All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Abby Normal]

or maybe All Lechmeres Roads Lead To Victims

[Ally]

What does anyone make of Edward Stow's claim in his latest video that Charles Crossmere and Robert Paul "callously" left the victim in Buck's Row, with the implication that they actually made little or no effort to alert a policeman?

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.

However, as you later point out, it's interesting that the watchman did not notice two men hurrying past. Perhaps he'd taken a privvy break, perhaps he'd taken a nap. But in any case, it's definitely selective thinking to assume they were attempting to flee without informing anyone, since.... they did inform Mizen.
So it's just further indicative of how far suspect theorists will contort themselves to try and make their suspect seem in anyway credible.

[MrBarnett]

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?

One of my greatest regrets in life is that I’ve never had the opportunity to cast a vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party, but being a part-time Ripperologist has been some consolation.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[jmenges]

Of course, Mr Stow wasn’t ever the leader of the BNP,

He was a leader, but not the leader.

JM

[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.

[John Wheat]

or maybe All Lechmeres Roads Lead To Victims

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

[Dickere]

or maybe All Lechmeres Roads Lead To Victims

Lechmere - Gateway to the Victims, an Ealing comedy.

[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".

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.