All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Lewis C]

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

I think Aaron Kosminski is one of the best suspects in the case (not THE best) even though the shawl is a red herring, primarily because of the Swanson marginalia. Swanson knew as much about the case as anyone, so if he thought the Ripper was someone named Kosminski, that counts for quite a bit relative to the other suspects, in a case where none of the suspects are especially strong. It very well could be that when Swanson said "Kosminski", he didn't mean Aaron, but since Aaron is the only Kosminski that we've been able to find in the right lunatic asylum during that period, I think that he has to be considered a reasonable possibility.

No, I don't think you ever specifically said that DAF had distortions or misleading statements, but if it doesn't have any, that answers your question about why people aren't listing the distortions from it. Doctored Whatsit has also made good points about why people feel more need to discuss the shortcomings of the Lechmere theroy than that of other suspects. It isn't just the documentary, it's the entire Lechmere campaign.

[Tom_Wescott]

Personally speaking if I posted a theory and it was not correct in the sense lots of people picked holes in it I would try to find out why and correct those holes if required.

But you don't post theories or original research. That's why you don't have 'fans' (to use your word). You don't create or generate. You insult, attack, and demolish. Metaphorically speaking, you're a gadfly. But you have a brain in your head, so it doesn't have to be that way. Dig in and develop some real evidence against a suspect. Be CONSTRUCTIVE for a change. You'll feel better.

As for your accusation of defending Christer and Ed on Facebook, I don't defend them so much as I refuse to ban them to please others. I have an aversion to pack mentality. It's a quirk of mine. Should they commit bannable offenses, as you did, they'll be banned. As you were.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Geddy2112]

Yes, it was unashamedly pro Kosminski Tom, however, I would suggest the first 1hr 45 minutes is very balanced, we didn't even mention Kos, until then I think.
It would have been even more pro Kosminski if we had not cut so much, we didn't want to overload.

Surely making a 'pro-Kosminski' documentary is fine as long as you did not use any 'material inaccuracies' to promote him. I mean making a pro-Lechmere documentary would be fine if it stuck to the 'facts' however I've yet to see one that does apart from the one I mentioned earlier. I guess it would be okay too if you mentioned Team Lechmere's red flags as long as you countered why most of them were not at all red flags. That is the huge difference here.

[Elamarna]

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

Tom Wescott

Yes, it was unashamedly pro Kosminski Tom, however, I would suggest the first 1hr 45 minutes is very balanced, we didn't even mention Kos, until then I think.
It would have been even more pro Kosminski if we had not cut so much, we didn't want to overload.

Steve

[Geddy2112]

I think that the irritation involved in the consideration of Lechmere as a suspect is the deliberate twisting of evidence, and the ignoring of known facts to create suspicion. It is perfectly reasonable to consider him a "person of interest", but real evidence against him doesn't exist, and has unfortunately therefore been invented. That is the problem that causes the issues. If only Holmgren and Stowe would accept that there is good evidence to undermine their arguments .....

Absolutely bang on. I mean Russell Edwards in similar in respect you challenge his 'evidence' you simply get deleted. This is how cowards work. They are not bothered about the truth they are bothered about being seen as being correct, so like Stow, Edwards just deletes posts/people from the conversation. I'm struggling to think of a bloke about 70-80 years ago tried a similar technique.

Personally speaking if I posted a theory and it was not correct in the sense lots of people picked holes in it I would try to find out why and correct those holes if required. Something akin to what Steven Blomer does in 'Inside Bucks Row.' He does not just add new information in he corrects things people have found to be flawed. I've not once seen Holmgren back down and admit he was wrong, rather he twists the scenario to make it look like the other person is indeed incorrect, his arrogance and narcissism will not allow him to be seen as 'wrong.' All this builds up to why the Lechmere Theory is so 'determinedly opposed.' Like I said if they put it out and left it at that it would be fine, but know they have to push and push.

Even a few posts ago we have Abby 'knowing' what routes Cross to work on any particular day. Surely this can't be true or can't be true enough to use it as a point of guilt. We keep getting new titbits that proves/points to guilt, his relationship with his mother, his routes to work, his wearing of an apron in court, his bloody LEGAL name, it was the tiger's fault, he grew up in a rough area, he lied to police, he lied in court, he was seen standing over a freshly killed victim, he was with the body for 9 minutes etc etc... but people defend this bullshittery and attack those for trying to defend the truth. Astonishing.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think that the irritation involved in the consideration of Lechmere as a suspect is the deliberate twisting of evidence, and the ignoring of known facts to create suspicion. It is perfectly reasonable to consider him a "person of interest", but real evidence against him doesn't exist, and has unfortunately therefore been invented. That is the problem that causes the issues. If only Holmgren and Stowe would accept that there is good evidence to undermine their arguments .....

The time issue, and the alleged seven minutes unaccounted for, only exists if we pretend he didn't say "about 3. 30 am", and if we ignore the times quoted by three police officers. The "Mizen scam" ignores the fact that the evidence is that both Paul and Lechmere spoke to Mizen, and that even the police didn't believe Mizen. Another big alleged piece of "evidence" is that he took his step-father's name. His real father abandoned him and his mother when he was an infant, and the only father figure he ever had was Cross senior. Taking your step-father's name is actually quite normal, and not suspicious. The evidence of the 1876 inquest genuinely suggests that he was working for Pickfords as Cross not Lechemere. And we have to ignore the admittedly unproven evidence of Harriet Lilley, that the murder actually happened at 3. 30 am when a train passed by masking the sounds which others didn't hear.

Apparently he killed prostitutes on his way to work, put the murder weapon in his pocket, and with the probability of some blood on his hands, knife and clothes, worked a twelve hour shift. On one occasion, waited for another passer-by, stopped him, and then went for and found a policeman - with possibly blood on his hands and clothes, and the bloody murder weapon in his pocket!!!!

And here we are, on yet another thread, discussing him as a suspect. The only case against him is that we can't prove he didn't do it.

[Geddy2112]

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.

What makes the diary defenders worse than those who believe Cross was a murderer? What makes those who think it's Sickert worse? etc etc...

May I ask how you know his routes to work and if he was near the murder sites when the murders took place? If not you may have your answer to your post.

This goes to Tom regarding my spamming the internet as well. Nice to know I've got fans I've mentioned this here before, although not sure why I need to explain. I came back to these forums after a long lay off, I think Perrie was doing her thing when I was last here. I decided to try and catch up and the biggest 'story' of the day was Lechmere/Cross. That was about a year ago and basically I've not caught up. You know since Eddy keeps pumping out House of Tenuous links once a week. However in true fascist style he has manged to hide my comments and those of others who are not his YouTube gullible sheep. Similar as Tom (not fascist of course) I guess who won't let folk into his precious Ripper page on FB because 'we' might upset the mighty Swede. Even though I've heard reports of you can't get a word in edgeways because of the Holmgren and Stow show on said group. Ironically what you are complaining about in you post. Don't worry though we all know they are 'protected' there. Censorship, it's great and ironic at the same time.

So basically you get folk pumping out this rubbish week in week out but for some odd reason the people standing up for the truth are the ones that are fearing the ban hammer. And correct I do not have a suspect, why? Because for me to blame multiple murder on someone I'd have to be damn near 100% sure. And I can't be. However that makes me less biased towards defending other suspects of course but that point might have slipped by the wayside.

And of course I do not like Butler (still his 'real' name as he has a FB page using it) for his political views (and many other reasons) and yes it has something to do with it, politics has something to do with everything. Yes I can't stand his partner who seems to be rather educationally challenged and loves to call people 'paedophiles' on public forums and thinks she can get away with it. Also not a huge fan of Holmgren, he is not very honest so it seems, amongst other traits and bullies folk into his way of thinking or drops the petty insults, all under the protection of the FB group's admin so it seems and if you stand up against it you are 'obnoxious.' He is still an unbanned poster here so if he chooses he can reply.

'Tom protects Stow and Holmgren on his internet FB group but I've yet to see him put such an effort into protecting others 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.' - touché.

If as advised in this very thread I believe they put their theory out and left it as that it would be fine. But they have not they keep pushing and pushing and pushing, so sorry but that means folk are going to push back.

There are a lot more recent posts about the diary and JFK then there are Cross.

[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.