The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Monty]

The line of sight would have improved if Neil stepped to the north side of the row.

Monty

[Fisherman]

In actual fact , it was PC Thain who Neil signalled to using his lantern. He heard Thain coming up Brady Street towards the end of Bucks Row.

" Neil felt her right arm and found it quite warm from the elbow upwards. At this moment he heard another constable patrolling up Brady Street from the Whitechapel Road, and as he passed the end of Buck's Row Neil called him and flashed his lantern. It was PC John Thain 96J. " - Sugden

Neil actually claims to have signalled both Thain and Mizen, Simon.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Owen]

Hi Chris,

There's an Alice in Wonderland logic to the Crossmere theory.

This is one my favourite exchanges—

Me: PC Neil could not have signalled PC Mizen with his bullseye lamp. There was no line of sight between the murder scene and Bakers Row.

Ed: I know there is no line of sight yet nevertheless Neil said he signalled Mizen to come to him.

Duh!

Regards,

Simon

In actual fact , it was PC Thain who Neil signalled to using his lantern. He heard Thain coming up Brady Street towards the end of Bucks Row.

" Neil felt her right arm and found it quite warm from the elbow upwards. At this moment he heard another constable patrolling up Brady Street from the Whitechapel Road, and as he passed the end of Buck's Row Neil called him and flashed his lantern. It was PC John Thain 96J. " - Sugden

[moonbegger]

Thanks, Moon.

You lost me with that "good opportunity to ditch the knife". When did that happen?

The best,
Fisherman

Probably right about here ..

I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.

He clearly makes the first move to exit the scene .. for my mind , ample opportunity to either toss it over the bridge into the bushes below , or simply place it in the dark gloom . Either option is better than the risk of getting caught red handed with it .

moonbegger

[Rob Clack]

Mizen was from a different Division then Neil and Thain. That may or may not have a bearing on the matter.

Rob

[David Orsam]

If that material fact, is that a policeman was already there I think the explanation is obvious

You say "obvious" but I have read experienced posters on this forum saying the explanation is that Mizen lied through fear of a charge of neglect of duty while others say that the explanation is that Cross lied because he was late for work. So it's not obvious to everyone. Of course, one possibility is that Mizen was mistaken in his recollection but you must admit that there is no evidence to this effect. The evidence as it stands is that Mizen said that Cross told him he was needed by a policeman while Cross claimed he didn't say this. We can only go on the evidence. If we were conducting an inquiry today we would need to explain the conflict. That explanation might be completely innocent as you suggest - but it might not and to simply ignore it would, I suggest, be a mistake.

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

Didn't the police interview Peter Sutcliffe long before he was arrested and fail to make some very basic enquiries about him? It happens all the time. And police procedures were very different in the nineteenth century. In the absence of any evidence that enquiries were made I wouldn't want to rely on any such assumption. Where I do agree with you is that a lot of the points made against Lechmere are not terribly good ones. For me, the sole reason why he should be considered a suspect (and, for the avoidance, of doubt I do not say a good suspect) is because the evidence of a police officer is that Lechmere lied to him about a material fact.

If that material fact, is that a policeman was already there I think the explanation is obvious:

Cross and Paul to Mizen "You are needed down there"

Mizen goes down and finds Neil who says "I found this body"

How quickly does Mizen remember the conversation as "You are needed down there by a policeman". I deal with witnesses pretty much every day and can guarantee you that this is exactly what happens, the way people remember conversations is influenced by their perceptions and what happens afterwards.

[Chris]

Sorry. I must apologise. When I first raised this question of the distance between Cross/Lechmere and Paul, I made only a rough estimate of the distance from Foster Street to Brady Street, as about 80 yards.

In fact, measured between the relevant street corners, it's only about 58 yards. So Cross/Lechmere would have to be less than 58 yards ahead of Paul for Paul to have seen him in Bath Street. That's only 18 yards more than Cross/Lechmere's estimate of the distance between them when he became aware of Paul in Buck's Row.

Given that even Edward Stow acknowledged that the distance between them could have been 50 yards in Buck's Row before Cross/Lechmere stopped, the remaining difference - 8 yards - really is tiny. It could be accounted for by Cross/Lechmere having stopped walking 9 seconds rather than 5 seconds before he became aware of Paul. Or Paul having walked 1/6 mile per hour faster than Cross/Lechmere. Is anyone going to say that either of those is impossible?

[Rob Clack]

I quoted the Morning Advertiser, and so I used "centre". Exactly what the Morning Advertiser meant by that, is for anybody to assess.

I´m sure you have something learned to say about it. Technically, the center of the road should be calculated from the ends and the sides. You are welcome to do that if you wish.

Good night!
Fisherman

So Lechmere was standing by the curb over the body. He was in the centre of the road about 12 feet from the body.

Thank you.

[Rob Clack]

But this is going nowhere. I am, though, so goodnight to you!

Fisherman

Before you go. What facts have I avoided?

[Fisherman]

You might have missed me ask this earlier Christer. Is centre of the road the same as middle of the road?

Rob

I quoted the Morning Advertiser, and so I used "centre". Exactly what the Morning Advertiser meant by that, is for anybody to assess.

I´m sure you have something learned to say about it. Technically, the center of the road should be calculated from the ends and the sides. You are welcome to do that if you wish.

Good night!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

Why would I respond to post 1103 when it ended with



You make it clear you don't want to engage.

That only applies if you keep implying that I and Edward fed wrongful material to Scobie and Griffiths. And that´s why you really should respond to post 1103. It provides you with a chance to bolster that take with facts.

Good luck!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rob Clack:

That is your privilege. People an draw there own conclusions.

I sincerely hope they do, Rob. Like David Orsam and Mr Barnett seemingly do.

So, anyone who doesn't agree with you is not a balanced critic?

I don´t see how you arrived at that conclusion. There are a number of badly balanced critics of my theory out there, that´s my contention. But there are equally very balanced critics - like Orsam and Barnett - who do NOT agree with me.
I therefore identify two groups of people that disagree with me - those who do so in a balanced way, and those who do so with a lott less balance.

But you haven't produced a useful suspect case. It is based on everyone lying. Paul, Lechmere and Mizen. Cherry picking what you want to make your case and then you and Ed making things up to cover the large cracks.

-We know that Paul was not truthful in his interview.
-We know that Lechmere did not give his true name, and that a PC disagrees with him about what was said. One or two of them are not telling the truth.
-I am not saying that Mizen lies.

I am not worried if people are perplexed by me. I'd rather deal in facts and not wild speculation. And what obvious matters?

I, on the other hand, think that it should be a reason to worry. You see, the reason for the perplexion lay in the fact that you seemingly avoided the facts like the plague.

But this is going nowhere. I am, though, so goodnight to you!

Fisherman

[GUT]

Fisherman

Why would I respond to post 1103 when it ended with

Forgive me if I cannot muster the will to respond to whatever further misgivings you may have. I find life´s sometimes too short.

You make it clear you don't want to engage.

[David Orsam]

But I think you might find, that to many here it is obvious that Cross would have been a person of interest, but the case against him is based on the police not having enough brain power to check on minor things like where he worked [even though he told them] what time he left home [even though he gave his address] and when you accept that the police would have made those inquiries you realise they had to know who he was, they had to know his timings and the house of cards starts to fall down.

It is only by believing that the police didn't know that he was a POI and didn't make even the most basic of inquiries, that you can make any kind of case against him.

Hi GUT,

Didn't the police interview Peter Sutcliffe long before he was arrested and fail to make some very basic enquiries about him? It happens all the time. And police procedures were very different in the nineteenth century. In the absence of any evidence that enquiries were made I wouldn't want to rely on any such assumption. Where I do agree with you is that a lot of the points made against Lechmere are not terribly good ones. For me, the sole reason why he should be considered a suspect (and, for the avoidance, of doubt I do not say a good suspect) is because the evidence of a police officer is that Lechmere lied to him about a material fact.