Evidence of innocence

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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...

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

> Based on the false assumptions that all footsteps create the same volume and that everyone has the same level of hearing.

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.

> About as weak as points get to be honest. That he could hear footsteps at the same time as seeing a body a few feet away. Come on!

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.

> Something irrelevant and something untrue. First the irelevant. Paul wasn’t asked when he might have heard Cross so why would he have mentioned it? He simply,y mentioned when he saw him. And the untrue..and how many times does this one get slipped into the narrative..Cross never appeared ‘by the body..’ He was in the middle of the road when Paul saw him and he certainly wasn’t walking back from a position near the body either. So when Paul first saw Cross he was stationary in the middle of the road

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.

> All issues of distances and times have been dealt with by Steve Blomer.

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.

> And this is a perfect example of the silly attempts to try and twist everything to make Cross sound guilty. Barrel-scraping at its most despicable. Why is it that you’re not bothered about Paul’s ‘callous indifference?’ He left her there too.

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.

> You clearly have bothered reading the research on this subject as the above indicates. Cross gained no advantage from using the name Cross. Can you prove that he didn’t go by the name of Cross at Pickford’s? Of course you can’t. Desperation prevails.

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.

> All that I can say is ‘Jesus Christ!” Absolutely disgraceful stuff. He drove a cart for a living. He wasn’t Duke Lechmere. He was probably intending to go back to work if he’d finished his testimony in time. And just for once can you please enlighten me….how does his wearing an apron indicate guilt?

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

> I’m not going to waste time answering nonsense like this.

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.

> Which you assume was deception and not just a simple misunderstanding of course. It doesn’t indicate guilt or anything suspicious anyway. It’s another non-point in a long list of non-points.



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

> It clearly shows no such thing. Inventions…nothing more.

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

> This is absolutely meaningless. The kind of thing you would expect from Stow.

- No home address provided at the inquest

> His address wasn’t a secret. Why do you assume that he withheld it? How could he have refused to have given it? Another non-point.

- fails to use the name he most undoubtedly went by among his new neighbors

> Again you have no proof of that. Doesn’t that bother you?

- 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

> How do you know that he couldn’t have gone back to work after testifying? And again, how does the wearing of this apron make him guilty? Or even remotely suspicious?

- no history of him discovering Polly Nichols body in family oral history.

> I’m almost too aghast to respond to stuff like this. Maybe he just told no one. Maybe the few that he told didn’t talk about it. This is the non-issue of non-issues. Utter, utter desperation. Sad and embarrassing.

- his wife was illiterate and would get her information on newspaper stories from other people.

> So what.


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

What a complete pile of nothing. Honestly Newbie you’ve spent far too much time listening to Christer and Stow. You’ve just proven what we’ve been saying for ages. There’s absolutely nothing even vaguely suspicious about Cross evidenced by the repeated barrel-scraping shown above. I’m mean, family oral history, his wife’s illiteracy, the apron it’s enough to make someone weep that the subject that we’ve all been interested in for years has come to this level. Common sense, reason, evidence and fairness dragged through the mud. Come back Stephen Knight and Joe Gorman.

[Fiver]

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.

That's an interesting example of Lechmerians selectively wording things.

None of Lechmere's descendants knew of his connection to the case, which they use to imply he tried to hide it. But none of his descendants knew anything about Charles Lechmere.

They do the same when they state Lechmere was buried in an unmarked grave, trying to imply the rest of the family looked at him negatively. But Lechmere's widow was later buried in an unmarked grave as well, Charles wasn't singled out for this.

[Fiver]

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.

I neither said nor implied that it was an unusual thing for family histories to be passed down. You completely missed my point. What I said was:

How many events of your great grand-father's life do you know about? If I was able to find one that you did not know, would that prove your great-grandfather deliberately kept that knowledge from his descendants?

Because that is the Lechmerian claim - that the Lechmere descendants did not know about his involvement in the case because Charles Lechmere deliberately kept the information from them. In the real world, lack of knowledge about an ancestor does not imply that any information was deliberately withheld. In the last couple months I found out that my father had a stillborn younger sister, my grandmother excelled at basketball in college, and my great-grandparents nearly became missionaries to India. Only one family member knew the first and nobody knew the other two. None of them were deliberately kept from younger generations.

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

It does show how oral tradition can be in error.

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.

I don't know why you feel qualified to make blanket assumptions about London's East End.

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

Even the two biggest Lechmerians, Holmgren and Butler, appear to doubt the truth of Dennis Lechmere's claims.

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

Even the two biggest Lechmerians, Holmgren and Butler, appear to disagree with you and believe there is no oral history about Charles Lechmere. Or at least they used to believe that.

[Fiver]

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?

You continue to refute something I never said. I explained my position in the post you quote, but your response has nothing to do with what I actually said.