The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[David Andersen]

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

I can confirm that the Druitt family were consulted by both myself and Dan Farson before the publication of Farsons book in 1972. They were delighted to learn that they had such an 'illustrious ancestor'

[Tom_Wescott]

Uncharacteristic

I must say thank you to Mr Scobie for responding, and to Trevor.

Something about the Lechmere theory really has your back up, Robert. I've never seen you so out for blood as you've been on these threads. I'm not judging, just observing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

If you are still awake you might want to sit up.

Earlier today I sent an e mail to James Scobie in which I asked the following questions

1. Were you provided with "all" the witness testimony on the case?

2. If yes, did that include the coroners summing up at the inquest? (set out below)

3. If no then what exactly were you provided with?

Tonight James contacted me and we had a long in depth conversation regarding his involvement in the program. I was not able to make note or record it but some of what he did say is set out below

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from you, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insiginficant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

7. However he does state that given what he was shown Cross would no doubt been a person on interest to the police. However he also accepts that if Cross was ever interviewed and had given plausible explanations then he may well have been eliminated.

He states that his opinion regarding a prima faciae case is based solely on what was put before him, and accepts that it is not known what Cross might have said if the matter would have ever got to court.

8. As to him being regarded as a prime suspect he states he was not given the details of any other suspects and so is not in a position to answer that question.

As to how how his part of the program unfolded, I put to him the same scenario I put last night on JTR Forums that being

Leading questions asked off camera

Q.
"In your opinion is there enough evidence to prove a prima facie case against Cross" now he cant answer simply yes,because the viewing public would not know what he is talking about, so he is asked to rephrase his answer to incorporate the question "In my professional opinion I believe there is enough evidence to prove a prima faciea case against Cross" So this is what the viewer would see and hear

James Scobie confirmed that this is the format Channel 5 used

I have to thank him for taking the time to reply and to clarify these important issues. His final words to me were he thought all of this a bit of fun and not to be taken to seriously. I did explain that there are many worldwide who do treat it seriously, which I think may have surprised him.

As I said I couldn't record or relay verbatim all of what was said as we spoke for over 30 minutes. If anyone does have any questions feel free to ask me some may jog my memory

You need to read this carefully Trevor, and possibly frame it...it WON'T happen again,

Th....tha.....thank you!

A straight answer to my keenly avoided question.

As I said, drip fed and loaded.

Monty

[moonbegger]

[QUOTE]

Moonbeggar
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.

There was me thinking that repetitive subliminal coaxing of (at least 4 times) "standing over the body" would have lost some of its desired effect , if the animator had not been confused , and had actually placed the men in their correct positions

I was also surprised that nothing was made of the "cats meat" connection .. Bucks row , 29 Hanbury , Berners St , Millers Ct ?

cheers , moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

I can confirm that the Druitt family were consulted by both myself and Dan Farson before the publication of Farsons book in 1972. They were delighted to learn that they had such an 'illustrious ancestor'

Thanks for that, David - it would seem it was much the same kind of reaction as the one found with the Lechmeres.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

After having read Trevor Marriotts post on James Scobie, there are a couple of points I´d like to make:

It is said that "He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from you, it was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on."

If "you" in this context refers to me, I can only say that I never provided James Scobie with any material. Just as he says, we never met. And I never had any influence over the material he was given.

I did, though, see a lot more than what is presented in the documentary. I took part of perhaps ten minutes of recorded material with Scobie, and in it, he expanded on a good number of elements that he meant pointed to potential guilt. All in all, it was very clear that he had taken in all the things that the Lechmere theory has brought forward and was well read up on the material relating to the crime.

It can of course be asked if Scobie was shown the criticism of the Lechmerre theory, and I don´t know. What I DO know, however, is that there is no such criticism that alters the things Scobie commented on:

Lechmere WAS found alone with the victim.
The victim WAS freshly killed.
Neither Paul nor Lechmere spoke of having noticed each other.
The clothes WERE pulled down as Paul arrived.
Lechmere DID have a working trek that would have taken him past a number of the murder sites.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera - we all know these points.

If Lechmere could be shown not to have been standing alone with the body, then Scobie needed to know this. But it can´t.

If it can be shown that the clothing was not pulled down over the wounds when Paul saw Nichols, Scobie needed to know this. But it can´t.

Etcetera, etcetera.

What Scobie says is that the points we are making are enough for him to conclude that there was a case good enough to take to court. So fundamentally, nothing is changed by Trevors valiant efforts.

It of course also applies that - as Abby says - that you need to get things like these recorded if you want to use them. And maybe the discerning Mr Marriott did just that, which would be fine by me. It would change nothing much anyway.

In the turmoil of everybody stepping over each other to sling mud, it seems that most people conveniently forget that we have a case here that a QC says would warrant a trial. If we want to detract from that (and MY, do some want just that!), we will have to do an awful lot of detracting before we reach the legal status of any other suspect.

Keep that in mind before you open the champagne. "Bullet points", by the way - did that not use to mean the key points, the important points...? And are bullet points necessarily very few? Just curious.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Since the discussion climate on this thread is not always totally healthy, I will be sparce here fortwith. There are a few other threads I would like to inititate, though, that I hope may be fruitful. One of them concerns John Richardson and I would like your input on that one. Coming soon to a computer near you!

[Sally]

Christer and myself have often said that the name swap is insignificant to the other facts – just that the name swap was what first brought Lechmere to attention.

Hey, Ed

Now are you absolutely sure about that? Because you know, I'm seem to recall seeing the 'name-swop' [dreadful term, I hate it] being reiterated on many occasions - here, on these very boards - as a prime indication of Crossmere's undoubted guilt.

Nicely done, though

[Stewart P Evans]

Valid

I can confirm that the Druitt family were consulted by both myself and Dan Farson before the publication of Farsons book in 1972. They were delighted to learn that they had such an 'illustrious ancestor'

Hi David, you will note that when I posted about the feeling that some have about making the case for a Ripper suspect it was -

a. My listing was of reactions that others (actually not I) have previously posted on the boards.

b. I also stated that this related to suspects 'conjured up', and not on record as mentioned by contemporary police sources. Ergo it does not relate to suspects named as such by the police such as Druitt named by Macnaghten and Tumblety named by Littlechild.

I appreciate also that some find it amusing that an ancestor may have been the Ripper, whilst others definitely do not appreciate it, or the attention it brings.

[Sally]

Another intelligent message via David MacNab

I know I shouldn’t - but it’s quite seductive - anyhow - I should point out to Sally precisely what I mean by “glossed over”. It refers to the issue of time in the show. I can assure you that the issue wasn’t glossed over in the research. Of course everyone will have a different opinion about what it is important to spend time explaining and what is too complicated and tedious for a viewing audience - it is my call - and the call of the Executive Producers who work for the broadcasters - to decide. The decision was simple: the timings on the night are all obviously contradictory - as someone very astutely pointed out earlier - if they were all accurate then people would have had to have been in two places at once. My feeling is that the police timings do seem to support each other. But they are beside the point. To explore all the permutations of who was right or wrong would be incredibly tedious for an audience so we.. “glossed over it”. We did so because there are far more important things we can be sure of: Lechmere’s shift started at 4 am. Our Pickford’s expert confirmed that the shift start time would not have changed owing to the fact that driver/customer relations were important to Pickfords and a regular face was part of that - drivers did not do multiple shifts. The walk from Doveton Street to Broad Street took 40 minutes. On any given day, Lechmere would have left home at 3.20 am. That does not mean that he always left home at that time. If he were the killer - he may well have left early - but being a senior driver it is unlikely that he left home later. We do not know what time he actually left home that morning. We only know what he says - and if he were the killer there are several reasons to treat his testimony with some suspicion. Lechmere could have left at 3.00 O’clock for all we know - he could have stalked her for ages - or he could have found her propped up against the gates in Buck’s Row at 3.37 - nine minutes before Paul says he entered the street. No one knows - but in may ways it’s irrelevant to his guilt. What we do know for an absolute fact is that he was found with a woman who’s head had been all but severed from her neck and yet there was no noticeable blood on the floor. There were no bloody footprints and there was no blood on the hands of Robert Paul, on his shoes or on his trousers - a man who was right over the woman and touching her for at least a minute. Within two minutes of Paul leaving the scene policemen describe a pool of blood. It implies that the wounds to Nichols’ neck were incredibly fresh. If Lechmere hadn’t inflicted them - who did? If an innocent Lechmere didn’t see the killer then he must have struck at the very least two whole minutes before Lechmere discovers the body. Adding for the time that it takes Paul to reach the body we are looking at 4 minutes before Paul examines her and five and a half before Paul leaves. Somehow someone has to explain how a woman who has had her throat cut back to the spine for five and a half minutes hadn’t noticeably bled. It’s not possible. Even in the dark conditions on Buck’s Row. Payne-James considered very carefully the issue of how quickly blood would seep from a neck wound like Nichols’ given that she was already dead. He was very clear to say that it was impossible, without seeing exactly her position, to give a precise time for blood to pool. Under certain conditions it could take minutes. But he was very clear that the most likely scenario was that she would have bled out very quickly - certainly it should have been noticeable a couple of minutes. If Lechmere had just killed Nichols then Paul would have been at the scene within one and a half minutes - examined her for about thirty seconds, had a brief discussion and left. The reason he didn’t notice any blood was because Nichols had only just been killed. Whether this all happened at 3.40 - 41, 42, 43 is irrelevant.

David McNab

Hey Ed

Well, you must thank Mr MacNab for me - although, I do feel bound to point out that I haven't actually remarked on any 'glossing over' and so I assume his post-by-proxy should actually be addressed to somebody else - now was that his error, or yours?

As it happens, I probably wouldn't bother to comment on the 'glossing over' because that's what I'd expect from a programme such as this; which is of course made not to report on the facts in an unbiased manner, but to tell a story which will be attractive to its audience.

It is self-evident that the story you have been telling with the indefatigable [your word] Fisherman is far more exciting and viewer-enticing than the plain old facts.

I'm not a person who expects historical accuracy from popular entertainment: unless the facts are in and of themselves a really good story, the two are usually incompatible.

[Stewart P Evans]

Still like that

...
"Bucks Row cannot have changed much in character since its name was altered. It is a narrow, cobbled, mean street, having on one side the same houses - possibly tenanted by the same people - which stood there in 1888. They are shabby, dirty little houses of two storeys, and only a three-feet pavement separates them from the road, which is no more than twenty feet from wall to wall.
On the opposite side are the high walls of warehouses which at night would shadow the dirty street in a far deeper gloom than its own character in broad daylight suggests. All Durward Street is not so drab and mean, for by some accident in the planning of the locality - if ever it was planned - quite two thirds of the thoroughfare is very wide and open." (my block type)
...

Durward Street was still like that in 1967 when I first photographed it, the houses and Essex Wharf still standing, and occupied.

[Chris]

Chris
This thread is about a documentary you haven't watched. You are a worthless participant so far as I am concerned.

As I've pointed out a couple of times now, because I haven't seen the documentary, I'm asking only about what's been posted here. (Please don't make me explain that a fourth time to you, or I shall start to worry about your state of health.)

But I really don't think you're going to be able to avoid that issue of what Scobie was shown. You said he was shown "original records the press reports of the inquest and the initial police reports and other press reports". Trevor Marriott says Scobie told him he was shown "bullet points".

I don't wish to jump to conclusions, but wouldn't it be fair to describe that as a prima facie case that someone is lying?

[Bitsie]

The clothes WERE pulled down as Paul arrived.

I'd forgotten this. If the killer had fled the scene before Lechmere arrived then why did he cover the mutilations this time and not others?

It's a nice detail. It fits with having been discovered, for me.

[Stewart P Evans]

Unlike...

... and enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a trial. You forgot that.
Did Russell Edwards gather the whole Kosminski family to tell them about his upcoming disclosure of their kinsman as the Ripper?
The best,
Fisherman

Unlike Cross, Kosminski is named as a suspect by contemporary police officers (Macnaghten and Swanson), albeit only the surname. He is not a 'conjured up' suspect. However, I do know that in the past some descendants of Aaron Kosminski have raised objections.

[Chris]

It was reported that no blood marks were found anywhere, except unrelated ones on Brady Street, if memory serves. So I'm satisfied neither Cross nor Paul stepped in blood.

Thanks for the answer! They seem to be as rare as hen's teeth on this thread.

But if that's right, it means no one at all stepped in the blood, including people who were there some time later than Cross and Paul, even when the pool of blood had reached its full extent. So it's difficult to see how Cross's and Paul's failure to step in the blood tells us anything about the time of death.

[GUT]

People are talking on this thread about Cross having pulled the clothes down before Paul arrived so what is this report all about:

Monday 17 September 1888 Inquest resumed in the morning
Robert Baul [sic – Paul], a carman of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett’s-court, Spitalfield. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, and as he was passing up Buck’s-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, “Come and look at this woman here.” Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement. By the coroner. – The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body. He had not met any one before he reached Buck’s-row, and did not see any one running away. – The Times, Tuesday, 18 September 1888 [HO 144/221/A49301C ff 9-10].

My bolding.