The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Chris]

That's because an American pulled the field from the trenches back in February.

Not to mention the Australian crime enthusiasts in October.

[Lechmere]

Oh dear is this the only way people can try to criticise a theory, by lying, misleading, twisting and turning the facts.

[Monty]

I see James Scobie QC has stuck to his tradition of backing losers.

Not a good man to have on your side

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ce-speech.html.

Monty

[Lechmere]

I'd say his opinions on the viability of a case from a defence perspective are worth listening to...

http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/james-scobie-qc/

[Lechmere]

Andy Griffiths is no slouch either:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_the_UK_Police_Interview_Suspects.php

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/andy-griffiths-ba-hons-phd-fcmi/29/985/744

[Rob Clack]

Show me where I have Lied, Mislead, twisted and turned the facts Ed.

Thank you.

[Lechmere]

Show me where the program or article Lied, Mislead, twisted and turned the facts Robert.

Thank you.
Just relax and have a cup of tea.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'd say his opinions on the viability of a case from a defence perspective are worth listening to...

http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk...mes-scobie-qc/

It all comes down to whether or not these experts were presented with the full facts to enable them to give their opinions. Or was it a one sided approach with what has been presented so far to support this?

If that was the case and I suspect it probably was then the opinions are almost worthless.

With what has been presented to us in my opinion would not have been enough evidence to put before a jury. The criteria today is that when a case is considered for prosecution the prosecutors have to be certain that they have more than a reasonable chance of securing a conviction based on the evidence available to them.

That evidence takes into account what an accused might say in answer to the allegations against him. In this case we can only speculate as to what Cross might have said or presumably did say in relation to the ambiguities with regards to him giving his other name.

And there lies the rub of the green with all of this for all we know he might have chosen to use his adopted name Cross after his mother re married. If he had said that at the time and I can only assume he did because there was nothing written or suggested that there was anything sinister at the time

If that was the case, bang goes a big part of what has been suggested of him being the killer. His "sinister" actions as some describe are also negated by the fact that he gave a correct address.

So if he were the killer did he have time to run away- Yes

So if he were the killer would he have given his right name and address -No

Was he walking to work at the times the other murders took place- Very few

Was he ever a police suspect -No

Id there a prima facie case against him today -No

Is he the best suspect to date- No

[Rob Clack]

Show me where the program or article Lied, Mislead, twisted and turned the facts Robert.

Thank you.
Just relax and have a cup of tea.

"He was found leaning over the first victim, Polly Nichols, in Buck’s Row (Derward St) on August 31, 1888, on his route to work at 3.45am—but gave police a false name before disappearing into the night."

He was not found leaning over the first victim, so that's a lie.
3:45? facts wrong.

"Letchemere’s route coincides with locations of other Ripper killings that year in Hanbury Street, Dorset Street and Mitre Square at roughly the times he would have been passing, with another in Berners Street (Henriques St) where his mother lived."

You can't prove his routes coincide with Mitre Square or Dorset Street or even Berner Street. Nor have you any evidence that he was out and about at the times those victims were murdered. So we can chalk that one to misleading.

"TV researchers from Blink film studios at Haggerson, by the Regent’s Canal, have been on Letchemere’s trail for the past year since the allegations about him were first splashed in the Advertiser on the 125th anniversary of Nichols’s slaughter."

So the allegations about him were first splashed in the Advertiser last year? Well we know that is a blatant lie.

"That gave Lechemere time to vanish, according to Stowe, who added: “He’s the only one who can be linked geographically as well as timing to all five main Ripper murders.”"

No links or timings to all five main Ripper murders. Misleading and factually incorrect.

"“Lechmere was discovered standing over the body by passer-by Robert Paul but bizarrely no one seemed to think that was an important fact. Nobody seemed to pay attention to the person who was found at the body."

Again, he wasn't standing over the body.
Other people have looked at Lechmere, long before you and Mcnab.

"When Lechmere left the scene he told a policeman that another officer was already at the body, a lie that allowed him to walk past the officer without suspicion."

No he didn't

"He worked as a meat delivery driver for Pickfords and would have been covered in blood on a daily basis; the perfect alibi."

Meat delivery driver? covered in blood on a daily basis? Lie, misleading, factually incorrect. Take your pick on that one.

"Researchers found the other Ripper *murders were committed either on Lechmere’s route to work or near his mother’s house."

Mitre Square on his route to work now? I doubt if he would have got to work by 4 o'clock then.

Basically it is one bile pile of crap.

Oh, I enjoyed my cup of tea.

[Trevor Marriott]

"He was found leaning over the first victim, Polly Nichols, in Buck’s Row (Derward St) on August 31, 1888, on his route to work at 3.45am—but gave police a false name before disappearing into the night."

He was not found leaning over the first victim, so that's a lie.
3:45? facts wrong.

"Letchemere’s route coincides with locations of other Ripper killings that year in Hanbury Street, Dorset Street and Mitre Square at roughly the times he would have been passing, with another in Berners Street (Henriques St) where his mother lived."

You can't prove his routes coincide with Mitre Square or Dorset Street or even Berner Street. Nor have you any evidence that he was out and about at the times those victims were murdered. So we can chalk that one to misleading.

"TV researchers from Blink film studios at Haggerson, by the Regent’s Canal, have been on Letchemere’s trail for the past year since the allegations about him were first splashed in the Advertiser on the 125th anniversary of Nichols’s slaughter."

So the allegations about him were first splashed in the Advertiser last year? Well we know that is a blatant lie.

"That gave Lechemere time to vanish, according to Stowe, who added: “He’s the only one who can be linked geographically as well as timing to all five main Ripper murders.”"

No links or timings to all five main Ripper murders. Misleading and factually incorrect.

"“Lechmere was discovered standing over the body by passer-by Robert Paul but bizarrely no one seemed to think that was an important fact. Nobody seemed to pay attention to the person who was found at the body."

Again, he wasn't standing over the body.
Other people have looked at Lechmere, long before you and Mcnab.

"When Lechmere left the scene he told a policeman that another officer was already at the body, a lie that allowed him to walk past the officer without suspicion."

No he didn't

"He worked as a meat delivery driver for Pickfords and would have been covered in blood on a daily basis; the perfect alibi."

Meat delivery driver? covered in blood on a daily basis? Lie, misleading, factually incorrect. Take your pick on that one.

"Researchers found the other Ripper *murders were committed either on Lechmere’s route to work or near his mother’s house."

Mitre Square on his route to work now? I doubt if he would have got to work by 4 o'clock then.

Basically it is one bile pile of crap.

Oh, I enjoyed my cup of tea.

Rob
You have summed it up nicely and further criticism should fall in the lap of Blink films for not fully checking what was being put before them.

Or perhaps they did but saw a gap in the market for presenting a documentary on a suspect to which none had been done before. But of course it will go out and as always the public will believe what they are seeing, not knowing the other side to the story.

[Lechmere]

Trevor that is your opinion.
But you have rushed to make judgements even though you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge about key aspects of the case against Lechmere.
I know Andy Griffiths took care to study the evidence thoroughly and Scobie was no push over either.
And some might judge their opinions carry more weight and seniority to yours.

[Sally]

Misleading? Fact-twisting? I'm not sure what else could have been anticipatedby anybody who has followed the overexposure of the Crossmere theory on this forum. I know that this isn't the first time that we've seen the old 'leaning over the body' claim. I was quite irritated by it the first time as I recall.

But I doubt there's much cause for concern. I'm sure that the forthcoming documentary will inspire some popular interest - it's a great tale, albeit a fantasy. But, the crowd is fickle, as everybody knows; and the flurry of interest will last all of five minutes - particularly since anybody interested enough to look a little further can easily come across thousands of posts right here that demonstrate exactly what the problems with Crossmere are. It isn't pretty.

In short, if it's bollocks, it'll out.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor that is your opinion.
But you have rushed to make judgements even though you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge about key aspects of the case against Lechmere.
I know Andy Griffiths took care to study the evidence thoroughly and Scobie was no push over either.
And some might judge their opinions carry more weight and seniority to yours.

Never mind the opinions. The fact is that the key aspects of the case do not stand up to close scrutiny which ever way you look at them.

Are you telling me that when you took this to them you told them that Lechmere and Cross were one and the same and that there might have been a legitimate reason why he may have given his adopted name.

Did you tell them that he gave his correct address?

Did they check the estimated times of the murders against what you were telling them about his early morning walks?

If you did and they still went ahead then as I said the program will mislead and it is them that should be called to task also

[Rob Clack]

I keep hearing the word "Evidence" used to push Lechmere as a suspect but have failed to find one piece of it in the thousands and thousands of posts on him.

[Lechmere]

Let's go through these misleading retorts.

Some were in the rushed piece in the East London Advertiser which isn't what Robert originally quoted from, so it is very misleading to promiscuously mix up quotations from two different newspaper stories.

However - the leaning over the body bit is something that 'Ripperologists' seem to get dreadfully excited about. It's something I have never claimed, but when you talk about the scenario to interested neutrals they translate it to 'standing over the body' as, in essence, if not in precise exactitude, that is how he was described by Paul. In investigative terms it is essentially the same as well.
The difference between standing over the body and being a couple of yards away, stretched even by a few extra inches if he approached from an oblique angle, is not material. This is a classic example of 'Ripperollgical' irrelevance, and lack of understanding of what is and what isn't significant.

Robert Paul who seemed to.know he was late and so presumably knew the time, said he found Lechmere at 3.45, so it is misleading to suggest that is a wrong fact.

The Mitre Square reference was an error in the rushed East London.Advertiser story.
Disinterested neutrals (including experienced criminologists) accept that his routes to work coincided withheld other murder scenes. It is only biased 'Ripprrologists' who do.not.
Experienced investigative criminologists who are not absorbed by their own agendas accept the implied connections geographically and on timings to Lechmere without a problem - because they are obvious.

The Advertiser clearly has an agenda to big up its own roll - big deal. That's what newspapers do.

When Mcnab discusses that no one took notice of Lechmere he was not referring to people nowadays - he was referring to people in 1888!
In any case although Lechmere was tentatively discussed several years ago, the theory went nowhere until recently so it is not inaccurate to describe him as a new suspect, and this program will be the first major look at him. The public know nothing of Casebook.

According to an experienced policeman with a very good record and a religious outlook on life, Lechmere told him he was wanted by another policeman and did not say the woman was dead. So saying 'no he didn't' to that is blatantly misleading.

Mitre Square isn't mentioned by the Express so it is very misleading of you to try and claim that they said he killed there while on his way to work.
This was a short newspaper interview not a 3000 word dissertation so they can hardly be blamed for not discussing his perambulations on the night of the Double Event in detail.

In short, zero out of ten Robert.