All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Tom_Wescott]

what astonishes me is that any docu or book that names a suspect is de facto propaganda so why the vitriol against lecch? no one knows who the ripper was. lechs clearly in the frame for nichols murder and no matter how much the lechmerians over egg tje pudding imho you camt throw out the baby with the bathwater. i could list the bs claimed with each ripper suspect... koz, chapman, druitt kelly etc etc and all the books and video on each but the fact remains no one is wise enough to know who really did it.

ive never understood the hysterical reaction against him. that **** should be reserved for maybrick diary defenders and there ilk. but hardly anyone does and yet theres a swarm of lech attackers. why is that?and yet someone seen near nichols recently murdered body who has never been cleared, whos at least physically connected to the case and whos route to work brought him near murder sites is treated like a pariah. its mind boggling to me.

Hi Abby, I find the phenomena fascinating as well, which is why I occasionally interject with questions and observations. The psychology of the ardent anti-Lechmerian intrigues me. And I don't mean those who hate Ed for his politics. As someone who is decidedly leftist, I get that. But I'm talking about the passionate hatred so many feel towards the Lechmere theory. You'd think these individuals would be just as passionately anti-Tumblety or 'Down with Druitt', but they're not. The ones who have their own pet suspects are presumably threatened by the popularity of Lechmere, but many of the more vocal critics don't seem to have pet suspects. Legacy suspects (my term for contemporary or near-contemporary suspects) and their proponents are let off the hook by these critics presumably because they were all around before most of us came into the field and by now are simply understood by most to most likely not be guilty. I suppose there's no passions excited about the likes of Hardiman and other somewhat recent suspects because there's no obvious substance to the arguments at all. The Lechmere theory starts from a logical vantage point and I suspect that's why it's both popular and correspondingly unpopular. It must be said there's also some bad blood against the Lechmerians on these boards and forums, and not for no reason, because for YEARS they stalked the threads and turned any subject you'd like into a Lechmere thread. I found it obnoxious as hell myself and often said so. I used to tell Christer to stop arguing and go write a damn book. Eventually, he did just that. But Ed and Christer have long been gone from the boards and yet the most active threads on Casebook are anti-Lechmere and Diary (!!!!) threads. The Missing Evidence doc is 16 years old and still talked about like it came out a month ago. It must be extremely gratifying for Ed and Christer. The worst thing imaginable is to spend your time on a work and release it to crickets. That's the fate of most suspect books (Hyam Hyams, anyone?).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

what astonishes me is that any docu or book that names a suspect is de facto propaganda so why the vitriol against lecch? no one knows who the ripper was. lechs clearly in the frame for nichols murder and no matter how much the lechmerians over egg tje pudding imho you camt throw out the baby with the bathwater. i could list the bs claimed with each ripper suspect... koz, chapman, druitt kelly etc etc and all the books and video on each but the fact remains no one is wise enough to know who really did it.

ive never understood the hysterical reaction against him. that **** should be reserved for maybrick diary defenders and there ilk. but hardly anyone does and yet theres a swarm of lech attackers. why is that?and yet someone seen near nichols recently murdered body who has never been cleared, whos at least physically connected to the case and whos route to work brought him near murder sites is treated like a pariah. its mind boggling to me.

[Tom_Wescott]

Did you mean this as a joke? If not, I didn't mean it as an insult at all, and I don't understand how it could be taken that way. What I'm saying is that I think that they're both among the better suspects.



If Definitely Ascertained Fact? has as many distortions, misleading statements, evidence cherrypicking, etc., as Missing Evidence, would you care to list them?



That's fine.

Yes, I was joking, although Kosminski really isn't much of a suspect without his DNA-covered shawl, is he? Le Grand at least has some meat on him, though I doubt he was the Ripper. As for DAF, I don't recall accusing it of distortions or misleading statements, etc. Did someone else? I was drawing attention to the repeated description of it as 'balanced'. I've noticed several people call it that. But it's blatantly a Kosminski doc, right? Only Kosminski authors/researchers were asked to appear. Not a single opponent to the theory. Which is fine if that's what the producer wanted and I must assume it was. But let's please not call it a balanced documentary on the Ripper crimes if that was never its intention. It's the same as Missing Evidence, The Diary of Jack the Ripper doc, the Tumblety doc, the Robert Mann doc, and that doc where Trevor Marriott mean-mugs the ocean in a shortsleeved button-up shirt. They're fun suspect docs, not balanced historical resources. And if one is propaganda then all of them are propaganda. Which I'm perfectly fine with.

Geddy spams the internet with his list of lies and distortions in 'Missing Evidence' but I've yet to see him or anyone else put such an effort into any other doc and I'm curious why that is. Nobody is willing to give me an answer and that's perhaps because nobody has one. I personally can't imagine spending my time that way.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lewis C]

'I think that your man La Grande is about as good a suspect as Kosminski.' I'll make an effort not to feel insulted.

Did you mean this as a joke? If not, I didn't mean it as an insult at all, and I don't understand how it could be taken that way. What I'm saying is that I think that they're both among the better suspects.

However, most have a suspect or theory agenda, so I find it hard to separate out Missing Evidence from the rest, except that it had superior production values to most and was quite impactful when it came out in 2009. Still is to those seeing it for the first time. Is that perhaps why it's so hated?

If Definitely Ascertained Fact? has as many distortions, misleading statements, evidence cherrypicking, etc., as Missing Evidence, would you care to list them?

P.S. Please excuse the fact that I felt too lazy to use the quote feature this time.

That's fine.

[Geddy2112]

There's a double inaccuracy there, or at least an exaggeration. As far as I can tell, Arthur Ingram was an enthusiast who wrote a handful of fairly thin books - booklets, really - on Pickfords carmen, brewery transport, dairy and truck drivers of yesteryear. No doubt he loved his subject, but to dignify him with the title "historian", or even an "expert", seems a bit of a stretch. The Appeal to Authority fallacy rides again?

Indeed, I believe Mr Ingram's book was merely looking on how 'transport vehicles' had changed over the years for Pickfords. As far as I'm aware there is nothing in there supporting what they did and did not carry in the 1880s.

[Sam Flynn]

27) Narrator – “A tantalising FACT could explain that mystery. (being covered in blood.) Historian Arthur Ingram is an expert on Pickfords.

There's a double inaccuracy there, or at least an exaggeration. As far as I can tell, Arthur Ingram was an enthusiast who wrote a handful of fairly thin books - booklets, really - on Pickfords carmen, brewery transport, dairy and truck drivers of yesteryear. No doubt he loved his subject, but to dignify him with the title "historian", or even an "expert", seems a bit of a stretch. The Appeal to Authority fallacy rides again?

[Geddy2112]

As for the errors in Missing Evidence, I'm sure there are some but perhaps not as many as you perceive.

There are actually more than I generously stated, and this is just a quick run though...

1) Narrator - killer caught red handed - Cross leaning over body

2) Video - Cross over body Robert Paul on South side of Street

3) Narrator - no immediate escapes routes (there were at least nine) - remember Cross and Paul 'escaped' Bucks Row minutes later.

4) Narrator – Just 15 mins before Polly Nicholls was killed a Policeman passes through on his regular beat. [Animation clearly shows 3:15am: All is quiet] - basic maths Polly was killed at 3:30, but Cross left home about then so the show is giving Cross an alibi.

5) Holmgren – He [Cross] left home AT 3:30am (This is just and out and out fib.)

6) Then we have the picture showing Neil finding the body before Cross and Paul.

7) Narrator – A man named Robert Paul claimed to have found the body before the Police and when he did there was another man standing over it. (Again another lie)

8) Holmgren – For a person who FOUND a body to just disappear then reappear on the second day of the inquest. (Holmgren wants us to believe he was FOUND WITH the body, nit-picking I know but it's important according to Holmgren.)

9) Narrator – It unlocked a MASS OF INCRIMINATING evidence which convinced him (Holmgren) the reluctant witness [Cross] was Jack The Ripper.

10) Narrator – “…found standing over the body.”

11) Holmgren - Left home AT 3:30am

12) Walking of the route - can't be the same as 1888, route Holmgren took is unknown. So they are taking three unknowns, Cross' leaving time, exact route and walking speed to equal a fact of then he got to Bucks Row.

13) Narrator – “When Robert Paul entered Bucks Row he didn’t see Charles Lechmere for a full minute. If Lechmere had been crouching in the shadows, that would not be surprising.” - earlier in the video he said Paul saw Cross as soon as he entered Bucks Row.

14) Narrator - “Holmgren believes he did all he could to hide Nichol’s injuries.” - the testimonies suggest the wounds were not covered up, Paul stated he pulled them down.

15) Narrator – “and [Lechmere] was only seen by Robert Paul when he stepped back from the body.” - so that is now three different times 'Paul FIRST spotted Cross.' Plus another lie he say him in the middle of the road.

16) Narrator – “Why would Lechmere refuse to move Nichol’s body?” - video has gone with the biased version of events, it's 50-50 who refused.

17) Narrator – “He (Paul) could see beyond Lechmere when he came into the street.” - yet another version of when Paul could or could not see Cross.

18) Narrator – “But there were five other murders and Charles Allen Lechmere could be linked to every single one of them.” - nope that's an outright lie.

19) Narrator – “The coroner said she was killed (Tabram) between 2:30am and 3:30am a time when Lechmere should have been passing nearby on his way to work.” - How does the narrator know when Cross left home, his routes or walking speed. Remember Holmgren states he left home AT 3:30am.

20) 21) Narrator – “With the third victim, Annie Chapman the pattern continues.” - The video at this point shows Annie Chapman was killed between 4:30am and 5:30am. Narrator – “He (Lechmere) started his shift at 4am working Monday to Saturday.” ALIBI alert!!!

22) The video then contradicts itself by showing a still of Annie Chapman murdered between 4:40am and 6:30am

23) Narrator – “The medical examiner says she (Chapman) will have been killed close to 4:00am, again Lechmere would have been passing by the murder site within minutes of her death.” - again how can Cross be in two places at the same time. Again how does the narrator know his routes to work, his leaving home time and walking speed?#

24) Narrator – “Elizabeth Stride had her throat cut around midnight.”
Then the video explains he, the killer was disturbed. Stride's body was discovered at approximately 1:00am on Sunday 30th September 1888 in the adjacent Dutfield's Yard by Louis Diemschutz, the steward of the International Working Men's Educational Club. So a huge time discrepancy here.

25) Narrator – “Within 40 minutes he had found, murdered, and mutilated Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square.”
So 40 mins on from Midnight is 12:40am. However at approx 1:45am: PC Edward Watkins discovers Eddowes' body in Mitre Square. Something does not add up here for sure. What are Blink Films using for time pieces here or calculators?

26) Narrator – “The Ripper’s last accepted murder happened back in Whitechapel and back on Lechmere’s daily routine.” - more knowing his routes and timings garbage.

27) Narrator – “A tantalising FACT could explain that mystery. (being covered in blood.) Historian Arthur Ingram is an expert on Pickfords. His (Arthur) research has uncovered his job was to deliver meat to butchers around East London.” - this is pure garbage as the meat if delivered would be wrapped in muslin and in a wicker box. Note none of the images on Google of Victorian carmen show blood stained aprons.

28) Holmgren – “always had the habit of passing by those streets when someone was killed.” - did he? I'm sure Holmgren has some solid evidence of this like knowing his routes, times he left home and walking speeds etc. Did he every disclose this or as I fear is this more lying/speculation on behalf of Holmgren?

29) Narrator – “On the night of the murder of Polly Nichols he was found standing over the body.” - sorry he was not.

30) Narrator – “Wearing blood-stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred.” - he was wearing what and you can place him where how?

31) “The timings really hurt him.” – James Scobie KC - well the untrue timings supplied on the balance of probabilities by Holmgren might. Wonder what he would say if he had the truth presented to him?

32) Narrator – “...but Holmgren 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.” - there really are no words for that statement, dear me.

...AND that is in a documentary that lasted only 42 mins. Absolutely shocking.

[Tom_Wescott]

I haven't seen the Definitive Story in many years but I recall it as being pro-Kosminski, but in that roundabout way Kosminskians tend to take. It was also directed by one of only two people on this earth who think the Tilly letter is legit, so....

'I think that your man La Grande is about as good a suspect as Kosminski.' I'll make an effort not to feel insulted.

'I think that a big part of why some commentators write off Brown seeing Stride is that he didn’t see a flower on the woman that he saw. I don’t write him off; I think he very well may have seen Stride.' Yes, I've seen that argument about Brown countless times. But the man was blocking most of her body so I'm not sure why it's expected he'd notice a flower. He was probably only looking to see the woman.

Having seen more than my fair share of documentaries, Ripper and otherwise, I must say I have little use for them now. It's fun to see people I know appear in them and it's fun to appear in them myself. But it's rare I get anything new from one. The map graphics in 'Enduring Mystery' were awesome and I'm glad it was recommended to me. Usually these produced for Youtube docs are the worst of the worst, but clearly this was an exception. Very well written and put together. However, most have a suspect or theory agenda, so I find it hard to separate out Missing Evidence from the rest, except that it had superior production values to most and was quite impactful when it came out in 2009. Still is to those seeing it for the first time. Is that perhaps why it's so hated?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Please excuse the fact that I felt too lazy to use the quote feature this time.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis. You've named two Kosminski docs, from which I infer that you don't consider suspect-focused documentaries in general to be propaganda. Coming at this from another direction, what documentary other than Missing Evidence would fit your definition of 'propaganda'?
And a side note question: Is it possible to label as 'balanced' a suspect documentary that calls itself 'A Definitely Ascertained Fact' and speaks only to proponents of the core theory it's promoting?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom. I don’t remember The Definitive Story as being a Kosminski doc, but I’ll go back and watch it again, because I could be mis-remembering it.

The title of 'A Definitely Ascertained Fact' has a question mark at the end of it, so the title is implying that maybe Kosminski wasn’t really the killer, despite what Anderson and Swanson said. And I don’t agree that it only spoke to proponents of their theory, because I really am not. I think Kosminski is a reasonable suspect, but Bury is my #1 suspect, and I think that your man La Grande is about as good a suspect as Kosminski.

Definitive History showing Eddowes facing Lawende is certainly a flaw, but I don’t see how it makes it appear more likely that Kosminski was the killer. If Eddowes had been facing Lawende, then the man would have been facing away from him, meaning that Lawende would only have gotten a good look at the back of his head, and therefore not the man that supposedly was the only one to get a good look at the Ripper. Unless the film showed them side by side. Again, I’ll have to watch it again to refresh my memory.

I think that a big part of why some commentators write off Brown seeing Stride is that he didn’t see a flower on the woman that he saw. I don’t write him off; I think he very well may have seen Stride.

The answer to your last question is that I haven’t seen evidence of many errors, distortions, and other ways of misleading in the other videos we’ve mentioned. Also relevant is whether that appears to be done to promote a particular narrative, or is it just an error that doesn’t really matter.

I’ll get back to you on the question of other videos that I would consider propaganda.

[Tom_Wescott]

Geddy,

Yes, the 'ADAF' definitely runs like a rough first edit. I understand it was the documentarian's first film and he therefore generously posted it free to the public. I enjoyed the stuff about McKenzie in it. Was genuinely shocked she got any screen time at all. Totally glossed over Coles (for obvious reasons) but it's what I expected. I don't believe it addressed the shawl at all, did it? Interesting that. As for the errors in Missing Evidence, I'm sure there are some but perhaps not as many as you perceive. Every documentary I've ever seen is a collection of errors to some extent. Lord knows I've made some whoppers in interviews I've given because I'm going off memory. Books are a bit better, but I doubt there is one discursive Ripper book that doesn't have errors. What I'm trying to get to the bottom of here is why/how Missing Evidence is singled out as 'propaganda' by several of you whereas documentaries that are equally and openly as biased are called 'balanced'. It honestly makes no sense to me. The irony of it all is that this is the very definition of 'propaganda'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Sorry for butting in, but one scene that annoyed the hell out of me in 'Definitive History' is when Lawende, Levy, and Harris are shown looking over at the entrance to Mitre Square and Kate Eddowes is facing them, her face clearly visible.

That's an obvious distortion of reality and it was used to up the ante on Kozminski, which the filmmaker obviously favored as a suspect. The documentary uses Swanson to incriminate Kozmsinki, but Swanson's own remarks on Lawende cast doubt on the value of the supposed identification.

I could ramble on for another ten paragraphs but that scene, in particularly, frosted my flakes.

RP

Hi RJ, this is a public thread open to all, so no one who posts is butting in. Was Definitive History not the one direct by Jeff Leahy? There's little debate to be had as to who the Seaside Home witness was. Lawende was the only witness used by police and the only one referenced by Smith in his memoirs (which rebutted Anderson's claims). Both Smith and Swanson cast doubt on the value of Lawende's evidence, though not, of course, on his integrity and honesty. What's fascinating to me is how many modern commentators put all sorts of faith into Lawende's description but write off James Brown in Berner Street simply because Brown was honest enough to say he was only 'almost certain' that the woman he saw was Stride. Brown got a better look at Stride than Lawende did Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[rjpalmer]

What's the inaccuracy count for 'ADAF' and 'Definitive History'? For comparison purposes, of course.

Hi Tom,

Sorry for butting in, but one scene that annoyed the hell out of me in 'Definitive History' is when Lawende, Levy, and Harris are shown looking over at the entrance to Mitre Square and Kate Eddowes is facing them, her face clearly visible.

That's an obvious distortion of reality and it was used to up the ante on Kozminski, which the filmmaker obviously favored as a suspect. The documentary uses Swanson to incriminate Kozmsinki, but Swanson's own remarks on Lawende cast doubt on the value of the supposed identification.

I could ramble on for another ten paragraphs but that scene, in particularly, frosted my flakes.

RP

[Geddy2112]

Fair enough. What's the inaccuracy count for 'ADAF' and 'Definitive History'? For comparison purposes, of course.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom, to be honest I do not know. I got rather bored, (sorry Steven) with the ADAF, found it rather heavy and the way it was filmed seemed rather monotonous for me. However for what I did see there did not seem to be any factual errors. Definitive History likewise it's been a very long time since I've watched it so would have to get back to you on that one. Regardless there is on average an error every 1.4 mins in the Missing Evidence which is actually quite shocking. I mean it's Pro-Lechmere for being Jack but actually gives Lechmere an alibi for Tabram, Nichols and Chapman. The following is an example of errors, it shows PC Neil finding Nichols before Cross and Paul for example. Sloppy to say the least... it's comedy gold

[Geddy2112]

Was Dr Norris a student of the case/ Ripperologist ? Or an expert who was given material to study ?

Depending on if you believe the documentary and the newspapers his quotes appeared in. I believe Holmgren also stated he was a student of the case and had been for many years, which if correct is astonishing considering the factual errors contained in his quotes.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom, Alt-Lewis here. Surely it's balanced if the things it speaks about within the documentary are ACTUALLY a definitely ascertained fact no matter who it is promoting as a suspect. For me there is nothing wrong with a pro-Kosminski documentary if what it is telling the audience is actually true.
The problem with the Missing Evidence is it appears the evidence is still missing because it made over 30 factual errors in a 42 minute show, including lying to an expert to get the desired opinion. That is the huge difference here.

Fair enough. What's the inaccuracy count for 'ADAF' and 'Definitive History'? For comparison purposes, of course.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott