The Missing Evidence II - New Ripper Documentary - Aug 2024

[Herlock Sholmes]

So…

The ‘provable’ gap is a proven invention - so we can cross that off.
The name thing is a proven non-issue - so we can cross that off.
The medical evidence shows only that Nichols was killed not long before Paul arrived - so we can cross that off.
The ‘Mizen Scam’ is a scam which raises a very simple misunderstanding to conspiracy theory level - so we can cross that off.
The geographical angle simply adds humour to the dodginesss.
And for him to have been the killer he’d have had to have been unique in the annals of crime.

Cross is the least suspicious suspect ever. It’s about time a few people started admitting their own guilt in deliberately framing a case against him. And they should certainly do the decent thing and disband the Lechmere Social Media Fan Club.

[Geddy2112]

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.

Picking of the cherries, picking of the cherries

[hill806]

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.

Hi Lewis. Thanks for replying.

I agree, with Paul’s single recollection weighing in against the witness statements of ‘THREE’ other statements, ones that differ from his regarding the time, then it’s more likely that Paul’s time had to be incorrect and so he did in fact arrive 5 minutes earlier. This to me, kind of removes Lechmere from the guillotine that Stowe and Holmgren have put him in.



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.[/QUOTE]

I admit, after watching TME docc years ago for the first time, I was left leaning heavily on side of the Lechmere theory. However, after looking into the details of it more and more, I discovered many flaws and issues. 1 of them for me was in regards to the MJK murder, and others being him killing on the way to work. This would mean he would be carrying the organs while at work, (eew) or shoving them in a locker at work. Anyway, like you, I just can’t picture him being the killer either.

As for Hutchinson, I do find his story quite extravagant and crammed to the brim with details. So I agree, it is certainly possible he was not being honest to some capacity. If he was lying then why I wonder? Hutchinson being the killer also seems extremely unlikely due to his standing outside. No one would stand outside of a victims lodgings if they had just killed someone, whether than be an hour like he mentioned in his testimony, or several minutes and he’d lied. It also makes little sense to murder someone after you’ll have just been seen by another person. The only theories I can come up with regarding Hutchinson was that he was a lookout for the actual killer, or he was partially being truthful and was waiting in order to mug the rich client. If he was genuinely concerned about MJK, why wait for an hour in the cold and just leave? He was already apparently suspicious of the client so wouldn’t he have peaked through her window or something?

[Fiver]

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.

Lechmere had moved to 22 Doveton Street in May of that year. Based on the times they had to start work, it appears Lechmere was running later than Paul. That makes it likely that on most days, neither would have encountered the other, with Lechmere several blocks ahead of Paul.

Paul thought it was a dangerous route, but used it anyway. We don't know if Lechmere considered it a dangerous route. Perhaps he hadn't been in the neighborhood long enough to hear the reputation of Buck's Row. Perhaps, he had, but didn't care. Lechmerians are fond of pointing out that Charles Lechmere grew up in the far more dangerous Tiger Bay area. Bucks Row might have felt safe and secure in comparison. Or perhaps the danger was in Robert Paul's mind - no one else seemed to think Bucks Row had an especially unsavory reputation.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[John Wheat]

The case against Lechmere is based on bullshit and lies.

[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?

[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.