Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

The biggest risk for Cross as a killer would have been to have stayed in situ with someone approaching. So risky as to have been nearer madness. He had absolutely no idea of the character or potential behaviour of the person approaching and he certainly couldn’t have expected to have been able to exercise any level of control over him. What if Paul had said ‘let’s shout for a Constable and wait for him to arrive?’ What if Paul had said ‘there’s a Constable due on his beat at any time, let’s wait for him?’ How suspicious would Cross have appeared, as the finder of the body, if he’d said ‘you wait for the Constable, I’m off?’ With Paul able to describe him.

Is it within the remotest bounds of possibility the Cross might have thought ‘I’ll wait until this stranger gets here, I’ll persuade him that we shouldn’t remain at the scene or yell for a Constable and that we should go and look for a Constable on the way to work and I’ll be able to disengage myself from him to speak to that Constable alone so that I can lie about the woman being drunk so as to persuade the Constable to let us carry on to work.’ Who could possibly suggest that Cross would have behaved liked that?

Constable arrives….checks the body and finds that she’s dead….searches Cross and Paul….game over.

A guilty Cross would have fled as soon as he heard footsteps. In panic his first thought would probably have been that it was a Constable. Yes, Paul was likely walking quicker than a Constable normally would have but would he have deduced that straight away like Sherlock Holmes? Might he not have thought ‘what if the Constable had been called to a crime?’ In the second after hearing the steps his first instinct would have been to flee.

The fact that Cross didn’t flee and that when Paul saw him he was standing in the middle of the road brings us to an almost certainty that he was the entirely innocent finder of a body, just as he said. When we add the unlikeliness issues…killing on the way to work and 20 minutes before being due there and our conclusions should be obvious.

Innocent.

[Newbie]

And Paddy reminded me of my list.

The nine things to swallow if you believe Lechmere’s was 100 % fully upfront about matters:

A. Lechmere not hearing Paul coming up from the rear, over the course of 1 minute, when PC Neil heard footsteps at almost 3 times the distance away along Buck’s row …. as just one of those things

B. Lechmere finally hearing Paul at an unlikely point - while his brain was processing visual info at the midpoint of the street: our brains doing a poor job of multitasking between visual and auditory information …… as just one of those things.

C. Paul, failing to include important information about seeing or hearing Lechmere in front, before Lech appeared by the body of Polly Nichols …. as just one of those things.

D. Paul having to gain 15 - 20 yards on Lechmere, before Lechmere stopped, while walking up Bath street & Buck’s row - quite a bit, even though Lechmere’s average speed in order to make it to work on time would have been clearly faster than Paul’s …. as just one of those things.

* the case where Lechmere is too far ahead of Paul to spot him on Bath street.

E. The mood swings by Lechmere, from concern for the woman (enough to block Paul’s path), to callous indifference towards her plight, a minute later - leaving her lying there in an undetermined state without knocking people up, and then fortuitously encountering Mizen a quarter mile away…. as just one of those things.

F. The use of the name Cross over Lechmere, when the court & legal system, by all indications, preferred that plaintiffs, accused and witnesses use their baptized surname, or their name on a birth certificate in official proceedings ….. and not the surname of a stepfather, even when that name was the one that they clearly preferred and used on a daily basis …… as just one of those things.

G. Showing up at an important Victorian era social event, an inquest, in an apron sack, when raised by Ma Lechmere: the daughter of Thomas Roulson, butler to the Clive family for 35 years, and inheritor to his will, who married a member of a grand herefordshire family, the Lechmeres, and whose household in Tiger Bay was accorded the rating of a ‘v’ decent label …… as just one of those things.

H. Lech discovering the body getting expunged from the oral history of the family ...... as just one of those things.

I. Lech's home address during his inquest testimony being reported by none, save one newspaper, when the general habit was to provide the home address of the witnesses bearing testimony, save officials .... as just one of those things.

and then you have the misunderstanding between Lechmere & Mizen.


None of this proves that he was the murderer or Jack the Ripper, but it does suggest strongly that ...

A. he arrived at the body well before Paul

B. he was trying to hide the fact that he went to the inquest from people who only knew him as Charles Lechmere.

- No home address provided at the inquest
- fails to use the name he most undoubtedly went by among his new neighbors
- comes to court dressed in a sack apron when he wouldn't be able to go out on his route that day,
and Paul expressly tells Lloyd's weekly that he lost days of work
- no history of him discovering Polly Nichols body in family oral history.
- his wife was illiterate and would get her information on newspaper stories from other people.


and yet, we are accused of being brain washed conspiracy freaks .... Oop ack!

[Newbie]

Hi Newb, this is where you said it was an encumbrance.





I believe him.

HI Paddy,

I think we are misunderstanding each other.

Its an encumbrance in many ways, but an advantage in the end, which I thought I was clear about.
Maybe not.

For any carman paying for sex with a street prostitute, they would take the apron off .... it would be an obvious encumbrance in that respect;
and it would be an encumbrance putting it back on in the dark.

Carmen were johns to street prostitutes, like many other vocations. Polly Nichols was plying that trade for years, and one would imagine
she, and other prostitutes, entertained quite a few Carmen along withothers sporting aprons during that time.

If a certain carman was a serial killer, disposed towards kniving a prostitute, and then disemboweling her:

A. he would take it off because that's what the prostitute would expect and he wouldn't want to prematurely alarm her

B. he would take it off to not get blood stains on it, and then use it to cover up the blood stains incurred in the act: although Christer believes the blood would be minimal and he'd only get it on his hands and cuffs .... why not be cautious?

C. he would take it off because when he kneeled it would roll a bit up and get in the way of his disemboweling, and blood would more easily get transferred to it.


Taking a risk on being seen around the scene and identified as a carman?

a) visibility was about 40 yards
b) Buck's row was typically a quiet street before 4 am, and unusually quiet that night, cleared of people due to the dock fire.
c) if someone stated to the police that they saw a guy with a carman's apron heading down a road, would they believed? Just another tidbit of information.
The important thing is not be seen by the PC, stationed somewhere to the west .... escape westward.

d) but, but he was seen!

The reward of definitely hiding blood stains and knife bulges clearly out weighed the risks;
and one risk would be in delaying his flight while locating it and putting it back on in the dark.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was a delivery driver on a route.

Working part day means handing over the delivery route to whom, and where?
Your substitute intercepts you on your route (at Spitalfields?), and then you return later in the day to take over somewhere along commercial street?

Or do you just drive the cart back to Pickfords, and tell them you've got an inquest to attend and you'll comeback in the afternoon?

It was pretty well established somewhere here in casebook that a carman was expected to pay for his substitute if he attended the inquest.
Some here used that fact to explain why the carmen might try to avoid seeking out a PC.

See Robert Paul's 2nd interview with Lloyd's weekly to refresh your memory about missing out on pay.

If Lechmere went to his job early Mondy morning to explain about the situation ..... go back home, rest up,
and head off to the inquest later that morning, leaving behind your apron.

Unless it’s a good luck charm.

In what way does the attire that Cross wore at the inquest reflect on him. Does it hint at guilt? Does it make him suspicious? I’d love to know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did you receive a notice for this Herlock from the moderators on appropriate conduct?

If I went off on a rant like that I would have been read the riot act or banned.

I noticed your use of emojis in your responses.

If words fail .... sure, go ahead! Good for you!

There was no rant as I have stated nothing but the truth. I pointed out that all that keeps getting repeated is the fact that he was there with a corpse. People who find bodies always are ‘there with a corpse,’ and the fact that she was recently killed means only that…she was killed recently and not a distance of time before her discovery. So it’s no more likely that Cross was the killer than it is that an unknown man was the killer who fled the scene just before Cross arrived (as killers do…as opposed to standing around waiting for passers by arrive). I used the blah, blah emoji because this keeps getting repeated as if it’s some kind of smoking gun argument when it’s actually a sign of desperation. It’s a case of plucking at the lowest hanging fruit.

When I point out that the gap was a deliberate fabrication I am merely stating the exact and literal truth which I can back up with incontrovertible evidence.

That the ‘name issue’ has been shown to be nonsense has been absolutely, comprehensively disproven is a matter of record. Achieved by unbiased researchers.

When I said that I’m 90% certain that 90% of those that say that they favour Cross, don’t actually favour him i was perhaps guilty of an exaggeration. I should have left out the figures. I still find it bizarre though that people can become so confident over a suspect for whom there’s an absolute lack of evidence. To misquote Churchill: “never in the field of Ripperology have some many been so convinced by so little.”

And when I talked about the “...levels of complete clownishness we see at various locations online…” I thought that it was obvious that I was talking about comments made elsewhere by the Cross fan club and not by anyone on here. If you felt that I was talking about yourself or anyone on here then you misunderstood but if I should have made that point clearer then I’ll hold my hands up.

…

To be clear…anyone is free to look at any suspect and form whatever opinion he or she arrives at. I simply keep pointing out what seems staggeringly obvious to me and many others…that Cross did absolutely nothing that morning that warrants suspicion…that there is nothing about his person or his life that warrants any suspicion…that nothing that he said warrants suspicion… and that no one at the time found him in the least suspicious. After saying that I’d still have little problem with someone saying something like “well, you never know, worth a look.” No problem. Fill your boots…keep looking and researching. But to get such a level of confidence that is often attached to this man in the face of such a howling absence of evidence or things to make us suspicious is frankly worrying. And we appear to be way past simple research from what I’m told occurs on social media and the channel…we are watching people looking at absolutely anything with the Cross was Guilty goggles on. Seeing every incident, every object, every word, every bit of family history as somehow pointing to his guilt.

How has it come to this?

[Geddy2112]

If Lechmere went to his job early Monday morning to explain about the situation ..... go back home, rest up,
and head off to the inquest later that morning, leaving behind your apron.

I'm really struggling to understand why you have an issue or worse it's a sign of guilt that Cross was at the inquest in his work clothes. For the record when I was a bus driver we wore a uniform and often had split shifts where you would work 3 hours, 3 hours off then back for another 3 hours. When this happened to me I went home for the middle 3 hours and never changed out of my uniform to then just put it back on a couple of hours later.

Again though I do not see your point or why you think someone at an inquest wearing their work clothes is suspicious. In fact after the research done by a couple of folk here it was not even unusual. The more you rely on points like this to prove guilt the more innocent Cross becomes...

[Newbie]

Apparently you did not understand what I actually said.

* He hoped to work a part day either before or after testifying.

If Cross worked a partial shift before attending the inquest, going home to drop his apron off would have been a pointless waste of 15 minutes.

If Cross hoped to worked a partial shift after attending the inquest, going home to drop his apron off would have been a pointless waste of 15 minutes.

No one suggested that would mean intercepting and kicking out of the cart the guy Cross had to pay for the day. That just an illogical strawman created by you. Pickfords carmen worked 14 to 18 hour days. That would involve multiple trips from Broad Street Station and then returning with goods that had been picked up, If he was able to finish testifying early enough, Cross might have been able to get to Broad Street soon enough to wait for his cart to return and then take it out for later deliveries. Getting paid for half-a-day is better than getting no pay for the day.



Apparently you did not understand what I actually said.

* The police wanted him to wear the carman's outfit to make it easier for PC Mizen to identify Cross.

The police had PC Mizen identify Cross at the inquest. Something that would help that identification would be for Cross to dress like he did when Mizen previously saw him.

He was a delivery driver on a route.

Working part day means handing over the delivery route to whom, and where?
Your substitute intercepts you on your route (at Spitalfields?), and then you return later in the day to take over somewhere along commercial street?

Or do you just drive the cart back to Pickfords, and tell them you've got an inquest to attend and you'll comeback in the afternoon?

It was pretty well established somewhere here in casebook that a carman was expected to pay for his substitute if he attended the inquest.
Some here used that fact to explain why the carmen might try to avoid seeking out a PC.

See Robert Paul's 2nd interview with Lloyd's weekly to refresh your memory about missing out on pay.

If Lechmere went to his job early Mondy morning to explain about the situation ..... go back home, rest up,
and head off to the inquest later that morning, leaving behind your apron.

Unless its a good luck charm.

[Newbie]

We have to raise OUR game just to convince the gullible. You sound like a fully paid up cult member. You are 80% convinced of the guilt of a man for whom there is zero evidence. Not a scintilla. No one is just saying ‘nothing to see here.’ There’s a tone of weariness because all of the work has been done. It’s all on here. The white flag should have been waved years ago but it’s like debating with flat-earthers.

A killer would not, under any circumstances, have allowed a complete stranger to come clumping along the street in the we-small-hours so that he could have a chat knowing full well that it was an absolute certainty that he would be confronted with a Constable in a short time.

The gap has been shown, with 100% certainty, to have been a very deliberate fabrication of the evidence (and yet you’re fine with it)

The so called name issue has been kicked into the long grass by proper research and in great detail.

A killer strolling to work murders and mutilates a woman around 20 minutes before being due to clock on with 15 minutes or so of walking still to do….yeah right.

Whats left….oh yeah… he was there….next to a recently killed woman….pieces of eight, pieces of eight.


Im 90% convinced that 90% of those that support Cross don’t actually believe it themselves. I think it’s all a game to them. I think it’s part of an anti-Ripperologist agenda to perpetuate the tired old theory that ripperologists are all stuck in the mud. There’s no way that the level of complete clownishness that we see at various locations online can be real. I’m not saying that no one is genuine but…are they? How can anyone read about Cross and come away thinking ‘doh, that’s the killer?’ It’s baffling and sad.

Did you receive a notice for this Herlock from the moderators on appropriate conduct?

If I went off on a rant like that I would have been read the riot act or banned.

I noticed your use of emojis in your responses.

If words fail .... sure, go ahead! Good for you!

[Newbie]

I don't know if you're misremembering what you heard or didn't hear the whole story, but a year or two ago Christer Holmgren gave a very different account of this on JTR Forums, casting this claim in a very different light:

"As the Missing Evidence was being shot, Edward Stow sat on information that family lore had it that Charles Lechmere was a very violent man. If I recall correctly, the source was a man called Dennis Lechmere.

"However, before Dennis Lechmere offered this information, Edward had asked him and the rest of the Lechmeres at a gathering if anybody of them could provide any stories about the carman, what he was like and how he treated people. The answer was a unanimous "no".

"Then Edward informed them that he was presuming that Charles Lechmere was actually Jack the Ripper, and having been given this information, Dennis (?) Lechmere changed his story and said that he now remembered that there had been stories about the bad and violent nature of the carman."

--Christer Holmgren, 'Inside Buck's Row Third Edition'-- JTR Forums, Post #36.

I remembered this post very well because it reminded me of the Maybrick Diary fiasco. The electricians who had worked on Maybrick's old house in 1992 were originally quizzed by their boss and they told him that nothing unusual had happened and nothing had been found. Requestioned by Paul Feldman --a London video maker who was producing a film on 'Jack the Ripper' --one of the men now claimed that a book had been found during the work and (supposedly) offered his willingness to admit it on camera if Feldman greased his palm with silver. Other electricians subsequently recaptured vague memories of hearing about a book being found or a biscuit tin, etc. and this has now become the preferred provenance of the diary's supporters.

To his credit, it seems pretty obvious that Ed is admitting that Dennis Lechmere's claim could not be used in the 'Missing Evidence' episode because it was untrustworthy--just someone out for his proverbial 15 minutes of fame.

Hi RJ,

That was the accounting, and further on in the comments of 'missing evidence':

@sportsbettingczar2151

3 years ago
Lechmere was my great uncle. Odd duck but smart according to relatives..

Oral histories are interesting, and they might be factual or contain some grain of truth, or be well off the mark ...... and sportsbettingczar might have just made it up and not be related at all. For those reasons, Ed Stowe, a historian who I generally find to be very cautious, understandably did not use Dennis Lechmere's comment.

I was responding to someone saying that since there was no oral history, or negative oral history on Lechmere,
A. he should be considered innocent
B. if he had regailed to the family his involvement in being the first to discover Polly Nichols, those things generally just don't get passed down to 3rd generations.

Further, I was challenged to come up with the oral history of my own paternal great grandfather,
implying that it is a very unusual thing for that to be passed down..... so I obliged.

My own father is no longer around .... the information was transferred to me long ago, in my youth.

My father was from the midwest of the U.S. .... perhaps elsewhere, it would be different
My understanding is that east enders relish cultivating there family histories through oral traditions.

Today, a lot of people do it through computer searches and looking through registries, so you never know.
But personality and behavior is not something that gets passed along through registries.

But Dennis Lechmere making it up for his day in the sun .... I doubt it.
Was it accurate? We do not know.

Is there an absence of oral history about CAL? ... probably not!

[rjpalmer]

Ed Stow was told by one of Lechmere's descendants, a Lechmere, that Charles Lechmere had a reputation for violence... so some things were passed down. I got this second hand from Fisherman; unlike the historian Ed Stowe, I'm not predisposed to hold onto something like that.

I don't know if you're misremembering what you heard or didn't hear the whole story, but a year or two ago Christer Holmgren gave a very different account of this on JTR Forums, casting this claim in a very different light:

"As the Missing Evidence was being shot, Edward Stow sat on information that family lore had it that Charles Lechmere was a very violent man. If I recall correctly, the source was a man called Dennis Lechmere.

"However, before Dennis Lechmere offered this information, Edward had asked him and the rest of the Lechmeres at a gathering if anybody of them could provide any stories about the carman, what he was like and how he treated people. The answer was a unanimous "no".

"Then Edward informed them that he was presuming that Charles Lechmere was actually Jack the Ripper, and having been given this information, Dennis (?) Lechmere changed his story and said that he now remembered that there had been stories about the bad and violent nature of the carman."

--Christer Holmgren, 'Inside Buck's Row Third Edition'-- JTR Forums, Post #36.

I remembered this post very well because it reminded me of the Maybrick Diary fiasco. The electricians who had worked on Maybrick's old house in 1992 were originally quizzed by their boss and they told him that nothing unusual had happened and nothing had been found. Requestioned by Paul Feldman --a London video maker who was producing a film on 'Jack the Ripper' --one of the men now claimed that a book had been found during the work and (supposedly) offered his willingness to admit it on camera if Feldman greased his palm with silver. Other electricians subsequently recaptured vague memories of hearing about a book being found or a biscuit tin, etc. and this has now become the preferred provenance of the diary's supporters.

To his credit, it seems pretty obvious that Ed is admitting that Dennis Lechmere's claim could not be used in the 'Missing Evidence' episode because it was untrustworthy--just someone out for his proverbial 15 minutes of fame.

[Geddy2112]

Ed prefers to get into the "What about x,y,z suspect, and blowing holes in them than explaining the actual Lechmere theory... so he's no good.

The Lechmere theory is modular. It's about moving it depending on what the latest criticism of it is. Ed reads these boards, he spots what are the latest developments in the 'war' against and then makes a House of Tenuous Links video to counteract it. We saw that in his nutty column video about Paul, Kosminski was getting traction again so out came the video to counter it, same as the shameful and inaccurate destroying of Tracy l'anson's work.

But those people who believe him... surely ONE of them can articulate how and why they have cause to say that beyond any reasonable doubt Lechmere killed all those people. And when they can't produce the evidence to back any of it up (because it doesn't exist) PLEASE... explain WHY that lack of any evidence doesn't bother them when it's a matter of identifying a killer.

As like what I said it's on YouTube so it must be true. It's the 'famous' by association routine. A YouTuber replied to my comment he is famous so now am I, I'm off to buy his t-shirt and coffee mug etc. It's an industry.

Or is it just about "Winning"?

It absolutely is. One day, the one piece of evidence will come out to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Cross was innocent and they might disappear. However I guess they will just try and convince us the new new evidence was bogus.

[A P Tomlinson]

This is it in a nutshell for me. No matter how many times they are presented with a better fit for their arguments they still will never admit to being wrong. Worse than that they will go on the attack and twist those reasons and attempt to debunk them in a HoL video. The issue is and you rightly point it out the gullibility is strong, especially with the Facebook and YouTube crowds, the level of ignorance on some posters on those two venues is off the charts. A 'YouTuber' says it's so, so it must be so. That sets an alarming precedent for our society in the bigger picture.

It's all about "winning".
It's why so often when you show that a point being made about him is false or inaccurate, they will simply revert to "Ah, but what about..."

What I really want to see from them, and Ed wouldn't do this when I asked, he told me to simply watch his videos, which I have... God help me... is to just put down in basic bullet points what they think the "Lechmere theory IS. Without all the flowery fairytale of "But what f he had set off eralier... and once we assume that, then he had plenty of time to killher, clean his blade and in a dsiplay of ego and..." Get rid of all that bollocks and just say, Here you go... this is the theory.
This is the guy they think was responsible for half the murders in London. Ripper Whitechapel murders, non Ripper Whitchapel murders, body parts and torso murders... all that needs tying together with some strands of strong reality.
So just go through the basics, what happened, how and when. Back it up with something that corroborates the accusation.

You see it all keeps morphing and changing. First he wore an apron because it would be horribly bloodstained and he could walk around with impunity, now I hear it might have been worn OVER the blood stains, or not have any blood stains at all, and that now the relevence of the apron is that.. he wore it to court which suggests... something or other.
The point is it all keeps changing and I can;t be botheredto keep up with every theory that each on their own think they prove he was the killer.

At the moment there is no actual theory beyond, "It was him, he did it. It's obvious..." If your approach is to just think "He did it" and go out and defend that mantra with no concern over the value of the information other researchers offer to contradict your baseless theory and amend your stance only to rail AGAINST the information being presented... you ARE in a cult.

It's weird, because I've never come across a suspect advocate group so reluctant to share their theries while demanding their theories are right. All the others are ready to point at all the evidence their suspect has acquired overtime... Jesus... try getting one of the Tumblety or Holmes lot to shut up for a minute if they get going. Maybrick, Bury, Kosminski, all have advocates willing to talk you through the evidence, even Sickert, Druitt and the Masons/Gull/Royal Consipracy lot will go on and on about the "evidence".
But the group who claim that they have solved the case?
"No... if you can't work it out yourself why should we tell you..." that's what I get told when I ask on Ed's channel. Ed prefers to get into the "What about x,y,z suspect, and blowing holes in them than explaining the actualLechmere theory... so he's no good.

But those people who believe him... surely ONE of them can articulate how and why they have cause to say that beyond any reasonable doubt Lechmere killed alll those people. And when they can't produce the evidence to back any of it up (because it doesn't exist) PLEASE... explain WHY that lack of any evidence doesn't bother them when it's a matter of identifying a killer.

Or is it just about "Winning"?

[Geddy2112]

none of them have the integrity to hold their hands up and admit their error.

This is it in a nutshell for me. No matter how many times they are presented with a better fit for their arguments they still will never admit to being wrong. Worse than that they will go on the attack and twist those reasons and attempt to debunk them in a HoL video. The issue is and you rightly point it out the gullibility is strong, especially with the Facebook and YouTube crowds, the level of ignorance on some posters on those two venues is off the charts. A 'YouTuber' says it's so, so it must be so. That sets an alarming precedent for our society in the bigger picture.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I bet if you stand next to Cross’s grave you get a genuine sense of evil.

There’s something a little strange about a family’s real commitment to getting their ancestor named as JtR but there are parallels with Jeff Mudgett and his embarrassingly, desperate attempt to get HH Holmes names as the ripper. I’d never realised how strong the pull of ‘fame’ could be in that any subject will do to achieve it.

It doesn’t explain why those that aren’t related to the man get caught up in it though. To the extent that they can look at events of 31st of August (with alleged impartiality) and arrive at the conclusion that they are pretty certain that this man was the killer. Roger pointed out a while ago that a major factor was that he appears more tangible than most other suspects because we can actually place him at the scene and this is an appealing factor. It’s why we keep getting the same mantra repeated: found by a freshly killed body (or variations of that phrase.) I wonder how many times in the history of crime has Mr X been found next to a recently killed body by Mr Y, and Mr X turned out to have been the killer? I’m not saying that it’s never happened but we have asked the question numerous times and no example has been found so far, so how unique are we willing to assume Cross was as a killer? We’ve also asked how many killers can we find in the annals of crime that murdered someone on the way to work and so close to being due there? As yet, none have been found so we can add that to already massive level of unlikeliness. And then we can ask…how many killers, when presented with an obvious opportunity of fleeing to safety, decided to stand and wait for a complete stranger to arrive whilst being in possession of a bloodied knife? Unsurprisingly we have so far found no other example so we can add that to our list of unlikelihoods.

So how can we have those three points ignored? Unlikelihood on unlikelihood on unlikelihood. But they are totally impervious. The blindest of eyes and the deafest of ears. So desperate are they that they will deliberately leave out an important word from the inquest testimony so that they can manufacture a suspicious gap of time. That, after the research that was done by David and Kattrup and other showing categorically that the ‘name thing’ was not an issue and despite the obvious fact that Cross didn’t benefit none of them have the integrity to hold their hands up and admit their error.

But yes, Cross was there.

[Geddy2112]

Ed Stow was told by one of Lechmere's descendants, a Lechmere, that Charles Lechmere had a reputation for violence... so some things were passed down. I got this second hand from Fisherman; unlike the historian Ed Stowe, I'm not predisposed to hold onto something like that.

Another descendant said that CAL was an odd duck, but very intelligent.

Oh from Ed Stow, second hand from Christer... mmm sounds legit, let's get the noose out. There is no evidence of violence on behalf of Cross, none. Remember those straws I was mentioning?