The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Tom_Wescott]

Fish,

Personally, I agree with you that someone found standing near a dead body should be looked into. I also consider it a failure of the police not to have physically searched Cross (and Paul for that matter) on the spot. Personally, I think this is but one of a myriad of strange mistakes the police made that night and in the following days regarding the Nichols murder.

So observing Cross with some measure of suspicion is natural. Researching him to see what you could find is natural. Publishing your findings in Ripperologist (as an example) is natural. This would have been celebrated. But since the research into Cross's life hasn't turned up anything that puts your ears up, that makes your certainty about his guilt that much more confusing.

In short, it's not your interest in him that causes the backlash, it's the certainty you have and the constant repetition of this certainty that causes it. To the extent that I feel the field has lost two good researchers because you and Ed are not capable of discussing any element of the case objectively any more. That's a shame. But if you guys are satisfied, then I suppose that's the main thing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bitsie]

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 .

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about both men walking, if Lechmere was the killer he wouldn't have been walking at that moment but I do understand what you mean about the hypnotic element of your own footsteps, but Paul had said in his statement that he was wary of walking through that area due to gangs so perhaps both would have been alert to any sounds.

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 .

I'm not sure, it's worth a thought though.

[Lechmere]

I’m not going to go over old ground here for the umpteenth time
But I’ll go over the subject of the abdominal wounds and whether they were covered, as illustrative if the misinformation at large on here.

Let’s compare various newspapers accounts that describe how Nichols clothing was arranged:

Daily News – Cross testimony – The woman's legs were uncovered.
Daily Telegraph – Paul testimony - The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.
East London Advertiser – Paul testimony - He arranged the clothes as well as he could.
Eastern Argus & Borough of Hackney Times - Cross testimony - He (Paul) then tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs,
Echo – Cross testimony - When I found her, her clothes were above her knees.
Evening Standard - Cross testimony - When I found her clothes were up above her knees, we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down.
Illustrated Police News - Cross testimony - The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.
The Times – Paul testimony - Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.

It is clear from numerous sources that Lechmere testified that her legs were uncovered and an attempt was made to cover them which was only partially successful.
Paul’s testimony was covered in much fewer newspapers as the press seems to have lost interest in the inquest by the time he took the stand – but we have one reference to the clothes being raised almost up to her stomach.

I think a balanced view can only take the view that her abdominal wounds would not be on show.

[Bitsie]

I think a balanced view can only take the view that her abdominal wounds would not be on show.

Quite!

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Wow, thanks for this comment, Mike. Should you break down and read the book, I hope you'll be pleased. Now over to the Bank Holiday Murders thread where perhaps you'll be posting your views on Fish and Ed's documentary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Stewart
I avoid public transport like the plague - but I sometimes have to drive up to Suffolk for work anyway - I only live in Essex

[moonbegger]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about both men walking, if Lechmere was the killer he wouldn't have been walking at that moment but I do understand what you mean about the hypnotic element of your own footsteps, but Paul had said in his statement that he was wary of walking through that area due to gangs so perhaps both would have been alert to any sounds.

Yes , my apologies Bitsie , I was addressing the ( Why was Cross or Paul unaware of each others presence before Browns yard ) argument .

The echo's of Pauls own footsteps would have no doubt masked any faint footsteps ahead of him .. I think Pauls concern's would more likely be immediately around him ..

moonbegger

[Michael W Richards]

Wow, thanks for this comment, Mike. Should you break down and read the book, I hope you'll be pleased. Now over to the Bank Holiday Murders thread where perhaps you'll be posting your views on Fish and Ed's documentary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I see my placement of the comment was ill conceived, but youre welcome Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

I see my placement of the comment was ill conceived, but youre welcome Tom.

I was joking. No compliment to me is ever ill-placed and certainly never ill-conceived.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

Just saw it. Very entertaining and thought provoking.

Good job lech and fish and again congrats!

[Tom_Wescott]

I've just watched Missing Evidence from front to end, courtesy of youtube. In terms of presentation I'd have to say this is the most convincing suspect documentary yet produced.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

Oh and the photo of lech at the end!

Fish-"rather intimidating". LOL. I'll say. One scary looking SOB. No offense, Lech! : )

[Purkis]

Only just got round to watching, but I found it an excellent presentation of the Lechmere theory.
I don't subscribe to it myself, but neither did I subscribe to Pedachenko, the Royal conspiracy or Tumblety, to name but three, but I'm glad that others did, because their research has (in most cases) added to the field.
It's a shame that suspect based theories these days are met with such vitriol and anger, as if it's a personal slight, and I hope it doesn't discourage future researchers from presenting their findings.

[Tom_Wescott]

Only just got round to watching, but I found it an excellent presentation of the Lechmere theory.
I don't subscribe to it myself, but neither did I subscribe to Pedachenko, the Royal conspiracy or Tumblety, to name but three, but I'm glad that others did, because their research has (in most cases) added to the field.
It's a shame that suspect based theories these days are met with such vitriol and anger, as if it's a personal slight, and I hope it doesn't discourage future researchers from presenting their findings.

It's not as much the theory as it is the five years we've had the two gentlemen who now own shoving it down our throats. If only they'd made the documentary five years ago and then shut up you likely wouldn't see the vitriol. But it was a helluva doc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

Bravo!

As is often the case, I agree with Tom, Re: the quality of the program.

Perhaps the best Ripper documentary since "Secret History" of 1996.

Just as a true crime doco, it was very intriguing and absorbing with excellent graphics--and a delicious visual climax in seeing a picture of the suspect as an old man, squinting defiantly at the world.

I'd never heard of this person before so it was all new and fresh to me.