Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Fisherman]

question-Is there even a book on the torsos by anybody???

There are two, "The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London" by Michael Gordon and "The Thames Torso Murders" by Mei Trow. Contrary to John G, I think that Trows book is not a good effort. To my mind, Gordons book is the better one, but that does sadly not mean that itīs really good. Gordon has made his mind up that George Chapman was the Ripper and the Torso killer, and to try and prove it, he takes the wrong turn every now and then. For example, he leaves out the 1873 and 1874 torso murders (because Chapman was too young to have been able to be the killer), and adds the Salamanca Place torso (that was nothing even remotely like the "real" torso murders).

To even mention the prospect of a book by Debra in the same sentence as these two books would be ridiculous. If she ever writes it, it will emphatically surpass Mess:rs Gordon and Trow and - I dare say - put them to shame.

[Fisherman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vppbdf-qtGU

Ah - yes, thatīs a killer, Jerry!

[John G]

Oh yeah that dude. Forgot he did one on the torsos. He was in the worst ripper doc I've ever see. It was claiming Charles Mann was the ripper. And he had so many basic facts wrong in his torso book, not sure you could call him a historian.
His research was pretty lame as I recall. Not impressed with that dude at all. Pass.

To be fair, as far as I know he only got one fact wrong(I think it was Gordon who made numerous mistakes) and I thought overall his research was pretty good.

[Debra A]

To be fair, as far as I know he only got one fact wrong(I think it was Gordon who made numerous mistakes) and I thought overall his research was pretty good.

Trow made more than one error, but his book was well written.

[Fisherman]

He was in the worst ripper doc I've ever see. It was claiming Charles Mann was the ripper.

Robert Mann, Abby. Charles was the killer, remember?

[Elamarna]

Robert Mann, Abby. Charles was the killer, remember?

Fish, no he was a man who left home at about 3.30. The rest is conjecture

[Fisherman]

Fish, no he was a man who left home at about 3.30. The rest is conjecture

Do chill, Steve! Iīd say itīs even conjecture, more or less, that he left home at 3.30. It is certainly not a corroborated fact.
But saying that the "rest" is conjecture is wrong - there are many facts involved that are not conjecture at all. If they were, the Lechmere theory would be a baseless assumption, and it is not by any means.

However, it IS an assumption, but I think we all knew that before you posted.

[Elamarna]

Do chill, Steve! Iīd say itīs even conjecture, more or less, that he left home at 3.30. It is certainly not a corroborated fact.
But saying that the "rest" is conjecture is wrong - there are many facts involved that are not conjecture at all. If they were, the Lechmere theory would be a baseless assumption, and it is not by any means.

However, it IS an assumption, but I think we all knew that before you posted.

Fish you are the one who needs to chill, my comment was mainly in fun hence the wink.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Fish you are the one who needs to chill, my comment was mainly in fun hence the wink.

Steve

Okidoki. But I can tell you that I am not the one who needs chilling...

[Elamarna]

Okidoki. But I can tell you that I am not the one who needs chilling...

Well you do appear to get very defensive when ever anything is said which questions the "facts" as you call them.

Still I suppose it natural considering the time invested in the attempt to prove Mr lechmere/cross as the killer, and still no nearer than when you began.

Anyway research to do. Newspapers to read, videos to critic and posts to prepare.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Well you do appear to get very defensive when ever anything is said which questions the "facts" as you call them.

Tell me, Steve, which "facts" are you referring to?

Still I suppose it natural considering the time invested in the attempt to prove Mr lechmere/cross as the killer, and still no nearer than when you began.

Oh, Steve - I am a lot closer than when I began - contrary to those who pursue the traditional suspects. And I am not much flustered by your misgivings, Iīm afraid. Takes the fun out of it, I know - but there you are.
Personally, Iīd say that the one wasting time and space is you, who have posted a whopper of a thread where the main message is that we cannot be certain of the timings and the street patterns offered in the Bucks Row case. Heureka! I even think I saw it suggested that Lechmere could have walked any one of six different paths on the murder morning.

Six? More like sixhundred and sixtysix, Steve. Why limit yourself?

Anyway research to do. Newspapers to read, videos to critic and posts to prepare.

You do that, Steve, you do that. With any luck, you will stumble over something interesting this time. You will have to do a lot better this time over, though. "Debunking" the message from the docu about how the street layout is the same today as back then was not exactly a great achievment. It was "debunked" a long time before the docuy was shot. It has been pointed out by me and Edward that Robert Pauls home from back in 1888 is nowadays contained in close proximity to the cashiers of a supermarket, for example. Noting that the docu slipped up there, and pinning it on me is not sound.
I find it hard to work up any enthusiasm about such "debates", which is to a degree why I have left your thread unanswered. It sounded to me as if the piece de résistance of your research will be presented in the latter stages of your project, so I will look out for it then. If I miss it, you must tell me what it was.
Actually, if I have already missed out, donīt hesitate to tell me.

[Patrick S]

Yes, I noticed that you could not lay your hands on the book quickly enough.

Expectations, expectations - all in vain.

I know that Lechmere is not a proven killer, Gareth - I have actually pointed out as much numerous times. If he WAS, there would be no debate. The fact that I mentioned that he is not a mere proven witness either owed to the fact that Amazon marketed the book as such - it was said that Lechmere was "restored" to that status. Which, Iīm sure, would have made your day. But alas...!

"restored" to witness status is generous in that he's clearly never been seriously considered as anything beyond that, breathless, misleading, tabloidesque "docus" withstanding.

of course, i may be bias toward tom's side of the discussion in that i recognize in his pages much of what I've posted against "the carman" on these pages (I assume "the carman" is an attempt to give him a some clever moniker? but, if he's "the carman", what is paul? "the police-hating glory hound with an axe to grind carman"?). rational minds work alike, it seems.

in any event, this IS a thread about tom's book, not fisherman's fantasies. So, good luck and well done, tom. and to be fair, good luck on your book, fisherman, if and when it's released. i think tom's put two out since you began telling us about yours. not that we're counting. alas, i shall purchase yours as I've purchased tom's.

[Fisherman]

"restored" to witness status is generous in that he's clearly never been seriously considered as anything beyond that, breathless, misleading, tabloidesque "docus" withstanding.

of course, i may be bias toward tom's side of the discussion in that i recognize in his pages much of what I've posted against "the carman" on these pages (I assume "the carman" is an attempt to give him a some clever moniker? but, if he's "the carman", what is paul? "the police-hating glory hound with an axe to grind carman"?). rational minds work alike, it seems.

in any event, this IS a thread about tom's book, not fisherman's fantasies. So, good luck and well done, tom. and to be fair, good luck on your book, fisherman, if and when it's released. i think tom's put two out since you began telling us about yours. not that we're counting. alas, i shall purchase yours as I've purchased tom's.

Lechmere HAS been regarded as the potential killer for many a year, Patrick. You must have missed that.

[Patrick S]

Lechmere HAS been regarded as the potential killer for many a year, Patrick. You must have missed that.

i stand corrected. i omitted the term "serious" or "credible" or "realistic".

sorry for the confusion. thanks for your help! but, you did make a good point in a prior post, christer. you said that you're certain that cornwell is wrong about sickert, but damn if you can prove it. i think you're beginning to understand how these things work.

it's near impossible to PROVE someone was NOT a killer when that person existed some 100+ years in the past, even if the idea is absurd on it's face. doing so is even more difficult the "suspect" is someone like your man, not someone well known whose movements may have been tracked, even to some small extent.

all we can do is examine the information and form a reasonable opinion. reasonable people like you see corwell's hypothesis as rubbish. overwhelmingly, reasonable people have rejected your theory (i would suggest that you've become less than completely reasonable when discussing Lechmere, but that's just my observation). challenging people to PROVE that your man was innocent does you no favors in hawking this thing. just as becoming frustrated that you cannot PROVE cornwell wrong is no real metric measuring her theory's validity.

[Fisherman]

i stand corrected. i omitted the term "serious" or "credible" or "realistic".

sorry for the confusion. thanks for your help! but, you did make a good point in a prior post, christer. you said that you're certain that cornwell is wrong about sickert, but damn if you can prove it. i think you're beginning to understand how these things work.

it's near impossible to PROVE someone was NOT a killer when that person existed some 100+ years in the past, even if the idea is absurd on it's face. doing so is even more difficult the "suspect" is someone like your man, not someone well known whose movements may have been tracked, even to some small extent.

all we can do is examine the information and form a reasonable opinion. reasonable people like you see corwell's hypothesis as rubbish. overwhelmingly, reasonable people have rejected your theory (i would suggest that you've become less than completely reasonable when discussing Lechmere, but that's just my observation). challenging people to PROVE that your man was innocent does you no favors in hawking this thing. just as becoming frustrated that you cannot PROVE cornwell wrong is no real metric measuring her theory's validity.

People better suited than you to make these kinds of calls have opted for Lechmere being a very serious bid for the killerīs role, Patrick. Andy Griffiths said that he was of tremendeous interest and Scobie said that he would warrant a trial.

Of course, you can mock their views and - if you wish - lead on that they were conned or payed to give those views. But the fact remains that this was what they said. And the fact equally remains that they are better suited to make the call than you or me.

There is a mean streak out here that refuses to go away. It makes Steve say that I havenīt come anywhere closer to proving my case than when I started, and you to claim that the documentary was a farce, more or less.

I cannot stop people from posting such views, just as little as I can stop people from saying that Hitler was a clever guy with a commendable take on the immigration problem. Anybody can say anything on the web - and many do.

I am quite willing to discuss the case in serious terms, but I have explored to the full what happens when I engage in discussion with people who are first and foremost interested in shooting down what cannot be shot down - but who do not care one bit about that matter.

Whether you are one of these people or not remains to be seen - you have been, but you commendably managed to clear yourself of that approach. It seems you are now looking to catch up on your old ways.
Maybe I am wrong about that, I donīt know. It would be a sad thing if it was so, but it is not for me to decide what route you should use.
It is, however, for me to decide whether I am interested in going down whatever route you choose in your company.

Any which way, Patrick, you will probably find the boards a less trying place to visit in days to come, since I do not plan to visit them to any larger degree. My interest has tapered off to a degree, and I find I make myself much more useful doing other things than pointing out when people out here are being unrealistic and lacking in judgment.