The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Monty]

Claiming that the police was too competent to enable any suspect to slip past them helps deny the viability of any suspect, on the other hand. Which is disingenous.

History is crammed with policemen that have been clever, proactive, good, resourceful and devoted.

However, amongst these men, there are scores of examples of the opposite too - lousy, lazy, stupid and incompetent policemen also exist.

In the Nichols case, we have - for example - it on record that the coroner had to tell the police to speak to more people in Bucks Row than the very few ones they originally approached. That is a very good example of how they did a job that left potentially important material uninvestigated.

There is also the fact that the carman went down as "Cross" in the police reports. That implicates that they never made a thorough enough investigation of him to find out his true name.

The only reasonable conclusion must be that the police lacked in some departments in the Nichols case.

If Lechmere was the killer, then Iīd submit that if it holds true that they failed to find out his real name, then this has an immense bearing. If they HAD found it out, and understood that the carman had provided them with a name that was not his registered and true name, then there can be little doubt that this would have evoked a raised interest in him, and then they would have had a much better chance to crack the case.
IF - that is - he was the killer.

What I dislike very much is the notion that they would have cracked it if it was him, since they would never miss such a thing. Such mistakes have happened too many times to keep track off, since policemen do make mistakes just like any other people. We donīt live in a perfect world after all.

The best,
Fisherman

You have no idea what the police did re Cross.

However you need a slip up to validate your man, so prey on it, and pepertuate your opinion as fact.

This despite the knowledge of his name, address and workplace was help by PC Ballsup.

Monty

[Chris]

I donīt think the police back then knew that Lechmere kept his real name from them. That is potentially incriminating.

I donīt think they saw the potentially incriminating message that lay hidden in the "Another PC wants you there" message.

I donīt think they checked where his mother lived, and where he had grown up, thereby missing out on potentially incriminating geographical evidence.

Do you really think you have more information than the police had about "Another PC wants you there"? Didn't they have all the information you have now, and in addition the information they got from interviewing all three parties to the conversation?

Where his mother lived might just have been relevant if she'd lived close to Berner Street, but as she lived somewhere off Cannon Street Road I don't think it tells us anything.

So it comes down to the surname, which the police may or may not have known about?

[GUT]

[/QUOTE]There is also the fact that the carman went down as "Cross" in the police reports. That implicates that they never made a thorough enough investigation of him to find out his true name.[/QUOTE]

But it isn't a fact that he only went down in police reports as Cross, because we don't have the police reports.

[Fisherman]

Your not alnone Sally they have done the same to some of my posts both here and JTR seems they have no answers to some posts which damage their theory.

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

Give me your very best example, Trevor - and you will be amazed. Show me one example of how you have damaged the Lechmere theory, and you shall have my reaction and answer.

No endless listings, please, just the one thing that I - according to you - cannot answer or explain will do.

Fisherman
waiting

[Fisherman]

Its a convenience (for suspect Ripperologists) to label the police as incompetent. It helps the round pieces of their theory slot in to the square holes.

Monty

Claiming that the police was too competent to enable any suspect to slip past them helps deny the viability of any suspect, on the other hand. Which is disingenous.

History is crammed with policemen that have been clever, proactive, good, resourceful and devoted.

However, amongst these men, there are scores of examples of the opposite too - lousy, lazy, stupid and incompetent policemen also exist.

In the Nichols case, we have - for example - it on record that the coroner had to tell the police to speak to more people in Bucks Row than the very few ones they originally approached. That is a very good example of how they did a job that left potentially important material uninvestigated.

There is also the fact that the carman went down as "Cross" in the police reports. That implicates that they never made a thorough enough investigation of him to find out his true name.

The only reasonable conclusion must be that the police lacked in some departments in the Nichols case.

If Lechmere was the killer, then Iīd submit that if it holds true that they failed to find out his real name, then this has an immense bearing. If they HAD found it out, and understood that the carman had provided them with a name that was not his registered and true name, then there can be little doubt that this would have evoked a raised interest in him, and then they would have had a much better chance to crack the case.
IF - that is - he was the killer.

What I dislike very much is the notion that they would have cracked it if it was him, since they would never miss such a thing. Such mistakes have happened too many times to keep track off, since policemen do make mistakes just like any other people. We donīt live in a perfect world after all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Won't answer - or Can't answer?

HAVE answered. Many times.

Itīs not as if the points we make ar unknown, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Surely logic says the opposite is actually the case, if he wanted to "disenable" himself to be the killer he would want as little distance between them as possible.

That is - to some extent - true. What I am saying is not that he wanted as long a distance as possible, though!

If he was the killer and had stepped back from the body, awaiting Pauls arrival, then he knew that he could not say that Paul was just five yards away as he himself stepped out into the road - Paul would blow that out of the water if asked.

So Lechmere needed a distance long enough to ensure that Paul would not be able to protest - but short enough to disenable himself to have been the killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes - and not only in the documentary either! I've asked 'that Holgrem guy' [well, Ed, actually, but it makes little difference] to elaborate on the claims, made more than once by one or the other of them here on Casebook, that their suspect can be 'tied' to other, later murders.

But so far, no response. I am very surprised by this, naturally.

Once again I am obliged to ask myself: Won't answer - or Can't answer?

The mystery continues....

Your not alnone Sally they have done the same to some of my posts both here and JTR seems they have no answers to some posts which damage their theory.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[Monty]

Fish, you have been going on about what a good policeman Mizen was, and how we should prefer his account to Crossmere's.

Would you agree that most of the policemen working the Ripper case were good policemen?

I only ask, because you seem to think they were incompetent.

Its a convenience (for suspect Ripperologists) to label the police as incompetent. It helps the round pieces of their theory slot in to the square holes.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Surely the point is that, with one or two exceptions, the police had access to all the information this theory is based on, and much more that we don't have now.

And of course not forgetting that at the inquest all the testimony was aired, and the coroner, and the police were happy to accept it as presented.

Now we don't have the original inquest testimony only what was reported in the press. So we are not able to say if any of the current ambiguities were ironed out at the inquest, we must assume they were, because if we can now highlight them, I am sure the police and the coroner must have been able to do so back then.

The coroner addressed the jury in the way he interpreted the evidence put before him. His address gives the correct chain of events based on that, which is what we should be going by. Not a scenario/chain of events drawn up by two individuals to suit their own theory.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[Sally]

It says in the documentary that that Holgrem guy is investigating links with other murders - his findings will be interesting, as will anything else discovered about this guy.

Yes - and not only in the documentary either! I've asked 'that Holgrem guy' [well, Ed, actually, but it makes little difference] to elaborate on the claims, made more than once by one or the other of them here on Casebook, that their suspect can be 'tied' to other, later murders.

But so far, no response. I am very surprised by this, naturally.

Once again I am obliged to ask myself: Won't answer - or Can't answer?

The mystery continues....

[GUT]

I think that his primary goal was to establish a distance inbetween himself and Paul that disenabled him to have been the killer.

Surely logic says the opposite is actually the case, if he wanted to "disenable" himself to be the killer he would want as little distance between them as possible.

[J6123]

I though only the Kosminski/Cohen theory had anything going for it, but I now think this Lechmere theory has something going for it as well. It is worth pursuing. It says in the documentary that that Holgrem guy is investigating links with other murders - his findings will be interesting, as will anything else discovered about this guy.

I think Lechmere is just one more coincidence away from becoming the best suspect ever proposed for this case, even though he doesn't seem to match Douglas's profile of the 'disorganised' character who couldn't interact with women and was at the end of his mental rope and died or was arrested after the Kelly murder.

[Fisherman]

Oh, and while you're about it, please tell us why you think Cross/Lechmere would have said he didn't hear Paul coming all the way down Buck's Row, if he did hear him.

If it's obvious to you now that he was lying, why wouldn't it have been obvious to everyone in 1888?

I think that his primary goal was to establish a distance inbetween himself and Paul that disenabled him to have been the killer.

I donīt think he would wish to say "Immediately that other guy turned into Buckīs Row behind me, I could hear him walking all the time", since that may have had the police and jury wanting to ask Paul whether HE had heard Lechmere all the time.

And no, I donīt everyone back then would have seen this. If the jury had been a bit more alert, they would have picked up on the discrepancy between Lechmereīs assertions that he would definitely have heard anything stirring down at Browns Stable yard the moment he turned the Brady Street corner, and his failure to hear Paul until he was quite close.

These two statements gainsay each other, but nobody picked up on it and asked about it.

Itīs all good and well to tell me that I should be more modest and sonīt claim to have noticed something that wasnīt noticed back then, but when we have it on record that there IS a discrepancy, Iīm afraid I am going to throw my bashfulness overboard and speak up anyway.

I have hear this argument so many times before: Who does he think he is, coming here and trying to make out that he can do what nobody else have been able to. This is just one example, but there are others, like the disagreement between Mizen and Lechmere for example; sadly left out of just about all major books on the case.

It is what it is. These things should have been picked up on before, and the police back in 1888 should have been the first ones to do so. They had an obligation to investigate all avenues of research. Nothing, however, goes to show that this happened.

To try and establish that the police were infallable and would have made all the necessary investigations is not helpful or realistic, given that we know that mistakes WERE made.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish, you have been going on about what a good policeman Mizen was, and how we should prefer his account to Crossmere's.

Would you agree that most of the policemen working the Ripper case were good policemen?

I only ask, because you seem to think they were incompetent.

I think there was incompetence on behalf of the police, yes. That does not mean that I think all policemen were incompetent, though.

Mistakes were clearly made, and that must reflect on those who made them.

I donīt see what use it would be of to say that policemen as a rule were this or that back then. They came in all shades then as now.

The best,
Fisherman