The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

By all means tell us what incriminating information you think you know now, that you don't think the police knew then.

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.

Of course, you may now go on to say that potentially incriminating is not incriminating. In that case, I will just say that "incriminating" as such in this case would amount to hard evidence and proof - something we both know is not there.

You may even wish to jest about how it cannot be incriminating to have a mother staying somewhere, as most people have, I donīt know. The intellectual level of the discussion out here sometimes leaves me baffled.

But since you ask, I think the police missed out on these three matters, for example.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Ah well, that's another kettle of Fish.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Hi Robert. I don't know about Fish, but Ed is convinced of the moral aptitude and policing merits of one William Thick.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

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.

[Chris]

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?

[Chris]

Fisherman

By all means tell us what incriminating information you think you know now, that you don't think the police knew then.

[Fisherman]

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.

The police had access to a lot of information that they apparently did not access, Chris.

I think we often exaggerate how they would have had the upper hand in all matters. We have a totally superior understanding about what a serial killer is about, to begin with.

I also ofteh think that it may have been a disadvantage for the jury to see and hear Lechmere if he was the killer. He may well have put on a very convincing show, based on how he said things and the impression he gave. If that was so, then we donīt have that disadvantage, since we can only read what was said, and we miss any further "colouration" of it.

Of course, if the police - as it seems - did not establish the identity of Lechmere, then we will know a good deal more today about many things attaching to his situation than they did.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You are asking for two exactly identical scenarios? The point was really about the supposed "dumbness" of the police (although I think that's unfair) and the two situations seem pretty similar to me.

But here's another one. John Reginald Christie. Without actually checking I'm pretty certain from memory that he gave evidence at the inquest of Beryl Evans - he certainly did at the trial of Timothy Evans - and was happy to volunteer information to the police. (Let's not quibble about whether he actually did murder Mrs Evans).

...and again!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mind you, how dumb were the police to have had the name and address of the Yorkshire Ripper, interviewing him at his home, and then did not suspect him over the course of the next four years, during which he committed seven more "Ripper" murders?

Touché...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You're obviously not too attuned to irony.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

You are asking for two exactly identical scenarios? The point was really about the supposed "dumbness" of the police (although I think that's unfair) and the two situations seem pretty similar to me.

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.

[David Orsam]

I dont recall that Peter Sutcliffe attended any of the Inquests, or volunteered any statement to the Police or the Press.

You are asking for two exactly identical scenarios? The point was really about the supposed "dumbness" of the police (although I think that's unfair) and the two situations seem pretty similar to me.

But here's another one. John Reginald Christie. Without actually checking I'm pretty certain from memory that he gave evidence at the inquest of Beryl Evans - he certainly did at the trial of Timothy Evans - and was happy to volunteer information to the police. (Let's not quibble about whether he actually did murder Mrs Evans).

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hatchett,

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Regards,

Simon

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I dont recall that Peter Sutcliffe attended any of the Inquests, or volunteered any statement to the Police or the Press.

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

How dumb were the police to have had the name and address of Jack the Ripper, subpoenaed [or were suitably grateful that he volunteered] his appearance as a witness at an inquest into one of his own murders and then did not suspect him over the course of the next ten weeks, during which he committed four more "Ripper" murders.

Or, perhaps, how dumb are we to even entertain such nonsense?

Mind you, how dumb were the police to have had the name and address of the Yorkshire Ripper, interviewing him at his home, and then did not suspect him over the course of the next four years, during which he committed seven more "Ripper" murders?