The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Chris]

And Scobie? Does HE know what HE is talking about? And the documentary - have you seen it?

That's the whole point of what I'm saying! Scobie is wrong when he says that the existence of a prima facie case is sufficient for prosecution. How many more times will I have to say it before it penetrates?

And no, I haven't been able to see the programme, which is why I'm commenting only about what you have posted on the discussion boards.

[Tom_Wescott]

I could have tried my Jem Mace theory out on her I suppose.

I think your fenian theory would be an easier sell.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

I think your fenian theory would be an easier sell.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Oh, he was one of those as well. I needed to cover all bases.

[Monty]

That question never came up, so it´s kind of academic to try and answer it in retrospect.
As for exactly what Scobie saw, I think you have disqualifies yourself from discussing such a thing when you twice - the second time after having been informed about how Andy Griffiths read up on all the relevant material, paper articles and police reports - stated that he was drip-fed.

You may think what you wish, but to me, that is reason enough not to discuss the topic with you any further, because of this bias. I hope you understand that.

The best,
Fisherman

Academic to answer it in retrospect? Why? Why are you refusing to confirm, or deny, that if the Lechemere family did not approve of your work, that you would cease? That kinda sugggests you would have carried on.

I understand why you refuse to disccuss issues concerning the evidence read Christer, it is quite clear that they are too awkward for you.

Monty

[Monty]

Quite the opposite. I didn't think you would say that into the camera unless a producer forced your hand. Once my Le Grand book comes out I'd very much like to do a documentary, but I recognize that you're then handing your work over to a producer to be shaped and molded in a way you don't have control over. Much like an author who submits to a publisher. This should not be the case, but it is. However, producing and financing my own doc is not something I really want to do, so hopefully I'll luck out and find someone who'll represent my work as well as you feel yours has been represented. I'm going to push for three hours though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Now ask about if Christer claimed case closed elsewhere?

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh, he was one of those as well. I needed to cover all bases.

Gotcha. I can't prove Jem wasn't a Fenian, so it's safe to say he was! I wonder how he juggled that with his boxing, anatomy lessons, and freemasonry?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Now ask about if Christer claimed case closed elsewhere?

Monty

Where's elsewhere? I'm not going to hold him to task for comments made on the boards. To my mind this is a place to let your hair down and kick around ideas. When you put something out there in print or film form, that's when you must be ready and willing to answer for it because somebody is making money off it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Academic to answer it in retrospect? Why? Why are you refusing to confirm, or deny, that if the Lechemere family did not approve of your work, that you would cease? That kinda sugggests you would have carried on.

I understand why you refuse to disccuss issues concerning the evidence read Christer, it is quite clear that they are too awkward for you.

Monty

Last post for the evening:

I was not there when the meeting took place, and I had not yeat met Edward.

The research was ongoing and was made public soon after, and at that stage I HAD met Edward, and I had been informed about the gathering.

This is why I say it is an academic issue - if I had been there at the gathering, I would have asked myself beforehand how to respond to different scenarios.

Since I was not there, I have never put myself in this position, and I therefore do not know and cannot know. It´s academic for that reason.

If I was to say now that I would not go on with the research if it was a grievance to the Lechmeres, I would be creating an after-construction, if you like. If I say I would have gone on, no matter what, it would be the same thing.

But I don´t think that you should try and take me to task over moral issues. You had no problem stating that Andy Griffiths was drip-fed material, and as long as you have no proof of such a thing, it does not encourage me to proclaim you my first choice of moral judges. Furthermore, we have been in these exact surroundings before, when you stated that you thought it deeply immoral and tasteless to present the case at the Stairway to Heaven Charity, taking advantage of the present Lechmeres or something to that effect. Then as now, you seemed to make your calls on shaky grounds, and then as now I had to inform you that the Lechmere´s had given the green light BEFORE we went ahead. And then as now, I found it distinctly unpleasant to be hinted at as a morally lacking person. Such things are never enjoyable experiences, so much as I´m sad not to have been given the benefit of a doubt, I am glad to have cleared it up.

[Fisherman]

Where's elsewhere? I'm not going to hold him to task for comments made on the boards. To my mind this is a place to let your hair down and kick around ideas. When you put something out there in print or film form, that's when you must be ready and willing to answer for it because somebody is making money off it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ah - my former post was just the next last one!

Thanks for this, Tom - I much agree. And I have very clearly stated where I stand on Lechmere, so I want that respected.

Now, goodnight to you!

[Monty]

Last post for the evening:

I was not there when the meeting took place, and I had not yeat met Edward.

The research was ongoing and was made public soon after, and at that stage I HAD met Edward, and I had been informed about the gathering.

This is why I say it is an academic issue - if I had been there at the gathering, I would have asked myself beforehand how to respond to different scenarios.

Since I was not there, I have never put myself in this position, and I therefore do not know and cannot know. It´s academic for that reason.

If I was to say now that I would not go on with the research if it was a grievance to the Lechmeres, I would be creating an after-construction, if you like. If I say I would have gone on, no matter what, it would be the same thing.

But I don´t think that you should try and take me to task over moral issues. You had no problem stating that Andy Griffiths was drip-fed material, and as long as you have no proof of such a thing, it does not encourage me to proclaim you my first choice of moral judges. Furthermore, we have been in these exact surroundings before, when you stated that you thought it deeply immoral and tasteless to present the case at the Stairway to Heaven Charity, taking advantage of the present Lechmeres or something to that effect. Then as now, you seemed to make your calls on shaky grounds, and then as now I had to inform you that the Lechmere´s had given the green light BEFORE we went ahead. And then as now, I found it distinctly unpleasant to be hinted at as a morally lacking person. Such things are never enjoyable experiences, so much as I´m sad not to have been given the benefit of a doubt, I am glad to have cleared it up.

I'm not going to push it Christer, suffice to say I thank you for your response and acknowledge the fact you did, fair play to you for that.

Monty

[Monty]

Where's elsewhere? I'm not going to hold him to task for comments made on the boards. To my mind this is a place to let your hair down and kick around ideas. When you put something out there in print or film form, that's when you must be ready and willing to answer for it because somebody is making money off it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Fair point Tom

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

I think it's fun playing games like the Mizen scam. It helps you get into a particular moment and perhaps get some insight. It's interesting how the perspectives differ. To most of us, Charles Cross was the honest one and Mizen was being a bit sly in trying to protect himself. To Ed and Fish, Mizen was Honest Abe and it was Cross lying and 'scamming' to protect himself. Both sides seem to agree that Robert Paul couldn't be arsed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

I think it's fun playing games like the Mizen scam. It helps you get into a particular moment and perhaps get some insight. It's interesting how the perspectives differ. To most of us, Charles Cross was the honest one and Mizen was being a bit sly in trying to protect himself. To Ed and Fish, Mizen was Honest Abe and it was Cross lying and 'scamming' to protect himself. Both sides seem to agree that Robert Paul couldn't be arsed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

G'day Tom

I fall into the middle ground I suspect that Cross said:

"You are needed down there"

When Mizen got there and found Neil, who said that he had found the body, present he remembered it as:

"A policeman needs you down there"

It happens all the time. Sit down with some people have a discussion with them [preferably with a tape recorder running] then the next day ask them what was said. Just see how much discrepancy there actually is, sure they'll have the guts of it right but a difference like between Cross and Mien is totally understandable.

It is also possible that it is Cross, who says he heard a policeman while at the scene, who is wrong and honestly doesn't recall adding the police part.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm down for that too. What I don't get is looking at the incomplete record of that very brief triage and concluding from it that any of those individuals was a serial killer. I don't say that to be judgemental. I'm legitimately bewildered by it and curious how such a thing happens.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

Look at it from the public's perspective on all of this, several weeks ago the headlines were Ripper case conclusively solved with Kosminski being named as the killer.

Now the headlines read case solved yet again with Lechmere being named as the killer. Sadly they will not know what we know about all the issue surrounding both stories.

I think both of these stories have done a lot of harm to Ripperology in the eyes of the public.

Trevor,

Somewhat unusually perhaps, we agree. Whatever the merit of either case, each will be seen, by Joe Public, as undermining the other.