Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JTR: The Missing Evidence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JTR: The Missing Evidence

    Heads up to Aussies, "Jtr:The Missing Evidence" documentary is on SBS at 8:30 on Wednesday. It's quite entertaining and well worth a look but, just like last weeks episode about the Loch Ness monster, don't take the tall tales too seriously.
    Thanks for your time,
    dusty miller

  • #2
    Good work Dusty! Much more entertaining than watching My Kitchen Rules in any case.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hello Adam,

      What I'm really waiting for is a doco on a certain Tasmanian killing.
      Thanks for your time,
      dusty miller

      Comment


      • #4
        I would advice the other way totally - take the documentary very seriously. It is very seriously intended and very seriously made.
        There can always be differing opinions - God knows that is axiomatic when it comes to Ripperology - but overall, the show makes a very good factually based case for Charles Lechmere.

        Not everybody likes that, though.
        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

        Comment


        • #5
          To Christer

          I agree that it is well-made, entertaining and visually dynamic.

          But the theory itself relies on virtually ... nothing at all, I'm sorry.

          A witness used a false name, well a family name, but gave his correct address.

          If that is suspicious, which is a matter of debate, he did nothing else sinister, violent or incriminating. The reliance on newspaper accounts of who saw what, and what time they really got to the crime scene, and so on, are a foundation built on sand.

          It is not impossible that the police missed a prime suspect that could be found now. Improbable, but not impossible. But this theory does not have any hard evidence, and not much that is soft either, e.g. circumstantial--so he lived in the area, so what?

          As for the barrister and the police detective, well neither are what is actually needed, which is historians, because that is all that is left to us (I'm not an historian either, but I'm all that Macnaghten has and, unfortunately, ghosts can't be choosers anymore than beggars).

          I subscribe to the interpretation (I'm alone) that the case was solved at the time, and that this provisional solution (forever provisional because the suspect was already deceased), was shared with the public, albeit discreetly fictionalized. From 1923 the Ripper case was rebooted as a mystery, and this misconception [mostly] lasts to this day.

          Let me repeat, what I just wrote could be true but, in a ghastly mistake, the suspect a few gents were obsessed with was not the Ripper. Rather it really was an anomic figure who slipped through police fingers in 1888.

          That's possible, just about anything is possible, but not very probable.

          It needs sensational evidence to make the unlikely become likely, but I don't see it.

          That's my two cents.

          But I would urge people to make up their own minds by reading your book and watching the doco.

          Comment


          • #6
            I echo Jonathan's comments, its a highly enjoyable piece of light entertainment.

            It does contain a few facts, but it also contains errors put up as facts, which sort of balances the "facts" out. By far and away the largest content is heavily biased speculation.

            As I said good fun, but serious or scholarly?

            Hardly.
            Thanks for your time,
            dusty miller

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Belinda

              I think a lot of research has gone into Lechmere by Fish and Ed here but I think a lot seems forced based on the fact he was found near one victim and changed his surname (to his stepfather's).

              Hey Adam

              Much more entertaining than watching My Kitchen Rules in any case.
              You planning on baking a cake?

              Tracy
              If you're going to be two-faced at least make one of them pretty.

              Comment


              • #8
                In case folks haven't seen the documentary....here it is :

                https://www.dropbox.com/s/8zx7ncc2ag...29%5D.avi?dl=0
                To Join JTR Forums :
                Contact [email protected]

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hello Tracy,

                  "I think a lot of research has gone into Lechmere by Fish and Ed here..."

                  That highlights another problem with the Tv Show, it gives the distinct impression that the research was all done by Christer. I know neither Christer or Ed have ever tried to claim the credit, but the break though research by Osbourne, Connor and particularly Chris Scott are being slowly overlooked.
                  Thanks for your time,
                  dusty miller

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "here it is"

                    Thanks Howard!Remember Aussies, tonight SBS 8:30. Then read the latest issue of "Ripperologist" and make up your own minds.
                    Thanks for your time,
                    dusty miller

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Dusty:

                      Can you tell me which killing that was, or am I just being thick and avoiding your subtle hint re the Venn research i've been doing?

                      Tracy:

                      I struggle to heat up corn flakes, never mind a cake!

                      Cheers,
                      Adam.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tracy Ianson View Post
                        Hi Belinda

                        I think a lot of research has gone into Lechmere by Fish and Ed here but I think a lot seems forced based on the fact he was found near one victim and changed his surname (to his stepfather's).
                        Lechmere's use of another surname seems suspicious and is the basis for his candidacy as the Whitechapel murderer according to his advocates on these boards. On the other hand, for all we know he might have called himself Cross on a regular basis, so giving that name might not be as suspicious as it might appear.

                        Best regards

                        Chris
                        Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                        https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                        Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                        Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Not a bad doco, but I'm far from convinced. Without knowing much more about him, the majority of evidence against Lechmere seems to be based on his route to work and subsequent proximity in time and location to the victims of JTR. This is all well and good but in a population the size of the East End, surely there would have been plenty of similar candidates?

                          It also concerns me that Lechmere lived for many years after the murders. I know it might be a cliché, but I've always envisioned JTR as being somebody who would only have stopped if he died, was incarcerated / incapacitated or moved away.

                          In saying all of that, Lechmere is far from the worst suspect we've had and is certainly worth a closer look.

                          Cheers,
                          Adam.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No, gentlemen, the theory is NOT based solely on the nameswop.

                            Nor is it based solely on the routes.

                            It is based on a whole lot of things. And taken together, the conclusion that this man is the only really viable Ripper suspect, based on existing case evidence rather than on some police bigwigs assertions, becomes inevitable.

                            I am pressed for time right now, but I will list the the reasons that Lechmere should be suspected comprehensively in the near future.

                            Again.
                            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Okay, here goes.
                              Adam Went says that the Lechmere theory is seemingly built only on the geographical correlations, suggesting that there would have been "plenty of similar candidates" for the Nichols murder.
                              Chris suggests that the nameswop is what the theory is built on, telling us that it could have been perfectly innocent.

                              To begin with: What other Ripper suspect has this much going for him? What other suspect was involved in the investigation and gave the wrong name to the police?

                              Not a single one.

                              What other suspect can be proven to have geographical ties to tall the murder sites?

                              Not a single one.

                              Taken by themselves, each of these things merit Lechmere for a higher place onj the list of suspects than any other suggestion. So casually saying "this is the one and only point against him" is not only very wrong. It is also very misleading, since they are both very important points.

                              Let´s list the geography as point:

                              1. Four out of the six murders commented on in the documentary were committed in direct proximity to the two shortest thoroughfares from Bucks Row to Broad Street. All of these four murders were also committed at the approximate hours when Lechmer would have passed the spots, at least if we accept that Phillips was correct on Chapmans TOD.
                              Stride was killed in the exact middle of the places where he had grown up, and where he had spent most of his life. It was arguably the territory he knew best in all of London. And she dies early in the evening on a Satruday night, at a time when he could have been visiting his old haunts or his mother close by.
                              Eddowes died along his old working route from James Street to Broad Street.
                              There were thousands of street that would have been incomparable with Lechmere as the killer. None of these were used.
                              If we change any victim from the group Tabram-Nichols-Chapman-Kelly for any victim in the group Stride-Eddowes, the pattern is ruined. But this never happens.
                              The involved witnesses all say that the streets were empty at these hours. There would be very few other people to compete for the title as Nichols´killer.
                              Only people working in the Broad Street area would have reason to use BOTH Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street. Anybody working north of the Broad Street area would have no reason to use Old Montague STreet, and anybody who worked south of the Broad Street area would have no reason to use Hanbury Street.

                              The name will be point number:

                              2. He swopped his name. He was called Lechmere, and acknowledged this in the 110 other occasions when we have him in contact with any sort of authority.
                              If he called himself Cross at work is therefore uninteresting, since the police is clearly an authority.
                              He did not only hide his name from the inquest, it seems as he hid his address too.
                              These matters seemingly jointly corroborate the suggestion that he actively was hiding his ID from the inquest and the papers.
                              Nothing seems to implicate that the Lechmere name ever was accessed by either police, press or inquest. It therefore stands to reason to suggest that no thorough check of the carman was ever made.

                              This, Adam and Chris, is what you say is all we have. Of half of it, to be more exact. One of you say the geography, the other say the name.

                              Let´s list a few more numbers:

                              3. Neither Paul nor Lechmere professes to have heard the other man, in spite of the streets being completely quiet, and in spite of the pair walking with a distance of merely 30-40 yards inbetween them. Paul had this distance from his door to Bath STreet, so he should have seen Lechmere passing in the floodlight under the lamps of the brewery there.
                              Nail heard Thain from 130 yards with no problems, and signalled him down. Lechmere was a hundred yards CLOSER to Paul - who did not hear him.

                              4. The clothing of Nichols was pulled down over the wounds to her stomach. In no other evisceration case did this happen. In no other evisceration case was the killer found by the victim, as was the case with Nichols if I am correct. So there was never any need to hide the other victim´s wounds, whereas there was a need to do so with Nichols.

                              5. The carman went to the inquest in his working gear, in spite of the fact that the winesses were required to stay at the inquest, to be able to be recalled by the coroner. It seems that he may have told his wife that he was going to job instead of to a murder inquest.

                              6. Lechmere and Mizen disagreed over what had been said inbetween them. If Mizen - a much commanded PC - was telling the truth, then Lechmere claimed that another PC awaited Mizen in Bucks Row. Oddly, this would have been a perfectly shaped lie to take Lechmere past Mizen unsearched.

                              7. Lechmere also said that he had told Mizen that the woman could be dead, whereas Mizen said he had only been told that she was lying in the street.

                              8. Lechmere claimed that both he and Paul had spoken to Mizen, whereas Mizen only speaks of a single man telling him about Bucks Row.

                              9. Mizen said that as he saw Nichols, she was still bleeding and the blood appeared fresh. He also said that the blood in the pool underneath Nichols was somewhat congealed.
                              Mizen will have reached the body at around five minutes after Lechmere left it. Normally, a body with the kind of damage Nichols had, will bleed out totally in a few minutes. And blood will normally start showing signs of congealing after three minutes. Then the congealing will be completed after around seven minutes. That means that after five minutes, the blood will normally be "somewhat congealed".

                              10. Lechmere had a background with a missing father and what seemingly was a domineering mother - a very typical background for serial killers.

                              11. Lechmere worked at Pickfords of Broad Street, and may well have stashed the body parts there. If he did so in the Eddowes case, then that would explain why the apron was not present in Goulston Street at 2.20, when Long passed and checked.

                              12. Regardless if Lechmere went directly home after killing Eddowes or if he went by Broad Street, the Goulston Street doorway would still be along the logical way home for him.

                              13. I´ll make this the last point for now: This man was found alone with a freshly killed, still bleeding murder victim.

                              As you can see, gentlemen, we do hinge our case on a lot of things, and not just on one factor. Now, if you will , please just take your points, numbers one and two, and add my last point, number thirteen. What do we get?

                              We get a man who was found standing alone "where the body was" as per Robert Paul, and that body was still bleeding. After that, he gave the police and inquest the wrong name. And if we look at the routes he logically would have travelled, we can tie him to each and every one of the murder spots by logical reasoning. And we factually KNOW that he was at one of the sites at a time that would have been very close to when the victim was cut.

                              Now, let´s list five popular latter day suspects:

                              Jacob Levy
                              James Kelly
                              Francis Thompson
                              Hyam Hyams
                              Carl Feigenbaum

                              These are men that are seriously proposed as having been Jack the Ripper. Compare them to Lechmere, and make a list of accusation points.
                              You will find that the most damning points are that they were either mentally unstable or given to violence.

                              Can we place a single one of them at a murder spot or even close to it? Can we in any shape or form tie them to the investigations? Are they tied to any of the victims in any way?

                              Saying that "we only know that he used another name when speaking to the police" and "yeah, he had reason to be on the murder spots at the murder times, so what?" has very little edge in this context. When we are so very eager to find indications and points of interest speaking against somebody, how wise is it to diss them when they come along?
                              "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X