The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Tom_Wescott]

Depends how you define promote,

Saying he was probably the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Fisherman

I'll keep trying.

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

[Fisherman]

You need to familiarise yourself with Stewart's and Paul's work, as they do not promote Tumblety at all, merely present their research on a man named by a senior police official who clearly has a deeper insight into the case than your or I.

Monty

Well, thereīs a Youtube film with a young man very much resembling Mr Evans and carrying his name, where the self same young man says that he believes that the Ripper has been found in the shape of Francis Tumblety. Or something to that effect.

I know that Tumblety is not promoted very much today by Stewart Evans, which I think is wise. But a finger was pointed at him once upon a time.

And as I say, I donīt know if Tumbletys relatives were sought out and told in advance. But I DO know that this applies to the Lechmere family, just as I know that they had no problems with having their relative researched a a potential Ripper.

I am therefore not in any shape or form ready to accept any role as a person that has suddenly revealed to the public something that has caused a family much grief.

To how many other suspects do you reckon this applies? How many researchers have spoken to the fmilies of the suspects before going public with it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Depends how you define promote, however yes, Tumblety found them, and was identified by a contemporary policeman as a suspect, not by Stewart or Paul.

Monty

Had Stewart uncovered the Littlechild letter and chosen not to research and publish I believe he should have been taken to task. Whenever you publish in this field (or probably any field) you have to expect criticism. Some of it will be childish and spiteful, some very even-handed, and some quite helpful if your aims are true. At least Fish and Ed had the benefit of already knowing what those criticisms would be before the doc came out. I don't think they should be held to task for the choices of the producers and editors though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Saying he was probably the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

'Probably' (if that's what was said) I can deal with, 'definitely' is an outright lie.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

I'll keep trying.

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

This time you forgot the "in criminal cases".

And it is no news - I know that.

I have suggested that the term "prima facie criminal case" is a description of a case where the higher demands of evidence are met.

And I have suggested that Scobie was adamant that the Lechmere case would warrant a trial.

Do you challenge that?

Are you saying that Scobie does not know his work?

And have you seen the documentary?

If you only have time for the one question, please make it the last one.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Well, thereīs a Youtube film with a young man very much resembling Mr Evans and carrying his name, where the self same young man says that he believes that the Ripper has been found in the shape of Francis Tumblety. Or something to that effect.

I know that Tumblety is not promoted very much today by Stewart Evans, which I think is wise. But a finger was pointed at him once upon a time.

And as I say, I donīt know if Tumbletys relatives were sought out and told in advance. But I DO know that this applies to the Lechmere family, just as I know that they had no problems with having their relative researched a a potential Ripper.

I am therefore not in any shape or form ready to accept any role as a person that has suddenly revealed to the public something that has caused a family much grief.

To how many other suspects do you reckon this applies? How many researchers have spoken to the fmilies of the suspects before going public with it?

The best,
Fisherman

Its not new. Russell Edwards springs to mind.

Of course, he supposedly has DNA evidence behind him, Stewart and Paul have the words of a contemporary senior police official, you have....erm, cirumstance and conjecture.

Monty

[Monty]

Had Stewart uncovered the Littlechild letter and chosen not to research and publish I believe he should have been taken to task. Whenever you publish in this field (or probably any field) you have to expect criticism. Some of it will be childish and spiteful, some very even-handed, and some quite helpful if your aims are true. At least Fish and Ed had the benefit of already knowing what those criticisms would be before the doc came out. I don't think they should be held to task for the choices of the producers and editors though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

True. They cannot be accountable for the final product. However, I bet team Belcher are cursing their luck that they are based in the north.

Otherwise we may have had a different programme.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Tom_Wescott:

You may not have faith in Ed Stow's abilities as a researcher, but I've seen him produce quite a bit of impressive finds. Considering how hard he's looked into Cross I'm certain that if he had a criminal career, Stow would have found evidence of it.

And he did! A numer of murders is what I call a criminal career.

But what you said was not that Lechmere had no other criminal career - you said that he was an honest man. Not having a criminal career in evidence is not the same as being honest.

Up til the time they were pinched, many of the serialists we have on record did not have any criminal career either - as far as people knew. Question: Could that have applied to Lechmere too, or is he the one exception to the rule?

We are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.

I went a bit far in digging up old bones, I'll admit. But for the newbies accusing others of bullying you, I thought it only fair to point out that all this isn't new to some of us, but quite old hat at this point. Most times I'd find it amusing to see Stewart called a schoolyard bully.

I am much less amused by the situation, Iīm afraid. I have not been a saint Always, and I am no saint now. But I can see what the ones saying that I am being bullied mean. Itīs not nice, but since I think truth will prevail in the overall scheme - but not necessarily on Casebook - I deal with it and move on.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

'Probably' (if that's what was said) I can deal with, 'definitely' is an outright lie.

Monty

This is true. I think Martin Fido said that about Kosminski on TV once though. Did Christer say Lech was definitely the Ripper in the doc though?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Was a chihuahua in fact put up your ass? If no, then I did indeed take the criticism graciously. And no, I do not recall what theory you're referring to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I do. I rarely forget anything, actually. Thatīs why I remeber the exact wordings from that exchange.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Just a friendly warning, but no one else is going to be as impressed with your expert witnesses as you are, because such 'experts' are a dime a dozen, so bringing them up in every post will probably cause resentment and lead to them being derogatorily referred to as Sheriff Andy and Scooby. This in turn will lead to a debate as to whether or not you're in fact Barney Fife or Shaggy. This would be unfortunate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I really donīt care.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

This is true. I think Martin Fido said that about Kosminski on TV once though. Did Christer say Lech was definitely the Ripper in the doc though?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Before I answer....ask him. ;-)

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom_Wescott:

You may not have faith in Ed Stow's abilities as a researcher, but I've seen him produce quite a bit of impressive finds. Considering how hard he's looked into Cross I'm certain that if he had a criminal career, Stow would have found evidence of it.

And he did! A numer of murders is what I call a criminal career.

But what you said was not that Lechmere had no other criminal career - you said that he was an honest man. Not having a criminal career in evidence is not the same as being honest.

This is what I meant earlier about twisting my words and meanings. Some things never change. Obviously, what I meant was that Cross was an honest citizen in the legal sense. Do I know that for a fact? No, but I'm taking Ed Stow's word for it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I do. I rarely forget anything, actually. Thatīs why I remeber the exact wordings from that exchange.

The best,
Fisherman

Oh look, I have a fan!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott