All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;n797990]

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone who didn’t share our political views was a gibbering moron? Sadly, they aren’t. The way you present yourself on here suggests you aren’t the most unbiased person on the planet.

The fact that you continually refer to fascism and the systemic attempt to disenfranchise people as a "political view", is nicely telling.

You have a desperate need to belittle anyone who dares cross you. The WWoftW? More like the Great Oz shouting through the loudspeaker of your position on here.

And rather than actually answering any question or putting up any statement of relevance you resort to ad hominem. Also telling. And I don't need to belittle anyone who crosses me. I just enjoy it.

I’m aware of only one other sad CB poster who can’t bring himself to use the L word. If you really are interested in the man in question (I suspect you actually aren’t, beyond the opportunity discussing him might give you to prove how clever you are) then you need to start thinking of him as Charles Allen Lechmere.

Nope. He preferred Cross and therefore I will call him Cross. If you are going to insist on legal names, once again, why do you call Butler Stow?

The hypocrisy is ... staggering. I'm guessing you actually have more in common with Butler's ideology than you will admit. Otherwise, you'd have no problem disavowing him and NOT constantly trying to mitigate it and what it actually is. Fascism. Which you apparently don't consider a dealbreaker in a person.

[MrBarnett]

I was linking his politics to showcase he's a gibbering moron and therefore, unlikely to be able to come up with a cogent argument to support his theory. It's sort of the equivalent of stating, would you take financial advice from a guy who lost all his money to pyramid schemes? Or "would you take marital advice from a guy who has had four wives divorce him. One should always consider the source, when evaluating a theory.

Bigots, are notoriously incapable of processing complex amounts of data. There are several different studies that show bigots tend to be not bright. Therefore, it's hardly surprising that Butler can't come up with a coherent theory. He lacks the cognitive ability to do so.

Now you keep pointing to his research as being somehow indicative of ... something. It's certainly not indicative of intelligence. A dog can be trained to hunt and fetch. Actually intellectually disabled people can be trained to keyword search and retrieve information from a pile. Research, in and of itself is not indicative of either having intelligence or not having intelligence. It's in the synthesis, analysis and application of research that intelligence is either proven, or shown to be lacking. And Ed Butler, is clearly lacking. In so, so many ways.

So I get it. You don't want to come out and condemn his politics because you benefit from the fruit of this dog's labor. He fetches for you. That's fine if you feel that what you gain from him is worth the stink that rubs off when you defend the name of a fascist. You didn't have to jump in. That was a choice. That was something you willingly chose to do.


So let's look at the facts, shall we. Like Fisherman, you constantly refer to Butler as Stow. While referring to Cross as Lechmere. You grant Butler, a out and proud fascist respect that you don't afford a dead man who is being stitched up for murder. Why do you call Butler, Stow but Cross, Lechmere. It's not his name. And it's inconsistent. Why do you afford Butler the respect of calling him by his chosen name, and not Lechmere?

Out of all I say, you constantly keep ignoring the argument on Cross and keep circling back to defend your boy Butler. I've posted several actually on-topic comments about Cross, and yet, you keep ignoring those in favor of continuing to argue the merits of a fascist.

You weren't questioning my faulty logic, because my logic isn't faulty.

Here was my statement:

I equated his theorizing with fantastic, blinkered and close-minded thinking, the sort bigots such as he are prone to. I believe his theorizing is blinkered, fantastic and close-minded and provided easy evidence of this: his fascism. It is quite literally no different than me stating (as I have before) that as ________ (name removed to not drag someone else in) is a known plagiarist, we can disregard anything he has to say in terms applying academic standards to writing. Your history, has weight on your present. Your choices in life are fair game for analysis. I mean, aren't you all literally here pouring over the minutia of Charles Cross in an attempt to discredit his personhood? With every inconsequential, irrelevant detail being used as proof. Like there were panes cut out of a torso victim and there were panes cut out of Ripper victim and therefore Cross was the Ripper. How is THAT not considered faulty logic? How do you defend THAT?

So how faulty was my statement, really?

Do you actually believe fascists are open-minded, mentally flexible people? Or is my statement valid? I'd genuinely like you to answer this.

In any event, here was your response:


You took issue with me calling him a leader, because he wasn't THE leader, merely A leader. Downplaying his role in the organization, in a statement that read as is, could be seen as a total denial that he was ever in the BNP. It was not questioning my faulty logic. You then complimented his research abilities and implied there was nothing sinister in using a false name.

As I said, that post did not question my logic, it was merely providing exculpatory cover for your boy Butler. My statement was not faulty. Butler was a leader of the BNP. Butler is a fascist. Fascists aren't known for keen insight, analysis and processing ability.



And as for the "Now we know who you are" statement posted by you, and repeated by Christer, I accept you meant nothing sinister by it. One can always write something one way, and have it taken wrongly by another. Clarification is always good to have.

But I'd actually like to get back to discussing Cross. I have, as I said, recently become interested in the case, and while I will continue to hold out that Butler is not anyone I am going to take seriously as a theorist, there might actually be some interesting argument to be read.... one lives in hope, anyway.

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone who didn’t share our political views was a gibbering moron? Sadly, they aren’t. The way you present yourself on here suggests you aren’t the most unbiased person on the planet. You have a desperate need to belittle anyone who dares cross you. The WWoftW? More like the Great Oz shouting through the loudspeaker of your position on here.

I’m aware of only one other sad CB poster who can’t bring himself to use the L word. If you really are interested in the man in question (I suspect you actually aren’t, beyond the opportunity discussing him might give you to prove how clever you are) then you need to start thinking of him as Charles Allen Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

Those are memes.



And that is an emoji.

So you did grow out of them, but not very far?

Alibi???

[Fiver]

I thought Fiver had outgrown the peurile use of emojis.

No doubt I’ll earn a few more points for that.

Those are memes.



And that is an emoji.

[MrBarnett]

Hey, 5er, are you still of the opinion that CAL had an ‘alibi’ for Chapman and Pinchin Street?

I found out recently that Lechmere had a neighbour in James Street who was a cat’s meat vendor and very likely related to Harriet Hardiman. She married a Stockton; Harriet was a Stockton by birth; and the Stockton’s were cats meat royalty in the East End. (That’s Bethnal Green not Waleworth.)

Tons of the stuff was moved around London on a daily basis: lots of it came through Broad Street; lots of it was handled by Pickfords; lots of it ended up in Bethnal Green.

CAL doesn’t really have an ‘alibi’ for being near East End cat’s meat businesses at 4/5 in the morning, does he?

Go on, admit it.

[MrBarnett]

How would you feel if I said "And there’s nothing sinister about Gary using a ‘false’ name to describe Edward Butler is there?"

Are you more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a modern leader of the BNP than to a Victorian age working man?

And your name is???

The use of pseudonyms on here and JTRF rather irritates me. Someone calling themselves ‘Hairbear’ has just joined JTRF. I’ve no idea what names Ed uses in his everyday life. Do you?

Drew Gray once ridiculed the pseudonyms used on here and JTRF. Apparently there was even someone who called himself ‘Mr Barnett’. I consider myself lucky that my parents never named me Joseph.

[Ally]

Good “name”? In what sense? I thought I was questioning your faulty logic. You were linking his politics to his ability to draw valid conclusions from his considerable research on Lechmere. That strikes me as a rather weak argument against the theory

I was linking his politics to showcase he's a gibbering moron and therefore, unlikely to be able to come up with a cogent argument to support his theory. It's sort of the equivalent of stating, would you take financial advice from a guy who lost all his money to pyramid schemes? Or "would you take marital advice from a guy who has had four wives divorce him. One should always consider the source, when evaluating a theory.

Bigots, are notoriously incapable of processing complex amounts of data. There are several different studies that show bigots tend to be not bright. Therefore, it's hardly surprising that Butler can't come up with a coherent theory. He lacks the cognitive ability to do so.

Now you keep pointing to his research as being somehow indicative of ... something. It's certainly not indicative of intelligence. A dog can be trained to hunt and fetch. Actually intellectually disabled people can be trained to keyword search and retrieve information from a pile. Research, in and of itself is not indicative of either having intelligence or not having intelligence. It's in the synthesis, analysis and application of research that intelligence is either proven, or shown to be lacking. And Ed Butler, is clearly lacking. In so, so many ways.

So I get it. You don't want to come out and condemn his politics because you benefit from the fruit of this dog's labor. He fetches for you. That's fine if you feel that what you gain from him is worth the stink that rubs off when you defend the name of a fascist. You didn't have to jump in. That was a choice. That was something you willingly chose to do.


So let's look at the facts, shall we. Like Fisherman, you constantly refer to Butler as Stow. While referring to Cross as Lechmere. You grant Butler, a out and proud fascist respect that you don't afford a dead man who is being stitched up for murder. Why do you call Butler, Stow but Cross, Lechmere. It's not his name. And it's inconsistent. Why do you afford Butler the respect of calling him by his chosen name, and not Lechmere?

Out of all I say, you constantly keep ignoring the argument on Cross and keep circling back to defend your boy Butler. I've posted several actually on-topic comments about Cross, and yet, you keep ignoring those in favor of continuing to argue the merits of a fascist.

You weren't questioning my faulty logic, because my logic isn't faulty.

Here was my statement:

As Edward Stow, actually Eddie Butler, notorious former leader of the racist and repugnant BNP, is obviously prone to .... interesting... conclusions about life and people in general, we can dismiss all of this theorizing as the kind of fantastic, blinkered and close-minded thinking an individual with his proclivities is prone to.

I equated his theorizing with fantastic, blinkered and close-minded thinking, the sort bigots such as he are prone to. I believe his theorizing is blinkered, fantastic and close-minded and provided easy evidence of this: his fascism. It is quite literally no different than me stating (as I have before) that as ________ (name removed to not drag someone else in) is a known plagiarist, we can disregard anything he has to say in terms applying academic standards to writing. Your history, has weight on your present. Your choices in life are fair game for analysis. I mean, aren't you all literally here pouring over the minutia of Charles Cross in an attempt to discredit his personhood? With every inconsequential, irrelevant detail being used as proof. Like there were panes cut out of a torso victim and there were panes cut out of Ripper victim and therefore Cross was the Ripper. How is THAT not considered faulty logic? How do you defend THAT?

So how faulty was my statement, really?

Do you actually believe fascists are open-minded, mentally flexible people? Or is my statement valid? I'd genuinely like you to answer this.

In any event, here was your response:

Of course, Mr Stow wasn’t ever the leader of the BNP, and his use of the term ‘callous’ was echoing that notorious far right monster, Philip Sugden.

Mr Stow/Butler is one of the best researchers in the field in my opinion. And there’s nothing sinister about using a ‘false’ name is there?

You took issue with me calling him a leader, because he wasn't THE leader, merely A leader. Downplaying his role in the organization, in a statement that read as is, could be seen as a total denial that he was ever in the BNP. It was not questioning my faulty logic. You then complimented his research abilities and implied there was nothing sinister in using a false name.

As I said, that post did not question my logic, it was merely providing exculpatory cover for your boy Butler. My statement was not faulty. Butler was a leader of the BNP. Butler is a fascist. Fascists aren't known for keen insight, analysis and processing ability.



And as for the "Now we know who you are" statement posted by you, and repeated by Christer, I accept you meant nothing sinister by it. One can always write something one way, and have it taken wrongly by another. Clarification is always good to have.

But I'd actually like to get back to discussing Cross. I have, as I said, recently become interested in the case, and while I will continue to hold out that Butler is not anyone I am going to take seriously as a theorist, there might actually be some interesting argument to be read.... one lives in hope, anyway.

[Fiver]

No, it means Pickfords still has an archive. I think I may know the Lechmere descendant in question. Next time we meet up for a cross* burning perhaps I could ask.

*See what I did there?

So now you're joking about the KKK?

[Fiver]

Now, if a Charles Allen Lechmere had taken part, they’red be no doubt who it was. That name was virtually unique (apart from two of CAL’s children, one of whom died in infancy).

And there were at least two more adult males with the name Charles Lechmere living in London at the time. If he was trying to hide his identity, it was stupid to mention his middle name of Allen. And to use his stepfather's surname. And to give his home and work addresses to the police. And to come forward and testify in the first place.

[Fiver]

There’s a lot of wriggling going on. My point was simply that Ed’s politics do not necessarily invalidate his research or the conclusions he draws from them.

How would you feel if I said "And there’s nothing sinister about Gary using a ‘false’ name to describe Edward Butler is there?"

Are you more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a modern leader of the BNP than to a Victorian age working man?

[MrBarnett]

No, I only concern myself with those who, entirely unprompted, and without any objective reason to do so, jump in to defend his "good" name.

Good “name”? In what sense? I thought I was questioning your faulty logic. You were linking his politics to his ability to draw valid conclusions from his considerable research on Lechmere. That strikes me as a rather weak argument against the theory.

[MrBarnett]

I thought Fiver had outgrown the peurile use of emojis.

No doubt I’ll earn a few more points for that.

[MrBarnett]

Gary said "And there’s nothing sinister about using a ‘false’ name is there?"

Which is a an obvious implication by Gary that there was something sinister about Charles Allen Lechmere calling himself Charles Allen Cross at the inquest.



The words "And there’s nothing sinister about using a ‘false’ name is there?", clearly imply that Gary thinks there is something sinister.





What Ally actually said was "It's also a fact that Paul didn't corroborate Mizen's take."

Which illustrates that you hold Charles Lechmere to different standards than Robert Paul.



So you are denying that Edward is a bigot? Because you sure have been defending him.



Ah, irony.



This felt like a threat when Gary said it to Ally It feels even more like a threat when you repeat it.

Did I say that? In what context? It wasn’t intended as a threat of any kind. I apologise if anything I said came across as threatening.

[Fiver]

The police will very likely have pondered the location of the rag as being potentially indicative of the direction in which the killer fled, Scott. And that direction is in line with Lechmere being their man.

There were thousands of people who lived in that direction.

The fact that another rag was found on the exact route between the Pinchin Street railway arch and Doveton Street does nothing to dissolve the possibility that the Goulston Street rag was a genuine clue. Once we look at the rags in combination with each other, the argument is not a bad one at all.

There is no evidence that the second rag has anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.

The important thing to remember is that we should never isolate them and try and dismiss them one by one, becasue that exercise is far too simple. We must look at them all in combination and ask ourselves whether or not an innocent man is likely to amass such a mountain of pointers to guilt.

Most of your list apples to the majority of adult males in the area.

And that is where Scobie becomes very succinct when he chooses not to say "He must have been guilty", but instead "a jury would not like him".

Scobie's statements make it clear he was fed a mix of false statements and opinion masquerading as fact

Anyways, it is no as if we can say that the correlation between Mitre Square, the rag in Goulston Street, and Doveton Street is not there.

Nothing links the Eddowes killing or Goulston Street to Doveton Street.

It IS a fact, and since Ally claimed that there were two facts only involved in the Lechmere case, it belonged to the correction that needed to be made.

Ally never said that.

[MrBarnett]

Our pal Fiver is always reminding us that on the single occasion we know of Lechmere started work at 4.00pm and he concludes from that that he had what he calls ‘an alibi’ for the Chapman murder.

I see he also questions the Pinchin Street case based on Lechmere’s work shifts.

That’s Pinchin Street a few yards away from the Back Church Lane cats meat sheds.

The idea that a Pickford’s carman whose shift started at 4.00 might be near a cats meat business and hour so later isn’t really beyond reason, is it?