Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Missing Evidence - Dissection.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Missing Evidence - Dissection.

    I know this documentary has been spoken about. I just wanted to add my step by step 'analysis' of the documentary here, apologies in advance if it just covers old ground. Also apologies for any inaccuracies on my behalf. It's just my view of things..

    Documentary
    /ˌdɒkjʊˈmɛnt(ə)ri/
    noun
    A film or television or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject.

    Originally posted by narrator
    This is a man who appeared in official reports but evaded suspicion.
    Did he? There is no evidence to back up this statement.

    Originally posted by narrator
    This investigation shows how the killer was caught red handed but talked his way past Police (video showing Lechmere kneeling over the body.)
    He was not caught red handed or Paul would have told the Police. No he did talk his way past Police, the animation being very misleading as there is no proof this happened.

    Originally posted by Christer
    That is him, it has to be
    Sounds rather definite although Christer also likes to post that he is opened minded and has NOT solved the case, even though his book cover says he has.

    Originally posted by narrator
    No immediate escape routes.
    Simply not true, the killer could simply go west along Bucks Row or turn into Thomas Street, Court Street etc.

    Originally posted by 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)
    So the documentary is telling us Polly Nichols was killed at 3:30am. However later in the video we get…

    Originally posted by Christer
    He left home AT 3:30am
    Surely the video has just given Lechmere an alibi, he can’t have left home at 3:30 and be in Bucks Row killing at 3:30. These are the documentaries timings not mine. Case dismissed your honour!

    Originally posted by 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.
    This is simply not true. He stated the man (Lechmere) was in the middle of the road.

    Originally posted by Christer
    For a person who FOUND a body to just disappear then reappear on the second day of the inquest.'
    9m40s in the documentary. So in the video he is saying he FOUND the body but in an opening post (FB discussing the importance of NOT finding the body but saying he was 'FOUND by the body.') Which one is the lie? The documentary or the opening post?

    Originally posted by narrator
    It unlocked a MASS OF INCRIMINATING evidence which convinced him (CH) the reluctant witness (Lechmere) was JTR.
    Very biased, misleading, and simply not true with regards to the ‘mass of incriminating evidence.’ Pure speculation and exaggerated.

    Originally posted by narrator
    found standing over the body
    In regard to Lechmere, this is simply NOT true, he was found near the body in the middle of the road. My take on the language used, thus just my opinion is Lechmere was spotted in the middle of the road level with where the body was.
    Andy Griffiths is only, according to the video given the inquest notes.

    Originally posted by Griffiths
    A person who finds the body...
    So Griffiths is at least insinuating Lechmere found the body but Christer’s recent posts on FB argue he was ‘found near the body’ and it makes ALL the difference. Christer is trying to distance the fact he claims all anti-Lechmere thinkers state ‘he was on his way to work and found a body, the end.’ He wants to debunk what he feels every anti-Lechmere poster thinks is the only evidence against him. Of course he is twisting semantics, playing with words but his expert contradicts him, so who is correct?

    Christer then talks with Andy about the timings. This has been done to death and sorry, but I’m not convinced one little bit Christer is correct here. He starts by saying on the video ‘AT 3:30am’ for leaving Doveton Street (RE point earlier in post video states Polly was killed at 3:30am mmm) The true account is ABOUT 3:30am and that makes all the difference as explained many times it’s fabrication to invent a time gap. Even though the video destroys it before it’s begun.

    Christer then talks of a 9 min gap. His pathology expert claims 2 mins to do the deed, so that leaves an astonishing 7 mins for Lechmere to have a game of hopscotch, a pee behind the building, cut poor Polly more or whatever he wants. Most importantly this 7 min gap gives the killer plenty of time to escape. According to Christer it would give Lechmere enough time to get back HOME! That is how far away from Paul he could have gone in any direction, but no he stays and waits for the next passer by to arrive and alert them to the body in the gutter. How can Christer et al not see by inventing the 9 min gap he actually gives Lechmere more time to escape but throws the alternative at us that he waits for Paul, it’s completely unlikely to have panned out like that.

    Originally posted by 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.
    Hang on a minute. It was clearly stated earlier in the video that Paul spotted Lechmere as turned into Bucks Row. Confusing.
    Crouching in the shadows? Absolutely no evidence to even suggest this is the case and very biased and misleading.

    Originally posted by narrator
    Christer believes he did all he could to hide Nicholl’s injuries.
    Again not true. No evidence to suggest Lechmere covered up or even tried to cover up the injuries.

    Originally posted by narrator
    and was only seen by Robert Paul when he stepped back from the body
    Erm hang on a minute. We now have three different versions of when Paul first spotted Lechmere, which is correct? Again misleading and biased.

    Originally posted by narrator
    Why would Lechmere refuse to move Nicholl’s body
    We have various versions of this event. The documentary went with the biased towards Lechmere version.

    Originally posted by narrator
    He could see beyond Lechmere when he came into the street
    What? But a couple of minutes earlier in the video it’s stated that Paul didn’t see Lechmere for a full minute after entering Bucks Row. Wow. Huge contradiction. The video uses this contradiction to prove it ‘means another killer is remote.’ Phew…

    Originally posted by narrator
    But there were five other murders and Charles Allen Lechmere could be linked to every single one of them.
    I like the giving him his full title in the way mothers used to beckon their kids by giving them their full names when they were in trouble. A cute way of applying bias there then. However the statement is simply not true and based on pure speculation. If it is true, then you have to open up the suspect pool to many hundreds if not thousands of men from the Whitechapel area.

    Originally posted by narrator
    He (Lechmere) started his shift at 4am working Monday to Saturday
    Just a place holder here for this quote, It comes back to haunt the case against Lechmere soon enough.

    Originally posted by 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.
    Opps… but Christer states without any doubt Lechmere left home at 3:30am. Again he can’t be in two places at the same time. So now the video has given Lechmere an alibi for Tabram and Nicholls.

    Originally posted by narrator
    With the third victim, Annie Chapman the pattern continues.
    The video at this point shows she was killed between 4:30am and 5:30am. Remember the place held quote, time to slot it in. How could Lechmere have killed Annie Chapman between 4:30am and 5:30am if as the video states he was to start work at 4:00am. This documentary has now given Lechmere an alibi for all three of the first three murders. Not my timings the videos.

    Originally posted by narrator
    The medical examiner says she will have been killed close to 4:00am, again Lechmere would have been passing by the murder site within minutes of her death
    Just to reinforce an alibi for Lechmere, however, how could he have been passing by the murder site within minutes of her death if he was at work at least half an hour BEFORE hand, again the video severely contradicts itself.

    Originally posted by narrator
    Elizabeth Stride had her throat cut around midnight.
    Then the video explains he was disturbed. Stride's body was discovered at approximately 1:00 a.m. on Sunday 30 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.

    Originally posted by 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 1:45 PM: PC Edward Watkins discovers Eddowes' body in Mitre Square. Something does not add up here for sure.

    Originally posted by narrator
    The Ripper’s last accepted murder happened back in Whitechapel and back on Lechmere’s daily routine.
    Absolutely no evidence to suggest Lechmere was near Dorset Street on a daily basis. Pure speculation aiming to mislead. Totally biased.

    Originally posted by 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.
    Mmm not much of an expert since Pickford’s own site claim there is no records of a 'Lechmere' working for them. Also there is absolutely no evidence to suggest he delivered meat to butchers. Again biased and misleading.

    Originally posted by Christer
    always had the habit of passing by those streets when someone was killed
    Simply not true and of course that also fits dozens of other people. Hardly conclusive proof of guilt we are led to believe from the video.

    Originally posted by narrator
    On the night of the murder of Polly Nicholls he was found standing over the body.
    Simply not true. So again biased and misleading.

    Originally posted by narrator
    Wearing blood-stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred.
    Again this is simply NOT true. Even the documentary gives him an alibi for the first three. I’ll miss out most of Scobie’s ‘evidence’ as it’s been done to death and dissected by better than me.

    Originally posted by narrator
    …but James Scobie suggests the evidence drawn together by Christer.
    However Christer claims he never knew what was presented to Scobie or he had seen the documentary before release even though in the video he his shown watching Scobie. Mmmm.

    Originally posted by narrator
    ..but Christer 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.
    I have no words for that statement. At least Edward Stow got a mention in the credits. So sorry for me the whole video (do not like using the word documentary) is absolutely riddled with contradictions, bias and is simply out to mislead the viewers into believing Charles Alan Lechmere was Jack The Ripper when if you read between the lines, analyse, take off the blinkers and use an open mind it after all appears all Lechmere was guilty of was 'finding a body on his way to work.'

    So unless some decent evidence comes to light in the future I'm personally popping Charlie boy in the 'also ran' category.





    Last edited by Geddy2112; 04-18-2024, 01:54 PM.

  • #2
    Thank you!


    The Baron

    Comment


    • #3
      Apologies a typo with one of the AM/PM type things regarding the Mitre Square killing, the time is correct though apart from that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by narrator
        Wearing blood-stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred.
        Originally posted by Geddy2112
        Again this is simply NOT true. Even the documentary gives him an alibi for the first three.​
        Also, he was a carman, not a slaugherman or butcher, so this "blood-stained overalls" bit is a non-starter. I'm not even sure it's been conclusively proven that Cross regularly (or semi-regularly) delivered meat but, even if he did, the animals would have been slaughtered, bled and butchered long before he arrived to pick up his cargo. It's also quite possible that the meat would have been loaded on his cart by the butcher(s) and/or their assistants; it might even have been packed/wrapped in boxes or some other material, to stop it getting damaged or soiled in transit.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

          Also, he was a carman, not a slaugherman or butcher, so this "blood-stained overalls" bit is a non-starter. I'm not even sure it's been conclusively proven that Cross regularly (or semi-regularly) delivered meat but, even if he did, the animals would have been slaughtered, bled and butchered long before he arrived to pick up his cargo. It's also quite possible that the meat would have been loaded on his cart by the butcher(s) and/or their assistants; it might even have been packed/wrapped in boxes or some other material, to stop it getting damaged or soiled in transit.
          Very interesting point because the blood evidence the video replies on Lechmere's guilt regarding Polly Nicholls seems different in regards to the slaughtered animals. They are trying to have it both ways again...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

            Also, he was a carman, not a slaugherman or butcher, so this "blood-stained overalls" bit is a non-starter. I'm not even sure it's been conclusively proven that Cross regularly (or semi-regularly) delivered meat but, even if he did, the animals would have been slaughtered, bled and butchered long before he arrived to pick up his cargo. It's also quite possible that the meat would have been loaded on his cart by the butcher(s) and/or their assistants; it might even have been packed/wrapped in boxes or some other material, to stop it getting damaged or soiled in transit.
            And if Paul or Mizen had spotted some wet looking blood on him as they neared a lamp he could hardly have claimed that it was still wet from his previous shift.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              And if Paul or Mizen had spotted some wet looking blood on him as they neared a lamp he could hardly have claimed that it was still wet from his previous shift.
              Did I not see on HOL that Charles had a vicious noise bleed that morning?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                Did I not see on HOL that Charles had a vicious noise bleed that morning?
                Either that or he was a particularly clumsy shaver.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                  Christer then talks of a 9 min gap. His pathology expert claims 2 mins to do the deed, so that leaves an astonishing 7 mins for Lechmere to have a game of hopscotch, a pee behind the building, cut poor Polly more or whatever he wants. Most importantly this 7 min gap gives the killer plenty of time to escape. According to Christer it would give Lechmere enough time to get back HOME! That is how far away from Paul he could have gone in any direction, but no he stays and waits for the next passer by to arrive and alert them to the body in the gutter. How can Christer et al not see by inventing the 9 min gap he actually gives Lechmere more time to escape but throws the alternative at us that he waits for Paul, it’s completely unlikely to have panned out like that.
                  I love your bit about how 7 minutes was enough time for Lechmere to walk home. This problem has been repeatedly pointed out to Christer. I don't think he's even attempted to address it.
                  "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                  "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    I love your bit about how 7 minutes was enough time for Lechmere to walk home. This problem has been repeatedly pointed out to Christer. I don't think he's even attempted to address it.
                    For him not to even attempt to address it there must be a serious issue as I've read him attempting all sorts of wriggling. I think I have done a fair and open dissection of the 'television series' but I'm by no means an expert and I'm probably incorrect on a few details.

                    I still have to work out how if Robert Paul entered Bucks Row at 'exactly 3:45am' and PC Neil discovered the body 'at a quarter to four am' (testimony quotes) then how did they not see each other? How did Neil not see Paul or Lechmere and Paul together before they buggered off to see Mizen?

                    Something does not add up here...even the documentary shows Lechmere and Paul in Bucks Row at 3:46am. How could they have been allowed to make such fundamental errors?

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Clipboard02.jpg
Views:	210
Size:	56.6 KB
ID:	833134
                    Last edited by Geddy2112; 04-19-2024, 07:53 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                      For him not to even attempt to address it there must be a serious issue as I've read him attempting all sorts of wriggling. I think I have done a fair and open dissection of the 'television series' but I'm by no means an expert and I'm probably incorrect on a few details.

                      I still have to work out how if Robert Paul entered Bucks Row at 'exactly 3:45am' and PC Neil discovered the body 'at a quarter to four am' (testimony quotes) then how did they not see each other? How did Neil not see Paul or Lechmere and Paul together before they buggered off to see Mizen?

                      Something does not add up here...
                      Simply that It WAS NOT exactly 3.45, and the time was not syncronizied to the others involved.
                      Of course it does not matter how often this is pointed out , it's dismissed.

                      Steve

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        I love your bit about how 7 minutes was enough time for Lechmere to walk home. This problem has been repeatedly pointed out to Christer. I don't think he's even attempted to address it.
                        Hi Fiver, Geddy & all,

                        Indeed, a 3 minute gap would have sufficed. In fact, a 3 minute gap would have been needed for Paul to have ‘disturbed’ Lechmere and for Lechmere to prepare for his bluffing game.

                        The bigger the gap, as has been stated by others, the more unbelievable the idea that Lechmere stuck around to wait for Paul.

                        But even in our day & age it would be difficult to establish that there actually was a 3 minute gap, give or take half a minute, let alone back then.

                        So, the only thing the yea-sayers could claim is that the timings don’t exclude Lechmere. But assuming that it was Lechmere who disturbed the killer, it's no surprise that Lechmere arrived at the crime spot close to a time of death.

                        The best,
                        Frank
                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                          Hi Fiver, Geddy & all,
                          Indeed, a 3 minute gap would have sufficed. In fact, a 3 minute gap would have been needed for Paul to have ‘disturbed’ Lechmere and for Lechmere to prepare for his bluffing game.
                          The bigger the gap, as has been stated by others, the more unbelievable the idea that Lechmere stuck around to wait for Paul.
                          But even in our day & age it would be difficult to establish that there actually was a 3 minute gap, give or take half a minute, let alone back then.
                          So, the only thing the yea-sayers could claim is that the timings don’t exclude Lechmere. But assuming that it was Lechmere who disturbed the killer, it's no surprise that Lechmere arrived at the crime spot close to a time of death.
                          The best,
                          Frank
                          Hi FrankO, completely agree. I've also spotted this 'difficult' situation from the video...

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	Image1.jpg
Views:	201
Size:	145.1 KB
ID:	833150

                          ...it actually has PC Neil finding poor Polly BEFORE Lechmere and before Paul caught up with Lechmere. Aside from the misleading 'kneeling over the body' to apply bias against Lechmere it's simply totally and utterly wrong. How was this allowed to be accepted?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                            For him not to even attempt to address it there must be a serious issue as I've read him attempting all sorts of wriggling. I think I have done a fair and open dissection of the 'television series' but I'm by no means an expert and I'm probably incorrect on a few details.
                            I've discussed this with Christer, and I wouldn't characterize it as 'wriggling,' so much as it is a sort of metaphysical hairsplitting.

                            As I understand him, he doesn't insist that there was a 7-9 minute gap when Crossmere was alone in Buck's Row. He's clever enough to know that if he did insist this, your objections would cause him a great deal of trouble.

                            Rather, he limits his argument to the fact that there is a 7-9 minute discrepancy between Cross's account and Paul's account. Do you see the difference? He doesn't insist that it can be shown that Lechmere was in Buck's Row during that time--only that the account of his own movements that he gave to the police (and subsequently to the inquest) had to be a lie of some sort, otherwise we are faced with an unexplainable 7-9 minute gap.

                            In other words (and he can correct me on his return), he doesn't believe we have evidence that Cross was in Buck's Row well ahead of Paul (though he obviously believes this)--only that we have evidence that Cross lied about his departure time and finding the body only seconds before Paul's arrival, because the two witnesses give clashing testimony.

                            Of course, looking at it objectively, there are several other possible explanations for this discrepancy.

                            1. Cross and Paul, together or separately, had bad estimates of the time. Paul in particular--even if we remove Cross from consideration--contradicts three policemen.

                            2. The clocks were off.

                            3. Cross was the killer and either made a clumsy lie or made his statement before he knew Paul would be traced and/or come forward with his own version.

                            4. Paul, having been dragged out of bed and questioned by the police, decided to switch the 'heat' from himself to Cross by cleverly adjusting his own time of departure, thus implicating Cross, though it was unsuccessful and would take several more decades for amateur detectives to take the bait.



                            Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-19-2024, 03:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              I've discussed this with Christer, and I wouldn't characterize it as 'wriggling,' so much as it is a sort of metaphysical hairsplitting.
                              As I understand him, he doesn't insist that there was a 7-9 minute gap when Crossmere was alone in Buck's Row. He's clever enough to know that if he did insist this, your objections would cause him a great deal of trouble.
                              Rather, he limits his argument to the fact that there is a 7-9 minute discrepancy between Cross's account and Paul's account. Do you see the difference? He doesn't insist that it can be shown that Lechmere was in Buck's Row during that time--only that the account of his own movements that he gave to the police (and subsequently to the inquest) had to be a lie of some sort, otherwise we are faced with an unexplainable 7-9 minute gap.
                              In other words (and he can correct me on his return), he doesn't believe we have evidence that Cross was in Buck's Row well ahead of Paul (though he obviously believes this)--only that we have evidence that Cross lied about his departure time and finding the body only seconds before Paul's arrival, because the two witnesses give clashing testimony.
                              'Metaphysical hair-splitting' that's a cool term. Sounds like the name of a Thrash Metal band. I do see the difference, however that is akin to his latest rants about Lechmere 'did not find the body' he 'was found by the body.' It's metaphysical what ya call its or in lay man terms clutching very tightly at straws. After all I'm only going on what he states and is shown in the video. He states 'about 9 mins' 22m10s into the video. The video actually shows 9mins on the screen. Even if it was 7 mins or even 5 mins it still gives a guilty Lechmere 2 mins to do the deed and plenty of time to bugger off. All the widening of the gap does it make it more and more unlikely Lechmere was the killer because it gives him more and more time to escape which any killer I'm sure would have done.
                              The video at this time also shows Paul entering Bucks Row at 3:45am, however later in the video it shows PC Neil in Bucks Row at 3:45am. Which is correct? These are not my 'facts' this is what the video is showing and telling us. So he can wriggle, split hairs metaphysically or not the facts remain, and he has to stand by what the video shows and says, after all it's him doing the saying. It's his 'theory' the video is portraying. It's not mine yours or anyone else's here it's his.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X