The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Trevor Marriott]

Give me your very best example, Trevor - and you will be amazed. Show me one example of how you have damaged the Lechmere theory, and you shall have my reaction and answer.

No endless listings, please, just the one thing that I - according to you - cannot answer or explain will do.

Fisherman
waiting

Post 1265 above

Also the victorian court procedures with regard to the prima faciae case and the suggestion that there was enough to bring him to trial.

The flawed opinion given by Scobie based on him not being presented with the full facts.

Willl these do for a start ?

[Sally]

Your not alnone Sally they have done the same to some of my posts both here and JTR seems they have no answers to some posts which damage their theory.

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

Yes Trevor - although I think the most common response by 'Team Lechmere' to any suggestion of weakness in their theory has been to deny that there are any problems.

Perhaps if they shut their eyes for long enough we'll all go away?

[Sally]

HAVE answered. Many times.

It´s not as if the points we make ar unknown, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

Well then, Fish, you should have no difficulty in pointing me to any one of the posts in which you, or Ed, clarify exactly which later murders Crossmere can be 'tied' to, should you?

Let's see your oft-repeated response then.

Waiting....

[Fisherman]

Well then, Fish, you should have no difficulty in pointing me to any one of the posts in which you, or Ed, clarify exactly which later murders Crossmere can be 'tied' to, should you?

Let's see your oft-repeated response then.

Waiting....

When we say tied, we speak of a connection to Lechmere. We are not saying that we can prove the cases, of course - but we can point to a link.

On this issue, we have pointed to how two torsos were found floating in Regent´s Canal, by Broadway market, in the yars after the Ripper killings. It was never clearly established how the bodies got into the water and what had happened to them before.

At this approximate time, Charles Lechmere can be placed as selling goods in Broadway market.

There are actually cases both before and after the Ripper murders where Lechmere is of interest. It can be exemplified how there has been throat-cutting involved, and how Lechmere had ties to the geographical spots.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Post 1265 above

Also the victorian court procedures with regard to the prima faciae case and the suggestion that there was enough to bring him to trial.

The flawed opinion given by Scobie based on him not being presented with the full facts.

Willl these do for a start ?

A/ The question that is clearly phrased in the documentary is whether there is enough in the case to justify a modern trial. The answer was yes.

B/ It is in no way established that Scobie gave a "flawed opinion". That is your basless and rather rude suggestion only. Scobie gave his opinion based on the points presented against Charles Lechmere - the timings, the geography, the forensic specialists report and so on.
Scobie did not need to know all the details of the Ripper case to make that call, and indeed it would have been an impossible demand. He evaluated a case, and to do that, he needed to see the points of accusation. He clearly had access to newspaper reports from the inquest, since we can see him reading such a report from the Daily Telegraph.

I specifically asked for ONE question, and you asked two. Now that you have had them both answered, I hope that you will refrain from further statements about how I will or can not provide answers to any question.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure this is fair. Because the files we have are not complete, we can't say that. For instance, if you read the police reports on Nichols, her address is given as 18 Thrawl Street in one report and 55 Flower and Dean Street in another, even though at the inquest the 'White House' is mentioned, which is 56 F&D Street. In reality, her final address was 35 Dorset Street, as recorded on her death certificate. Clearly, the police discovered this and recorded it somewhere, just not in the reports that survive to us today. I could name other examples, but it's after 3am and my brain is fried.

Having said all that, the surviving police reports say Cross and not Lechmere, so nobody can prove you wrong. And it's a plain fact that he and Paul should have been searched and investigated. Look at how the men of 40 Berner Street were treated in contrast.

Conversely, the Ripper would have fully expected to be searched and I can't imagine his way of avoiding such an intrusion would be to present himself to a constable before he had a chance to clean up or discard his weapon. To my mind, that's one of the more significant lapses of logic in the Cross theory.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It is completely fair to say that the implicatin is that the police did not find out his true name. As late as on the 19:th of October, a full seven weeks after the murder and the initital stages of the inquest, the police still used the name Cross when referring to the carman.

Although we cannot be certain that the police did not find his true name out at a later stage, we CAN say that if they did, no manhunt seem to have ensued and not a iot about it is mentioned anywhere.

It therefore applies that the police probably didn´t find his name out, and therefore saying that there is an implication that this was so is unquestionably very fair.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Chris: Do you really think you have more information than the police had about "Another PC wants you there"? Didn't they have all the information you have now, and in addition the information they got from interviewing all three parties to the conversation?

They had the information I have. But they seemingly never acted upon it. If they had sensed suspecion, they would have found out the carmans real name, to begin with.
It slipped past them. Just like it slipped past all the authors that wrote about the murders. And they ALSO had the information that I have.

Where his mother lived might just have been relevant if she'd lived close to Berner Street, but as she lived somewhere off Cannon Street Road I don't think it tells us anything.

You could reach Cannon Street via Berner Street, coming from Lechmere´s lodgings. It was placed in an area that makes the Cannon Street address of interest. Plus Lechmere had lived very close to Berner Street for many years, and must have known the area intimately.
Your misgivings aside, these things interest the police.

So it comes down to the surname, which the police may or may not have known about?

No. But you would perhaps have liked to have it that way. I am, however, not wasting any more time on you as for now. You have made your mind up, and it shows very clearly.

And yes, I have too.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You have no idea what the police did re Cross.

However you need a slip up to validate your man, so prey on it, and pepertuate your opinion as fact.

This despite the knowledge of his name, address and workplace was help by PC Ballsup.

Monty

On the contrary, I DO have an idea about what the police did re Cross.

Yes, there was a slip-up if Lechmere was the killer - and we have slip-ups on record.

...but I won´t be spending more of my time on this discussion right now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

You could reach Cannon Street via Berner Street, coming from Lechmere´s lodgings.

This is a joke, surely?

[Sally]

When we say tied, we speak of a connection to Lechmere. We are not saying that we can prove the cases, of course - but we can point to a link.

Ok – What you mean here, surely, is that you think you can point to a potential link? I think that stating that Crossmere ‘can be tied to’ [which I know I have seen written in past discussions] misleads since it strongly implies a resolution that you admit you don’t have.

But let’s think about specifics, shall we?

On this issue, we have pointed to how two torsos were found floating in Regent´s Canal, by Broadway market, in the yars after the Ripper killings. It was never clearly established how the bodies got into the water and what had happened to them before.

With you so far…

At this approximate time, Charles Lechmere can be placed as selling goods in Broadway market.

Ok – thanks Fish. So perhaps you can now clarify:

• What precisely you mean by ‘approximate time’
• How Charles Lechmere ‘can be placed’ at Broadway Market during this specified time.

Your statement appears unequivocal, so I take it that you have hard supporting evidence?

I would be interested – as I’m sure many others would – to learn what that is.

There are actually cases both before and after the Ripper murders where Lechmere is of interest. It can be exemplified how there has been throat-cutting involved, and how Lechmere had ties to the geographical spots.

Right - but that doesn’t answer my question, which is whether you can clarify which later murders – and earlier murders since you mention it – Crossmere can be ‘tied’ to? Stating that he’s ‘of interest’ doesn’t explain your stance, does it? It merely tells me what it is, which I already knew.

It would be useful to learn:

• Which cases before the Ripper murders
• Which cases after the Ripper murders
• How Charles Lechmere can be ‘tied’ to the ‘geographical spot’ – I assume you mean ‘murder sites’ here – but please clarify if not.

Thanks in advance.

[Fisherman]

This is a joke, surely?

[ATTACH]16470[/ATTACH]

Unfortunately, I took you up on writing about "Cannon Street". Lechmeres´mother lived in Cable Street, not Cannon Street.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ok – What you mean here, surely, is that you think you can point to a potential link? I think that stating that Crossmere ‘can be tied to’ [which I know I have seen written in past discussions] misleads since it strongly implies a resolution that you admit you don’t have.

But let’s think about specifics, shall we?



With you so far…



Ok – thanks Fish. So perhaps you can now clarify:

• What precisely you mean by ‘approximate time’
• How Charles Lechmere ‘can be placed’ at Broadway Market during this specified time.

Your statement appears unequivocal, so I take it that you have hard supporting evidence?

I would be interested – as I’m sure many others would – to learn what that is.



Right - but that doesn’t answer my question, which is whether you can clarify which later murders – and earlier murders since you mention it – Crossmere can be ‘tied’ to? Stating that he’s ‘of interest’ doesn’t explain your stance, does it? It merely tells me what it is, which I already knew.

It would be useful to learn:

• Which cases before the Ripper murders
• Which cases after the Ripper murders
• How Charles Lechmere can be ‘tied’ to the ‘geographical spot’ – I assume you mean ‘murder sites’ here – but please clarify if not.

Thanks in advance.

I have given an answer to your question.
Now you ask more questions.
I will leave them unanswered. This material is knit to Edwards upcoming book, and I won´t give it away for free on his behalf.

There is hard evidence that Lechmere was in Broadway Market at the stage in time we are speaking of. So were children of his - as cat´s meat vendors. That´s all you are gonna get from me, I´m afraid.

If you want to know more, you will have to ask Edward, and he will have to make his own calls.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I have given an answer to your question.
Now you ask more questions.
I will leave them unanswered. This material is knit to Edwards upcoming book, and I won´t give it away for free on his behalf.

There is hard evidence that Lechmere was in Broadway Market at the stage in time we are speaking of. So were children of his - as cat´s meat vendors. That´s all you are gonna get from me, I´m afraid.

If you want to know more, you will have to ask Edward, and he will have to make his own calls.

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks Fish - that's about what I expected. Unanswered questions are certainly the order of the day here.

Others will naturally form their own conclusions from that.

[Chris]

Unfortunately, I took you up on writing about "Cannon Street". Lechmeres´mother lived in Cable Street, not Cannon Street.

I do apologise - I was looking at James Street.

So this is the joke, is it?

[Lechmere]

The proposition is dredged up again that the police 'must' have checked Lechmere out.
Why? Because they should have.
We have two police reports that name him as Cross. Just Cross - as late as 18th October 1888. Police reports invariably recorded aliases where known.
It isn't the same as Nichols' address as she had no fixed abode and moved about.
Then we know that the police made a number of errors at the outset of the Nichols case.
We know Lechmere didn't match the criminal profile the police were used to dealing either.
We know the police were already fixating on.the Leather Apron suspect by the time the innocuous looking 'Carman Cross' turned up.
We know the case soon spiralled in other directions with the Chapman murder just a few days after Lechmere's appearance.
We know the names of numerous people the police did look at closely during the early stages of the Nichols case.
We know that even today the police frequently blunder in.the early stages of serial killing or psychopath murder cases.
In short it is little more than absurd to claim that the police must have looked closely at Lechmere. The evidence we have suggests they did not.
Making a case against Lechmere as a suspect based in any way on the notion that 'the police must have checked him out' is simply nonsense.