The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Bitsie]

I disagree but, even if it is accepted that you are right, it's immaterial. The prosecution has to prove its case. The defence has to prove nothing. You appear to be saying that the cases for and against are roughly equal. That isn't even sufficient for the standard of proof in a civil court (balance of probabilities); it falls miles short of the standard of proof in the criminal courts (beyond reasonable doubt).

I'm just engaged in a discussion.

What can or cannot be proved in court isn't necessarily anything to do with what is or isn't true, is it?

[GUT]

Even as the usual suspects wring their hands and suspend their critical faculties to desperately give Lechmere the benefit of doubt at each and every turn - in the real big world outside, the publicity just keeps on a-rollin'. ENJOY!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...inologist.html

And the daily mail, boy they are on a roll they've now named Jack twice in two months, pity that it was two different Jacks.

[Chris]

Somewhat reminiscent of 314.1c and a certain shawl.

Don't mention the shawl! (I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.)

[Robert]

"He predicted that Jack the Ripper would have been local and able to walk the streets in the early hours without being suspected."

Well, since the women were killed on the streets in the early hours by a man who managed to waylay them and then escape, I would say that walking the streets in the early hours without being suspected would seem to have been the minimum requirement.

[Lechmere]

Posting up snippets that have been discussed at length before and which only impresses a certain type of Ripperologist - versus mainstream news coverage pre publication.

Hmmm a fee wasn't necessary.

[GUT]

Don't mention the shawl! (I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.)

So are you Chris or Basil

[jmenges]

Even as the usual suspects wring their hands and suspend their critical faculties to desperately give Lechmere the benefit of doubt at each and every turn - in the real big world outside, the publicity just keeps on a-rollin'. ENJOY!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...inologist.html

Please let us know when it's safe to publicize the first ever seen photo of your 'Jack the Ripper' (that doesn't belong to you and was shown on national television) as I kindly bowed to your request to pull it on Facebook, out of the goodness of my heart.

Now I'm having second thoughts.

JM

[GUT]

Our intrepid Chiminologist seems to not know the difference between a carman for Messers pickfords and co and a Cats Meat man or is the just that great publication the Daily Mail.

[Stewart P Evans]

Careful

Posting up snippets that have been discussed at length before and which only impresses a certain type of Ripperologist - versus mainstream news coverage pre publication.
Hmmm a fee wasn't necessary.

Be very careful that you don't sound as if you are gloating, people don't like that.

[Lechmere]

Robert - yes very astute. It counts out ludicrous suspects like Tumblety - but who would want to promote a grotesque like that as a credible candidate to be Jack the Ripper?

[Stewart P Evans]

I wondered...

Robert - yes very astute. It counts out ludicrous suspects like Tumblety - but who would want to promote a grotesque like that as a credible candidate to be Jack the Ripper?

I wondered how long it would be before you raised the ghost of Tumblety.

The old, old ploy, attack someone else's suspect to deflect from your own deficiencies. The person who would name Tumblety as a contemporary suspect - and a very likely one - was not I. It was the respected ex-head of the Special Branch at Scotland Yard Chief Inspector John George Littlechild who was the head there from 1883 to 1893.

Still, you have such an inflated ego you probably believe that you know better than Littlechild.

[Lechmere]

Mr Merges
How do you think Blink obtained the photo?

[Stewart P Evans]

Please explain...

No Tom the subject came up as evans was piously going on about it - despite his churlish denial.

Please explain this cryptic remark.

[Bitsie]

Oh dear, never mind evidence and all the rest of it I'm not sure I can stomach agreeing with anything The Daily Mail supports.

[Tom_Wescott]

Posting up snippets that have been discussed at length before and which only impresses a certain type of Ripperologist - versus mainstream news coverage pre publication.

Hmmm a fee wasn't necessary.

So the documentary producers did not pay you and Fish for the work you did on their behalf? I hope that's not so, because that means you're a soft touch and got ripped off. Pre-publication promotion is silly. People forget this stuff within days.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott