All roads lead to Lechmere.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[drstrange169]

Great Movie

[FISHY1118]

No evidence leads to Cross.Cases are built on evidence.There is no case against Cross.
Cross had to be in the company of Nichols to havekilled her.Theory shows that could have happened ,evidence does not show that.
It's time we discounted the theory,and studied the facts.The facts do not support the theory.There is only one statement that has relevance ,and it is that of Cross.Prove he was lying and there is a case against him.
So lets see the facts that proves Cross lied.

Well said Harry, I totally agree with common sense approach in regards to Lech /Cross debate.

[Abby Normal]

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.

yup thats how i read that too. good eye

[harry]

No evidence leads to Cross.Cases are built on evidence.There is no case against Cross.
Cross had to be in the company of Nichols to havekilled her.Theory shows that could have happened ,evidence does not show that.
It's time we discounted the theory,and studied the facts.The facts do not support the theory.There is only one statement that has relevance ,and it is that of Cross.Prove he was lying and there is a case against him.
So lets see the facts that proves Cross lied.

[GBinOz]

whatever your beliefs about lech in terms of suspecthood,he (along with Paul) did callously, to me anyway, leave a woman in obvious need of help. I do beleive they had every intention of alerting a policeman-because they did! but nonetheless they or at least one of them should have stayed with her to make sure she was ok-it was the middle of the night in a dodgy area and shes (at the very least) unconscious and vulnerable. what if they had never seen a policeman?
yes it was callous IMHO and Ive been saying it for years.

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.

[Fiver]

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?

So you're more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a modern leader of the BNP than you are to a Victorian working man like Charles Lechmere?

[Darryl Kenyon]

whatever your beliefs about lech in terms of suspecthood,he (along with Paul) did callously, to me anyway, leave a woman in obvious need of help. I do beleive they had every intention of alerting a policeman-because they did! but nonetheless they or at least one of them should have stayed with her to make sure she was ok-it was the middle of the night in a dodgy area and shes (at the very least) unconscious and vulnerable. what if they had never seen a policeman?
yes it was callous IMHO and Ive been saying it for years.

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

[Ally]

whatever your beliefs about lech in terms of suspecthood,he (along with Paul) did callously, to me anyway, leave a woman in obvious need of help. I do beleive they had every intention of alerting a policeman-because they did! but nonetheless they or at least one of them should have stayed with her to make sure she was ok-it was the middle of the night in a dodgy area and shes (at the very least) unconscious and vulnerable. what if they had never seen a policeman?
yes it was callous IMHO and Ive been saying it for years.

Personally, I would not consider it callous to leave a dead woman on the street and go in search of a policeman. If there was anyone who was callous, it would have been Paul who was not convinced she was dead.

In my opinion, if they were callous, they wouldn't have pulled her skirts down, but have left her there exposed. Lechmere said he believed her to be dead, which she was. Therefore, I am not sure the charge of callousness applies, even from modern sentiments and perspectives. But again, opinions vary based on one's personal perspectives, on what is and is not "callous".

[Dickere]

or maybe All Lechmeres Roads Lead To Victims

Lechmere - Gateway to the Victims, an Ealing comedy.

[John Wheat]

or maybe All Lechmeres Roads Lead To Victims

Rubbish there's no evidence whatsoever to say Lechmere killed anyone.

[Ally]

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.

Oh sure, let's be clear, he was merely a high ranking officer who was dubbed their Elections Guru. He led the charge in "Rights for Whites". A fine upstanding LEADER of the BNP.

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?

Depends what you're using the false name for. To escape the notoriety and criticism that comes from being an abhorrent racist and fascist or other benign reasons. Ally isn't my legal name. It's a nickname. Which applies to Butler?

And if you think his research contribution in a field that has no actual redeeming value to mankind outweighs his basic nature as an abhorrent shitstain on humanity, that is of course your prerogative. I tend to think that being a notorious racist outweighs any and all other considerations. But you know, that's just my opinion.

Unless he has delivered a heartfelt and groveling apology for his past, that I remain unaware of, of course. I believe all people have the ability to learn and grow and change. But in absence of a redemptive arc of substantive value, no, being a researcher in Jack the Ripper does not redeem you for going around campaigning on a racist platform.