The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Chris]

I am not basing anything on actual timings ( or lack of them ) .
I am just going off the 30-40 yards that was between the two men at point of recognition . If CrossMere had spent 20 - 30 seconds checking out the shape in the shadows , before he notices , or says he notices Paul coming up the row .. it would go a long way to explaining the argument put forward by Team Lechmere that Paul would have noticed Crossmere , or possibly walked a few paces behind him if he was only 30 - 40 yards ahead .

That's the argument I don't understand. The narrative of the documentary says "both Paul and Lechmere claim they saw no one else that morning". Is that true? The Daily Telegraph's version of Paul's inquest testimony says "Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away."

The animation is very strange, by the way. As Paul emerges from Foster Street it shows Cross/Lechmere only about 10 yards ahead. Then suddenly he accelerates rapidly around the corner and into Buck's Row. I suspect if he had started out 80 yards or so ahead and maintained a steady pace, he wouldn't have been in sight of Paul at any point before Buck's Row.

[Robert]

I believe a chap in the documentary said that he expected the murderer to have been in his 30s or 40s because the fantasies would have been quite deeply worked out and that would have taken time. This seems at odds with the inclusion of Tabram, where there was no disembowelment.

[moonbegger]

But what was the basis of the timings anyway? We don't have any exact times to work from, we don't know the relative times when the two men set out, we don't know whether one walked faster than the other. As far as I can see, Paul didn't say whether he had seen a man walking ahead of him before he got to Buck's Row.

It all seems to be based on sheer speculation.

Hello Chris ,

I am not basing anything on actual timings ( or lack of them ) .
I am just going off the 30-40 yards that was between the two men at point of recognition . If CrossMere had spent 20 - 30 seconds checking out the shape in the shadows , before he notices , or says he notices Paul coming up the row .. it would go a long way to explaining the argument put forward by Team Lechmere that Paul would have noticed Crossmere , or possibly walked a few paces behind him if he was only 30 - 40 yards ahead .

cheers , moonbegger

[Rob Clack]

Rob ..

Not if he did not see him stepping back ( innocently )

moonbegger

The gates would have been in Pauls field of vision and hw would have more than likely noticed the movement of someone walking backwards or forwards then someone standing still like Lechmere was.

Rob

[Chris]

Which also explains the extra missing 20 -30 seconds of walking pace that Paul was behind Cross-Mere ..

But what was the basis of the timings anyway? We don't have any exact times to work from, we don't know the relative times when the two men set out, we don't know whether one walked faster than the other. As far as I can see, Paul didn't say whether he had seen a man walking ahead of him before he got to Buck's Row.

It all seems to be based on sheer speculation.

[Chris]

Just to clarify this point (which I hope will be helpful): at the time (i.e. 1888), a prima facie case of murder against an individual would have been sufficient to prosecute them at trial.

Yes - standards have obviously changed since 1888. If Mr Scobie had said there would have been enough to prosecute Cross/Lechmere in 1888 that would have been different (though I don't agree there would). But what he said was all couched in the present tense:
"What we would say, is that he´s got a prima faciae case to answer, which means it´s a good enough case to put before a jury and that suggests he was the killer."

I would hope a QC would choose his words more carefully than to refer to obsolete 1888 practice in the present tense. But he also told Trevor Marriott that he regarded it as "a bit of fun and not to be taken to seriously", so maybe he wasn't expecting his words to be scrutinised so closely.

[moonbegger]

This graphic was intended to show the point at which Lechmere became aware of Paul's presence and hurriedly adjusted Nichols clothes to conceal the abdominal mutilations. Obviously he didn't do that from a standing position.

The next frame shows him standing up and Christer describes him moving back away from the body
MrB

Hello Mr B ,

This is the point I have been discussing with Ed .. Not only is it not a guilty action to move in and take a closer look .. but its also a perfectly innocent reaction to take a couple of steps back , especially upon hearing unknown footsteps heading up the Row ..

Its at this point ( stepping back ) Crossmere claims he hears/see's Paul .. again , perfectly understandable reasoning not to admit he already had a closer look into the dark abyss to discover exactly what he was looking at .

Rob ..

Paul would have seen Lechmere get up and move back.

Not if he did not see him stepping back ( innocently )

Which also explains the extra missing 20 -30 seconds of walking pace that Paul was behind Cross-Mere ..

moonbegger

[Rob Clack]

This graphic was intended to show the point at which Lechmere became aware of Paul's presence and hurriedly adjusted Nichols clothes to conceal the abdominal mutilations. Obviously he didn't do that from a standing position.

The next frame shows him standing up and Christer describes him moving back away from the body.

Nowhere was it stated that this interpretation was or wasn't in the historical record, but if you are following the narrative, then common sense tells you it wasn't. No deception there as far as I can see.

MrB

I take it you have been converted to the Lechmere camp? Good for you.

The graphic ia wrong. It never happened. Paul would have seen Lechmere get up and move back.
And if I remember correctly (at work so can't check at the moment) it was a recreation of the events as they were recorded. And was played back on numerous occasions and Lechmere was at the same spot on each of them, even though we know he wasn't.

Rob

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to clarify this point (which I hope will be helpful): at the time (i.e. 1888), a prima facie case of murder against an individual would have been sufficient to prosecute them at trial. At one inquest into a suspicious death (in April 1915), for example, the Coroner for Central London told his jury (as reported in the Islington Daily Gazette) that, "They were inquiring whether there was a prima facie case against some person or persons of causing the death of the deceased" - and when that jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against the woman who had been arrested for the crime he gave the police a warrant committing her to trial for murder at the Old Bailey.

At the same time, I would have to say that I think it was a bit of a cop-out for Scobie QC to have made the point about there being a prima facie case because, by implication, he was saying that the evidence was not strong enough for him to conclude that Lechmere was guilty; which means that any rational jury on the same evidence would have had to have found Lechmere "not guilty".

But of course with the report you cited we don't know the underlying facts.

Scobie gave his opinion on what was put before him. The full facts were not put before him, they were loaded in favor of those who suggest Lechmere was the killer. Had he been given the opportunity to read the full facts I doubt he would have given that same opinion.

I have stated before that his program contribution lasted 30 seconds. He spent 30 minutes or more giving his full opinion, some of which they clearly didn't want to go out.

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

[Monty]

Just to clarify this point (which I hope will be helpful): at the time (i.e. 1888), a prima facie case of murder against an individual would have been sufficient to prosecute them at trial. At one inquest into a suspicious death (in April 1915), for example, the Coroner for Central London told his jury (as reported in the Islington Daily Gazette) that, "They were inquiring whether there was a prima facie case against some person or persons of causing the death of the deceased" - and when that jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against the woman who had been arrested for the crime he gave the police a warrant committing her to trial for murder at the Old Bailey.

At the same time, I would have to say that I think it was a bit of a cop-out for Scobie QC to have made the point about there being a prima facie case because, by implication, he was saying that the evidence was not strong enough for him to conclude that Lechmere was guilty; which means that any rational jury on the same evidence would have had to have found Lechmere "not guilty".

Good point well made.

Monty

[David Orsam]

What I am pointing out to you is that having a prima facie case is not sufficient to prosecute someone.

Just to clarify this point (which I hope will be helpful): at the time (i.e. 1888), a prima facie case of murder against an individual would have been sufficient to prosecute them at trial. At one inquest into a suspicious death (in April 1915), for example, the Coroner for Central London told his jury (as reported in the Islington Daily Gazette) that, "They were inquiring whether there was a prima facie case against some person or persons of causing the death of the deceased" - and when that jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against the woman who had been arrested for the crime he gave the police a warrant committing her to trial for murder at the Old Bailey.

At the same time, I would have to say that I think it was a bit of a cop-out for Scobie QC to have made the point about there being a prima facie case because, by implication, he was saying that the evidence was not strong enough for him to conclude that Lechmere was guilty; which means that any rational jury on the same evidence would have had to have found Lechmere "not guilty".

[MrBarnett]

This is what I was on about in my post yesterday. The reconstruction could only have come from Christer and Ed as nothing remotely like this is mentioned in the Official Files or newspaper reports.
How can you be expected to be taken seriously if you are going to mislead people and exagerate the case against them

[ATTACH]16448[/ATTACH]

This graphic was intended to show the point at which Lechmere became aware of Paul's presence and hurriedly adjusted Nichols clothes to conceal the abdominal mutilations. Obviously he didn't do that from a standing position.

The next frame shows him standing up and Christer describes him moving back away from the body.

Nowhere was it stated that this interpretation was or wasn't in the historical record, but if you are following the narrative, then common sense tells you it wasn't. No deception there as far as I can see.

MrB

[Jonathan H]

Unloaded!

To Roy

It's not a loaded question.

The only reason to believe that Mary Jane Kelly was the final victim is because of the timing of Montague John Druitt's suicide or the hasty departure of Dr. Francis Tumblety.

If you do not, however, believe in those solutions--and overwhelmingly most do not here--then you can have your new suspect killing beyond Nov 9th 1888.

Perhaps such a line of inquiry fits what is known, or can be conjectured about Lechmere.

I do not know--that's why I am asking.

I am in no position to research it, as I had never even heard of this person until a few days ago.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,



Indeed, and without the original suggestion of Hutchinson's possible involvement (dating back to the mid 1990s), it's very unlikely that any of these subsequent witness-turned-suspects would have garnered much talk-time. The suspicions levelled against Mann, Crossmere, Richardson etc all amount essentially to doing a bad Hutchinson. It's as though Hutchinson set the precedent for considering the possibility of witnesses as suspects, and the others just rode the coat-tails. It's worth nothing, though, that Crossmere lost out very badly indeed to Hutchinson on a recent popularity/plausibility poll, with 20 out of 29 voters coming down in favour of Hutchinson as the better suspect.

And that's without Channel 5!

Dan Norder made an excellent Cross-Hutchinson comparison in 2008, which may be worth revisiting.

Hi Ben, good to see you. Wow, it's true what they say, that you're the Candyman of Ripperology. Just mention 'Hutch' once and 'POOF!' you're there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

Let me ask a question of the proponents of the Charles Lechmere theory:

Do you think it likely that this fellow was also the murderer of McKenzie and/or Coles?

Careful guys, it's a loaded question

Roy