The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Cogidubnus]

[J6123]

I thought the earlier parts of the documentary were the best, and the later stuff about his routes to work and him handling meat mean nothing on their own, they are just interesting.

Another 'possibly' interesting thing is that Lechmere seems to have learnt nothing about the body in the time interval between him spotting it and Robert Paul turning up. The longer that time interval was, the odder it seems that Lechmere himself hadn't tested for breathing, or checked for a pulse, or attempted to prop her up, seeming as he was so curious as to stall on his way to work when he was already late. He just says "come and look at this woman" as though he's only just spotted her. I assume she was only examined more closely after Paul was there because Lechmere never says anything like "no, I've already checked", or " I tried to move her and her head nearly came off, this looks pretty bad".

I also think the idea of him deciding not to escape the moment he hears Paul, and staying and bluffing things out, is not entirely ridiculous. If he'd just stood there in the dark, Paul might have gone past without noticing much, but if he hadn't, it doesn't look good for Lechmere does it. I guess Lechmere could have just started walking off and then later claimed he never even saw any body in the dark?

[The Good Michael]

Finally watched it as it's on youtube now. It was well-made, but after 10 minutes, it is already accepted that Cross is the murderer, then we have the narrator saying, he lied about this, he lied about, this, and he lied about that. Anyone watching and not knowing anything, would be hooked. Then we have assumptions that Cross was hunched in the darkness over the body and that he would have heard Paul from a long way off. I doubt that. Where I work, the external passageways are perhaps 25 yards long. I hear no one coming towards my room until they're within perhaps 5 yards of the door, making it 12 yards at most, and I'm talking about a quiet area. Hard soles at perhaps 15 - 20 yards. If Cross had just seen the body, at 30-40 yards away, it would mean his hearing was quite good. Again, it begins with Cross' guilt and continues from there. I hate that kind of show. It's 'In Search of' without Leonard Nimoy, maybe fun, but shouldn't be taken seriously.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

My favorite part was Christer and Griffiths in Buck's Row. Good stuff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[eighty-eighter]

There could be something in this

I'm currently in the process of watching and re-watching this absorbing documentary. The more I see it the more open I become deep down to just a handful of the allegations contained within, those surrounding the discovery of Nichol's body and soon after, the rest is far more unconvincing and merely circumstantial in my opinion. Although the input of the top modern detective and the barrister are not to be sniffed at lightly either.
I'm not particularly impressed with Cross/Lechmere's (from now on C/L) geographical location of his home(s) or his timings; the east end was full of men getting up early for work and many worked at his depot too. The exact time he left home is always going to be open to conjecture too, though I admit it could be very relevant, but can we ever be certain? Also I don't believe his background particularly relevant either, probably the majority of males residing in Whitechapel at that time came from broken families that would send FBI profilers into an ecstasy of delight! Hollywood Hills it wasn't.
Yet C/L's behaviour on that fateful morning was suspicious to say the least. Not to mention the fact he was the first to be proven to be present at the site of a VERY freshly slain Nichols, widely accepted as a ripper victim. That's huge. In fact I believe (if my memory of the program is right) second on the scene Paul felt that she was in the throws of dying rather than dead; wow! Didn't C/L also say "no she was dead" but refused to move her body? Playing devils advocate here did he know she was dead(ish) because he'd just slit her throat and did he refuse to move her because he knew her head would loll over and reveal his deeply cut handiwork? Then of course came his lies to the police, talk about digging a bigger hole. Yes he could have given his name as Cross instead of Lechmere for an innocent reason but why say there was a pc at the scene who wanted assistance?
The bit that I'm finding it hard to get my head around is the theory that he planned this killing on the way to work. Or could it have just been a spur-of-the-moment, unplanned killing? He probably kept a knife on him both for his job and self protection - especially at the hours he walked the streets. Could Nichols have propositioned him I wonder? Could he have hated whores so much that he just snapped? Certainly JtR was a risk taker wasn't he?
Then there was his bizarre behaviour towards Paul when approached, reportedly he was right in Pauls face and even touched him physically; brazen in the extreme. Could this have been his desperation to see whether Paul had actually witnessed him and he wanted to get his reaction? Sort of a fight or flight response, only it was too late to flee. Had Paul of accused him lord knows what could have happened next.
This is just an hypothesis of one possible outcome and of course there is no evidence beyond what we already know. But there is enough there; if we're just talking about the murder scene events I'd say a possible. Ignoring that and talking about the rest of the accusations then I'd say more than unlikely. It's his presence at the freshly slain body and his behaviour immediately after that set my alarm bells ringing. The rest of the documentary fell somewhat into the trap of all the others; fitting the facts to the suspect, so I've essentially ignored that.
The photo of himself that C/L had commissioned rang a little bell in my head too, most serial killers are egocentric characters at heart and I'm sure Jack, whoever he was, would have loved to become immortalized in image as well as words....

[eighty-eighter]

On balance there is probably more against Cross/Lechmere being the Ripper than in his favour I think. Had this just been a one-off murder then he would be more likely to have been the culprit, but as this is widely attested to be a Ripper killing I just can't see him connected with the others beyond the geography. I just wish I knew more about his character.

[gnote]

On balance there is probably more against Cross/Lechmere being the Ripper than in his favour I think. Had this just been a one-off murder then he would be more likely to have been the culprit, but as this is widely attested to be a Ripper killing I just can't see him connected with the others beyond the geography.

Agreed, but even the geography aspect is dubious when it's presented first as his routes to work connect him, but when they don't? Well he used to live around there or knew/visited people in those places.

[Fisherman]

A number of posts out here need comments, and here they are. We begin with Stewart Evans, who in response to my saying that Lechmere was found standing alone close to a victim in Buckīs Row, counters:

No, Cross found the victim in Buck's Row. Wording it as 'Lechmere was found alone' is tendentious, misleading, and intended to put a suspicious slant on the incident upon which you have fixed your own interpretation.

Much as I can see where Stewart is coming from, and much as it seems a nice and decent thing to do not to suspect people of anything at all, we would end up in a very weird place if we were to accept the wording "Lechmere found the victim".

Letīs compare the two wordings and see which is the better one.

Stewart means that the wording "Lechmere was found standing alone close to the victim" is tendentious and misleading and intended to put a suspicious slant on things.

To begin with, the wording offers TWO interpretation possibilitites:

1. He was close to the victim and could have killed her.
2. He was close to the victim but may just have found her.

As for the supposed intention to put a suspicious slant on things, I would like to add that when I say that it is suspicious to be found by a freshly killed victimīs side, I am normally told that there is nothing suspicious at all in standing standing alone by a murder victims side, since somebody MUST find that victim.

Apparently, Stewart Evans realizes that this is mumbo-jumbo, and recognizes that potential guilt MUST attach to being found by the side of a recently killer victim.

Is it factually wrong to describe Lechmere as having been found by the side of a murder victim? No, it isnīt. Robert Paul said that he found Lechmere standing in the middle of the street, where the body was, as he came up to Brownīs, and Lechmere himself admitted to be standing in the middle of the road as Paul arrived at the spot. So both men are saying the exact same thing: Lechmere was found standing close by a murder victim.

But why do I think that this sentence should not be replaced by "Lechmere found the victim in Buckīs Row"?

Letīs look at the interpretation possibilitites of that particular sentence:

1. Lechmere found the victim and he could therefore not be the killer. The killer did not find the victim in Buckīs Row - he killed her there.

That is the only interpretation open to us. It is an interpretation that clears Lechmere from any involvement in the crime. He was the finder, nothing else.

This sentence disregards the context, and it disenables us to see the possible implications. It does not leave the question as to whether he could have been the killer open.

Being an ex-police officer as Stewart is, I would surmise that anybody found by Stewart Evans and/or his colleagues standing alone by a freshly killed murder victim saying "I simply found her, thatīs all" would be very closely scrutinized and would need to be cleared of suspicion. I actually know this to be the case.

So why would we treat Lechmere as being proven innocent, instead of leaving the question as open as it has to be?

I can accept the wording "Lechmere claimed to have found the victim in Buckīs Row on his way to work", since it would disclose that the one and only source we have for Lechmereīs claim is himself.

Just saying that he found the victim is giving half the picture only, and it is not something that is corroborated evidence. Worse: it could be a complete lie.

Saying that he was found standing close by the murder victim gives the whole picture, and it IS corroborated evidence. We know that it canīt be a lie - itīs the verified truth.

Itīs all very easy, therefore.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Next: Chris telling me that I am not supposed to claim that coming from the general direction of where Lechmere lived, one could use more than one route to reach Cable Street, where Lechmereīs mother lived.

Berner Street, Batty Street, Christian Street, Cannon Street Road, Riohard Street and Jane Street are all examples of streets that represented thoroughfares from the general area Lechmere came from leading to the general area where his mother lived.

Somehow, it is implied that I am trying to mislead people - but how could I do that? Anybody can look at a map and check out the exact positions of these streets.

If I wanted to lie and deceive - which I donīt - would I not be a bit more subtle than so?

Did I say that Berner Street was included in the shortest way from 22 Doveton Street down to his motherīs? No, I did not. I described the general character of Berner Street as a street that represented a thoroughfare down towards Cable Street. Which it is.

As I have already pointed out, there is no need whatsoever to speculate in which route he took to his mothers on the Stride murder night, since if he was ever there, it was on his way FROM Cable Street he would have killed Stride. And the speculation then goes that he may have visited his mother and daughter, only to then leave and search out his old grounds - which were accidentally centered exactly around Berner Street - to have a drink in one of the pubs he had moved away from three months earlier, after having spent his whole life in those parts, more or less.

Finally - and once more - it is no given thing at all that he DID see his mother and daughter on that night. He could just as well have payed his old grounds a visit, since he would have been extremely well aquainted with that area, probably knowing each pub in the vicinity and having a lot of friends staying there.

For some reason, the suggestion that he may have visited his mother has been elevated to a truth that I must prove. That is just plain wrong. It is one reason why he may have visited the Berner Street area, nothing else.

That is the core of the matter - Stride was killed in an area where Lechmere had double reasons to visit - at least. Whether we think that Berner Street was a better or worse choice to go down to Cable Street does not have any impact whatsoever on that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Last: Once again, the old joke "he would have run" is surfacing.

I am told that if he heard Paul from 130 yards away, he WOULD have run.

I do not necessarily agree at all, given the nature of psychopaths. But first and foremost: where does it say that he DID hear Paul from 130 yards away? He could have heard him from 130, 125, 120, 115, 110, 105, 100, 95, 90, 85, 80, 75 or 70 yards away, and he would still have time to cover the wounds up and step into the street.

What happens then?

Is there a set distance that he would choose his actions from? Would he have run if the distance was larger than 83,24 yards, whereas he would have stayed if it was shorter?

The ideas presented about how he would not have been able to hear Paul from far away are effectively disproven by how Neil heard Thain up at Brady Street and how Lechmere himself said that he could not have avoided noticing if there was anybody by Brownīs as he turned into Buckīs Row.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, do you see what you did there?

"As for the supposed intention to put a suspicious slant on things, I would like to add that when I say that it is suspicious to be found by a freshly killed victimīs side, I am normally told that there is nothing suspicious at all in standing standing alone by a murder victims side, since somebody MUST find that victim."

You used the word 'side.'

[Fisherman]

Fish, do you see what you did there?

You used the word 'side.'

Yes, Robert. Lechmere was standing by Nichols side. I have pointed that out to you on numerous occasions. Paul said that he was standing where the body was, and that he was out in the middle of the road.

So if he was out in the road and up where the victim was, then he was quite close to her, in other words by her side.

Did you see what YOU did? You once again remarked on something that needs no remarking.

I will make it very clear. Lechmere was close enough to the body to potentially have killed Nichols and then stepped back. Whether this meant that he was one, two, three or four yards away is immaterial to me. The ones it IS material to need to think again and decide whether they are nitpicking or whether they are nitpicking.

Let me know when youīve decided! Then perhaps - but I am not optimistic - we may discuss something that it of real interest!

All the best, Robert!
Fisherman

[Sally]

Ah - 'Potentially'

A lovely word.

Covers a multitude of maybes.

Then again, maybe not.

[Harry D]

Anyone ever seen that movie Groundhog Day?

[Fisherman]

Anyone ever seen that movie Groundhog Day?

Yesd. Thatīs the movie where the same frickin people surface day after day after day, never having picked up on the fact that the world moves on, isnīt it? They seem totally oblivious of any development, just like some people out here.

All the best,
Fisherman