The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Chris]

But this applies to every area of speculation about Cross, especially the "Biggy" "HE WAS JACK" and the police made no inquiries about him.

Although this particular aspect of the theory is a bit special, as it involves several speculations on top of each other:
(1) Paul didn't see Cross/Lechmere before Buck's Row
(2) Cross/Lechmere didn't stop in Buck's Row for more than five seconds.

There is also the question of whether it would have been light enough in Bath Street for Paul to see Cross/Lechmere at a distance, even though in Buck's Row he seemingly couldn't see him when he was more than 40 yards away, even though he was standing in the middle of the road. I think Neil has questioned this.

[GUT]

Although this particular aspect of the theory is a bit special, as it involves several speculations on top of each other:
(1) Paul didn't see Cross/Lechmere before Buck's Row
(2) Cross/Lechmere didn't stop in Buck's Row for more than five seconds.

There is also the question of whether it would have been light enough in Bath Street for Paul to see Cross/Lechmere at a distance, even though in Buck's Row he seemingly couldn't see him when he was more than 40 yards away, even though he was standing in the middle of the road. I think Neil has questioned this.

All true and none satisfactorily answered.

[Sally]

#4

Hi there Ed -

Sally
I'm afraid I didn't read that long post of yours some time back.

No?

My mistake. Because I like you and wouldn't want you to have to trawl through all those pages of posts since mine, here are my straightforward questions - originally put to Fisherman - again for your attention. It would be lovely to have a rationale for the following claims - particularly in respect of any supporting evidence that you may have:

• 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?

Thanks in advance

Oh, one more thing: Of course, you are at liberty to ignore these questions and any others that you choose. However, you should realise that if you fail to respond to straightforward requests for evidence in support of your theory - as you have historically - you are sending a very clear message to your readership that you are unable to do so.

[Rob Clack]

At any rate, what we are left with is Andy Griffiths who says that Lechmere is a person of tremendeous interest and Scobie who says that the coincidences mount up in his case, and enough so to allow for a trial.

Yes. But they are basing there opinions on what you and Ed told them. And nothing else, if they did there research independently then they may have come to different conclusions.

[Fisherman]

Yes. But they are basing there opinions on what you and Ed told them. And nothing else, if they did there research independently then they may have come to different conclusions.

Have I not already told you that I have provided them with no material at all? I never met Scobie, so how could I tell him anything? I never met Norris, so how could I tell him anything? I only met Andy as I stepped into the Linnean Library.
So why do you go on claiming that I have told these people anything in advance, when I have stated adamantly that this is not true?

Furthemore, unless you noticed, not a single newspaper report works from an assumption that Lechmere was the culprit. So what reports would we have put in the files for Scobie and Griffiths if we wanted to make Lechmere out as the killer? How would we sift the reports and articles to come up with that presentation? What would we add, what would we exclude? None of the articles include the rather disingeuous criticism against the theory that is presented out here, so that was not included.
They were told our theory, and they felt it panned out with the material they got.
So what could that material be? Re-written articles from the papers? Articles were we had taken out a few words and added other ones?

You need to speak out and specify exactly what it is you think happened, and how the material could have been manipulated to sway Scobie and Griffiths.

What did we give them? Morning Advertiser only? It has Lechmere down as innocent. The police reports? They say that Lechmedre and Paul found the body together, exonerating Lechmere. The Times? Lechmereīs innocent in that paper. Daily Telegraph? Same thing.

So how did we do it?

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Scobie is reported as saying he was given bullet points, what were they and who prepared them?

[Fisherman]

There is also the question of whether it would have been light enough in Bath Street for Paul to see Cross/Lechmere at a distance, even though in Buck's Row he seemingly couldn't see him when he was more than 40 yards away, even though he was standing in the middle of the road. I think Neil has questioned this.

There were large and strong lamps shining outside the brewery, so Bath street would have justified itīs name - it bathed in light there:

The Evening News of September 7 1888:

"It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime."

Obviously, the Evening News got the street wrong, since the brewery was in Bath Street, not Buckīs Row. But the lamps were great and shone at all hours of the night, so this is what we must work from.

As for when Paul saw Lechmere, I think that many people have this issue wrong. Lechmereīs estimation of Paul being 30-40 yards away when he first noticed him seems to have rubbed off here.

Lechmere never says that he SAW Paul from 30-40 yards, even if he may have. He could also have concluded the distance from how many steps it took before Paul emerged in the gloom.
For Paul, it applies that he did not hear Lechmere walking - he stood still. So he could have seen Lechmere when he was 40, 30, 20 or 10 yards away, we just donīt know.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Scobie is reported as saying he was given bullet points, what were they and who prepared them?

I know I didnīt. And all I can say about them is that we see Scobie holding and looking through an impressive file in his hands, and we can see some parts of it if we look close.

One is the report supplied by by the pathologist, and we can make out that it says "Consultant forensics ... Dr Jason Payne-James" in the heading, and them it starts "Polly Nichols was murdered where she was found", and it goes on to speak of strangulation and arterial pressure. You can freeze the picture yourself and look at it.

Another part is headed "Key Evidence", and there we can read the start, saying Charles Lechmere (as we now know him to be called) is reported as saying he left home for ... at 3.30 AM, although in other reports he left home even earlier, at 3.20."

And then there is the first section of the interview, where we can discern "I said to him at once, run for Dr Llewellyn". That gives away an exact quotation from the Daily Telegraphsī coverage of the first day of the inquest, Neil speaking.

So this is the best answer I can offer you, Gut. Apparently, Scobie was presented with the newspaper article texts, relating to the inquest, he was informed about discrepancies like the one in the times he gave for his departure, and he was given access to what Jason Payne-James had said and concluded.

All very suspicious, Iīm sure. You can check it out as easily as I could. Interestingly, there is not a single lie in sight, but potentially, we may of course have fed them to Scobie after the camera lights went off.

If you are amused by continuing with this parlour game, feel free to do so. Personally, I find it sad.

Forgive me if I cannot muster the will to respond to whatever further misgivings you may have. I find lifeīs sometimes too short.

All the very best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

There were large and strong lamps shining outside the brewery, so Bath street would have justified itīs name - it bathed in light there:

The Evening News of September 7 1888:

Thanks for this. Agreed, it looks like prima facie evidence that Bath Street was well-lit. (Though I'll be interested to hear the case for the defence on that, if there is one.)

As for when Paul saw Lechmere, I think that many people have this issue wrong. Lechmereīs estimation of Paul being 30-40 yards away when he first noticed him seems to have rubbed off here.

Lechmere never says that he SAW Paul from 30-40 yards, even if he may have. He could also have concluded the distance from how many steps it took before Paul emerged in the gloom.
For Paul, it applies that he did not hear Lechmere walking - he stood still. So he could have seen Lechmere when he was 40, 30, 20 or 10 yards away, we just donīt know.

But the crucial thing for your argument isn't really what distance Paul saw Cross/Lechmere at, but how far apart they were before Cross/Lechmere stopped to look at the body. And that depends on how far away Paul was when Cross/Lechmere noticed him, and how long Cross/Lechmere had been standing looking at the body at that time.

We have only Cross/Lechmere's estimate of the distance for the first, and no information at all for the second.

[Fisherman]

Chris:

Thanks for this. Agreed, it looks like prima facie evidence that Bath Street was well-lit. (Though I'll be interested to hear the case for the defence on that, if there is one.)

All you will find is the statement that there WERE great lamps shining through the night where Foster Street adjoined Bath Street. If the defence wants to make a case for lamps breaking now and then, they will be correct, so feel free.

But the crucial thing for your argument isn't really what distance Paul saw Cross/Lechmere at, but how far apart they were before Cross/Lechmere stopped to look at the body. And that depends on how far away Paul was when Cross/Lechmere noticed him, and how long Cross/Lechmere had been standing looking at the body at that time.

We have only Cross/Lechmere's estimate of the distance for the first, and no information at all for the second.

Yes, we have only Lechmereīs estimation! And if he was the killer, then he stood to gain an awful lot by establishing an exact distance inbetween him and Paul, a distance that made it impossible for him to have done the deed.

Myself, I would have thought that it would have sufficed if he said that "another man arrived just behind me", but Lechmere makes a point of adding the distance.
How often will a witness do that in circumstances like these, if he is not directly asked? How many people feel inclined to establish the distance in front of the coroner?

You say that we have no confirmation at all that we donīt know how long Lechmere had been standing looking at the body before Paul arrived. But you must realize that a man who is the killer and who is very eager to point at an exact distance, the way Lechmere did, will also realize that he must lay down that he noticed Paul in the exact moment that he himself walked out into the middle of the street. Otherwise, the information about 30-40 yards is possibly in vain.

Letīs therefore turn to the ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser and see what Lechmere said:

It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up.

"At the same time"! This is crucial to the lie, if he was the killer. That information HAS to be added to close the deal - he stepped out into the middle of the road, and at THAT precise stage, he noticed that he had a man exactly 30-40 yards behind himself.

Now - but not until now - Lechmere seals the deal. Now he has presented a testimony that covers all the bits and pieces, and that stands a decent chance to make the jury look away from how he spent an undefined amount of time with the victim. He defines the time for them!

Iīm not sure about to what extent you are read up on these little odds and ends, Chris. But believe me, I have been painstakingly looking for them, arguing that they will be there. And they WERE. All of them. It all fits, down to the last detail.

Itīs the exact same thing with the quote about "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" - I felt it WOULD be there before I found it. I did not know how it would be shaped, but I presumed that A/ there WOULD be evidence to corroborate my take and B/ there would be NO evidence to nullify it.

Of course, some say that I worked from an almighty bias, but when we make a presumption of guilt, we MUST establish if the sources allow for it. Thatīs what I did.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Quite Christer - and the alternative explanations for the suspicious events that make up the chain are obvious and hardly required a Hercule Poirot to suss out.

Sally
Those are your killer points? Epic fail Sally I'm afraid - to go alongside the increasingly weird claim by Chris supported but GUT that Lechmere must gave hesitated for a while mid road to allow Paul to catch up or that Paul didn't make it clear he wasn't aware of Lechmere till he saw him mid road. I'm not wasting time with that nonsense but I will answer your stuff once as I feel guilty for ignoring your pleas.

You may recall that I didn't say there was evidence of his being 'controlling' - I said controlled, as in precise. That is shown by his meticulous record keeping and the fact that he was able to amass enough capital during his employment as a relatively humble carman to open a business and leave a healthy sum in his will. And that his kids moved house and school without a day off school.

It has never been claimed that he had delusions of grandeur. It has been suggested that he might have resented his branch of the family's fall from grace. He was clearly in touch with his family as his daughters were named after his Lechmere aunts and some of his sons used traditional Lechmere name combinations. That despite his Lechmere father dissappearing when he was a toddler.

The claim isn't that he had a controlling mother either.
It is suggested that she had a strong personality as shown by the three marriages despite having kids in tow, as shown by her opening businesses up to quite old age, as shown by her bringing up Lechmere's second eldest daughter (not the eldest as mistakenly said in the film).

It has always been said that it is conjectural to suggest he may (that word is the give away) have resented his step father. When a step father turns up and the child is not a baby (I think he was about 9) and is not so much older ( I think Thomas Cross was 21 and much younger than his wife - Lechmere's mother) and an invasive authority figure twice over (being a policeman) it would not be that unusual for there to be resentment. There is room for conjecture there. Although I am sure many people have been happily brought up in such circumstances.

That Lechmere continued undaunted - I'm not sure what you are getting at. If it is that he should have stopped in fear after his brush with the police relating to the Nichols case, then there are simply masses of examples that disprove that suggestion - but I will leave you to find them. If you mean there is no evidence he wasn't investigated at the time and cleared then there is - the police continued using his fake name and also the initial stages were full of police errors of a similar nature. The only evidence we have to assist in making a decision in this matter points to him not being investigated. Which again you can research yourself if need be.

It isn't a recent suggestion that Lechmere continued killing. There are a number of post Kelly Whitechapel Murders and a series of other murders or unsolved and unexpected deaths up to 1898 at least, that he can be connected to. I gave a talk last August on the 125th anniversary put on by Whitechapel Library (called an Ideas Store as they are trendy) that went through them all. Don't tell me you missed it?
But it's too lengthy to rehash here. Sorry.

So far as ignoring questions goes, I think you have the wrong people. Does Fisherman ignore questions? Most moan that he answers them at too great length. Others such as Colin Roberts moan that they are answered at all. You often mockingly refer to the number and length of Lechmere threads as do others where the same questions are raised and answered ad nauseum. At meetings and events where I talk to real people, as opposed to virtual Internet ones, they tend to marvel at my stamina and patience in bothering to engage in this repetative time consumming exercise at all.
So your conclusion is more than a little wide of the mark - suitably so.

[richardnunweek]

Hi...
It amazes me how after all of these years, not only the length of Casebook, but since 1888, we are now discussing witnesses as being the infamous Jack.
I guess its called desperation.
Hutchinson,,,,now Cross..I have told the wrong name to coppers before in my misspent youth, yet I am not a killer, and somebody has to find a body..
Anyway I will leave my rant as simply...I do not buy it...
Regards Richard.

[Chris]

Letīs therefore turn to the ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser and see what Lechmere said:

It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up.

You really need to bear in mind that these are reports of what the witnesses said in answer to questions - of course they didn't stand up in court and make long speeches - particularly if you are going to make inferences based on what subjects the witnesses commented on.

But on your "ad verbatim" report - which in fact is obviously very incomplete - all it implies is that Cross/Lechmere heard Paul at the same time he saw it was a woman. It doesn't tell you how long that was after he stopped walking along the road.

And of course, you've still produced no evidence whatsoever that Paul didn't see Cross/Lechmere walking ahead of him in Bath Street. And it hasn't been for want of asking.

[Lechmere]

Because people who appear at one stage in an enquiry as a witness never turn out to have been the culprit you mean?

[Rob Clack]

Letīs therefore turn to the ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser and see what Lechmere said:

It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up.

Centre of the road. Is that the same as middle?

I will answer your other post this evening as I can't copy and paste on my phone.

Rob