The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Harry D]

Tracy knows very well where she has got me on this issue - I have said - and donīt mind saying again - that Jacob Cohen is one of the better suspects to have emerged the last few years.
But that does not per se make him a good suspect - he is not, not by any means.

He is a type that some favour (personally I donīt, I think that he would never have been able to pull off the Ripper series), but there is not a shred of evidence pointing in his way.

So better than most, but not good at all.

One may wonder, at any rate, why you think it so appalingly harsh of me not to like Cohen as a suspect, and why you take pity on Tracy for my stance. You donīt hesitate to name the much better suspect Lechmere a crackpot theory (and consequently dubbing me and Edward crackpots) - thatīs quite legitimate, for some odd reason.

I have been out here for a good many years - much, much longer than you have. During that time, I have never seen a single poster express concerns about how an upcoming documentary would be slanted and biased. In that respect, this is a first.

I have my own theory as to what that depends on.

The best,
Fisherman

Jacob Levy. Not Cohen. I believe 'Jacob Cohen' was the guy who testified that Kosminski was fruit loops.

[Fisherman]

Probably is a long way from being conclusive. I suspect that is what we shall see experts saying just that "probably"

That is "probably" true, since there is no conclusive evidence and since nobody ever has claimed that there is.

But if a board of experts say "This is quite probably the Whitechapel killer", then I can live with that.

Can you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure the idea of Cross as Ripper has enough to it to really call it a theory. But I envy Fish and Stow's conviction that they know who the Ripper is.
Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

And I envy you your sense of humour.

Your sense of proportions I can do without.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jacob Levy. Not Cohen. I believe 'Jacob Cohen' was the guy who testified that Kosminski was fruit loops.

Yeah, Levy. Right. Goes to show my level of interest in the guy (Sorry Tracy!)

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

Has all of this work by the Ianson's been compiled in one place yet for easy reading? I confess I'm not versed in it at all because I don't like to follow random posts placed in a variety of places. But I would very much like a discursive essay on the subject. Perhaps one already exists and as scattered as I've been this past year I missed it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello, Tom. I would be willing to e-mail you the paper on Levy that Tracy sent to me, which I believe is the current edition, although I feel obliged to check with Tracy first.

[Harry D]

Tracy knows very well where she has got me on this issue - I have said - and donīt mind saying again - that Jacob Cohen is one of the better suspects to have emerged the last few years.
But that does not per se make him a good suspect - he is not, not by any means.

What is your barometer for judging a 'good suspect', Fish? Whether they were found with the body or not?

He is a type that some favour (personally I donīt, I think that he would never have been able to pull off the Ripper series), but there is not a shred of evidence pointing in his way.

Because he was mentally ill, no doubt? Bear in mind that Jacob Levy was not sent to the asylum until 1890, two years after the height of the murders. Had he been a gibbering wreck in 1888, he wouldn't have lasted that long before he was carted away. Furthermore, as the Ripper was never caught in the act, we have no definitive knowledge of WHAT kind of man he really was. In many respects the Ripper is a unique serial killer and I remain open to the possibility that the murders could've been performed with an animal cunning, rather than some evil genius.

One may wonder, at any rate, why you think it so appalingly harsh of me not to like Cohen as a suspect, and why you take pity on Tracy for my stance. You donīt hesitate to name the much better suspect Lechmere a crackpot theory (and consequently dubbing me and Edward crackpots) - thatīs quite legitimate, for some odd reason.

Make no mistake, I have no problem with your opinion on Levy as a suspect, you have every right to believe what you want, but the flippancy with which you treated him, coupled with the non-starter you're championing, is disrespectful to the researchers who brought Levy to our attention. And no offence, but I believe their work to be laudable than yours.

I have been out here for a good many years - much, much longer than you have. During that time, I have never seen a single poster express concerns about how an upcoming documentary would be slanted and biased. In that respect, this is a first.

You'll find I'm full of surprises.

I have my own theory as to what that depends on.

Que?

[Michael W Richards]

To my recollection there has never been any production about a proposed Suspect, literary or otherwise, that has not used some form of interpretation of the data that was slanted towards their own conclusions. Particularly in the cases where the conclusion appears in the first few pages, or minutes, and the rest is an explanation.

Its likely to be the case as long as people study these crimes, because when you assume a killer profile before solving even a single murder then you are doomed to defend that profile by reading into the known data. Just disregard any evidence that contradicts your own take on the issue, use less credible sources who stated incredible things whenever possible, and try to explain why the Five kills were not all of the same character, but that they were by the same character.

I would think the absolute best way to present any ideas about Cross as a suspect for the Nichols murder would be to present as yet discovered evidence that at the very least places him on Hanbury for the next one.

The first 2 Canonicals were almost certainly done by one person, without evidence a suspect was available and sighted near the 2nd murder scene and near the time of the murder, its just as I suggested earlier....its a potential suspect for the 1st murder, not a series of them, and this suspect must have been capable and able to do the 2nd murder for a "Ripper" suspect claim to even be made.

Cheers

[Lechmere]

'Ripperology' - normal service resumed.

[Fisherman]

I would think the absolute best way to present any ideas about Cross as a suspect for the Nichols murder would be to present as yet discovered evidence that at the very least places him on Hanbury for the next one.
Cheers

Should be a piece of cake 126 years after the murder, right? But we can get close, nevertheless:

We KNOW that he at times employed Hanbury Street when going to work. We know that he would have passed the murder site at around, say, 3.45 if he kept to his ordinary Schedule. We know that Phillips, who saw Chapman at 6.30 said that she had been dead at least two hours, taking us back to 4.30, but probably more - taking us back to some time Before 4.30, perhaps 3.45.

Try and Place any of the other suspects outside 29 Hanbury Street with the same accuracy - or with any accuracy at all. Try to place any other suspect there at all.

You will fail miserably.

Lechmere is by far and away the best bid, once more.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry D:

What is your barometer for judging a 'good suspect', Fish? Whether they were found with the body or not?

Thatīs not my barometer, Harry - itīs the official police barometer.

Because he was mentally ill, no doubt? Bear in mind that Jacob Levy was not sent to the asylum until 1890, two years after the height of the murders. Had he been a gibbering wreck in 1888, he wouldn't have lasted that long before he was carted away. Furthermore, as the Ripper was never caught in the act, we have no definitive knowledge of WHAT kind of man he really was. In many respects the Ripper is a unique serial killer and I remain open to the possibility that the murders could've been performed with an animal cunning, rather than some evil genius.

Animal cunning sounds and leaves traces. If I am to accept it, I want evidence of some sort.

Make no mistake, I have no problem with your opinion on Levy as a suspect, you have every right to believe what you want, but the flippancy with which you treated him, coupled with the non-starter you're championing, is disrespectful to the researchers who brought Levy to our attention. And no offence, but I believe their work to be laudable than yours.

No, itīs not disrespectful, and you should not speak of lacking respect. I have said that there is not a shred of evidence against Levy, not a iot. Is that true or is it disrespectful?

You'll find I'm full of surprises.

Actually, I find you very predictable.

Que?

Si!

The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Should be a piece of cake 126 years after the murder, right? But we can get close, nevertheless:

We KNOW that he at times employed Hanbury Street when going to work. We know that he would have passed the murder site at around, say, 3.45 if he kept to his ordinary Schedule. We know that Phillips, who saw Chapman at 6.30 said that she had been dead at least two hours, taking us back to 4.30, but probably more - taking us back to some time Before 4.30, perhaps 3.45.

Try and Place any of the other suspects outside 29 Hanbury Street with the same accuracy - or with any accuracy at all. Try to place any other suspect there at all.

You will fail miserably.

Lechmere is by far and away the best bid, once more.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman,

You have made an illogical conclusion using the known evidence pal, but in your defense you do have some contemporary opinion on TOD to help confuse the issues...but the crux is this...... there was a female voice and a thud heard from the very backyard that the body was found in at around 5:15am. Unless Cadosche lied, and why would he, then that woman was not standing over an already dead woman when she softly cried "no".

The evidence including Cadosche is that the woman who was found in the yard near 6am called out "no" while Cadosche was on the other side of the fence around 5:15. Not one of those physicians could accurately estimate the time it would take to cool...the body that is....because the only time they had ever seen a body in something like that condition before was in an operating room in Dissection Class. A heated room.

Of course that also means that Mrs Long didn't see Annie. But maybe Mrs Fiddymont saw her killer later on....and I doubt you intend to make a case for that being Cross.

See what I mean Fish....if we assume, and I believe correctly, that the first 2murders were certainly the work of one man, then neither can be solved without solving both.

Cheers

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello, Tom. I would be willing to e-mail you the paper on Levy that Tracy sent to me, which I believe is the current edition, although I feel obliged to check with Tracy first.

Thanks Harry. That'd be much appreciated. Has this already been published somewhere? I do tend to get busy and not read some articles that I should until much later.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

When I see Trevor and Richards teaming up to tell Fish he's wrong and illogical, it makes me step back and wonder if Fish isn't actually on to something.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

When I see Trevor and Richards teaming up to tell Fish he's wrong and illogical, it makes me step back and wonder if Fish isn't actually on to something.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:
What can the documentary bring to the table which we are not already aware of.

The views of experts with no vested interest in the Ripper business, thatīs what. An unbiased verdict as opposed to the utter poppycock that anybody who suggests a suspect that does not belong to the "legitimate" ones is subjected to on these boards.

Are you prepared to comment on the two different persons both name Cross ? who were both around at the same time it would seem.

I am ever so prepared - which is very bad news for you.

There never were two people named Cross in the way you suggest. One was named Lechmere. That man lived in 22 Doveton Street - which interestingly is the same address the witness Cross lived in. He was working for Pickfords as a carman - which interestingly is the same thing as Charles Cross of inquest fame did.

Are you suggesting that your carman of Lambeth Road was the Charles Cross that appeared at the inquest, and that he lived at 22 Doveton Street in early September 1888 - like the carman at the inquest claimed? Because if he said that, then he would be lying since Charles Allen Lechmere moved into 22 Doveton Street in June 1888. Itīs on record.

Maybe he just lied about the address and just happened to pick 22 Doveton Street out of his magic hat? Or did Charles Lechmere, the carman, move out from his dwellings the first week in September, handing it over temporarily to the carman Charles Cross of Lambeth Road?

You are the police, you tell me what this adds up to!

If you are to reason about things like these, there must be some sort of quality in your reasoning. If there isnīt, it will look very bad.

The best,
Fisherman

If I have missed something then I apologize but aside from the census records where does it say in 1888 that the Charles Cross who gave evidence on oath at the inquest, the same Charles Cross that found the body, resided at Doveton Road?