The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Monty

Christer, did you state in the documentary that Lechmere is definitely the Ripper?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

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

It wasn't because Georgia agreed with the points I made about the quality of the research in that case and carefully read my summary of the real errors made when she got in touch with me about that theory then?

[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

... and enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a trial. You forgot that.

Did Russell Edwards gather the whole Kosminski family to tell them about his upcoming disclosure of their kinsman as the Ripper?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Oh look, I have a fan!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Then use it to cool off!

Fisherman

[Chris]

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.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Monty]

... and enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a trial. You forgot that.

Did Russell Edwards gather the whole Kosminski family to tell them about his upcoming disclosure of their kinsman as the Ripper?

The best,
Fisherman

I beg to differ with that. Due to the fact we have not been to what, exactly, was reviewed by Scobie.

The whole? No idea. Tell me, if one member of the family objected, would you have ceased your promotion of Cross completely?

Monty

[Monty]

It wasn't because Georgia agreed with the points I made about the quality of the research in that case and carefully read my summary of the real errors made when she got in touch with me about that theory then?

Well, I suspect yours is the main reason.

Monty

[Monty]

Christer, did you state in the documentary that Lechmere is definitely the Ripper?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Let me know when you have a reply.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

Nobody is questioning the width and breadth of your research into Charles Cross. It's all very impressive. What's questioned is how you guys look at that evidence and see serial killer. The supreme irony here is that you two have single-handedly cleared him of any suspicion that might have lingered from the earlier Ripperana articles. As Monty will attest, even many of the coppers at the time don't have as clean a record as does Cross.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Christer, did you state in the documentary that Lechmere is definitely the Ripper?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No, I did not.

I do think that there can be very little doubt that this was so, given the evidence, however.

In the documentary send-off, the narrator says something like "there will be new theories, but Christer Holmgren believes that he has proven beyond reasonable doubt that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper."

This will perhaps owe to some degree to me having said that there can be very little doubt that Lechmere was the killer or something such. As you may appreciate, I do not recall each and every thing I said to the film crew, but I DO know that I DID say that the case as such cannot be absolutely proven, but that the circumstantial evidence is enough for me to think that he was the Ripper.

There is also a passage in the documentary where I say that as I looked into Lechmere, I arrived at a stage where I felt confident that all the things found would go to bolster his guilt, whereas nothing would go to absolve him. This has actually come true, since the Mizen scam, amongst other things, were discovered after that point.

So, do I accept the statement that I think that the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt? That´s a tough one, and I don´t have to answer it since it was not something I said - it was something that was concluded. And I have no problems accepting that I can give this impression.

However, a documentary with a suspect included will not pull it´s punches. I think that is something we all know.
If I was to rephrase it all, I would say that I think that some doubt must always remain in a case that cannot be proven.
But that´s the legal aspect.

When it comes to personal convictions, we have something else. We have many examples of policemen that have been absolutely certain, not a shadow of a doubt, about the guilt of many serialists, like Ridgway, Hansen, David Carpenter etcetera. The proof has not been there, but still, men representing the legal system of the countries that worked in, have thought it justified to think and say that they are sure they have the right man.

I think my conviction is much the same: much as I accept that I cannot say that it is a proven thing that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, I personally have very, very few doubts about it.

I´m sorry to diosappoint you, if you were looking for the answer that I did say that it was a proven thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Well, I suspect yours is the main reason..

Monty

I could have tried my Jem Mace theory out on her I suppose.

[Fisherman]

You don't know what you're talking about.

And Scobie? Does HE know what HE is talking about? And the documentary - have you seen it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I beg to differ with that. Due to the fact we have not been to what, exactly, was reviewed by Scobie.

The whole? No idea. Tell me, if one member of the family objected, would you have ceased your promotion of Cross completely?

Monty

That question never came up, so it´s kind of academic to try and answer it in retrospect.
As for exactly what Scobie saw, I think you have disqualifies yourself from discussing such a thing when you twice - the second time after having been informed about how Andy Griffiths read up on all the relevant material, paper articles and police reports - stated that he was drip-fed.

You may think what you wish, but to me, that is reason enough not to discuss the topic with you any further, because of this bias. I hope you understand that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...aaand I´m off, all things answered. Well, almost all things anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Quite the opposite. I didn't think you would say that into the camera unless a producer forced your hand. Once my Le Grand book comes out I'd very much like to do a documentary, but I recognize that you're then handing your work over to a producer to be shaped and molded in a way you don't have control over. Much like an author who submits to a publisher. This should not be the case, but it is. However, producing and financing my own doc is not something I really want to do, so hopefully I'll luck out and find someone who'll represent my work as well as you feel yours has been represented. I'm going to push for three hours though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott