it. It's very sad. The bloke is like a rabid dog. How on Earth he can stand by the video and allow his name to it is beyond me, yes it might get him past the YouTube sheep but dear me on 99.9% of the forum posts I’ve recently sifted through he is a complete laughing stock.
Black and white… mmmm

Narcissism is an exaggerated, excessive interest in oneself. Black and white thinking can be a symptom of this personality disorder. People who have it will often find it challenging to get help because they quickly dismiss doctors and therapists.

On a side note I love cooking, well baking - subtle difference and I'm a whizz on the old sewing machine, not a fan of over lockers as they scare me but none the less I've been known to run up the odd pair of curtains so to speak.



Teddy is the silent assassin. Typical of the Politician in him. Read his posts on the JtR Forum, he sneaks in replying to people’s requests, gives answers, seems polite, posts ‘valuable’ press cuttings and the like all to gather trust and ‘friendship.’ The gullible ones then think he is a mate and once the HOL hit the stores they think ‘wow, that is my mate – I know him’ and by association think he is the bees’ knees. He’s not, it’s an age-old slimy technique used for generations to gain support. Egotistical and always with an agenda. Needs his face on the telly. Let’s face it he does not need his mug on the HOL videos, but he has to, it’s ego. It’s arrogance. Also read his posts advertising HOL, he speaks over and over about the numbers, the clicks, the views. It’s all about the likes and the cha-ching. Hence the ever-growing number of ‘House of Tenuous Links’ videos that come out. What have we had now Nichola Bulley, Bagels and Tigers. He is getting desperate… but he needs to keep getting on the Telly and like I said if it was not about the £££ then let him donate all the proceeds to the local Mosque.
From where I’m from his is akin to this Viz character… (surely now I've earned a mention on the next HOL.)

Ooh, Geddy, our Ed won't like being compared to Cockney W*nker! He's an Old Whitgiftian, which isn't a euphemism for old git, but means he went to Whitgift School for posh boys, in South Croydon. Not a great ambassador, it has to be said.

I used to run up the odd pair of curtains on my Mum's ancient sewing machine. These days my cat Monty is more likely to run up the curtains, while my better half does most of the cooking.

Love,

Caz
X

[Geddy2112]

Ooh, Geddy, our Ed won't like being compared to Cockney W*nker!

Surprisingly enough I do not care. Especially when I've endured the latest HOL video which is beyond banal. His monotone droning on and strutting around various streets like he is name dropping famous Celebs is too much to take. It's 50 mins of my life I'll never get back. Couple of interesting points from it was when he mentioned how would Kosminski avoid being detected leaving Bucks Row with blood on him.... erm erm... double standards much.

[hill806]

After watching TME doc many years ago, there was always a few questions that I felt would need answering if the Lechmere theory was to be believed.

So 1st off, Lechmere leaves for work, and acording to the theory on the docc, gets there about 7 mins before Paul encounters him. Whats to say Lechmere, upon leaving in a rush, suddenly needed to take a piss? Taking one up a wall may cut a bit from his time. What if he also needed to to tie his laces to his boots? There could be other things he may have done to slow him down. Did he have a limp from an injury that made him slower? Personally I don't think he did as it was never mentioned, or maybe he simply never told anyone possibly to ensure he didn't get laid off from work for a bit as he needed the money.


Could Paul not seeing blood been due to it being to dark? PC Neil could have simply seen it because he had a lantern.

Paul lying to the police about there being a police constable there confuses me a bit. If he lied to Neil about there being another policeman there, and the other policeman hadn't have been there, then surely he would have been taking a hell of a risk, as had the other policeman not been there, they would have known he lied and come after him. Even if Lechmere knew the police's beat, and knew there would be a copper there at that time, the problem persists, as what is to stop Mizen potentially asking Neil, "Hey I've just seen those 2 fellows you spoke to." "What fellow's?"
‘Lechmere is now screwed.’
I’ve also heard that Lechmere may have simply said, “Your needed in bucks row,” simply meaning, your needed because theres a woman there. Mizen could have simply interpreted that as, ‘needed by another constable.

Last point. If Lechmere was the killer, how on earth did he kill MJK? I mean, him being her killer would mean that Hutchinson is 100% innocent of being JTR, and what/who he saw was the truth. A rich client accompying MJK to her room. As this client would have been rich, MJK would have not needed to venture out again to find more money. So how and when did Lechmere kill her with Hutchinson standing near her residence for about an hour, and with a possible client already with her? He would have had to have known about the broken window and then luckily picked exactly the right moment to sneak in when she was alone. Seems abit too implausible to me.

I’m no heavyweight super-knowledgable Ripperologist like the many on casebook, and I’m certainly not the sharpest knife in the draw, but still, are these queries reasonable?

[John Wheat]

The case against Lechmere is based on bullshit and lies.

[Geddy2112]

After watching TME doc many years ago, there was always a few questions that I felt would need answering if the Lechmere theory was to be believed.

So 1st off, Lechmere leaves for work, and according to the theory on the docc, gets there about 7 mins before Paul encounters him. What's to say Lechmere, upon leaving in a rush, suddenly needed to take a piss? Taking one up a wall may cut a bit from his time. What if he also needed to to tie his laces to his boots? There could be other things he may have done to slow him down. Did he have a limp from an injury that made him slower? Personally I don't think he did as it was never mentioned, or maybe he simply never told anyone possibly to ensure he didn't get laid off from work for a bit as he needed the money.

Indeed, even more curious the Theory takes three unknowns - the time Lechmere left the house, his walking speed and the actual route, adds them all together to get a certain fact of when he arrives in Bucks Row. That is how ludicrous it is.

Could Paul not seeing blood been due to it being to dark? PC Neil could have simply seen it because he had a lantern.

Difficult to tell if Paul could see blood however you must ask yourself if the theory is to be believed the strangulation came first then the abdominal wounds and then the neck cuts. So in the time it takes Paul who is in a hurry to walk the 40 to 50 yards Lechmere describes, Lechmere would have had to finish the abdominal cuts, pull down her skirts, cut her throat twice, wipe his hands, wipe his knife both on a rag since there was no 'wiping' evidence at the scene, hide the knife and rag, jump up and back to the middle of the road before Paul spotted him, I would say approx 12-15 secs max. Could he do all of that in 12-15 secs? Remember Paul was on high alert here so would be on the look out for something suspicious but he did not at all find Lechmere suspicious once they started talking. Lechmere without knowing if he had blood on his hands would tap Paul on the shoulder maybe leaving a stain behind. Paul in his testimony thought Polly may be still alive so instead of silencing Paul with the knife and Polly for good he just continued to 'bluff it out.' Nope don't think so.

Paul lying to the police about there being a police constable there confuses me a bit. If he lied to Neil about there being another policeman there, and the other policeman hadn't have been there, then surely he would have been taking a hell of a risk, as had the other policeman not been there, they would have known he lied and come after him. Even if Lechmere knew the police's beat, and knew there would be a copper there at that time, the problem persists, as what is to stop Mizen potentially asking Neil, "Hey I've just seen those 2 fellows you spoke to." "What fellow's?"
‘Lechmere is now screwed.’
I’ve also heard that Lechmere may have simply said, “Your needed in bucks row,” simply meaning, your needed because there's a woman there. Mizen could have simply interpreted that as, ‘needed by another constable.

Actually the theory has Lechmere lying to Mizen about a PC needing him in Bucks Row. My take on this is two-fold, one Mizen was covering his arse because he'd dropped the ball by not detaining the two men and secondly he was confused by what 'wanted' actually meant. For me it means the situation 'wanted' Mizen to be there not a specific person, however when he did get there and PC Neil was there then he put two and two together and assumed Lechmere meant a PC wanted him. A huge deal is made of this by Team Lechmere when all in all it's more than likely a slight misunderstanding.

Last point. If Lechmere was the killer, how on earth did he kill MJK? I mean, him being her killer would mean that Hutchinson is 100% innocent of being JTR, and what/who he saw was the truth. A rich client accompying MJK to her room. As this client would have been rich, MJK would have not needed to venture out again to find more money. So how and when did Lechmere kill her with Hutchinson standing near her residence for about an hour, and with a possible client already with her? He would have had to have known about the broken window and then luckily picked exactly the right moment to sneak in when she was alone. Seems a bit too implausible to me.

Sorry since I do not think Lechmere was JtR I can't offer an explanation on this point for you.

[Lewis C]

After watching TME doc many years ago, there was always a few questions that I felt would need answering if the Lechmere theory was to be believed.

So 1st off, Lechmere leaves for work, and acording to the theory on the docc, gets there about 7 mins before Paul encounters him. Whats to say Lechmere, upon leaving in a rush, suddenly needed to take a piss? Taking one up a wall may cut a bit from his time. What if he also needed to to tie his laces to his boots? There could be other things he may have done to slow him down. Did he have a limp from an injury that made him slower? Personally I don't think he did as it was never mentioned, or maybe he simply never told anyone possibly to ensure he didn't get laid off from work for a bit as he needed the money.

Hi Hill,

In addition to what Geddy said about this, there's also the fact that the 7 minute time gap assumes that Paul's estimate for when he entered Buck's Row is accurate, even though it is at odds with 3 other witnesses. If we think the 3 witnesses are more likely to be right than Paul, which must be the case, then Paul arrived in Buck's Row about 5 minutes earlier than he thought he did.

Last point. If Lechmere was the killer, how on earth did he kill MJK? I mean, him being her killer would mean that Hutchinson is 100% innocent of being JTR, and what/who he saw was the truth. A rich client accompying MJK to her room. As this client would have been rich, MJK would have not needed to venture out again to find more money. So how and when did Lechmere kill her with Hutchinson standing near her residence for about an hour, and with a possible client already with her? He would have had to have known about the broken window and then luckily picked exactly the right moment to sneak in when she was alone. Seems abit too implausible to me.

I think that Lechmere is very unlikely to be MJK's killer, but it seems that here you're figuring that there are just 2 possibilities: either Hutchinson killed MJK, or his testimony is accurate. There's at least one other possibility: he didn't kill MJK, but nonetheless, his testimony isn't very reliable. The reason I would give for why Lechmere is unlikely to be her killer is that I think it's unlikely that MJK's TOD was early enough that Lechmere could have killed her, performed all the mutilations, and still gotten to work by 4:00. Chapman' death also is hard to reconcile with Lechmere being the Ripper, as 3 witnesses appear to establish her TOD as being after Lechmere was at work.

[Geddy2112]

In addition to what Geddy said about this, there's also the fact that the 7 minute time gap assumes that Paul's estimate for when he entered Buck's Row is accurate, even though it is at odds with 3 other witnesses. If we think the 3 witnesses are more likely to be right than Paul, which must be the case, then Paul arrived in Buck's Row about 5 minutes earlier than he thought he did.

It gets better actually. Holmgren stated last week that 'Mizen's claim is a claim made by a serving PC under oath, and it would likely have been substantiated by his notebook' in regards to the Mizen scam.
However thee very same claim made under the same oath substantiated by the same note book regarding Paul and Lechmere being at the end of Hanbury Street at 3:45am is NOT believed. How can that be safe methodology in researching a case?

[Fiver]

The reason I would give for why Lechmere is unlikely to be her killer is that I think it's unlikely that MJK's TOD was early enough that Lechmere could have killed her, performed all the mutilations, and still gotten to work by 4:00. Chapman' death also is hard to reconcile with Lechmere being the Ripper, as 3 witnesses appear to establish her TOD as being after Lechmere was at work.

Stride and Eddowes deaths are hard to reconcile with Lechmere being the Ripper. They require Lechmere to stay up for 23+ hours or get up 3+ hours early on his day off.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It gets better actually. Holmgren stated last week that 'Mizen's claim is a claim made by a serving PC under oath, and it would likely have been substantiated by his notebook' in regards to the Mizen scam.
However thee very same claim made under the same oath substantiated by the same note book regarding Paul and Lechmere being at the end of Hanbury Street at 3:45am is NOT believed. How can that be safe methodology in researching a case?

If it was likely that Mizen took down details in his notebook then surely he would have taken Cross and Paul’s name’s too? Or is he just being selective on what details he chooses to believe? The very thought.

[hill806]

Indeed, even more curious the Theory takes three unknowns - the time Lechmere left the house, his walking speed and the actual route, adds them all together to get a certain fact of when he arrives in Bucks Row. That is how ludicrous it is.

Hi again, thanks for getting back to me.

I agree, not everything can be accounted for during the time between him leaving for work and him getting into Bucks Row. TME doc just presumes he left for work and got into Bucks Row without any glitches at all. Also, Lech appears shorter from his photo, meaning he would have had smaller strides than Holgrem and Stowe, so for that reason it may have taken him that bit longer than the journey they recorded as about 7 minutes.

Just 1 question, we know that Paul and Lechmere did not know each other before this encounter, meaning this couldn’t have been the usual route Paul or Lechmere, or maybe even both of them took. If they had of, they would have most likely encountered each other before. So if this is the case, what do you think made Paul or Lech choose this more dangerous route on this occasion? If this was not Lechmere’s usual route, then it was awfully bad luck that the 1 time he did choose a different route, he discovers a dead body. But as others have mentioned, regardless why he chose this route, 3 witness statements against Paul’s single testimony remove the time-gap needed for Lechmere to have been her killer.

Difficult to tell if Paul could see blood however you must ask yourself if the theory is to be believed the strangulation came first then the abdominal wounds and then the neck cuts. So in the time it takes Paul who is in a hurry to walk the 40 to 50 yards Lechmere describes, Lechmere would have had to finish the abdominal cuts, pull down her skirts, cut her throat twice, wipe his hands, wipe his knife both on a rag since there was no 'wiping' evidence at the scene, hide the knife and rag, jump up and back to the middle of the road before Paul spotted him, I would say approx 12-15 secs max. Could he do all of that in 12-15 secs? Remember Paul was on high alert here so would be on the look out for something suspicious but he did not at all find Lechmere suspicious once they started talking. Lechmere without knowing if he had blood on his hands would tap Paul on the shoulder maybe leaving a stain behind. Paul in his testimony thought Polly may be still alive so instead of silencing Paul with the knife and Polly for good he just continued to 'bluff it out.' Nope don't think so.

I agree there’s probably no way of knowing for sure if the lack of light could have been the real cause of Paul not seeing a pool of blood. In my mind though, because PC Neil did in fact have a lantern unlike Paul and Lech, I’d say it’s still in the realm of possibility.
According to the docc’s forensic expert the injuries to Polly would have taken up to 2 mins. If the 3 police testimonies are to be believed over Paul’s regarding time then it, as you said, leaves no time for Lechmere to commit the atrocities before Paul enters the street.

Actually the theory has Lechmere lying to Mizen about a PC needing him in Bucks Row. My take on this is two-fold, one Mizen was covering his arse because he'd dropped the ball by not detaining the two men and secondly he was confused by what 'wanted' actually meant. For me it means the situation 'wanted' Mizen to be there not a specific person, however when he did get there and PC Neil was there then he put two and two together and assumed Lechmere meant a PC wanted him. A huge deal is made of this by Team Lechmere when all in all it's more than likely a slight misunderstanding.

I mean from Lechmere’s perspective, him lying to the police and having there being a chance of them discovering he lied seems awfully risky. Seems with all these potential risks coming with the ‘bluffing it out scenario’ fleeing the scene seems the solution with the best outcome. Stowe’s answer for this was that he was simply a psychopath and wasn’t thinking like a normal person. Hmm



Sorry since I do not think Lechmere was JtR I can't offer an explanation on this point for you.

I’m on the same page as you here. The questions I raised were mostly meant to be rhetorical to point out there being no way whatsoever Lechmere was also able to kill her. Again this question was also raised to Edward Stowe and his response was, “Hutchinson clearly got his days mixed up and was witnessing the night before the night of her murder.”
This to me was an extremely weak explanation, especially as ‘Long’ witnessed a man standing where Hutchinson was claiming to have stood.
The chance that they were both confused about the day is extremely unlikely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The case against Lechmere is based on bullshit and lies.

John, I once got 14 likes for a my massively long post on why I thought Cross wasn’t the killer which I believed might have been a record. You have just got 8 likes for a mere 10 words (one of which is ‘bullshit’)

It just goes to show the popularity of truth. I hope you get 15 likes.

[John Wheat]

John, I once got 14 likes for a my massively long post on why I thought Cross wasn’t the killer which I believed might have been a record. You have just got 8 likes for a mere 10 words (one of which is ‘bullshit’)

It just goes to show the popularity of truth. I hope you get 15 likes.

Hi Herlock

Thanks and well done for getting 14 Likes on a post. To be honest the quest to frame Lechmere a clearly innocent man is both tiresome and in bad taste.

Cheers John