The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Fisherman]

Just saw it. Very entertaining and thought provoking.

Good job lech and fish and again congrats!

Many thanks, Abby!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Oh and the photo of lech at the end!

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

To me, itīs much about the pose he stands in. There is actually a photo of his wife - née Elizabth Bostock - taken at the same spot, and she stands the way old people normally stood when they were put in front of a camera back in those days: Straight up, kind of stiff, arms along the side, en face.

So many of these old photos convey how the protographed ones were in awe about the new invention that could portray them in a split second, and the respect they felt towards the magician behind the lens is normally very evident.

But look at Lechmere! Who is in command in THAT photo...? Is HE impressed by the camera and photographer? Not as far as I can tell ...

I may be reading too much into it - it would be odd if I didnīt, given the time Iīve spent in company with the carman - but to me, it is a very striking photo.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

Many thanks for that, Tom! Yes, we are quite pleased with the outcome. But I think it takes BOTH a very good crew AND a top suspect to reach this kind of result.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

Muchas gracias, Purkis! You have a very good point about how you have to be ready for some severe punishment if you subscribe to a specified suspect, and I too think it is a shame. Why a community would want to run the risk of having somebody - anybody - who could hold the key to the riddle go silent for having been subjected to grotesquely overenthusiastic and misguided driticism is a riddle in itself. However, weighing in what lies in the balance for many, there are motives emerging.

What I can say, is that if you make it past the purgatory and arrive at a place where somebody says "Itīs not a theory I subscribe to myself, but it was nevertheless an excellent presentation", then you feel that it may have been worth it after all.

... and if you have Tom Wescott saying that it is the most convincing suspect documentary produced, then you start to question your senses.


All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

Oh yeah? Well, youīve got another five years coming, so buckle up..!

Unless, of course, we all agree that Lechmere is the guy, and start discussing mudcake recipes and daffodil growing out here.

Fisherman
holding his breath

[Lechmere]

Jonathan
I'm particularly glad you enjoyed it.
But...
It's all new to you?
Blimey how on earth did you miss those five years of vitriol?
And didn't you realise I have been following you around the boards all these years to rubbish your theories and denigrate your research just to buttress this theory?
All part of a fiendish Lechmere plot to eliminate all opposition.

[Sally]

Morning Fish,

I've seen the documentary and agree that it's not bad - praise indeed, eh? I'm sure that a few years ago I'd have found it compelling and we'd have had very different conversations regarding Crossmere - so I'm sure that the response of the general public will be favourable. Additionally, I think it only fair to say that I think you came across well - well done, you!

However - and you must know by now that there's always one of those -

The photograph of Crossmere - It's entirely natural for us as human beings to read and interpret people when we first see them - and that applies whether we see them in person on in a photograph. I do think it's important to be aware of our own bias when we do that though, because without that awareness we'll all continue to apply our own bias and expectation subjectively whenever we see somebody new. In reality, it isn't safe to make assumptions from a single image of anybody. As long as you recognise that your feelings about Crossmere's photograph are simply your own subjective impressions, that's fine

Next:

I think it takes BOTH a very good crew AND a top suspect to reach this kind of result

Well no, it doesn't. What it does take is a good story - and that you have. I think it's a great story actually: but a story, nonetheless. As always, if you [the collective you] come up with a single piece of evidence which bears scrutiny I'll be happy to reconsider my stance - it'd be nice to see a real suspect for a change.

Finally:

You have a very good point about how you have to be ready for some severe punishment if you subscribe to a specified suspect, and I too think it is a shame

Don't do this, Fish, it's unworthy. Of course, yes, some people will always defend their own ideas with vehemence - I don't think you can exclude yourself, either. However, the reasons for the general reluctance amongst 'Ripperologists' to subscribe to your [collective you again] theory have been distorted and exaggerated by Team Lechmere. I doubt that many are convinced by the premise that the lack wholesale acceptance of Cross The Ripper is due to the fact that Ripperologists are variously suspect-driven; entrenched in their views; impulsively argumentative; or mentally deficient

By now, so many people participating in discussions regarding Crossmere have voiced the same concerns about your theory that you know what they are. This consensus should tell you - as it clearly indicates - that there are some fundamental weaknesses in your reasoning.

Recent events - including the broadcasting of your documentary - have put popular Ripperology in context for me. On that note, I see no reason to view your theory as any less valid than many others which have been promoted over the years. Good luck with it.

[Fisherman]

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.

Many thanks for that, Jonathan!

I must say, I agree with Edward - the riddle about who the Ripper was pales when comparing it to how you managed to avoid Charles Lechmere over the last years.
I donīt know how you did it, but if you can sell the method you used, Iīm sure that you can put any pricetag you wish on it, and it will sell anyway!

Once again thank you for your kind comments, Jonathan!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

Morning Fish,

Morning, Sally!

I've seen the documentary and agree that it's not bad - praise indeed, eh? I'm sure that a few years ago I'd have found it compelling and we'd have had very different conversations regarding Crossmere - so I'm sure that the response of the general public will be favourable. Additionally, I think it only fair to say that I think you came across well - well done, you!

Thanks!

However - and you must know by now that there's always one of those -

No, thatīs all news to me.

The photograph of Crossmere - It's entirely natural for us as human beings to read and interpret people when we first see them - and that applies whether we see them in person on in a photograph. I do think it's important to be aware of our own bias when we do that though, because without that awareness we'll all continue to apply our own bias and expectation subjectively whenever we see somebody new. In reality, it isn't safe to make assumptions from a single image of anybody. As long as you recognise that your feelings about Crossmere's photograph are simply your own subjective impressions, that's fine

Well, if you read my post to Abby, you will know that I am quite aware that I may be the one person on the face of Earth that will be perhaps most likely to read things into this photo.
That being said, Iīd like to point out that I have repeatedly written about how phrenology was a very important factor back in those days, and that it carried huge risks with it when it came to how physical criminal archetypes were outlined.

And indeed, it is not the shape of Lechmeeīs head or the structure of his jawbone or something such that I find chilling with the Picture - it is instead his pose, which is so unusual for elderly people in the early 20:th century, when having their picture taken.

I think Charles Lechmere was a selv-serving, self-confident man who thought himself superior and justified to take other persons lifes - just the way many psychopathic serialists have over the years. That is the context in which I see the portrait.
I am fully aware that many people all over the world have looked at similarly looking portraits and gone "Ah, look, itīs grandfather - how nice he looks!"

You donīt have to warn me, thus. I know what I am speaking of.

Well no, it doesn't. What it does take is a good story - and that you have. I think it's a great story actually: but a story, nonetheless. As always, if you [the collective you] come up with a single piece of evidence which bears scrutiny I'll be happy to reconsider my stance - it'd be nice to see a real suspect for a change.

To my mind, a very compelling suspect Ripper documentary cannot be produced if a worthless and ridiculous suspect is presented, unless you outright lie in the documentary. If you stay with the facts, then the suspect must be a valid one, or you will not end up with a very compelling documentary.
But maybe thatīs just my take on things. We often differ, you and I, we both know that.

Don't do this, Fish, it's unworthy. Of course, yes, some people will always defend their own ideas with vehemence - I don't think you can exclude yourself, either. However, the reasons for the general reluctance amongst 'Ripperologists' to subscribe to your [collective you again] theory have been distorted and exaggerated by Team Lechmere. I doubt that many are convinced by the premise that the lack wholesale acceptance of Cross The Ripper is due to the fact that Ripperologists are variously suspect-driven; entrenched in their views; impulsively argumentative; or mentally deficient

I simply donīt agree, Sally. When I write that it must carry initial suspicion with it, if a person is found alone by the side of a freshly killed murder victim, and people go "Oh, no, in such a case we must suspect Indian Harry too", then I think we have a disingenuous discussion on our hands. We all know that Kelly was stone dead and arctic cold when Bowyer found her, and we all know that the implications are fundamentally different.
But still, people with decades of Ripperology behind then, and who have proven themselves razor sharp, clever and knowledgable otherwise, resort to such things.
When that happens, we are dealing with something that looks more like sabotage than Ripperology. And I NEVER ask myself "are they that dense..?", because I know full well they are not. Quite the contrary, actually. So there is something else going on, letīs make no bones about that.

By now, so many people participating in discussions regarding Crossmere have voiced the same concerns about your theory that you know what they are. This consensus should tell you - as it clearly indicates - that there are some fundamental weaknesses in your reasoning.

Of course it shouldnīt. They have to get factual before anything can be assessed, and very many posters remain strictly unfactual. Just like you do now, they go on about how "fundamental weaknesses" are there - but they deprive me of the possibility to take a look at these so called weaknesses. Very few things have been brought up (and thatīs totally understandable).

Top dogs are:

-He would have run in Buckīs Row - something Andy Griffiths decidedly disagreed with. It was never an option even, in his eyes.

-It was odd that he gave his Christian names and his working spot to the inquest if he wanted to stay incognito. And we have explained a million times that he wished to stay unknown to his friends, if we are right - but that he did not want to take the risk of saying that he was John Smith of 396 Marylebone Road, working at the Riverside Café, since the police in such a case could have checked him and found him a total liar. He would have hung, eventually, for that, in all probability. He instead balanced inbetween two wishes: that of being as clear and truthful as possible when speaking to the police, and that of hiding when he testified at the inquest.

If this was not what he did, then only one explanation remains: He DID call himself Cross on an everyday basis. But that suggestion is totally undermined by our factual knowledge that he always signed himself Lechmere. Plus there is not a iot of acknowledgement among the Lechmeres of today that the name Cross has ever been spoken of in combination with stories about earlier generations.

Ours is a perfectly logical suggestion, and we subsequently found that it seemingly had corroboration in his leaving out his address when testifying.

Other than this, what are the main holepickers? You tell me, Sally! That a person will not kill en route to work? That we "know" this because there are no exact comparisons?

Recent events - including the broadcasting of your documentary - have put popular Ripperology in context for me. On that note, I see no reason to view your theory as any less valid than many others which have been promoted over the years. Good luck with it.

Now, now, donīt strain yourself, Sally! And thanks!

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

But look at Lechmere! Who is in command in THAT photo...? Is HE impressed by the camera and photographer? Not as far as I can tell ...

I may be reading too much into it - it would be odd if I didnīt, given the time Iīve spent in company with the carman - but to me, it is a very striking photo.

So can we add "looking at me in a funny way" to the list of evidence against Cross/Lechmere?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

[Robert]

"When I write that it must carry initial suspicion with it, if a person is found alone by the side of a freshly killed murder victim...."

Careful, Fish. That's dangerously close to 'standing over.'

[Rob Clack]

So the production company had all the newspaper reports and official files and couldn't get the reconstruction right.

They had yours and Eds help in the reconstruction and again they couldn't get it right.

And who cares if the street was cordoned off today?

That just about sums it all up to me.

Rob

This is what I was on about in my post yesterday. The reconstruction could only have come from Christer and Ed as nothing remotely like this is mentioned in the Official Files or newspaper reports.
How can you be expected to be taken seriously if you are going to mislead people and exagerate the case against them

[Fisherman]

"When I write that it must carry initial suspicion with it, if a person is found alone by the side of a freshly killed murder victim...."

Careful, Fish. That's dangerously close to 'standing over.'

Iīve actually decided that itīs not. It is not as precise an expression, and since my belief is that Lechmre was around two yards from the body, I Think "by the side" is totally admissible.

It has been very much discussed before - of course - and no doubt, people will do so again. But I will leave the quibbling to them, since the significance does not lie in the exact distance between Lechmere and the body, but instead in the fact that Lechmere was quite close enough for suspicion to attach that he could have been the killer.

Once again - he would arguably not have been TOO close, if he wanted t deflect guilt.

If you think it is in any way unproven that Lechmere was found by the side of Nichols, itīs our prerogative. If you Think that he would have been closer if he was in Blackpool, that is actually your prerogative too. So thereīs a choice!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

This is what I was on about in my post yesterday. The reconstruction could only have come from Christer and Ed as nothing remotely like this is mentioned in the Official Files or newspaper reports.
How can you be expected to be taken seriously if you are going to mislead people and exagerate the case against them

[ATTACH]16448[/ATTACH]

Although this accusation does not deserve to be graced with an answer, I will do so anyway:

No, it did not come from Edward or me.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

Although this accusation does not deserve to be graced with an answer, I will do so anyway:

No, it did not come from Edward or me.

All the best,
Fisherman

Even better response than I had hoped for.

Thank you

Rob