The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Lechmere]

Robert
You see no evidence.
A criminologist, a murder squad superintendent and a leading defence barrister do see evidence.
I think I will go with their opinion rather than yours.
But maybe I brainwashed them?

[Lechmere]

This will please you even more - their top story...

http://metro.co.uk/2014/09/07/identity-of-jack-the-ripper-finally-revealed-using-cutting-edge-technology-of-course-4859504/

[Monty]

Robert
You see no evidence.
A criminologist, a murder squad superintendent and a leading defence barrister do see evidence.
I think I will go with their opinion rather than yours.
But maybe I brainwashed them?

Add a DNA scientist to the mix and I may, stress may, agree. Oh, ad a CPS adjudicator.

Monty
.

[Lechmere]

Monty you are outranked. And stand to attention.

[Lechmere]

But if it pleases you I'll add in old Uncle Tom Cobbley, an' all.

[Monty]

Well if you are taking the word of a Supt, Swanson should be included, no?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Robert
You see no evidence.
A criminologist, a murder squad superintendent and a leading defence barrister do see evidence.
I think I will go with their opinion rather than yours.
But maybe I brainwashed them?

I know I keep saying this but you seem to not want to comment. The above experts who you seem to be pinning your hopes on to support the weak evidence, are only able to give their opinions based on what they are told and shown.

Clearly there is much evidence which many suggest me included weakens those facts and evidence you have put forward.

I wonder if the experts have been able to look at all the facts both for and against and assess and evaluate the material as others have done would they be so willing to stick to those opinions?

[Rob Clack]

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.

Petty. But you are the one who keeps putting up links to different newspapers. I can't help it if they don't know what they are talking about.

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.

It's significant that those who think Lechmere was the Ripper try and place him as near to the body as they can, hence we have them saying 'he was leaning over the body.' 'Over the body.' 'Next to the body.' Instead of what actually happened. Other than the Crossmere brigade nobody brings it up.

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.

Sorry I would rather go by an experienced Policeman has to say.

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.

Well if you are saying I am biased and have an agenda then you are wrong. Both labels can easily apply to you.

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

And make themselves look stupid as well.

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.

That's not what it reads like and the theory is still going nowhere.

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.

Not according to Lechmere and Paul.

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.

They said "Researchers found the other Ripper murders were committed either on Lechmere’s route to work or near his mother’s house." Point out where they specified which was which.

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.

If it makes you feel better to believe that, then fine. Other people can make there own minds up. But it makes me wonder who gives them there information and it doesn't bode well for the documentary tomorrow.

[Rob Clack]

Robert
You see no evidence.
A criminologist, a murder squad superintendent and a leading defence barrister do see evidence.
I think I will go with their opinion rather than yours.
But maybe I brainwashed them?

Have they read all the files? Are they up to date with current research or just believe what they have been told?

This will please you even more - their top story...

http://metro.co.uk/2014/09/07/identi...ourse-4859504/

Two months out of date. I suppose that is better than the 12 years out of date for Crossmere.

[Rob Clack]

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

Where do they get there info from Edward? You? Christer? I know it's not from an unbiased source. And you still haven't answered this one.

[Rob Clack]

I know I keep saying this but you seem to not want to comment. The above experts who you seem to be pinning your hopes on to support the weak evidence, are only able to give their opinions based on what they are told and shown.

Clearly there is much evidence which many suggest me included weakens those facts and evidence you have put forward.

I wonder if the experts have been able to look at all the facts both for and against and assess and evaluate the material as others have done would they be so willing to stick to those opinions?

Got to agree with this.

[Lechmere]

https://metro.co.uk/2014/11/16/man-found-standing-over-jack-the-rippers-first-victim-was-never-a-suspect-4950218/

Try this instead

[Rob Clack]

Man found standing over Jack the Ripper’s first victim ‘was never a suspect’

Yep, got that bit right.

[Lechmere]

Dulpicate

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards:

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

Lechmere was not working to a rule that disallowed him to go to Hanbury Street at around 5.30 AM. He was a carman, Michael!

... but I donīt think he killed Annie at around 5.30 - I think he did it en route to his job. The police chose to Believe Phillips on the matter, and so do I. Long and Cadosh are to good to be true - they paint the whole drama in four (4) words! Will you? Yes. No.

To think that they got it all so neatly! If they had not been reversed in time, they would have cemented the case - even if they were not telling the truth. Luckily, their timings tell us that they are probably feeding us porkies, to at least some extent.

It does not matter that Phillips had not seen a case like Chapman before - such a thing does not increase the normal rigor speed, for example. Phillips could not have been as much out as many hope for, as far as Iīm concerned.

The best,
Fisherman