The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Robert]

Not yet Fish. I was hoping my nephew would help me download it from How's link, but he got sidetracked.

Yesterday when Tom said he'd seen it on you tube I tried to watch, but it had been taken down.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for the sarcasm.

But clearly that graphic is meant to reflect what Paul saw - he is standing there in the background. So it's grossly misleading.

Hi Chris
Does it really matter that the doc showed lech leaning over the body? fish has already said he wished it wasn't portrayed like that and besides its pretty obvious that Lech would have leaned over, stood over, whatever, the body to get a good look at it at some point.

To me, it would actually seem that if Paul came across Lech leaning over the body when he was hailed by cross it would be less incriminating any way.

I can see a scenario if lech was the killer, he suddenly hears Paul approach, quickly pulls down the dress and steps away from the body and then calls cross over to be a more natural response if you were the killer (other than running away of course!)than staying over the body as another person approaches.

[Rob Clack]

Try this Robert. I've just tried it and it works for me. You might have to endure a few minutes of adverts before it starts.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/conspiracy-the-missing-evidence/episodes/episode-3-616

[Abby Normal]

actually now that I think of it , it might be a more natural thing, innocent or guilty, to step away from the body as someone else approaches. But it a moot point anyway. For both sides of the argument. He must have stood over the body to get a good look at it at some point and was close enough to the body any way.

[Chris]

Does it really matter that the doc showed lech leaning over the body?

Kneeling over the body.

Of course it matters, if that's not what happened.

[Abby Normal]

Kneeling over the body.

Of course it matters, if that's not what happened.

Kneeling-as in on his Knees?
I think it just portrays him as leaning over the body.

[Rob Clack]

The thing is Abbey, all we know is Lechmere walked from the North side to the middle of the road and saw it was the body of a woman. At this stage he didn't know if she was alive or dead. He then heard Paul approach and they both went over to the body.

And that is what should have been shown in the program. It wasn't. What was is misleading and makes Lechmere look guilty and that is wrong.

Rob

[Abby Normal]

The thing is Abbey, all we know is Lechmere walked from the North side to the middle of the road and saw it was the body of a woman. At this stage he didn't know if she was alive or dead. He then heard Paul approach and they both went over to the body.

And that is what should have been shown in the program. It wasn't. What was is misleading and makes Lechmere look guilty and that is wrong.

Rob

Thanks Rob
So Lech, once he notices the figure lying in the road, never approaches the body?
as in from the moment he sees something and realizes its a body he doesn't go any closer until Paul arrives?

Doesn't he say he saw something and thought it was a tarp? and then goes to look and sees its a woman?

[Chris]

Kneeling-as in on his Knees?

Kneeling as on one knee.

[Rob Clack]

Thanks Rob
So Lech, once he notices the figure lying in the road, never approaches the body?
as in from the moment he sees something and realizes its a body he doesn't go any closer until Paul arrives?

Doesn't he say he saw something and thought it was a tarp? and then goes to look and sees its a woman?

Hi Abbey,

He is walking along the northside and sees what he thinks is a tarpaulin in a gateway on the southside and he walks over to investigate. When he gets to the middle of the road he then sees it is a body of a woman. This is presumably when he stops for a moment and then he hears Paul. And they both go over to the body together.

Ed and Christers position is that Lechmere was at the body, hears Paul 30/40 yards off and walks away (backwards I presume) from the body to the middle of the road.
Paul only says he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. So my feeling is Lechmere was standing there for a few seconds otherwise I think Paul would have seen him moving about.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Speaking of 30/40 yards. A big deal is made of the fact that Paul didn't see Lechmere from when he left his house to when he saw him in Bucks Row.

The distance from 30 Foster Street to Bath Street is approximately 39 Yards. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Rob

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abbey,

He is walking along the northside and sees what he thinks is a tarpaulin in a gateway on the southside and he walks over to investigate. When he gets to the middle of the road he then sees it is a body of a woman. This is presumably when he stops for a moment and then he hears Paul. And they both go over to the body together.

Ed and Christers position is that Lechmere was at the body, hears Paul 30/40 yards off and walks away (backwards I presume) from the body to the middle of the road.
Paul only says he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. So my feeling is Lechmere was standing there for a few seconds otherwise I think Paul would have seen him moving about.

Rob

Thanks!!

[Rob Clack]

Thanks!!

Your welcome. Just be ready for the Ed and Christer rebuttal

[moonbegger]

Kneeling over the body.

Of course it matters, if that's not what happened.

Hello Chris & Rob

There is no evidence that he did , But even if he did take a closer look , it hardly makes him guilty ! 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 .

moonbegger .

[DRoy]

Ghost
That is an interesting question in itself and strikes at the heart of the question of what 'Ripperology' actually is and why certain people take an interest in it.
We would need to consult an expert psychiatrist for the answer.

Lech,

That sounds vain to me. Look, we all are fascinated by the mystery of 'who-did-it' and Victorian London. No psychiatrist needed.

Why do most have a problem with Lechmere being presented as a suspect? Honestly, I don't think most would if there was something/anything to support it. While I appreciate all the effort you've done in researching Lechmere, there is nothing but cherry-picking 'evidence' and a lot of conjecture in the case being presented thus far.

A documentary and a book may convince those casually interested in the case that Lechmere was 'Jack' but the true test is convincing us. That was purposely meant to be vain. If posters here can kill DNA evidence, what else would you expect?

Cheers
DRoy