The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Sally]

Great post Neil - I should think it echoes the sentiments of many who have followed the Crossmere theory as endorsed by Fish & Ed.

Edward, Dear -

Having spent a delightful evening marking - believe me, I might almost have rather watched your conspiracy thing on C5 - I surmise from the subsequent response that the programme [yes, it really is spelled that way] presented nothing new.

I surmise, correctly no doubt, that the documentary in fact presented the ideas endorsed by you; and by your colleague Fisherman.

That being the case, the situation remains exactly as it was beforehand in terms of the viability of your theory. In short it is weak. It is weak because - as has ever been true - your entire case is constructed on personal speculation. Objectively speaking, there is not a scrap of evidence against Crossmere. For every single point that you raise against him, a simple, logical, counterpoint in favour of his innocence can be easily returned. Where you see a murderer, it is just as easy to see a man who simply didn't want to get involved; albeit that he complied with his obligations.

It all comes down to interpretation - nothing more. To be fair, I think that the observation applies to other suspects as well - I have yet to see any argument against a suspect that I find truly compelling. That is why I have said that your theory amounts to little more than a fiction - and why, sadly, I must continue in my view.

But hey, do let me know if you ever come up with any evidence against him - I'll be happy to revise my opinion should that day ever arise.

[Lechmere]

Sally
The programme did include a few new insights - and graphically illustrated several 'old' claims and brought them to more vivid notice but I'm not altogether sure that discussing it with you is very productive as you refused to watch it.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,.
If I am brutally honest, from a purely personal view, I found it up amongst the worse suspect documentaries ever produced..
Any person who is familiar with this case , surely must have reservations..
We all know the murders happened over a small area. and any working man who was not a stationary worker, would have come within that radius,at some point...and where did the murder of Kelly . happening at 3am, arrive from.?.
Someone has to discover the victims bodies, are each one of them suspects...and as for the gazing upon the photo at the end, and making comments on how suspicious looking , surely come's straight from Patricia Cornwell's interpretation Of Sickert....
Oh dear.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Sally
The programme did include a few new insights - and graphically illustrated several 'old' claims and brought them to more vivid notice but I'm not altogether sure that discussing it with you is very productive as you refused to watch it.

Edward -

1. Ok - and what were these 'new insights'? Tell me what they are and who knows? Perhaps I'll be converted. All I want is some actual evidence you know.

2. Yes, I can see how well the graphic illustration of your 'Old' claims has been received to date

3. Ed, as ever, disingenuity suits you so well. Just so you know, it's not that I refuse to watch it, exactly; more that I don't have time to waste. Had the response here been more along the lines of 'Wow! Look at all those New Insights! I'm Convinced!' then sure - I might've found the time to give it the once over.

Ball's in your court.

4.

[Fisherman]

Monty: For clarification.

"Christer - you are a star. Thank you for coming over and giving Sam so much fascinating material - I’m sure everyone will be rooting for you."

I assume Sam is the Director, Sam Berrigan Taplin. So we have a feeding of material by Christer, and one assumes yourself, to the Director. I also assume that this material was a batch of news reports and family information we see Christer clutching.

Monty
[/QUOTE]

I am going through the reactions out here today - yesterday I did not wish to do so. That evening was spent with a glass of whisky in hand, and no Casebooking.

I have thought a lot about how much I should get engaged in any discussions about the documentary. Essentially, I feel that may be a choice of me answering all questions posed and not being credited with belief by many, or of me staying out of the discussion altogether - and not being credited with belief by many.

At the end of the day, staying away would be the far mor economical thing to do.

But then things like this surface: it is suggested (not unreasonably, given the wording) that I have fed Sam Taplin material of my own choice, on which he acted; that the dossier I held in my hands was shaped and chosen by me.

It wasn´t. It belonged to Blink and arrived with Blink, and it contained hundreds of cuttings: newspaper reports, all dated and with the source given. It was a very thorough dossier. I could not see that any relevant material was left out - no matter which suspect you favour, or not. There was a minor error in it, since the source given for one report was not the correct one, but I pointed this out and it was corrected.

The "material" I provided Sam with was information about the case, given in discussions inbetween us. Although Sam was extremely (and pleasantly) well read up as we met (as was Georgia, the assistant producer), there were occasionally things that he did not know about. It was about all sorts of matters, like how the police could not tell human blood from animal ditto, how slumming was popular in the East End, how Michael Connor and Derek Osbourne had been interested in Lechmere at an earlier stage (Osbourne was contaced, I believe, but did not wish to participate. I don´t know if Connor was spoken to). And so on and so on!

Sam was very interested in the case, as was the producer, David MacNab. David tells me that something he never expected would happen after decades of Ripper studies on his behalf, actually HAS happened now: He is quite convinced that we have found the killer.

The same goes for Sam, who grew very interested in the case as the documentary took shape. And he tells me that all of Channel 5 are also firm believers by now

Anyway, I have only seen a part of the posts, and I will keep on reading, and if anything I feel needs answering turns up, then I will do so. I must, however, add that there are posters out here who I think more or less gave away their right to an opinion before the airing of the show, by taking it upon them to criticise and diss it thoroughly without having seen it.

My own impression of the documentary is that it is a marvellous piece of television journalism. I streamed it, and so I missed out on a few bits and bobs when my computer did not want to cooperate, but I will have a second look soon.
There is information in it that can - and no doubt will - be questioned, but the overall picture of Lechmere´s candidacy is a very fair one, and I´m at a loss to see how it could have been presented in a better way.

To those of you who have expressed satisfaction with it, I would like to say thanks!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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 ?

Actually, what Phillips said was that Chapman had been dead AT LEAST two hours at 6.30 - but probably more!

My guess is that Chapman died at 3.30 or thereabouts. She was displaying an onsetting Rigor as Phillips saw here, and normally, that does not dovetail at all with a TOD at 5.30! In fact, cold conditions slow down Rigor.

But even if Phillips guessed three hours and it was just the one (in which time Chapman grew totally cold with one small exception, as opposed to Eddowes who was all warm 45 minutes after the slaying), there is no ruling out of Lechmere as the killer - he was a carman, and he could have passed Hanbury Street at any time of the day.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, the very moment Edward said that many people supposed that he would have run, Andy immediately replied "No!". He was totally adamant about that part from the outset and throughout, so I think he would have formed that opinion as he went through the files.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Monty
At the end of the day you choose to believe Andy Griffiths and Scobie allowed themselves to be bamboozled where as you - with a fraction of their experience in such matters - manage to see that Lechmere was innocent in that chain of circumstantial matters. And that I am lying about what was made available to them.
Desperate times.
Oh they were probably given a translation of Christer's newspaper article as a case summary. Maybe these experienced people just sucked it all in. Maybe they were too thick to work out that different explanations were available and weigh up the pros and cons.

[barnflatwyngarde]

At the inquest into Nichols’ death, Cross says that first impression he had upon seeing the body was that he thought it was a tarpaulin.

I remember reading several years ago, that one of the main indicators that police and psychologists look for when assessing the truthfulness of a witness, is what their first reaction was when the saw the scene, in this case a body.

Because the witness is looking at something which is totally unexpected, he or she will attempt to rationalise the sighting on the basis of past experience.
In this case, Cross stated that he initially thought that the body of Nichols was in fact a tarpaulin.

This is because a dead body, or even an unconscious person is the very last thing his brain would be expected to process, hence his initial impression that the body was a tarpaulin, or a pile of clothes etc.

I think that his initial statement misinterpreting what he saw is strongly indicative that he was in fact telling the truth.

I posted the above earlier on the message boards.

I still think that it is a relevant factor when discussing Cross/Lechmere.

It has the ring of truth about it.

A working class man on his way to work, sees something so unusual that his brain has trouble processing it, and falls back on trying to understand it by utilising his past experiences.

Coming across a dead body lying in the street would be an unusual occurrence , clearly outwith his normal experiences.

Coming across an old discarded/lost tarpaulin in the street on the other hand, would be something that he could reasonably expect to see.

[mrmajester]

If Mr Lechmere lived to be 71 why did the murders stop after Kelly? Was he responsible for more less horrific murders?

He also appeared to change his route to work a couple of times. Surely the quickest route is the one you would always take. Why would he have ended up in George Yard buildings, if Tabram was indeed a Ripper victim? That is quite out of his way.

The timings appeared to be out as well, I was always lead to believe that Paul arrive about 3.40 not 3.46, I thought that PC J Neil turned up at 3.45?

These documentaries are quite one sided, where was the counter argument? I find that very typical of Channel 5. Not convinced.

[Monty]

Monty
At the end of the day you choose to believe Andy Griffiths and Scobie allowed themselves to be bamboozled where as you - with a fraction of their experience in such matters - manage to see that Lechmere was innocent in that chain of circumstantial matters. And that I am lying about what was made available to them.
Desperate times.
Oh they were probably given a translation of Christer's newspaper article as a case summary. Maybe these experienced people just sucked it all in. Maybe they were too thick to work out that different explanations were available and weigh up the pros and cons.

Blink were hardly going to let an anti Cross as the killer comment appear, where they? It is clear from McNabs message to you that their stance is not unbiased.

Not stating you are lying at all, stating that we are having to rely on your hearsay. After, it was not you who provided the dossier now, was it?

There is no evidence to disbelieve you at all Ed. Apart from the obscure conclusions reached by people in a documentary which promoted one particular suspect, based on evidence of which we do not know was complete or partial. Again, not your fault, as it was Blink who conducted the research, and provided all the information to your experts.

The keeness of Blink, and their admittance of 'glossing over', is slightly concerning.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Blink were hardly going to let an anti Cross as the killer comment appear, where they? It is clear from McNabs message to you that their stance is not unbiased.

Not stating you are lying at all, stating that we are having to rely on your hearsay. After, it was not you who provided the dossier now, was it?

There is no evidence to disbelieve you at all Ed. Apart from the obscure conclusions reached by people in a documentary which promoted one particular suspect, based on evidence of which we do not know was complete or partial. Again, not your fault, as it was Blink who conducted the research, and provided all the information to your experts.

The keeness of Blink, and their admittance of 'glossing over', is slightly concerning.

Monty

It should be noted in this context that as Blink took a look at the Ripper case inititally, searching to see if there was any theory that could be interesting to put forward in the Missing Evidence series, the producer David MacNab was of the meaning that the case would probably never be solved. Then Blink found our theory, and an interview with Edward was arranged.
After that interview, David MacNab felt that there was a very interesting case to bring forward, and as the documentary was filmed, MacNab got convinced that we had found the real Jack the Ripper.

That was the order of things. MacNab and Taplin and the crew came into things the way journalists - for they must be looked upon as investigative television journalists - always do: with a critical mindset and with high demands for something substantial.
It is not our fault that they came away with a lot more than they had asked for. That was not due to any selective drip-feeding of the material. They compiled their own material, with no external influence from either of us, and they did so - as I have pointed out - extensively and thoroughly. And there was nothing withheld, as you seem to think (without specifying what that would be).

It is much the same as the process I have gone through myself. I am a journalist, and I have always kept a critical attitude to things, since buying the pig in the sack will give you the exact same thing: the sack.
This approach of mine meant that I spent my first twentyseven years of Ripperology in the belief that the killer´s name could not be revealed. Whatever hope there could be was seemingly snuffed out by disparaging comments from many of the foremost researchers of the case - it was too late and there was too little.

Then I got to meet Edward, and it all started to change. It´s a pretty parallel to David MacNabs experience, I guess.

And then I dug into the inquest records, and I found a number of things that told me that I had the man. Which once more parallels what David MacNab felt.

So what you have is a team of critical journalists that are swayed as they go along. And that is as good as it gets, because journalists are not pushovers, believe you me!

I would like to add that when I first met with Sam, I said something like "So here´s another Ripper nutter for you to spend time on", and at that stage, he smiled and sort of glossed it over in a nice way. But you could tell that he reserved his (well deserved and useful) right to stay sceptical.

In the end, he threw scepticism overboard, though, and admitted to being convinced. In my mailbox, I have a message from him, where he had pondered the Mizen scam and drawn out the consequences and added his own insights (which were very valuable). In that mail, he writes "Good work, guys - you found him!"

They were persuaded by the Lechmere theory, quite simply, and nothing wrong with that. Many journalists produce their stories with underlying convictions. In this case that conviction came about as we went along.

Andy Griffiths was a similar case in many ways. He was a lot more hesitant and sceptical from the outset, but left the documentary after having reached the conclusion that we had an extremely good case. And we do not rule out a policeman´s rights to have a conviction, so why would we rule out a journalist´s?

Anyway, there was no possibility to swop producer, assistant producer, director, film man and sound technician midway through the documentary. They were all Lechmereians at that stage, and we had to make do with what we had.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mr Majester
I have repeatedly referred to other murders that Lechmere could believed to after Kelly.
We only know for sure one route Lechmere took - on rhe night of the murder.
A shorter route was available and it is sensible to propose that he also used that as well. That shorter route took him within yards of George Yard Buildings.

[Lechmere]

David MacNab has sent me another interesting contribution...

Just caught up with some of the comments. There appear to be several that allude to my being a gullible television hack…

Just for the record I have made history programming for a very long time now, producing The Virgin Mary for BBC2, The Barbarians for Channel 4, Civil Warriors and The Salem Witch Trials for National Geographic, A Tale of Two Cities with Dan Cruickshank, a show about the Stauffenberg Bomb Plot for Discovery and Channel 5, An oral history of QE2s reign for BBC2, Hunt for the Death Star for Channel 4, as well as an eight part series on the history of planetary exploration for BBC2.

I have taken part in debates on television and history at Oxford University and the Imperial War Museum.

Sam Taplin is one of the most talented and dogged directors I have ever had the pleasure of working with. Along with Georgia Braham, the AP - we spent hours and hours checking every aspect of the Lechmere theory. We consulted with criminal psychologists, working policemen, police historians, pathologists and even experts on the delivery trade in Victorian London.Casebook contributors can dismiss them all of course - that is their right - but I’d be inclined to take them seriously.

A few potential answers to the most pertinent questions raised: Andy Griffiths was adamant on the issue of whether Lechmere would have run. Whoever the Ripper was - he was a sociopath - a state of mind we tend to select for in adrenalin fuelled professions like surgery and special military operations. The important factor is a lack of empathy - with the victim and with themselves. What this equates to in practice is a lack of panic. This is why great surgeons are more likely to be sociopathic. You don’t want a surgeon fretting and flapping about a woman on the operating table because she has three young kids and a disabled husband when an important artery has just been severed. You want someone who has little empathy - who treats the situation as a technical exercise - the body as a machine that needs fixing. Lechmere - and Andy was very clear about this - would not have panicked at the sound of Paul turning into Buck’s Row. He would have calmly and quickly weighed up his options. One thing we did not have time to air was the business of the knife. It became an issue too far for the show but it is important. Remember Lechmere was carrying the knife. If he ran he would have immediately exposed his guilt. He may also have got away - but there are several things to remember here: the first is that it was close to his home - the second is that he knew he had to pass down this street or very close to it every morning and finally - and most important - he knew that he ran the risk of running into a policeman or being chased. The knife would have been the thing that sealed his fate. So Andy concluded that the more rational (sociopathic ) response would have been to spend the minute or so he had before Paul would see him to cover up his work and simply bluff things out. It worked.

But the most damning evidence against Lechmere is, that according to the combined insights of Payne-James (the pathologist) and Andy Griffiths (the DCI), it is almost impossible for anyone other than Lechmere to have killed Nichols. The timings on Bucks Row and the bleed rate for Nichols’ neck wound just don’t allow it. Let’s assume Lechmere is innocent, When you turn into Buck’s Row there it takes one and a half minutes to reach the murder site. The nearest escape route is a further 30 seconds further on. Given that Lechmere saw no-one else when he turned into the street the killer would have had to have left Nichols at least two minutes before Lechmere arrived assuming that he turned the corner the very second before Lechmere turned in. We then have Paul just 40 seconds behind him - given that Lechmere inspected the body briefly before Paul arrived we can now estimate the time of death to have been at least three minutes before Paul arrives. Nichols’ throat has been severed back to the vertebrae for three minutes now. By their testimony - Paul and Lechmere spend around a minute and a half with the body before Paul says he has to go (yes we acted out the scene as gleaned from both their reports). We now have a minimum time since death of four and a half minutes. Four and a half minutes with a head almost severed from the body yet despite the fact that Paul is leaning over Nichols head neither man has blood on his shoes, hands or his trousers and Paul doesn’t see or smell blood. Yet within two minutes of their leaving the scene (time it) PC Neil reports the “pool of blood”. By the time Thane arrives blood is running down into the gutter. The only way Paul could not have seen or stepped in the blood is if Nichols’ wounds were fresh. Otherwise we have to believe that the woman hadn’t bled at all in the absolute minimum four and a half minutes since her throat was cut - but then miraculously bled out in the two minutes between Paul leaving and Neil arriving. And yes we’ve taken into account her clothing and the lack of arterial pressure. Gravity would have been enough for a woman lying on her back given the severity of her wounds.If Lechmere were the killer however that time shrinks into the realms of the possible - i.e. two minutes give or take.

We didn’t discuss in the show the fact that of all the murders - Lechmere is the only person not to immediately run for help - or that as a senior carman (20 years service) he would have been one of the first into the stables in the small hours with few other people about. We also didn’t mention the Pinchin Street murder.

The criminologist confirmed that it is a myth that serial killers go on killing until something stops them and it is a myth that they aren’t family men. Sometimes they just do.

Best

David McNab

[Simon Owen]

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

" John Richardson, the son of a woman living in the house, states that, in accordance with his usual practice, he entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time, 4.50, he was certain no one was in the yard. " (Evening Standard)
Richardson would have been literally 2 feet away from the body , it seems hardly likely that he could have missed it if it had been there. Worse , the smell of blood and viscera would have been in the air had the body been decapitated.
I feel that the police questioned Richardson's testimony because they felt he contradicted Dr Phillip's time of death ( the police would naturally support their own surgeon ) but Wynne Baxter accepted that Richardson was telling the truth. There would seem to be no point in Richardson lying to the court and it seems hardly likely he would have missed the body if it had been there , so I think we have to believe him.