The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Chris]

How can you be expected to be taken seriously if you are going to mislead people and exagerate the case against them

So Cross was actually depicted kneeling over the body?

[Robert]

Or proposing marriage to it.

[Sally]

Or proposing marriage to it.

Bigamous, you see - just like his old Mum.

[Sally]

#1

Well, if you read my post to Abby, you will know that I am quite aware that I may be the one person on the face of Earth that will be perhaps most likely to read things into this photo
.
That being said, Iīd like to point out that I have repeatedly written about how phrenology was a very important factor back in those days, and that it carried huge risks with it when it came to how physical criminal archetypes were outlined.

I read your post to Abby, Fish, and note your caveat. However…

And indeed, it is not the shape of Lechmeeīs head or the structure of his jawbone or something such that I find chilling with the Picture - it is instead his pose, which is so unusual for elderly people in the early 20:th century, when having their picture taken.

Ok – given that you have made the above statement, now I will obviously ask you to support your statement with quantitative evidence – Please can you confirm, Fish:

• The number of early 20th Century photographs of elderly people that you have seen. You will need to have seen a number that can be considered statistically valid; and will need first to define, of course, what you mean by the terms ‘early 20th century’ and ‘elderly people’ A ball-park range will do.
• A typology of poses adopted by elderly people in early 20th century photographs – in order to demonstrate that the pose adopted by Crossmere was indeed ‘so unusual’

I think Charles Lechmere was a selv-serving, self-confident man who thought himself superior and justified to take other persons lifes - just the way many psychopathic serialists have over the years. That is the context in which I see the portrait.

I am fully aware that many people all over the world have looked at similarly looking portraits and gone "Ah, look, itīs grandfather - how nice he looks!"

Ah – so you concede that your personal opinion is entirely subjective and the consequence of your ideas about Charles Lechmere? Just as well, or you'd have had a bit more work to do.

To my mind, a very compelling suspect Ripper documentary cannot be produced if a worthless and ridiculous suspect is presented, unless you outright lie in the documentary. If you stay with the facts, then the suspect must be a valid one, or you will not end up with a very compelling documentary.

But maybe thatīs just my take on things. We often differ, you and I, we both know that.

Nope, Fish – I’m afraid that is simply untrue. The recent documentary on Crossmere was made primarily to entertain – it is a piece of popular entertainment. The term ‘documentary’ in this context does not necessarily imply a portrayal of the entire and unadorned facts. It’s T.V. for the general public, not an academic paper for peer review – the target audience is entirely different and thus the product. There is little or no requirement for critical analysis and it remains entirely true that the main focus of popular entertainment such as this is to tell a good story – nobody would watch it otherwise and it would be unjustifiable in monetary terms – key, as I’m sure you realise, to production to begin with.

Fundamentally, the ‘truth’ of the story being told can be less than absolute – I can cite several examples if you wish. The Crossmere documentary openly ‘glossed over’ some of the facts – and it could be argued in addition, misled in parts as well. I don’t think that this makes it a ‘bad’ popular documentary: I think it makes it what it is and what I’d logically expect it to be.

[Rob Clack]

So Cross was actually depicted kneeling over the body?

He was, and from different angles. Replayed several times for maximum effect.

[Sally]

#2

But still, people with decades of Ripperology behind then, and who have proven themselves razor sharp, clever and knowledgable otherwise, resort to such things. When that happens, we are dealing with something that looks more like sabotage than Ripperology. And I NEVER ask myself "are they that dense..?", because I know full well they are not. Quite the contrary, actually. So there is something else going on, letīs make no bones about that.

Well, I don’t think that’s quite the way that it happens, is it? Not really. If we want to revisit the ‘found with a murder victim’ debate, then here’s the thing: You have strongly implied, in print, on more than one occasion, that Crossmere was ‘found’ standing next to a murder victim. The implication of you phrasing is clearly that Crossmere was guilty – and that has been carried over into the recent documentary, hasn’t it?

Contemporary documentary evidence, on the other hand, suggests that Crossmere was standing in the middle of the road when Paul saw him and that he in fact approached Paul in order to gain his attention. There is no suggestion that Crossmere was ‘found’ by anybody: the term strongly implies the discovery of covert action of some sort - which does not appear to have been the case at all. Sorry, Fish, but Crossmere emphatically wasn’t ‘found’ and certainly wasn’t ‘leaning over’ the body.

Now obviously, Fish, more or less everybody with a reasonable knowledge of the case can see the difference there and might even possibly interpret the stark contrast between your interpretation and the recorded facts as sleight of hand on your part – I’m not saying that it is – just that you should be able to see that it might come accros as such and that if that were so, it might be quite irritating to others. I don’t think it requires that ‘there is something else going on’ at all. In spite of what has sometimes been alleged on Casebook; I personally doubt the existence of any Ripperological conspiracies – people have lives, you know.

[Chris]

He was, and from different angles. Replayed several times for maximum effect.

Given this kind of misrepresentation, one shudders to think what kind of bullet points the producers provided Mr Scobie with.

Come to think of it, did Edward Stow ever explain how he come to assure us that Mr Scobie's opinions were based on sight of all the documentation, rather just these bullet points?

[Fisherman]

So Cross was actually depicted kneeling over the body?

Yes. You see, Chris, we cast Lechmere as the killer in the documentary, and we made the assumption that for her to be able to kill Nichols, he would have to approach her in some way.

We pondered the old use-a-machete-on-a-stick-so-he-reaches-her-from-the-middle-of-the-road ploy, but ultimately gave up on it, since it looked awkward.

You may need to see the documentary, and it is up on Youtube now so thereīs your chance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs82vNf0MyU

Im not discussing it on this level anymore.

Fisherman

[Sally]

They have to get factual before anything can be assessed, and very many posters remain strictly unfactual. Just like you do now, they go on about how "fundamental weaknesses" are there - but they deprive me of the possibility to take a look at these so called weaknesses. Very few things have been brought up (and thatīs totally understandable).

But Fish – every point of weakness has been brought up, time and time and time again, by many, many commentators. You, and Ed too, for that matter, persist in stating that these counterarguments have all been ‘addressed’ and ‘dealt with’ and ‘covered’ when in fact what you have done is consistently deny that there are any issues – not the same thing at all.

Top dogs are:

-He would have run in Buckīs Row - something Andy Griffiths decidedly disagreed with. It was never an option even, in his eyes.

The running – I don’t think it’s possible to say either way, myself and consider it a somewhat redundant argument. Had Crossmere been the Ripper he may have run, he may not have run. Whatever his ‘psychosis’ may, or may not have been; the variables involved are too many to accurately predict what he would do on a given occasion. Andy Griffiths is welcome to his opinion; but it falls short of critical thought in mine.

-It was odd that he gave his Christian names and his working spot to the inquest if he wanted to stay incognito. And we have explained a million times that he wished to stay unknown to his friends, if we are right - but that he did not want to take the risk of saying that he was John Smith of 396 Marylebone Road, working at the Riverside Café, since the police in such a case could have checked him and found him a total liar. He would have hung, eventually, for that, in all probability. He instead balanced inbetween two wishes: that of being as clear and truthful as possible when speaking to the police, and that of hiding when he testified at the inquest.

The name: Right, ok - to what end? Crossmere wanted to ‘stay incognito’ to his friends to what end? If you want acceptance of your premise you will need to account for his motivation in your allegation that he wilfully sought to deceive his friends. I hope that your explanation here will be better than your theorising regarding his wife – because that, as they say, holds no water at all. I can tell you why, if you like - although several others have already done an excellent job.

If this was not what he did, then only one explanation remains: He DID call himself Cross on an everyday basis. But that suggestion is totally undermined by our factual knowledge that he always signed himself Lechmere. Plus there is not a iot of acknowledgement among the Lechmeres of today that the name Cross has ever been spoken of in combination with stories about earlier generations.

Well, that’s the thing, Fish. The suggestion that Crossmere called himself; or was called ‘Cross’ in at least some walks of everyday life really isn’t undermined by your ‘factual knowledge that he always signed himself Lechmere’ It cannot be certain that Crossmere was known ubiquitously as Lechmere in 1888. Simply, the written record is not equivalent to reality as lived. [a mistake so often made by undergraduate students and those who fancy themselves historians] and whilst it may be an indication of a wider truth, equally, it may not.

As has been pointed out by many people over the last couple of years, in short the fact that Crossmere used the name Lechmere officially in fact carries no indication at all as to whether he was known as Lechmere socially, or at work. The premise that there must be a causal relationship here is fundamentally flawed.

As pointed out by many, the use of aliases was commonplace in the LVP. Eddowes is a pertinent example already given by others: We know that she called herself Mary Kelly; she is recorded more than once in the Whitechapel Infirmary records as ‘Kate Conway’ – yet was referred to officially as Catherine Eddow[e]s before 1888, in 1888 and since that time. What was her ‘real’ name?

Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to suggest that Crossmere chose to call himself Cross on this occasion because he wanted to avoid, insofar as was possible, the press – a straightforward, if admittedly mundane, explanation. Removing the ‘guilty’ filter for a moment we see only an ordinary man who was unfortunate enough to encounter a murdered woman on his way to work and tried to involve himself – and by extension his family - as little as possible.

We could go on, I expect. We could talk about the unaddressed problems with the suggestions that:

• Crossmere was ‘controlling’ – on what basis has this premise been advanced? All that I have seen is the Ed’s insistence that a conscientious approach to signing official documents is indicative of a controlling personality. I try not to laugh at the ideas of others – in my world it wouldn’t go down well [tempting though it sometimes is] but really?? Oh – but I was forgetting – there’s always the ‘menacing’ photograph, eh? That too?

• Crossmere had delusions of grandeur – evidence for this premise, please? The fact that he was descended from a family who had known better times is not sufficient to extrapolate to this extent – for a start it presupposes that he knew all about his ‘illustrious’ ancestors – hardly a given, even if you do. There can be further discussion on this point if you like.

• Crossmere had a ‘controlling’ mother who dominated his life. Evidence for this premise, please? You will say, no doubt, that the number of and circumstances surrounding her marriages confirm it – although clearly they don’t. The could, they might – but in and of themselves, they are insufficient factors from which to draw a sound or safe conclusion. We can discuss this at length if you wish.

• Crossmere ‘resented’ his stepfather, Thomas Cross. Evidence for this premise, please? As far as I can see, this appears to be wholly conjectural – an idea that fits nicely into the general theorising about Crossmere’s personality; but which is not actually evidenced at all. It is exactly the same as suggesting, say, that Joseph Barnett was the Ripper because of his familial circumstances – in fact, there’s a clear theoretical parallel to be drawn there.

• That Crossmere was able to continue his murderous spree undaunted, in spite of having come to the attention of the police early on, because of the incompetence and/or general awareness of the police at the time. You will be able to draw parallels here which demonstrate that this is possible; but I think no more than that. There appears to be no direct or circumstantial evidence to support the contention in Crossmere’s case. Again, it fits into the theory, but is unsupported.

• That Crossmere stopped killing and lived a mundane life into old age [again, parallels with Barnett-Theory]. I see that more recently, you have suggested that Crossmere indeed continued to murder well beyond the Autumn of Terror. Evidence for this premise, please? Which murders, specifically – and what ‘ties’ Crossmere to them in your opinion?

I’m sure I can think of some more, but I daresay that’ll do for now. You don't need to feel obliged to enter into a long and protracted discussion with me regarding the above necessarily - but these are all points which have been raised and dismissed several times over by 'Team Lechmere' so if you could actually address them somewhere, that'd be good.

[jmenges]

• That Crossmere stopped killing and lived a mundane life into old age [again, parallels with Barnett-Theory]. I see that more recently, you have suggested that Crossmere indeed continued to murder well beyond the Autumn of Terror. Evidence for this premise, please? Which murders, specifically – and what ‘ties’ Crossmere to them in your opinion?

Well, at this point in the documentary where they announce Christer is investigating other murders, the camera zooms to a newspaper article on a Torso murder.

Don't you know that Lechmere's mum lived at 23 Pinchin Street?

So this may be spiraling into R. Michael Gordon territory. Who knows.

JM

[Sally]

Well, at this point in the documentary where they announce Christer is investigating other murders, the camera zooms to a newspaper article on a Torso murder.

Don't you know that Lechmere's mum lived at 23 Pinchin Street?

So this may be spiraling into R. Michael Gordon territory. Who knows.

JM

Yes, I'd gathered that Crossmere was being pinned for the Torso murders as well - Pinchin Street, Cat's Meat business - all potentially incriminating viewed through the right lens.

Murderous forays abroad hadn't occurred to me, I admit - unlikely, surely, on a humble carman's income - but then again, I understand that he left a considerable sum in his will, so you never know I guess.

[Rob Clack]

Given this kind of misrepresentation, one shudders to think what kind of bullet points the producers provided Mr Scobie with.

Come to think of it, did Edward Stow ever explain how he come to assure us that Mr Scobie's opinions were based on sight of all the documentation, rather just these bullet points?

Yes it does make me wonder what Scobie, Griffiths and Norris had access to. From watching the documentary it looks like they were basing there opinions on what Christer and Ed fed them.

[Robert]

Actually, Fish, the you tube link you posted brings up 'this video is not available in your country.'

[Fisherman]

Actually, Fish, the you tube link you posted brings up 'this video is not available in your country.'

Well, sorry about that, Robert - it works here. And when a Youtube clipping works in Sweden, it normally works in Mongolia, Madagascar and the Arab Emirates, and the rest of the world too.

But apparently not this time. It may perhaps have to do with copyright stuff and such things.

Donīt tell me you havent seen it either...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Yes. You see, Chris, we cast Lechmere as the killer in the documentary, and we made the assumption that for her to be able to kill Nichols, he would have to approach her in some way.

We pondered the old use-a-machete-on-a-stick-so-he-reaches-her-from-the-middle-of-the-road ploy, but ultimately gave up on it, since it looked awkward.

Thanks for the sarcasm.

But clearly that graphic is meant to reflect what Paul saw - he is standing there in the background. So it's grossly misleading.