The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Sally]

Hi Simon - also off topic:

Yes - agree re. the sonar 'objects' - not satisfactorily explained. I wasn't convinced by the various seal arguments either [slighly patronising, I felt] - a seal can only be so big, after all! I remain fascinated

Perhaps more relevant to case-related discussions in general was the memory study that was shown on the programme - if we think about the various and often contradictory accounts given by witnesses in the case; the idea that almost all of them may have misremembered to some extent is worth considering.

[Simon Wood]

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?

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Owen]

I enjoyed the one about the Loch Ness Monster though - always had a soft spot for Nessie.

Off topic : Me too , but I felt that they could have tried to explain the 3 mysterious objects found underwater in the mass sonar trawl a bit better, and I felt the explanation of the 2007 video was lacking. It didn't look like a seal on the video , so it would have been useful to know whether any other creatures had been recorded entering the Loch ( whales ? dolphins ? sharks ? manatees ? plesiosaurs ? )
Also the enigmatic 1934 siting was left unexplained , certainly the couple in the car saw something and they may have interpreted it as something monstrous due to over-active imagination caused by watching horror movies - but what did they actually see ? I can't think of any logical answer.

[Fisherman]

And Cross never used the name Cross

And he may have visited his mother at strange times

and he was controlling

and he hated his step father

and his mother was domineering

and he kept changing his route to work

and the police made no inquiries at all

and he didn't give his home address, in spite of a newspaper listing it

And not one piece of that is conjecture.

Is this your answer to my pointing out that you was wrong trying to claim that I made up that Paul knelt at the murder site...?

If so, it has nothing to do with that.

Otherwise, I think you will find that we consistetly say that these points ARE conjecture.
We also persistently say that a theory cannot be formed without conjecture.
But we hasten to add that the conjecture must be built on as steady ground as possible.

So here are your points again:

And Cross never used the name Cross

Actually he did - at the inquest and to the police. But we know that the hundred plus signatures we have are all signed Lechmere. So to conjecture that he called himself Lechmere normally is sound.

And he may have visited his mother at strange times

Saturday night is not a strange time to visit his mother. It was his day off on Sunday.

and he was controlling

He was at least controlling enough to fill out lots and lots of papers visavi the authorities. That makes the conjecture sound.

and he hated his step father

What has ben said is that many kids who get stepfathers in years when they are sensitive DO dislike having a new figure deciding things for them. Lechmere MAY well hav resented his stepfather for the exact same grounds - sound conjecture.

and his mother was domineering

She married three different men, two of them bigamously, and she changed jobs late in life - sound conjecture.

and he kept changing his route to work

He had two routes that were equally long, but the one he did NOT use on the Nichols murder night was a bit shorter - sound conjecture.

and the police made no inquiries at all

They will have spoken to him and asked him questions. But they did not find out his true name, so they were not THAT thorough - sound conjecture.

and he didn't give his home address, in spite of a newspaper listing it

Whereas ALL papers listed ALL other addresses spelling them wrong, whereas the Star was spot on - sound conjecture.

Where did you get it from that we would think that this was not conjecture? I find that mindboggling.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think Lechmere being the Ripper could explain why they happened, and who they happened to. Lechmere could have been triggered by certain words.

With Nichols there could have been some argument about the price and she could have said to him ....

"Are you Cross?"

And there you go ......

[Sally]

Blink Films says:

We make factual, features, documentaries, entertainment, drama-doc and comedy. Our award-winning programmes are known for their intelligence, warmth and creativity.

Creativity eh? That explains it.

I enjoyed the one about the Loch Ness Monster though - always had a soft spot for Nessie.

[Chris]

Lechmerist Arianism - the theological heresy according to which Ed is subordinate to Fish, as opposed to the orthodox view holding that Ed and Fish are of the same substance.

Condemned at the Council of Not Nice 'ere.

[Robert]

Lechmerist Arianism - the theological heresy according to which Ed is subordinate to Fish, as opposed to the orthodox view holding that Ed and Fish are of the same substance.

[Rob Clack]

OK I think I've got it now.

It was because he liked the danger. What appealed to him was the thrill of making up pointless lies that were likely to attract suspicion to him.

I like your thinking. It was the danger he got off on!
Perhaps we will find Lechmeres dna on the Shawl?

[tji]

Hi Chris

It was because he liked the danger. What appealed to him was the thrill of making up pointless lies that were likely to attract suspicion to him.

By Jove - I think you've got it

Also when you think the celebrity of the time would have been worth his while, fame, fortune, newspaper interviews.......the lynching, not so much but you have to take the rough with the smooth

Tracy

[Chris]

OK I think I've got it now.

It was because he liked the danger. What appealed to him was the thrill of making up pointless lies that were likely to attract suspicion to him.

[Chris]

Why did Lechmere only hear Paul at forty yards when Neil heard Thain at 120?

Right. I'm going to have a go at this one now.

What we Lechmerists are saying is that obviously he must have heard Paul as soon as he entered Buck's Row. But being a murderer, he cunningly pretended to hear him only when he was 40 yards away because .... in order to ... erm ... ....

Could it have been because if he'd really heard him as soon as he got into Buck's Row, he'd have had plenty of time to get away without being seen? No, hold on a minute, that isn't right.

Hmmm.

Maybe this Lechmeristarianism isn't quite as easy as it looks. Sorry.

[Chris]

My guess is he picked her up in Whitechapel Road as you describe but who knows?

And what was he doing in Whitechapel Road? (That's the bit I didn't quite manage to work out when I was trying to be a Lechmerianite.)

Please don't tell me the answer is "Looking for a prostitute to kill."

[Rob Clack]

Duplicated post.

[Rob Clack]

If he wasn't the killer than he was the unluckiest person in the world, because he suddenly developed some sort of habit of always passing by as somebody was killed in those streets. - Christer Holmgren

This is what you call desperation. When your suspect is as weak Lechmere, all sorts of lies and misleading comments need to be made to make him sound plausible.