The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Monty]

Hi harry

1.He found (WAS found by) the body.
2.There is a major discrepancy between what Mizen and lech say that lech said to Mizen.
3.Lech used an alternate name, one seemingly he did not commonly use.
4.The time lech said he left home should have brought him to bucks row much sooner-there seems to be a significant amount of missing time.

These are FACTS, not interpretations, and these facts, although probably having an innocent explanation, still NEED an innocent explanation, and are enough IMHO to raise an eyebrow or two.

1. He was seen yards away from the body.
2. Major, hardly, however yes, there seems to be a confusion.
3. He used a name associated with him previously and, possibly, used that name in 1888.
4. Other factors, such as gait, speed, other chores, precision of time need to be considered.

These FACTS can be, and have been reasonably disputed.

Monty

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I agree with Stewart, these poeple cannot defend themselves. Someone finds a body. With every murder someone finds a body. If you carry that argument forward to its logical conclusion.. Sutcliffe was not the best suspect for the Yorkshire Ripper, it was all those people who found the bodies, or where the bodies were lying on their routes to and from work.

[Abby Normal]

That is true but did he have a choice since Paul was heading his way anyway?



Totally agree.

Hi Bitsie
well if he was the killer, he could have just bolted, which I think in all probability he would have.

But, its possible, as the killer, he was surprised by the sudden appearance of Paul and felt he was too close to get away cleanly.

I actually had a similar experience when walking to my car one late night I came upon a girl down in an allyway and a guy standing by her saying "I just found her like this-she needs help". As I started to call 911 he said he would go get help and left-never to return. when she came to she described the guy who knocked her out and it was obviously the guy who left.

so similar- the guy initially bluffed it out, but left as soon as he could, unlike lech who also bluffed it out but carried it on faaaar too long, when he could have also parted ways with Paul much sooner.

[Bitsie]

1. He was seen yards away from the body.
2. Major, hardly, however yes, there seems to be a confusion.
3. He used a name associated with him previously and, possibly, used that name in 1888.
4. Other factors, such as gait, speed, other chores, precision of time need to be considered.

These FACTS can be, and have been reasonably disputed.

Monty

1) Near the body is near the body, he had been close enough to the body before Paul arrived that he was able to tell Paul that is WAS a body.
2) Agreed
3) It doesn't seem that he regularly used that name in 1888, it wasn't the name given to his children for example.
4) Agreed, however if he's had less time than stated then it's said only two minutes were needed anyway. If he'd happened upon Nichols in the street then it could have all been done in minutes, if he'd had longer then that's more time to meet, wait for and/or wander up the street with Nichols, isn't it?

[Abby Normal]

1. He was seen yards away from the body.
2. Major, hardly, however yes, there seems to be a confusion.
3. He used a name associated with him previously and, possibly, used that name in 1888.
4. Other factors, such as gait, speed, other chores, precision of time need to be considered.

These FACTS can be, and have been reasonably disputed.

Monty

Hi Monty
yes, I agree-like I said they probably all have an innocent explanation.

[Bitsie]

Hi,

I agree with Stewart, these poeple cannot defend themselves. Someone finds a body. With every murder someone finds a body. If you carry that argument forward to its logical conclusion.. Sutcliffe was not the best suspect for the Yorkshire Ripper, it was all those people who found the bodies, or where the bodies were lying on their routes to and from work.

You're just being silly. I'm sure we shouldn't suspect the last person to see the victim alive either

Hi Bitsie
well if he was the killer, he could have just bolted, which I think in all probability he would have.

But, its possible, as the killer, he was surprised by the sudden appearance of Paul and felt he was too close to get away cleanly.

I actually had a similar experience when walking to my car one late night I came upon a girl down in an allyway and a guy standing by her saying "I just found her like this-she needs help". As I started to call 911 he said he would go get help and left-never to return. when she came to she described the guy who knocked her out and it was obviously the guy who left.

so similar- the guy initially bluffed it out, but left as soon as he could, unlike lech who also bluffed it out but carried it on faaaar too long, when he could have also parted ways with Paul much sooner.

Interesting story, poor girl.

In someone with normal neurology the reactions would be fight, flight or freeze. It doesn't seem true to me that someone would automatically run, it's as easy to say that they could also have attacked Paul.

I liked the explanation that I think Fisherman told us from the policeman (I've forgotten the name of the policeman in the documentary) that he was most emphatic that someone with low empathy would not have panicked and run but would have approached anyone who arrived.

[Monty]

Hi Monty
yes, I agree-like I said they probably all have an innocent explanation.

Understood Abby, thank you.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

A brief history of the Cross word-puzzle

I see there are a lot of newer posters here who may not realize that Charles Cross as a suspect goes back to the 90s and that's it's a topic many of us considered long, long before 'Fisherman' and 'Lechmere' came on the scene. I can't speak for everyone but many of us considered it interesting at the time. It was not something loudly dismissed out of hand. So no one discouraged research into Cross/Lechmere. Over the years, much research has been done. What all that research has done is to strengthen the notion that Cross was an honest person who happened to discover a body. He lived a clean life before the murders and a clean and free life for the 32 years following 1888.

So all of us accepted Cross for what he was, an unfortunate witness. That's what research is for, right? Getting at the truth? But two individuals have persisted and have written tens of thousands of words arguing for Cross as the Ripper. I'm sure it's obvious who those two individuals are.

Elizabeth Long puts herself as the last person to see Annie Chapman alive. She too appears to have offered a false name. Where's the documentary on her? Why isn't she a Ripper suspect? Oh that's right, because she's a woman.

So Cross is nothing special in that regard. Literally, the one and only reason he's offered as a suspect is because Robert Paul came upon him as he was discovering the body of Nichols. Had PC Neil come a bit sooner than he did he would have found Cross & Paul literally leaning over the body and rustling her skirts. But that didn't happen, just as it didn't happen that Cross was 'leaning over the body' as it says in the documentary. It's unfortunate it didn't happen that way because then Cross and Paul would have been legitimate suspects (particularly since the previous murder was committed with two weapons) and they would have been searched and found (probably) knifeless and eventually cleared, sparing us such discussions.

Those levying accusations of bullying against Stewart and others are apparently not aware of the extent to which Fisherman and Lechmere have followed many of the rest of us around the boards denigrating our work and reputations over the years in support of their Cross the Ripper theory.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

You're just being silly. I'm sure we shouldn't suspect the last person to see the victim alive either



Interesting story, poor girl.

In someone with normal neurology the reactions would be fight, flight or freeze. It doesn't seem true to me that someone would automatically run, it's as easy to say that they could also have attacked Paul.

I liked the explanation that I think Fisherman told us from the policeman (I've forgotten the name of the policeman in the documentary) that he was most emphatic that someone with low empathy would not have panicked and run but would have approached anyone who arrived.

Hi Bitsie

I think I have to disagree with you a bit on that one, I think the ripper shows that in general, he was more inclined to get away as quickly as possible when he could, and specifically with Stride that when he was in danger of being found in the act, would run/hide/get away.

Also, serial killers in general, tend to exhibit this behavior-running at the first sight of trouble if they feel they can get away clean-especially if its another man.

However, that being said, its possible he bluffed it out as far as he did-its just extremely rare. Dahmer kind of did it once with a victim who had gotten away and was actually with the police, so I guess anything is possible.

[Bitsie]

Hi Abby, agreed it's best to use his own MO to guess what he would have done.

Though you could say he fled Strides scene to avoid being seen whilst at Nichols he had already been discovered so the situations were a little different.

[Scott Nelson]

Those levying accusations of bullying against Stewart and others are apparently not aware of the extent to which Fisherman and Lechmere have followed many of the rest of us around the boards denigrating our work and reputations over the years in support of their Cross the Ripper theory.

Surely this is a bit exaggerated, isn't it?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Scott. No, it's not. Before Fish became Cross-eyed he was an ardent anti-Stridist and would go all Perry Mason on me on the Stride threads, knocking my research. At that time I was publishing a lot of articles on Stride. No matter what I did, I couldn't get him to see the light. All my stuff was crap. Then Lechmere got into his head and suddenly he's quoting my previously crappy work as though it's authoritative.

As for Lechmere, you can see the comments he's made in various threads about my book after it came out. If you've only seen his handling of Russell Edwards' book, then you could be excused for thinking I was exaggerationg, because somehow Edwards got a free pass from Stow.

But such is the nature of Ripperology. I hold no grudges and otherwise like Ed Stow and Christer. Stewart was pretty rough on me when my book came out as well, but as I recall he kept it to the facts as he's doing here and didn't twist my words or meanings in an attempt to unfairly attack me or my work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

No. As quoted by you, he said:
"What we would say, is that he´s got a prima faciae case to answer, which means it´s a good enough case to put before a jury and that suggests he was the killer."

What we are discussing is whether a prima facie case is sufficient for a criminal prosecution. The CPS says:
Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

That means a prima facie case is not enough.

Having said that, the idea that there's a prima facie case is itself ridiculous. The thought that any jury would convict on the kind of evidence that's been advanced against Lechmere/Cross is mind-boggling.

So what you are saying here is effectively that you think that Scobie has muddled things up, and was essentially thinking that the Jack the Ripper case was one applying civil law, not criminal law?

In other words, you have now discovered that James Scobie got it all wrong?

And when he said that the evidence was the most probative, powerful material a court could use, he was rambling, totally overrating the evidence?

And your estimation of the case is a better one than the one Scobie made?

And basically, Scobie spoke of something that does not even exist: prima facie criminal cases. In which case these quotes are odd:

From the US attorneys Criminal resource manual:

As a practical matter, factual situations which give rise to prima facie criminal cases with prosecutive merit are unlikely to give rise to viable defenses.

From the book ”Criminal Law”, Thomas Gardner, Terry Anderson, Cengeage Learning 2012, referring to the case of Commonwealth vs Price 1966:

Several courts have indicated that they were unwilling to hold that limited amnesia was an adequate ground for a determination of incompetency because the effect of such a holding would be to free, without trial, persons against whom prima facie criminal cases had been established.

In the end, it all boils down to whether you or Scobie is right.

Say no more.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Just a question - have you even seen the documentary yet?

[Fisherman]

What a nonsense, a person coming across a murder victim and then being joined by someone else, especially in a public place, is certainly not unique. And it certainly does not make the first one there a murderer. However, the police would always look at the first to person find a body in order to establish that no suspicion attached to them.

Then how can it be nonsense - this is the exact thing I am saying: Lechmere was found alone by a victim´s side, the victim had only been dead for seconds or minutes, and nobody knew how long Lechmedre had been there.

You simultaneously dub it nonsense to point out that this constitutes circumstantial evidence, whereafter you say that the police is dutybound to check such a person out.

You are a hard man to please.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You are the one trying to build a case out of very little, not I. I really don't have any interest in changing your mind - it's fixed.

Fine! But then you must accept that Scobies words must stand.

The best,
Fisherman