The Missing Evidence II - New Ripper Documentary - Aug 2024

[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.

[Geddy2112]

documentary
/ˌdɒkjʊˈmɛnt(ə)ri/

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

[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...

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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