All roads lead to Lechmere.

[drstrange169]

Great Movie

[FrankO]

I agree Abby, and I would suppose that Paul also knew what should have happened when he told Lloyd's Weekly "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.". That may even have been Paul's intention, but Lechmere followed him.

Hi George,

The thing is that Paul never told the Lloyd’s Weekly that Lechmere followed him. As we all know, according to what he told the Lloyd’s, Paul was the sole star of the story, with Lechmere but a nobody who Paul, in fact, seemed to have left with the body. We don’t know how the discussion between the two men went exactly.

We know Lechmere stopped Paul and called him over to examine, so they examined and concluded she was either dead or drunk; Lechmere didn’t want to help prop her up as Paul suggested, then a discussion started on how to proceed and they went away together, in search of a policeman. “They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met.”, Paul would later tell the inquest. What’s interesting to note is that Paul also told the inquest that, apparently when they were still at the crime scene, “they looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen.”

Who first suggested to go fetch a policeman is unclear, even more so if either of them suggested that one of them should stay put, but they quite probably did agree to go in search of a PC because they couldn’t do anything (more) for the woman at that point, because it was better left in the hands of the authorities and because neither of them wanted to be late for work.

All the best,
Frank

[rjpalmer]

I don’t think anyone is challenging Stow’s research abilities; they are challenging whether or not he is blinkered as a detective.

Unless Stow thinks that Lechmere and Paul murdered Nichols together, the callous behavior he sees in the two men’s behavior applies equally to an innocent Robert Paul as it does to a (supposedly) guilty Lechmere. They both left the scene, and they both walked past buildings with watchmen inside.

And if Stow admits that Paul is innocent, and I assume that he does, then he must also admit that the behavior of Paul isn’t evidence of guilt.

So why does it become evidence when it is applied to Lechmere?

That’s the name of his video. Jack the Ripper: The Evidence of Guilt.

Is Paul guilty?

As for walking past the building. I often walk at night after dark. I walk past office buildings and warehouses. I have no idea if there are security guards inside them or not.

But let's say it's a rough area. One might assume there would be guards. What good would it do to rouse them? Did they have telephones? The most they could do was go chase down a constable, which is what Paul and Lechmere decided to do anyway.

I'm not feeling these red flags.

[MrBarnett]

I don’t think anyone is challenging Stow’s research abilities; they are challenging whether or not he is blinkered as a detective.

Unless Stow thinks that Lechmere and Paul murdered Nichols together, the callous behavior he sees in the two men’s behavior applies equally to an innocent Robert Paul as it does to a (supposedly) guilty Lechmere. They both left the scene, and they both walked past buildings with watchmen inside.

And if Stow admits that Paul is innocent, and I assume that he does, then he must also admit that the behavior of Paul isn’t evidence of guilt.

So why does it become evidence when it is applied to Lechmere?

That’s the name of his video. Jack the Ripper: The Evidence of Guilt.

Is Paul guilty?

As for walking past the building. I often walk at night after dark. I walk past office buildings and warehouses. I have no idea if there are security guards inside them or not.

But let's say it's a rough area. One might assume there would be guards. What good would it do to rouse them? Did they have telephones? The most they could do was go chase down a constable, which is what Paul and Lechmere decided to do anyway.

I'm not feeling these red flags.

But they didn’t ‘chase down a constable’, did they? They continued on their way to work and encountered one on their route. And why did they feel it was necessary to later explain they were late for work? Just to add a bit of colour to their story, or to excuse their lack of effort to help the woman?

Whether consciously or not you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing Ed of.

‘Callous’ is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, whatever your politics.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

The thing is that Paul never told the Lloyd’s Weekly that Lechmere followed him. As we all know, according to what he told the Lloyd’s, Paul was the sole star of the story, with Lechmere but a nobody who Paul, in fact, seemed to have left with the body. We don’t know how the discussion between the two men went exactly.

We know Lechmere stopped Paul and called him over to examine, so they examined and concluded she was either dead or drunk; Lechmere didn’t want to help prop her up as Paul suggested, then a discussion started on how to proceed and they went away together, in search of a policeman. “They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met.”, Paul would later tell the inquest. What’s interesting to note is that Paul also told the inquest that, apparently when they were still at the crime scene, “they looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen.”

Who first suggested to go fetch a policeman is unclear, even more so if either of them suggested that one of them should stay put, but they quite probably did agree to go in search of a PC because they couldn’t do anything (more) for the woman at that point, because it was better left in the hands of the authorities and because neither of them wanted to be late for work.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

If Lechmere was just the discoverer of a crime (and not the perpetrator) then it would be his obligation, rather than Paul's, to stay by the body until the police arrived. I can't believe that anyone, including Lechmere, would have contemplated Pickfords castigating an employee for being late because he stopped to await the police arrival after a murder. Paul's interview with LLoyds was a study in ego and self promotion. Perhaps he didn't expect that Lechmere would come forward to testify and contradict him. However, I suspect that he did expect Lechmere to stay with the body while he proceeded to seek police help, and was probably surprised when Lechmere followed him, but didn't let this interfere with his story to Lloyds.

There is something that is not quite right going on with this behaviour (IMHO).

Best regards, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, Yes the argument could be made that either or both were callous, but also this was 1888 where two people meet in a very darkened thoroughfare with [ I believe ] a bad reputation, and no mobile phones for instance to use for help. They didn't know each other and were perhaps wary of one another [ Paul did try and avoid Lech ].
They had no idea how long it would be before a policeman passed through, or even if one of them stopped with poor Polly, if the other would be true to his word searching out a copper. So it wasn't the bravest act by either of them, but I feel in the circumstances understandable.
Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl
I couldnt disagree more. According to them, They werent sure if she was dead, dying or drunk. and for all they knew she could have been sick or beat up by thugs. and what if they had never run into a policeman?
Some times life throws things at you and you have to do the right thing, regardless of the circumstances or possible repercussions.

The ancient Greeks had a saying (which I think is one of the greatest quotes of all time): Do whats right, and let the skies fall.

In their case the sky falling was being late for work. not much of a sacrifice is it? One of them should have stayed with her. At the very least they were callous, but IMHO they were unethical, unsympathetic cowards.

And I dont want to hear anything about the conditions and desperate times of whitechapel district in an effort to down play their uncaring action. Just compare their behaviour to that of Mary Kelly, in far more desperate personal circumstance than them, who risked alot more (losing her lover, possibly her room) by letting friends in need stay with her.

[Ally]

Hi Frank,

I can't believe that anyone, including Lechmere, would have contemplated Pickfords castigating an employee for being late because he stopped to await the police arrival after a murder.

Is that sentence there a joke or just ...ignorance about the realities of lower income people constantly being on the precipice of losing everything and prioritizing their job security? The fact that you can't imagine an mid-level manager castigating an employee for being late regardless of the reasons proves you've had an idyllic experience in the workplace that is truly remarkable. I have absolutely no problems fathoming a manager castigating an employee for being late, even if they themselves were the victim of an attack and saying "Well you should have gotten someone to cover your shift then!"

The fact that huge swaths of people expect others to behave as they would in a perfect idealized world, where bosses and managers are reasonable, where nobody ever isn't sure what to do in an extreme circumstance, where everyone does the thing that you think ought to be done or is the correct response to extreme events, is always so interesting to me. It's like the fact that despite the fact that there are billions of unique individuals everyone actually thinks their version of reality is the "true" one and every one else's life experiences are aberrations.

Fascinating.

[rjpalmer]

Whether consciously or not you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing Ed of.

‘Callous’ is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, whatever your politics.

Not in the least, and you seem to be entirely missing the point. Feel free to call their behavior callous...it is not relevant.

What I mean by a "blinkered" detective isn't someone who is blind to the evidence all around them.

It is a detective who is wearing blinkers, so his vision is narrow and tunneled. He has convinced himself that his suspect is guilty, and then interprets every mundane behavior as evidence of that guilt.

And how is Stow not doing that in his video?

Paul and Lechmere have both "callously" left the woman on the sidewalk and they have both "callously" walked by buildings that, we later learn, had security guards in them.

But Stow is implicitly admitting that this behavior, callous or otherwise, is entirely compatible with an innocent man--Robert Paul.

So how can it be evidence of Lechmere's guilt unless Stow has already convinced himself that Lechmere is guilty?

As for finding a constable, it hardly needs to be said that this wasn't an age where one grabbed a cell phone and dialed 9-9-9, but it was an age when constables circled the neighborhood, and others were on fixed-point duty, so there was a likelihood of locating one rather quickly.

Stow begins his video by pointing out that the murderer was facing the Baker's Row end of the street, because that is direction a constable was likely to approach unawares.

The assumption--from either a murderer or an innocent man---is that a constable could be found in that direction.

And when Paul and Lechmere agree to find a constable, they go off in that same direction and they do indeed come across a constable in a matter of minutes. Their assumption was correct.

[rjpalmer]

It's the slums. It's the inner city. People become callous.

Alfred Crow callously stepped over the corpse of Martha Tabram and went to bed. He didn't know she was dead, probably, but he didn't care either. He was used to tramps sleeping everywhere.

Albert Cadosch heard a 'scuffle' in the next yard, but since there was no cry for help, he went inside. People became callous to their neighbors beating the brains out of their wives.

Israel Schwartz saw a woman actually being assaulted and ran away and didn't bother to notify a policeman until the next day, and only then came forward because a friend suggested it.

All in all, I think Lechmere was less callous than most. And Paul blamed the local constable Mizen for also being 'callous.'

More callouses that a platoon of foot soldiers.

[Fiver]

If Lechmere was just the discoverer of a crime (and not the perpetrator) then it would be his obligation, rather than Paul's, to stay by the body until the police arrived.

That isn't what happened with the other victims.

I can't believe that anyone, including Lechmere, would have contemplated Pickfords castigating an employee for being late because he stopped to await the police arrival after a murder

Lechmere and Paul both said they were running late as a reason they did not stay with the body. The coroner, the jury, and the reporters seemed to have accepted this reason , rather than accusing the men of being callous.

[Fiver]

It's the slums. It's the inner city. People become callous.

Alfred Crow callously stepped over the corpse of Martha Tabram and went to bed. He didn't know she was dead, probably, but he didn't care either. He was used to tramps sleeping everywhere.

While he didn't actually step over Nichols' body, by his own admission, Robert Paul would have just kept walking of Charles Lechmere hadn't stopped him. (Though Paul would pull Nicols' skirts down.)

[drstrange169]

>>I can't believe that anyone, including Lechmere, would have contemplated Pickfords castigating an employee for being late because he stopped to await the police arrival after a murder.<<

Paul had to pay for someone to cover his shifts so he could appear at the inquest, so we know his employer was intolerant of any kind of tardiness. It is known that Pickfords had a penalty system in place for lateness. So going by the available evidence, Paul and Cross had strong incentives not to be late for their work.

[drstrange169]

>>‘Callous’ is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, whatever your politics. <<

You are missing R.J.'s point. If callousness, is a evidence of guilt, Paul must be guilty, because the video claims both men were callous. If Paul is innocent, then callousness (in this described incident) is indisputably not "evidence of guilt".

[MrBarnett]

Not in the least, and you seem to be entirely missing the point. Feel free to call their behavior callous...it is not relevant.

What I mean by a "blinkered" detective isn't someone who is blind to the evidence all around them.

It is a detective who is wearing blinkers, so his vision is narrow and tunneled. He has convinced himself that his suspect is guilty, and then interprets every mundane behavior as evidence of that guilt.

And how is Stow not doing that in his video?

Paul and Lechmere have both "callously" left the woman on the sidewalk and they have both "callously" walked by buildings that, we later learn, had security guards in them.

But Stow is implicitly admitting that this behavior, callous or otherwise, is entirely compatible with an innocent man--Robert Paul.

So how can it be evidence of Lechmere's guilt unless Stow has already convinced himself that Lechmere is guilty?

As for finding a constable, it hardly needs to be said that this wasn't an age where one grabbed a cell phone and dialed 9-9-9, but it was an age when constables circled the neighborhood, and others were on fixed-point duty, so there was a likelihood of locating one rather quickly.

Stow begins his video by pointing out that the murderer was facing the Baker's Row end of the street, because that is direction a constable was likely to approach unawares.

The assumption--from either a murderer or an innocent man---is that a constable could be found in that direction.

And when Paul and Lechmere agree to find a constable, they go off in that same direction and they do indeed come across a constable in a matter of minutes. Their assumption was correct.

No, the assumption is that someone, anyone, could approach without warning from that direction. You’re twisting things again. Your bias is in plain sight. (It’s never out of it).

It’s great to see the banning of Lord O hasn’t disturbed the pack mentality too much.

[MrBarnett]

>>‘Callous’ is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, whatever your politics. <<

You are missing R.J.'s point. If callousness, is a evidence of guilt, Paul must be guilty, because the video claims both men were callous. If Paul is innocent, then callousness (in this described incident) is indisputably not "evidence of guilt".

I thought he had an issue with very idea of Ed describing Lechmere as callous. If so, does that count as yet another of those mistakes you never make?

Do you recall stating on here that you never made mistakes? After that, who could take you seriously?