The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[GUT]

So let's all just pick and choose what reports suit us and ignore all the rest.

[The Good Michael]

Didn't lie about his name
Wasn't found by a dead body

Neither did Cross and neither was Cross. Cross gave his name and he was in the middle of the street. No one "found" him by a dead body. He came into the street to talk to Paul.

Mike

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Gryff
Lechmere in all likelihood met her on Whitechapel Road.

But what is the 7 minute timing - Cross's walk from home to Buck's Row? If he has to go to the Whitechapel Road, pick her up, walk with a drunk women to Buck's Row, what is the likely timing on that? More than 7 minutes surely? That tightens the time available as someone was in Bucks row by 3.45am (Neil or Paul take your pick).

cheers, gryff

[moonbegger]

I thought it was a fairly decent bit of TV to be honest .. Although it was totally marketed towards a lay audience , and a tad partisan , I enjoyed it ..

Having said that , I did unfortunately hear repeated on at least four occasions , that well worked in piece of subliminal coaxing "standing over the body" Especially when added to the inaccurate diagram of Paul on the wrong side of the road , having to step around CrossMere who was depicted once again , inaccurately ( but effectively ) standing over the body ..

When in actual fact Paul was on the North pavement (opposite polly) and it was from that pavement he was forced into the street to avoid CrossMere who was also on the opposite side of the street (opposite Polly) waiting on Pauls arrival .. But I guess the honest truth does not make for good TV ..

Cheers ..

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

All the stuff about civil cases is quite irrelevant to criminal cases.

As for "experts" not making mistakes, well obviously they do.

Irrelevant? A prima faciae case is a case answering to the requirements for a Court case, no matter how we look upon things.

And yes, experts get things wrong. But why would Scobie, after having gone through the relevant material, say that the case is good enough to be put in front of a jury if it wasn´t?
He knew very well that he would participate in a documentary where millions of people would take part of what he said. Would he lay his reputation on the line if he was not sure?

Furthermore, would he not be able to recognize what a court case takes?

Furthermore, would he say that the evidence - that he considered mounted up in Lechmere´s case - was "the most probative, powerful material" a court can use, if he thought it wasn´t? And would he not be able to tell?

Experts can be wrong. But when experts lay out the text about the grounds of their work and how they apply, we can bank on them getting THAT right.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ah my bad , I misread the time of Dr Gordon Brown's time of arrival. Thanks for that.

You´re welcome. If you feel like it, please tell me if and how it affects your thinking on the matter.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And now, I´m out of here.

If you are fine with the idea that the documentary got it all wrong, that Scobie and Griffiths don´t know their job and that the validity of the Lechmere theory will go away if you close your eyes, then fine.

After all, the film Company WAS called Blink.

Fisherman
enlightened

[Monty]

And now, I´m out of here.

If you are fine with the idea that the documentary got it all wrong, that Scobie and Griffiths don´t know their job and that the validity of the Lechmere theory will go away if you close your eyes, then fine.

After all, the film Company WAS called Blink.

Fisherman
enlightened

Hmmm, 30 odd years study and research, coupled with many hours conversation with experts on the case, some with legal experience, Vs drip fed QC and a tv production company who admitted to 'glossing over', with a preference for one man as opposed to a balanced presentation?

What to choose....what to choose?

Yeah, Blink does seem a rather apt name.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty Moonbeggar
We will make a 'lechmereian' of you yet.
Yes they got the Paul- Lechmere meet on the wrong side of the road - I presume because the other side was fenced off when the filming was done due to building works and this confused the animator.
Also the virtual Lechmere was shown too close when Paul came up.
But that was the only tangible error in the film.
Andy Griffiths said at the time, the likely reason Paul saw Lechmere was because he moved back from the body and in the dark that movement attracted his attention. If Lechmere was stationery in the middle of the road (and Michael therfore very close to the body anyway due to the narrowness of the road - and that is where Paul found him) he would not have been seen as movement in the dark is what is noticeable.
Anyway that didn't make it into the film as I guess it took too much time to explain.

Gut
With reports that give contradictory information it is usually best to work out the best fit.
The 3.45 timing for the Paul - Lechmere meet works for Paul's timing, Llewellyn's timing and Swanson's timing.
The 3.45 timing for Neil arriving there fits him and Thane - who probably conferred afterwards (innocently). But beat times were more likely to be rounded and Paul who had only just left home seemed to know the time as he was late for work.
In any case an earlier time for the Lechmere-Paul meet can fit the crime.

Gryff
Whitechapel Road is no distance from Brown's Stable Yard. Lechmere actually meeting Nichols there and taking her round the corner was also timed and it all fits.

Yes the times are not precise but you can only go on what was said and he had opportunity.

Monty
As Blink had to gloss over certain things for a 45 minute documentary that means... What?
That's right - nothing.
It happens in every single documentary on any topic you care to mention. Believe it or not.
Every suspect documentary will focus on one man. Andy Griffiths made the salient point that as Lechmere was found by the body (yes that's exactly what happened) and because we have nothing whatsoever to suggest he was thoroughly looked at and cleared - if this was seriously being reinvestigated no other suspect (including your sacred so-called official suspects) can get any traction until Lechmere is cleared.
Bottom rank policemen no doubt are unaware of this sort of thing.
I notice you are coming out with your drip fed bull again to bolster your theory.

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

...
And yes, experts get things wrong. But why would Scobie, after having gone through the relevant material, say that the case is good enough to be put in front of a jury if it wasn´t?...
Furthermore, would he say that the evidence - that he considered mounted up in Lechmere´s case - was "the most probative, powerful material" a court can use, if he thought it wasn´t? And would he not be able to tell?
...
Fisherman

But, and can't you see this, what evidence are we talking about? And I am sure that you could find another lawyer to disagree with the opinion given. Evidence was my bread and butter for nearly 30 years so don't try to tell me what it is.

I don't really see anything more than subjective (and biased) interpretation of selected and conflicting newspaper reports. No actual written statements, few original police reports, no official inquest file etc., etc. Show me one iota of hard evidence against Cross. There is none.

What we can say for sure is that Mizen obviously came under scrutiny for his actions that night and Cross has, in no way, been proven to have lied.

As to the old chestnut of the name, well the police knew where he lived, knew where he worked (and had done for many years) and evinced, in the surviving official reports we have, no suspicion about him at all (nor did the coroner for that matter).

[Stewart P Evans]

By the way...

By the way, I have no problem at all with anyone making out a best case scenario for the guilt of a chosen suspect. However, I draw the line at b*llsh*t and turning interpretation and opinion into fact. I thought the documentary was well made and interesting.

[Chris]

Irrelevant? A prima faciae case is a case answering to the requirements for a Court case, no matter how we look upon things.

Surely you're aware that the standards of proof in civil cases are completely different from those in criminal cases?

[Lechmere]

And a highly respected criminal defence QC isn't aware?
Gordon Bennett

[Simon Owen]

Richardson was only there to check the lock ( Low to his right ) , Chapman would have been low to his immediate left .. the out swinging door along with recess shading would have made it tough to make out anything , especially as she was tucked in between the steps and the fence . Check out James Mason's Hanbury street youtube vid .. it would really not be difficult to miss her .. Along with Wolfs ( Eddows ) TOD comparisons , and the idea of the Killer risking a daylight kill , I think we have enough to strongly doubt a post Richardson kill .

moonbegger .

Sorry for late reply , anyway here is Richardson's testimony to the inquest (Daily Telegraph 13th September 1888) :

" John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.

Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.

Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.

How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.

Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.

Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.

You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.

Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.

Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.

At this stage witness was despatched by the coroner to fetch his knife. "

Dawn was at 5.23am on that day so there would have been some natural light available to see by , it wasn't pitch black.

As to the smell , I reference here Evans and Rumbelow ' Jack the Ripper : Scotland Yard Investigates ' : a ' strong smell is usually present with a freshly disembowelled body and Richardson would probably have noticed that too.'

We have to accept that Richardson was in the yard at 4.45am (or 4.50am) and Annie's body was not there at that time.

[Lechmere]

Andy Griffiths is a very recently retired murder squad superintendent with 30 years experience investigating just this sort of crime, leading complex investigations and interviewing suspects (one of his specialities). He was not a general purpose uniformed constable. His opinions on this matter carry weight.

In general we have no statements or inquest papers to go on - so it is pointless building a case around them.