The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Robert]

Even if we go with an earlier TOD for Chapman, he'd still have been late for work. And if Ed is right about Nov 9th not being a holiday, then he'd have been late then too.

[David Orsam]

But that's the same old chestnut used over and over again that the killer must have lived and worked in the area. No one knows that.

Hi Trevor, I agree with you but I was trying to make the point that there are a number of suspects for which there is no evidence they were ever in the Whitechapel area, still less at the time of the murders - I can think of at least one who possibly wasn't even in the country! We have all, I am sure, read the books about suspects based solely on anagrams. My basic point was that, with Lechmere, we know for a fact that he was at a murder scene and so - on the basis that he might have lied to a policeman about a material fact - I have difficulty understanding the strength of the resistance to label him a suspect (which doesn't of course mean he was the murderer).

[David Orsam]

Steady on, old chap. Mizen did not name the PC as Neil.

Hi Simon - I know he didn't but I thought your point was that he was trying to cover up for Neil's absence from the scene. If the PC he was referring to was not Neil, what was the point of him inventing a conversation with Cross?

Rather than argue ourselves blue in the face, let's just agree that in the final analysis their contradictory stories went unchallenged.

I can't really agree with you about this because their stories aren't contradictory if Mizen was telling the truth about what Cross said to him. In that event, the would both be consistent with Cross lying.

[Lechmere]

Oh, what's this? Another person who thinks the day of The Lord Mayor's Parade was a public holiday?
How amusing.
And we know when Kelly was murdered do we?
And we know that a carman out on delivery would not be able to leave his wagon for unloading?
And we now know the doctor was definitely wrong in his estimation of Chapman's time of death?
My, how things have been solved lately.

I dare say any number of mishaps could affect anyone's arrival time at work, criminal or otherwise. Which proves what?
Yes, nothing - no promotion to the CID for you my lad.

Without Paul's interruptions maybe Lechmere would have mutilated more, for what - a minute? The interaction with Paul and Mizen will have delayed him more than that and then you can add extra time for his detour on the longer Hanbury Street route.
Incidentally if he met Mizen at 3.45 he didn't get in at 4 anyway.

It's blatantly obvious in the context of what Paul said that he did not see Lechmete at all until he saw him where the woman was. Attempts to make out this might not be the case are desperate nonsense. I doesn't bother me if people wish to peddle this sort of nonsense, it just illustrates the inane lengths some go to to try and point score against this theory.

By the same token walking to the middle of the road is an act of seconds that does not involve stationery mulling over and hesitation - which is why I generously allowed a ten yard extra distance.
But actually when Paul emerged from his front door he was stationery as Lechmere walked in his normal stride across the end of his road. It would have taken Paul several seconds of walking to get into his stride which implies that the distance between them would have been closer as Lechmere passed Foster Street.
Of course maybe Lechmere didn't walk past Foster Street at all or at least not then.

Your nails are all made of rubber.

[David Orsam]

Well, I still have issues with the timings given in the documentary.

At 6.37 of the video(on Youtube) the narrator says :

"Just 15 minutes before Polly Nichols was killed a policeman passed the murder site on his regular beat. The street was deserted."

And the CGI graphics show a note - 3.15 am. "All is quiet"

So the video seems to be saying that Polly Nichols was killed at 3.30am. The video however seems to accept that Cross/Lechmere did not leave home till 3.30am.

Just one of the timing issues.

cheers, gryff

Hi Gryff - absolutely right! This appears to be based on the evidence of PC Thain that he "passed the end of Bucks-row every 30 minutes" and was signalled by another constable flashing his lamp at "about 3.45am". So I guess the producers figured that he must have passed the end of Buck's Row half an hour earlier at 3:15. Yet, as you say, in the documentary Lechmere supposedly arrives in Buck's Row at 3:37.

It's funny that, according to the documentary, 9 minutes is a "major gap" whereas 15 minutes is preceded by the word "just".

Bearing in mind that the documentary claims it took the killer only two minutes to inflict the wounds on Nichols, then even if a policeman had passed the scene just 15 minutes before Nichols was killed, it would have been plenty of time for someone other than Lechmere to had done it, even if he had arrived on the scene at 3:30!

[Robert]

Ed, I acknowledge that I have a major weakness re visualising spaces, topography etc. But please explain this idea you seem to have of Paul walking behind Crossmere all the way to Buck's Row : just when was Crossmere supposed to have picked up Nichols?

[Chris]

It's blatantly obvious in the context of what Paul said that he did not see Lechmete at all until he saw him where the woman was.

Then I'll ask you again to quote what he said that makes this "blatantly obvious". It should be very easy, if what you are saying is true.

By the same token walking to the middle of the road is an act of seconds that does not involve stationery mulling over and hesitation - which is why I generously allowed a ten yard extra distance.

In fact you claimed there was "not the slightest suggestion of a wait or hesitation".

On the contrary, Cross's testimony obviously implies that he stopped walking along the road and walked to the middle of the road to try to see what the object was.

Now that we've established that he stopped walking along the road, the question is how long he stood there. That, we simply don't know. So your argument dissolves, as so often, into sheer speculation.

[Sally]

Wotcha Ed

Sally
You are correct in pointing out that there are a small number of posters on here who vociferously (and regrettably sometimes abusively

Now, now, Ed, it doesn't do to start misrepresenting the views of others. Really. It's a waste of both our time. I didn't say anything about anybody being 'vociferous'. I think that the great majority of people who contribute to discussions here; and on the other site, have raised rational, reasonable - and tellingly the same - counterarguments in response to your theory; which you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. Your repetitive claim that a widespread 'refusal' to accept your word on Crossmere reflects wholesale bias, truculence and mental instability within the Ripperological community is baseless, unrealistic and silly.

as some of the newbies have pointed out to their amazement) attack the Lechmere theory

That? Outrage born of ignorance. It lasted all of five minutes.

I mentioned a short while back in another relayed thread that the Lechmere theory tended to appeal to disinterested intelligent people as it was grounded in reality and required no leaps of faith of evidence ignored.

By 'disinterested intelligent people' I assume that you mean those with little or no knowledge of the case who are happy to accept you wihtout question as an 'expert'. That's obviously where you're going to find your support - easy enough to do if you spin a good enough yarn.

Sally was trying to make out that the posters on this site (collectively not individually) are representative of something that grants it some sort of status as the arbiter of what is right (we actually saw that arrogance in full flood over the shawl). I merely said some home truths.

No I wasn't. What I was saying - and which should be bleedin' self-evident to you - is that many who post here have studied the case for years and subsequently posess a detailed knowledge. Their opinion is likely to carry some weight - whether you like it or not. That observation, incidentally, is certainly not confined to Ripperology. It's a general truth which everybody involved in serious debate, in whatever field, recognises as such.

In spite of your unquestionable style, I note that you haven't responded to my earlier post with any real substance - to be expected, no doubt, since there is apparently little of it in your many claims regarding Crossmere's alleged personality and familial circumstances.

Oh I know - it all works if you accept that he was the Ripper.

I admire your passion and tenacity, my problems with your theory are just that - it isn't personal. I'm afraid though that you're fighting a losing battle if you hope to gain critical acceptance for your theory: You are engaged in popular Ripperology, not critical debate. That's fine - you're certainly not the first to succeed in that arena. All things considered, perhaps you should consider settling for that.

Adieu

[David Orsam]

This appears to be based on the evidence of PC Thain that he "passed the end of Bucks-row every 30 minutes"

And PC Neil too I should add, who also said he had been in Buck's Row "a half an hour previous" to his discovery of the body.

[Colin Roberts]

There is nothing to stop you maintaining your vanilla version. But you will be set upon by a pack of dogs so carry a stout stick.

I don't maintain a vanilla "version" of events, Ed.

Rather, I am willing to settle for a vanilla 'foundation', in the absence of any knowledge pertaining to the exact type of sprinkles that should rightfully be placed on top.

I don't need any stick in this instance, as it is Christer and you - not I - that have so willingly stuck out your necks.

You have put all of your eggs in one basket in response to some ill-conceived notion that you even needed a basket in the first place.

We know NOTHING of Lechmere's sense of direction or chosen routes to work.

Likewise, we know NOTHING of his weekly/daily/hourly schedule. We can't even be certain that he was in fact on his way to work when initially encountered - not "found" - by Robert Paul. For all we really know, he had been 'hunting' the streets of London's inner East End for several hours.

And accordingly, we know NOTHING of his inclinations to visit his mother and eldest daughter in St. George in the East.

My whole point, Ed, is that you never needed to rationalize his presence in such places as George Yard, Hanbury Street and Berner Street. If he went to those places simply to commit murder, then so be it. There are countless scenarios that would give him the opportunity to have done just that; but as I stated yesterday, we have no way of knowing which ones - if any - coincide with reality.

Did Peter Sutcliffe have any legitimate reason for venturing into Chapeltown or Moss Side? No! He didn't need one.

He probably had no legitimate reason for ever venturing into Manningham, even though it was just around the corner, so to speak. But again: he didn't need one.

Your theories pertaining to the historical record, i.e. the possibility that Lechmere intentionally mislead PC Mizen during their initial encounter at the eastern end of Hanbury Street; as well as the possibility that he intentionally came forward on the eve of the Nichols inquest, so as to cover his tracks, are rather speculative, but nonetheless quite meaningful. But your theories pertaining to Lechmere's typical comings and goings are flights of fancy that have cooked Christer's and your goose; whilst stripping Lechmere's candidacy of any legitimacy - in the eyes of 'Ripperdom' - that it ever may have had.

PS: I wonder if Rob is out celebrating the home side's victory in Croydon.

[Rob Clack]

Without Paul's interruptions maybe Lechmere would have mutilated more, for what - a minute? The interaction with Paul and Mizen will have delayed him more than that and then you can add extra time for his detour on the longer Hanbury Street route.
Incidentally if he met Mizen at 3.45 he didn't get in at 4 anyway.

That is not what I am saying so trying to confuse the issue isn't helping or is that your point?
What I am saying is if Lechmere carried on mutilating Nichols WITHOUT any interruptions he still would have been late for work. So if he finished mutilating her at 3:47 he would have been late for work, wouldn't he?

It's about 20 minutes walk from Bucks Row to Broad Street so he would have arrived about ten minutes late.

Now, when he set out for work at 3:30 he would have gotten to work on time at 4:00.

It's blatantly obvious in the context of what Paul said that he did not see Lechmete at all until he saw him where the woman was. Attempts to make out this might not be the case are desperate nonsense. I doesn't bother me if people wish to peddle this sort of nonsense, it just illustrates the inane lengths some go to to try and point score against this theory.

Well I don't think Paul saw Letchmere until he was in Bucks Row.

By the same token walking to the middle of the road is an act of seconds that does not involve stationery mulling over and hesitation - which is why I generously allowed a ten yard extra distance.

Bucks Row was about 8 yards from wall to wall.

But actually when Paul emerged from his front door he was stationery as Lechmere walked in his normal stride across the end of his road. It would have taken Paul several seconds of walking to get into his stride which implies that the distance between them would have been closer as Lechmere passed Foster Street.

That reeks of desperation.

Of course maybe Lechmere didn't walk past Foster Street at all or at least not then.

And you know this how? Oh you don't, more speculation on your part.

Your nails are all made of rubber.

Still went into the coffin without much trouble.

[Rob Clack]

PS: I wonder if Rob is out celebrating the home side's victory in Croydon.

Cheers mate

[Rob Clack]

If he wasn't the killer than he was the unluckiest person in the world, because he suddenly developed some sort of habit of always passing by as somebody was killed in those streets. - Christer Holmgren

More unsubstantiated twaddle from the documentary

[moonbegger]

It's blatantly obvious in the context of what Paul said that he did not see Lechmete at all until he saw him where the woman was. Attempts to make out this might not be the case are desperate nonsense. I doesn't bother me if people wish to peddle this sort of nonsense, it just illustrates the inane lengths some go to to try and point score against this theory.

Lets just say for argument sake , we allow the pendulum to swing Team L's way on most of the contentious decisions (ie) CrossMere was indeed crouched over , or standing over Polly's body . Also no one knew him as Cross ( apart from himself and his family ) .

Even considering both of these plausible scenarios , a guilty man it does not make , As many have commented , there Innocent explanations in abundance for both , and furthermore , we know he had good reason to be walking those streets , along with thousands of others ..

Its seems like we are debating pointless outcomes to creative and inventive theory's the whole day through .. And we love it

That's Entertainment !!

moonbegger

[Hercule Poirot]

...he suddenly developed some sort of habit of always passing by as somebody was killed in those streets. - Christer Holmgren


As hundreds and hundreds of Londoners also did hence totally irrelevant.