The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Chris]

Fisherman

No, of course I'm not saying you can't have a prima facie criminal case.

I'm saying that in criminal law having a prima facie case is not sufficient to prosecute.

[Fisherman]

This thread does read a bit like the Monty Python Argument Clinic with a lot of 'yes it is' and 'no it isn't' going on.

I do think it's 'interesting' that some folk wont entertain the idea of Lechmere even as a suspect and as a newb it's a little frustrating that there are few clear reasons given here for why not.

Thatīs the most pertinent observation that can be made out here. Lechmere is a suspect paria, and it will be said that the theory is untenable and outright stupid.

Yet when you turn to the outside world, it suddenly emerges that a murder investigator with 30 years experience and an incredible clearing up rate, plus a highly qualified Queens counsel and barrister say that we have a case that would merit a trial! And an applied criminologist says that Lechmere fits the profile he sees for the Ripper.

It is said that we mislead and no doubt, that would entail the experts of the documentary too - they have also been mislead by us or the film team, and the doocumentary as such is one great lie.

I think that you should make up your own mind about what is going on and what sources you wish to put your trust in. Along the way, try and find out as much as you can about the quality of the overall criticism of our theory.

Thatīs the only advice I have to give.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Stewart P Evans: if you conclude that the police, assuming they had any sense at all, would have indeed looked at the initial finder of the body and then rejected him as being suspicious, then you can reject him as a suspect and accept him as a witness only.
QUOTE]

Donīt forget, Bitsie, that the same police force that Mr Evans guarantees would have looked at Lechmere, did not manage to get his real name.

I donīt object to the idea that Lechmere was questioned. But I think it stops there. I think the police were conned by his story, and I hink that this was much due to the fact that he twice presented himself to them, seemingly out of his own free will.

This will have made them fail to see the underlying possibilities in the case, and thus they failed to scrutinize him thoroughly. And as a consequence, they failed to find out his true identity.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Why should people entertain the idea of a suspect without basis? Just for the heck of it? Give us a reason WHY he should be entertained as a suspect. He found the body? Well, as it's been said a thousand times, someone had to.

Donīt forget your discussion with me, Harry, and your misgivings about my statement that the police would have charged him with murder.

Have you seen the documentary...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Stewart P Evans:

Some actually feel that it is offensive to smear the reputation of an innocent person, even if they are long dead, with the accusation that they are a murderer, especially if there is no real reason to do so apart from conjuring up yet another 'suspect' to add to the list. Also, there may be living descendants who do not appreciate this being done.

Is it not true that you yourself have pointed to Francis Tumblety as the probable killer?

Did you speak to his relatives in advance and ask them about it?

This was done in the Lechmere case. The relatives were gathered and they were the first ones to be told about the suspicions. They were all fine with it.

It may well be that this is the only time that such a thing has been done. Maybe we should lend that a thought or two.

All the best,
Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Stewart P Evans:

Some actually feel that it is offensive to smear the reputation of an innocent person, even if they are long dead, with the accusation that they are a murderer, especially if there is no real reason to do so apart from conjuring up yet another 'suspect' to add to the list. Also, there may be living descendants who do not appreciate this being done.

Is it not true that you yourself have pointed to Francis Tumblety as the probable killer?

Did you speak to his relatives in advance and ask them about it?

This was done in the Lechmere case. The relatives were gathered and they were the first ones to be told about the suspicions. They were all fine with it.

It may well be that this is the only time that such a thing has been done. Maybe we should lend that a thought or two.

All the best,
Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

You need to familiarise yourself with Stewart's and Paul's work, as they do not promote Tumblety at all, merely present their research on a man named by a senior police official who clearly has a deeper insight into the case than your or I.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Tom_Wescott:

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.

Just how do you expect to bolster this baffling assertion, Tom? How do you know that Lechmdere was an honest person one day of his life?

Answer: You donīt.

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.

Aha. So we are the bad eggs and you are the men with work and reputation? Should we add "humble" to that too...?

Fisherman
giggling

[Tom_Wescott]

You need to familiarise yourself with Stewart's and Paul's work, as they do not promote Tumblety at all, merely present their research on a man named by a senior police official who clearly has a deeper insight into the case than your or I.

Monty

To be fair their book did indeed promote Tumblety as the Ripper although Stewart has acknowledged subsequent research.

The difference is in the fact that Stewart was compelled to research Tumbelty because a contemporary investigator pointed him out as a Ripper suspect. In doing so, Stewart and his researchers uncovered a wealth of previously unknown information that has lent to our overall knowledge of the case and people involved. Nobody can question that or take it away.

The argument for Cross as Ripper has resulted in a photograph of him, which is good, as well as an entertaining documentary. This argument however was not instigated by anything contemporary. To my mind that's the big difference.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

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.

Donīt forget, Abby, that if Lechmere was the killer, then he had burnt his ships when it came to bluffing after Nichols - it was a ploy that you cannot repeat.

Also keep in mind that we suggest that he would be a psychopath - and they have been clinically proven not to have any (or a weak) startle reflex, and a lack of the reflex muscle contraction preparing for flight that non-psychopaths have.

Plus psychopaths are as a rule compulsive liars who like to Think they are superior to the rest of us.

Weigh that in before you make your call!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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. Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

In all fairness, you were not exactly taking that criticism very graciously. I remember vividly you speaking of "pompous newbies" and about "sending a chihuahua up my ass".
I also remember that the specific theory we discussed was a very bad one on your behalf, missing out on a number of important parameters.

You donīt seem to remember this, though?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom_Wescott:

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.

Just how do you expect to bolster this baffling assertion, Tom? How do you know that Lechmdere was an honest person one day of his life?

Answer: You donīt.

You may not have faith in Ed Stow's abilities as a researcher, but I've seen him produce quite a bit of impressive finds. Considering how hard he's looked into Cross I'm certain that if he had a criminal career, Stow would have found evidence of it.

Aha. So we are the bad eggs and you are the men with work and reputation? Should we add "humble" to that too...?

Fisherman
giggling

We are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.

I went a bit far in digging up old bones, I'll admit. But for the newbies accusing others of bullying you, I thought it only fair to point out that all this isn't new to some of us, but quite old hat at this point. Most times I'd find it amusing to see Stewart called a schoolyard bully.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

In all fairness, you were not exactly taking that criticism very graciously. I remember vividly you speaking of "pompous newbies" and about "sending a chihuahua up my ass".
I also remember that the specific theory we discussed was a very bad one on your behalf, missing out on a number of important parameters.

You donīt seem to remember this, though?

The best,
Fisherman

Was a chihuahua in fact put up your ass? If no, then I did indeed take the criticism graciously. And no, I do not recall what theory you're referring to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

No, of course I'm not saying you can't have a prima facie criminal case.

I'm saying that in criminal law having a prima facie case is not sufficient to prosecute.

Now we are getting somewhere! We can suddenly agree that Scobie did not necessarily confuse the Ripper murders for a civil case? Is that correct?

He was thus saying that he found the case a prima facie criminal case, and that means what?
That there was not enough in it to warrant a trial? Is that what he is trying to say?

If so, why is it that he moves on to say that the case would be good enough to put before a jury?

I Think that we must realize that Scobie said two things:

1. It was a prima facie case - that is to say that there was evidence enough in it to warrant a trial. There is no other way to interpret this, no matter what you say about the difference inbetween evidence demands. The term prima facie criminal case would be worthless if it meant a case that lacked in evidence. Prima facie is prima facie, and the term prima facie criminal case will reasonably be a description of a criminal case that merits a trial.

2. He found that the coincidences that mounted up in Lechmeres case was not of a weak kind, nor was it average; it was "the most probative, powerful material a court can use.

The notion that Scobie imlicated that the case was not sufficient for a trial, only to then say that it WOULD warrant a trial and that the prosecution would find themselves in posession of the most probative and powerful material a court can use, does not wash in any way at all. It becomes slightly Lewis Carrollish, as I hope you will see.

Scobie even added that a jury would not like what they would have been told about Lechmere. You may have noted this too - if you have seen the documentary. You did not say, although I asked you. Knowing that you had would make our discussion easier.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

To be fair their book did indeed promote Tumblety as the Ripper although Stewart has acknowledged subsequent research.

The difference is in the fact that Stewart was compelled to research Tumbelty because a contemporary investigator pointed him out as a Ripper suspect. In doing so, Stewart and his researchers uncovered a wealth of previously unknown information that has lent to our overall knowledge of the case and people involved. Nobody can question that or take it away.

The argument for Cross as Ripper has resulted in a photograph of him, which is good, as well as an entertaining documentary. This argument however was not instigated by anything contemporary. To my mind that's the big difference.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Depends how you define promote, however yes, Tumblety found them, and was identified by a contemporary policeman as a suspect, not by Stewart or Paul.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Friendly warning

Fish,

Just a friendly warning, but no one else is going to be as impressed with your expert witnesses as you are, because such 'experts' are a dime a dozen, so bringing them up in every post will probably cause resentment and lead to them being derogatorily referred to as Sheriff Andy and Scooby. This in turn will lead to a debate as to whether or not you're in fact Barney Fife or Shaggy. This would be unfortunate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott