The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, Stewart has contributed an important book on a new suspect, and a must-have reference work, and other books besides. My hat's off to him.

Pity he doesn't drink tea though.

There are some things one should keep to themselves. Pity Stewart let this slip.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

You have to wonder why, if Lechmere was "standing over the body of a murder victim", as has been repeatedly claimed, Robert Paul gave evidence as follows:

"As he was passing up Bucks Row hw saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness (i.e. Paul) approached him he (Lechmere) walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped onto the roadway in order to pass him. He (Lechmere) 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".

Lechmere doesn't say he was "standing over the body" and Robert Paul confirms that he was standing in the middle of the road, and was taken, by Lechmere, to the gateway where the body actually was. So who was it, who was also there, who reported that both Lechmere and Paul were lying on this point? If there wasn't a third person there, then all the evidence we have is that Lechmere was well away from the body and waiting to flag down the first person who approached.

Was James Scobie QC given this information or was he fed the line that Lechmere was found over the body when, quite clearly, he wasn't? I understand that Christer had no direct contact with Mr Scobie but clearly someone did. If the pudding was over-egged, so to speak, it is hardly surprising that Scobie reached the 'prima facie' conclusion that he did.

You may have noticed that Stewart Evans in an earlier Exchange with me said that it was a pity that Lechmer stands over the body in the documentary, something I agreed with. However, he also pointed out that he feared foremost that "Johnny Public" would get the wrong idea, not us out here. We all know that the implications of standing alone over a body and standing alone two yards away from it are exactly the same.

It is my contentio that James Scobie is equally aware of this. I cannot imagine that he would go: "Oh, two yards off, eh? Then heīs innocent."

Once more, Edward and I am saying that he was Close enough to have been the killer, backing off as Paul arrived. I think we both reason that staying put over the body would be a silly think to do if you want to deflect the guilt.

Once more, I suspect that Scobie will have arrived at the exact same insight.

The media, however, like their food differently spiced.

If I donīt have to go over this anymore, Iīd be very happy.

Itīs not gonna happen, though, I know that. But with X-mas coming up, one can always wish...

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

We must have a quiet chat some time. I do hope that you get your book published, you have obviously put a lot of work into it. You won't find me posting any bad reviews of it. No need to forgive your enthusiasm, it's to be admired.

We all need to thrash out our own views and it's better done here than attacking other's works in books, something I try to avoid. It is difficult, if anyone is passionate about a subject, to avoid becoming heated in a debate. I mean it seriously when I say that if there's any way I can help when you go ahead with your book, let me know. I shall certainly be honest with you.

That second paragraph is pure gold.

If, please no, I am ever silly enough to go into print with a suspect book I would want this sort of scrutiny, so I can see where the holes lie, but it seems that some take it as a personal insult.

[Fisherman]

G'day Bridewell

But didn't you read! Now it's that he was a couple of yards from the body, "we never said he was standing over the body" as usual anytime one thread is unpicked the goal posts move and that thread was not part of/ crucial to, the case.

What do YOU think that a man wanting to shift the blame away from him would do after having pulled down the clothes and hidden the weapon? Stay as close as possible to the body?

It is just as incriminating to stand two yards off as it is to hover over the body, if you have no weapon showing.

Itīs all a question of insight, of psychology, of knowledge about how psychopaths are ruthless and compulsive liars. To my mind, two yards off fits the picture a whole lot better than standing over the body.

But you speak - unknowingly - of "shifting the goalposts. Good! So go out on the threads, all hundreds of them, and find me ONE example where I say that Lehcmere was found standing over the body. After that, it is legitimate to say that I have shifted the goalposts. Before it, it is an indecency, since it is untrue.

Now, go find that post! If you can, let me know. And if you canīt, let me know.

The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

I cant believe that Im posting this....but I find it most refreshing when books related to the murders provide some new interesting information to digest, and stay away from Suspect naming or dramatic storyline explanations on why this published theory has "finally" solved the puzzle.

The reason Im surprised this is coming from me is that from what I understand Tom's new book does offer some insights and ideas without the over arching verdict.

Whoda thunk it.

Cheers

[GUT]

What do YOU think that a man wanting to shift the blame away from him would do after having pulled down the clothes and hidden the weapon? Stay as close as possible to the body?

It is just as incriminating to stand two yards off as it is to hover over the body, if you have no weapon showing.

Itīs all a question of insight, of psychology, of knowledge about how psychopaths are ruthless and compulsive liars. To my mind, two yards off fits the picture a whole lot better than standing over the body.

But you speak - unknowingly - of "shifting the goalposts. Good! So go out on the threads, all hundreds of them, and find me ONE example where I say that Lehcmere was found standing over the body. After that, it is legitimate to say that I have shifted the goalposts. Before it, it is an indecency, since it is untrue.

Now, go find that post! If you can, let me know. And if you canīt, let me know.

The best,
Fisherman

It's the documentary YOU consulted on that repeats it at least 4 times.

[Fisherman]

I find this to be an extremely convoluted suggestion... I mean this is really stretching the sources to fit your theory. Stewart's post just above is one example. The Times Sep 18, 1888 gives another:

When Paul testified, the coroner stated:

"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."

Times, sep 18, 88

RH

That was the idea the coroner shaped. It was wrong, if you ask me. Swanson said that the carmen found the body together - shall we put trust in that too?

The whole thing about the Mizen scam, Rob, is that people have done exactly what you do - they have joined up uncritically and without realizing the alternative scenario. So much so that they have not even mentioned that a key witness, found alone with a freshly killed victim, disagreed totally over what was said between him and the police! In doing so, they have also failed to see that the lie served to Mizen was tailormade to get Lechmere past the police. Can you think of a more waterproof way to do that? I canīt.

I think you are one of the authors that missed out on this. Totally. It was odd, it was hard to understand, and it didnīt make sense, so it was skipped over by writer after writer. I think that is Ripperologyīs worst mistake as well as the Victorian policeīs.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mizen's response to Paul's allegation, and it is clear that this is what it was, made at the inquest on Monday 3 September 1888 -

'...When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.'

This makes it patently clear that Mizen has been asked about the incident and denied that he continued knocking up after being told that a woman was lying in the street instead of immediately attending the scene.

Mizen said at the inquest that he proceeded to knock up, albeit just the one person.
What was said before the inquest is written in the stars, although we do know about Pauls allegations.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bitsie]

But he DID cover her up, Bitsie - Gut was a bit overenthusiastic about what he believed to be conquerings, thatīs all.

The best,
Fisherman

If you mean Lechmere/the killer, that's what I thought

I was trying to suggest to GUT that his repeated idea (despite all the reports I've read failing to mention it) that the abdomen mutilations were on display wouldn't change much even if it were true.

[Lechmere]

Stewart
You shall have to pop down to Happy Days for a portion of fish and chips (at a discount hopefully) and inspect the refurbished premises.

[Fisherman]

It's the documentary YOU consulted on that repeats it at least 4 times.

But I did not govern what what said by the narrator! Please respect that and donīt say that "Team Lechmere" have shifted any goalposts!!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If you mean Lechmere/the killer, that's what I thought

I was trying to suggest to GUT that his repeated idea (despite all the reports I've read failing to mention it) that the abdomen mutilations were on display wouldn't change much even if it were true.

Correct to a great extent. But I think that the clothes-pulling is a very interesting detail!

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Does it make any difference if he was standing over the body or some yards away? It's been said that he would have heard Paul's approach (night, hard soles, cobbles) before either saw the other.

We know that he had been close to the body before Paul came along because he'd been able to report to Paul that it was a woman - in the near pitch dark.

G'day Bitsie
The thing is , both men were walking , focused on getting to work , both hearing their own footsteps , that's even if they were paying attention to the hypnotic Metronome sound of footsteps . Of course if someone was right behind you, or even running up to you , automatic self preservation intuition would kick in and you would be alarmed , but we already know both men had a fair distance between them, so that was not the case .

Once CrossMere stops , and is concerned or curious about the bundle / tarp / body , he may well have walked over to investigate ( like most would ) , and at the point of realization of what he had discovered , automatic self preservation would then kick in , at which point possibly hearing Paul walking up the Row ..

At this point .. ask your self ( what would I have done ) .. Two possibility's are open to you .

1. You stay close by the body , knowing that a shroud of guilt and a world of unwarranted trouble and suspicion could rain down upon you .. or
2 . Take a step back to your original view point , shaking of that unwanted shroud and try to enlist the help and opinion of upcoming Paul .

I think the fact that he almost bully's Paul into re-discovering his discovery,
is the unmistakable act of an innocent man looking for a witness to his innocence .. Not his guilt .

Cheers

moonbegger .

[Bitsie]

Correct to a great extent. But I think that the clothes-pulling is a very interesting detail!

The best,
Fisherman

I do too, I think I mentioned earlier that it suggests to me that the killer was interrupted and signals the start of Lechmere committing himself to (or realising the necessity of) bluffing his way out of the situation, if that's not too much of an assumption.

If Lechmere had simply found Nichols then it would make sense that she would be uncovered just like the other victims - no doubt this is why GUT likes the idea so much.

It's a neat detail.

[Stewart P Evans]

Visit

Stewart
You shall have to pop down to Happy Days for a portion of fish and chips (at a discount hopefully) and inspect the refurbished premises.

Ed, I may well take you up on that, although I am trying to lose a bit of weight.

If you would like to pay a visit some time to see my collection let me know by PM. We're only just over and hour's train journey from King's Cross. I'm not going to post here further as I really don't enjoy some of the spats.