The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Tom_Wescott]

For 0.33 of a second.

You're a tough nut to crack, so Christer and Ed should take this as a huge compliment. I was good for at least a couple minutes past this.

I've always said that as far as witness-cum-suspects go that Cross was well under Hutchinson, but I might be willing to promote the ol' Lechmeister. If one of these days someone proves my suspicions correct that Hutch worked for either/both McCarthy or Crossingham, then that's another story. In the meantime, Cross might have edged Hutch out here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

But Fish – every point of weakness has been brought up, time and time and time again, by many, many commentators. You, and Ed too, for that matter, persist in stating that these counterarguments have all been ‘addressed’ and ‘dealt with’ and ‘covered’ when in fact what you have done is consistently deny that there are any issues – not the same thing at all.




The running – I don’t think it’s possible to say either way, myself and consider it a somewhat redundant argument. Had Crossmere been the Ripper he may have run, he may not have run. Whatever his ‘psychosis’ may, or may not have been; the variables involved are too many to accurately predict what he would do on a given occasion. Andy Griffiths is welcome to his opinion; but it falls short of critical thought in mine.



The name: Right, ok - to what end? Crossmere wanted to ‘stay incognito’ to his friends to what end? If you want acceptance of your premise you will need to account for his motivation in your allegation that he wilfully sought to deceive his friends. I hope that your explanation here will be better than your theorising regarding his wife – because that, as they say, holds no water at all. I can tell you why, if you like - although several others have already done an excellent job.



Well, that’s the thing, Fish. The suggestion that Crossmere called himself; or was called ‘Cross’ in at least some walks of everyday life really isn’t undermined by your ‘factual knowledge that he always signed himself Lechmere’ It cannot be certain that Crossmere was known ubiquitously as Lechmere in 1888. Simply, the written record is not equivalent to reality as lived. [a mistake so often made by undergraduate students and those who fancy themselves historians] and whilst it may be an indication of a wider truth, equally, it may not.

As has been pointed out by many people over the last couple of years, in short the fact that Crossmere used the name Lechmere officially in fact carries no indication at all as to whether he was known as Lechmere socially, or at work. The premise that there must be a causal relationship here is fundamentally flawed.

As pointed out by many, the use of aliases was commonplace in the LVP. Eddowes is a pertinent example already given by others: We know that she called herself Mary Kelly; she is recorded more than once in the Whitechapel Infirmary records as ‘Kate Conway’ – yet was referred to officially as Catherine Eddow[e]s before 1888, in 1888 and since that time. What was her ‘real’ name?

Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to suggest that Crossmere chose to call himself Cross on this occasion because he wanted to avoid, insofar as was possible, the press – a straightforward, if admittedly mundane, explanation. Removing the ‘guilty’ filter for a moment we see only an ordinary man who was unfortunate enough to encounter a murdered woman on his way to work and tried to involve himself – and by extension his family - as little as possible.

We could go on, I expect. We could talk about the unaddressed problems with the suggestions that:

• Crossmere was ‘controlling’ – on what basis has this premise been advanced? All that I have seen is the Ed’s insistence that a conscientious approach to signing official documents is indicative of a controlling personality. I try not to laugh at the ideas of others – in my world it wouldn’t go down well [tempting though it sometimes is] but really?? Oh – but I was forgetting – there’s always the ‘menacing’ photograph, eh? That too?

• Crossmere had delusions of grandeur – evidence for this premise, please? The fact that he was descended from a family who had known better times is not sufficient to extrapolate to this extent – for a start it presupposes that he knew all about his ‘illustrious’ ancestors – hardly a given, even if you do. There can be further discussion on this point if you like.

• Crossmere had a ‘controlling’ mother who dominated his life. Evidence for this premise, please? You will say, no doubt, that the number of and circumstances surrounding her marriages confirm it – although clearly they don’t. The could, they might – but in and of themselves, they are insufficient factors from which to draw a sound or safe conclusion. We can discuss this at length if you wish.

• Crossmere ‘resented’ his stepfather, Thomas Cross. Evidence for this premise, please? As far as I can see, this appears to be wholly conjectural – an idea that fits nicely into the general theorising about Crossmere’s personality; but which is not actually evidenced at all. It is exactly the same as suggesting, say, that Joseph Barnett was the Ripper because of his familial circumstances – in fact, there’s a clear theoretical parallel to be drawn there.

• That Crossmere was able to continue his murderous spree undaunted, in spite of having come to the attention of the police early on, because of the incompetence and/or general awareness of the police at the time. You will be able to draw parallels here which demonstrate that this is possible; but I think no more than that. There appears to be no direct or circumstantial evidence to support the contention in Crossmere’s case. Again, it fits into the theory, but is unsupported.

• That Crossmere stopped killing and lived a mundane life into old age [again, parallels with Barnett-Theory]. I see that more recently, you have suggested that Crossmere indeed continued to murder well beyond the Autumn of Terror. Evidence for this premise, please? Which murders, specifically – and what ‘ties’ Crossmere to them in your opinion?

I’m sure I can think of some more, but I daresay that’ll do for now. You don't need to feel obliged to enter into a long and protracted discussion with me regarding the above necessarily - but these are all points which have been raised and dismissed several times over by 'Team Lechmere' so if you could actually address them somewhere, that'd be good.

Ooooh This one I like.

And I was trying to stay out of this thread.

[Jonathan H]

Dear Tom

Hutchinson?

You mean the too late to testify witness of the Jewish tycoon who supposedly was Kelly's last client and by implication her killer?

You're not suggesting ... he's a suspect are you???

I suppose I'll now be told I've missed the train on that one too.

Let me ask a question of the proponents of the Charles Lechmere theory:

Do you think it likely that this fellow was also the murderer of McKenzie and/or Coles?

[Rob Clack]

You're a tough nut to crack, so Christer and Ed should take this as a huge compliment. I was good for at least a couple minutes past this.

I've always said that as far as witness-cum-suspects go that Cross was well under Hutchinson, but I might be willing to promote the ol' Lechmeister. If one of these days someone proves my suspicions correct that Hutch worked for either/both McCarthy or Crossingham, then that's another story. In the meantime, Cross might have edged Hutch out here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Perhaps I am just hard to please.

[Tom_Wescott]

Dear Tom

Hutchinson?

You mean the too late to testify witness of the Jewish tycoon who supposedly was Kelly's last client and by implication her killer?

You're not suggesting ... he's a suspect are you???

I suppose I'll now be told I've missed the train on that one too.

Let me ask a question of the proponents of the Charles Lechmere theory:

Do you think it likely that this fellow was also the murderer of McKenzie and/or Coles?

Hi Jonathan. I don't think you notice most of what gets discussed, but for the record, multiple books have been published naming Hutch as the Ripper and a number of posters believe that. So I most certainly have not named Hutch as a suspect. I don't rule out him having been involved in some way, but I don't think it's likely he was the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Perhaps I am just hard to please.

As well you should be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Given this kind of misrepresentation, one shudders to think what kind of bullet points the producers provided Mr Scobie with.

Come to think of it, did Edward Stow ever explain how he come to assure us that Mr Scobie's opinions were based on sight of all the documentation, rather just these bullet points?

Scobie stated that some of what he was presented with, and put to him, he gave `differing` opinions about which apparently fell on deaf ears and eventually the cutting room floor

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[Chris]

I'm still watching the documentary. To be honest I thought I'd better bite my tongue rather than commenting on every little point, but really this thing about Cross not noticing blood but Neil seeing a pool of it is too ridiculous.

Surely the reason is obvious (sorry - this has surely been said before):

Cross: Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark.

Neil: I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.

[Lechmere]

Jonathan
I think it is sensible not to rule any of the crimes out – he can’t be ruled out for any of them and they are all within his range. If this were a live cold case reinvestigation that would be the case.
The similarities of these cases far outweigh the differences in my opinion

Moonbeggar
If you accept Lechmere’s testimony, he says he saw the ‘tarpaulin’ from his position on the northern pavement and moved to the middle of the road where he recognised it as a woman’s body and then he heard Paul coming behind him. (incidentally his seeing that the tarpaulin was a woman is another indicator that it was not inky black and things – eg blood - could have been seen).
There is no pausing for 20 seconds and no closer look. Those are inventions.
I stated the given range of 30-40 yards. Paul may have covered say 5 extra yards, but be generous and say 10, while Lechmere went to the middle of the road.
However Foster Street would be about ten yards wide so Lechmere would have taken a similar time to traverse the front of Foster Street as Paul came out of his house.
Either way Paul was close on the heels of Lechmere from the moment he came out of his front door.

[Lechmere]

Robert (not Tro… I mean Rob)
I’m sure you need no reminding of the Paul-Chapman theory (as I shall refer to it). You can find it somewhere on this forum I am sure.

tji
The arrogance shown over the shawl was the immediate expectation that the author or his main scientific helper were answerable to people on casebook and should respond to e-mails or the posted comments on this forum, and the fact that they did not meant that they were in the wrong.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Chris

Surely the reason is obvious (sorry - this has surely been said before):

Cross: Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark.

Neil: I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.

Yes, I had to explain this, at length, to my missus...who wanted to know why I'd almost exploded in wrath...but nonetheless it was a well-made doco, and I expect, sadly, it'll stick in the minds of the non-ripperological community for a little while at least...hopefully not as long as the royal nonsense though...

all the best

Dave

[GUT]

Jonathan
I think it is sensible not to rule any of the crimes out – he can’t be ruled out for any of them and they are all within his range. If this were a live cold case reinvestigation that would be the case.
The similarities of these cases far outweigh the differences in my opinion

And of course he can't be ruled in for any of them either.

[Lechmere]

That wasn't what he was asking - some suspects can be ruled out as they were abroad or incapacitated for some reason at the time.

[pinkmoon]

Common sense must prevail surely and people should stop claiming solved when it clearly isn't.

[Chris]

The arrogance shown over the shawl was the immediate expectation that the author or his main scientific helper were answerable to people on casebook and should respond to e-mails or the posted comments on this forum, and the fact that they did not meant that they were in the wrong.

It wasn't their failure to respond that meant they were in the wrong. Rather, once the error had been pointed out it was clear that they were in the wrong, and their failure to respond to the error having been pointed out - in all the circumstances that we've discussed before - was, and continues to be, very damaging to their credibility.

But apparently you agree now that they were in the wrong. Certainly the makers of the documentary accept what we pointed out about the commonness of the sequence variation in question. And even though this is mentioned in the documentary, it's more suitable to another thread.