The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[moonbegger]

I think the Lechmere theory falls down over the Annie Chapman murder. If Lechmere had to be at work by 4am , there is no possible way he could have killed Chapman since we know the body was not in the back garden of Hanbury Street at 4.45am according to John Richardson. Annie's time of death was probably around 5.30am if we can believe the statements of Mrs Long and Albert Cadosch.

Hello Simon .. I really don't think any swaying decisions can be nailed on something as unreliable as Chapman's TOD .. I would be more inclined to go along with Dr Phillips assessment of 4.20am probably earlier .. Richardson & Long are probably two of the weakest witnesses for my mind .

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Monty
Sorry to disappoint but the batch of papers Christer held were a prop provided by Blink.
They reproduced pretty much all the press reports and police reports. The material given to andy griffiths largely consisted of the reports. They did that all themselves. Using Casebook and other easily accessible resources.
Not a single part of the record was hidden away, and your continued suggestion it was is faintly ridiculous.

Of course I went through the case with them and Christer added his opinions - how do you think they made the film?
How on earth do you think anyone could make a film about the jack the ripper case with 45 minutes of airtime without glossing over things?
Andy griffiths was personally firm in dismissing the excuses for the name swap. As is shown in the film.

I am afraid Trevor is talking nonsense about the summons.

[Simon Owen]

The only murder on a non work day was the double event and this was specifically dealt with in the documentary.
The doctor put the Chapman time of death earlier and tge police were somewhat enclined to disbelieve the witnesses who suggested a later time.
In any case if Chapman was murdered later then Lechmere could still have done it - this aspect of the case was not gone into for reasons of time.

Dr Phillips put time of death around 4.30am if I remember correctly but it could have been later due to the loss of blood. In any case all 3 witnesses would have had to have been mistaken if the murder took place before 4am.
This might not rule Lechmere out conclusively, but surely it would make his participation in the murder of Chapman most unlikely ?

[Lechmere]

I spoke to andy griffiths about the fight or flight scenario, and he was insistent that a psychopathic serial killer would be much more likely to turn and face an intruder - he didn't know my opinion when he said this. I don't think he knew who I was.
This part of the story was another bit that ended up on the editor's floor.

The reason for appearing or coming forward was discussed in the film. To prevent him being the object of a man hunt.

This really has all been discussed umpteen times before.

[Monty]

Monty
Sorry to disappoint but the batch of papers Christer held were a prop provided by Blink.
They reproduced pretty much all the press reports and police reports. The material given to andy griffiths largely consisted of the reports. They did that all themselves. Using Casebook and other easily accessible resources.
Not a single part of the record was hidden away, and your continued suggestion it was is faintly ridiculous.

Of course I went through the case with them and Christer added his opinions - how do you think they made the film?
How on earth do you think anyone could make a film about the jack the ripper case with 45 minutes of airtime without glossing over things?
Andy griffiths was personally firm in dismissing the excuses for the name swap. As is shown in the film.

I am afraid Trevor is talking nonsense about the summons.

Of course you would say I'm being ridiculous, I wouldn't expect anything else. The fact remains that errors were aired which indicates research was not as thorough as it should be, or the programme was rushed, which leans towards a suggestion of tardiness.

Andy Griffiths is prejudiced in his conclusion on aka, and Trevor actually has a valid point on summons and inquest procedure, both of which were missed out.

Monty

[GUT]

IF Cross' name wasn't known to the police, and they didn't know where he lived and/or worked why did he even show up at the inquest?

IF his name was known to the police, and they knew where he lived and/or worked what was he supposed to be trying to hide?

[gnote]

IF Cross' name wasn't known to the police, and they didn't know where he lived and/or worked why did he even show up at the inquest?

IF his name was known to the police, and they knew where he lived and/or worked what was he supposed to be trying to hide?

Devil's advocate here:

Arrogance/thrill.

To find out what they knew.

[Simon Owen]

Hello Simon .. I really don't think any swaying decisions can be nailed on something as unreliable as Chapman's TOD .. I would be more inclined to go along with Dr Phillips assessment of 4.20am probably earlier .. Richardson & Long are probably two of the weakest witnesses for my mind .

moonbegger

Mrs Long could easily have been mistaken but Richardson is more difficult to discredit : presuming he was telling the truth , there seems to have been little doubt that he would have seen the corpse or smelled the blood from the remains if he had sat on the step when he said he did, or if he had entered the yard. Although he seems to have changed some of the details of his story (possibly to avoid suspicion being cast on himself as the killer) there doesn't seem to be any reason for Richardson to lie and he seemed to be fairly clear on the time he was there.

[Lechmere]

Monty
The errors were miniscule and inconsequential.
You are being utterly ridiculous to suggest information could have been withheld and you have signally failed to pinpoint any salient information which might have been withheld.

If you are lining up with Trevor over how Lechmere could have been summonsed then that is your problem and you will quickly end up eating your words - believe me.

You are biased and blinkered on the false name. Lechmere lied on oath as the Super said. I will go with the Super on that as he hadn't shown himself to be biased and blinkered.

Why did he turn up at the inquest - to give his version of events and to remove himself from the enquiry so they would not search for him as stated in the film.

[Lechmere]

Simon the police report questioned Richardson reliability.
In any case - in sone respects I favour the later time of death for reasons too complex to go into.

[Tom_Wescott]

Trevor actually has a valid point

Let's please keep these sort of comments to ourselves.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[moonbegger]

Dr Phillips put time of death around 4.30am if I remember correctly but it could have been later due to the coldness of the morning.

I think that's the general misunderstanding. Phillips is actually stating that because it was a cool morning ect , she could have been there a lot longer than the " two probably more" hours he estimated .

I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

And as far as three witnesses being wrong .. Richards could have easily missed her .. Cadosh hears a couple riffling her pockets and robbing her rings , and Long either gets the day wrong or witnesses the couple who just robbed poor ole Annie's dead corpse ..

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

The wretch must have then seized the deceased, perhaps with Judas-like approaches. He seized her by the chin. He pressed her throat, and while thus preventing the slightest cry, he at the same time produced insensibility and suffocation. There is no evidence of any struggle.

We are talking at least six minutes between "No" and the fall against the fence !! the same Killer that took under ten minutes to completely destroy Eddows from start to finish , spends six minutes just to strangle poor ole Annie and lay her down ??? Not sure if that timing discrepancy has been discussed before .

I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.

moonbegger

[Chris]

Just out of curiosity, was any significant new evidence presented in the documentary? (Excluding statements of opinion by police officers, barristers and the like.)

[Monty]

Monty
The errors were miniscule and inconsequential.
You are being utterly ridiculous to suggest information could have been withheld and you have signally failed to pinpoint any salient information which might have been withheld.

If you are lining up with Trevor over how Lechmere could have been summonsed then that is your problem and you will quickly end up eating your words - believe me.

You are biased and blinkered on the false name. Lechmere lied on oath as the Super said. I will go with the Super on that as he hadn't shown himself to be biased and blinkered.

Why did he turn up at the inquest - to give his version of events and to remove himself from the enquiry so they would not search for him as stated in the film.

Oh dear Ed, I sense desperation in your post.

Why am I being ridiculous? This is a suspect based documentary loaded to place to the forefront one man, George Cross. As I, and many others who have studied the case, do not place Cross as a valid suspect, I have to ask how these experts reach their conclusion that Cross is a valid suspect, especially as that suspicion is pure circumstance, and could apply to any Pickfords carman, or almost any man in that area.

Issues were raised two years ago, and continued to be until this point, but have been shot down with contrived scenarios (Mizen scam), and elaborate conjecture. To ask me to provided them, yet again, is an attempt to smoke screen. I raised them, others raised them, others are still raising them, but they are shot down without any supporting evidence, which is ironic considering your demands.

The bottom line is that there is NO evidence of guilt against Cross, his actions show compliance. To reach a conclusion of valid suspect, to state there is no reasonable doubt against the evidence laid down for Cross's guilt, is puzzling, and begs the question what, exactly, did these experts see in terms of evidence?

Ideally I'd like them to explain the reasoning behind their conclusion, and confirm what evidences they actually viewed, but that is unrealistic, and therefore I have to rely on your reassurances that all known material was seen, even though your position as supporter of this theory, leaves you, how did you put it? 'blinkered and biased'. I don't think it ridiculous to assume that the information provided was loaded, and unless you can provide something more than hearsay on that, I'm afraid remain wary.

However, that said, it was a suspect documentary, and Blink would be foolish to present a balanced view when they are pushing one man, as outlined in the over emphatic message to you. So I suppose I expect too much.

I'd be interested to know if the supe and the QC would arrest on the evidence provided, if so, then they need to re-take training upon the subject.

However, who am I to question? I only prepped prosecution files as part of a living.

Monty


The 'false name' as you put it is a 'known as'. We have been down this route many times, it is not an inference of guilt unless proven that he did not notify anyone of this. I await with interest the evidence confirming beyond doubt that Cross was using the name of Lechmere on 30th/31st August 1888.

Oop, forgot to add, unless I see anything new on this subject, I'm done.