Lawende was silenced

[Columbo]

I´m back from Ugglarp

I had to look Ugglarp up. Sounds like a Harry Potter location! Looks like a great place.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Well that's easy. He could have given a false name, a false address and a false occupation.

And then he would be more smoked than a kipper if the cops checked him out. What I want to know is how he could have come up with a better deception and still be kosher with the police, David. I thought I was very clear on that point?

[Fisherman]

I have answered all your questions Fisherman.

Yeah? Like this one: "...do you regard it as a red flag if a person who is only known to have used the name A officially, suddenly goes for the name B instead when speaking to the police in relation to a criminal deed where this person has been found alone at the crime site at a time that suggests that he could have been the perpetrator?"

[Fisherman]

He wasn't "found alone with a freshly killed victim". That is a misrepresentation of the known facts.

No, it is not. It IS the known facts.

Paul found him outside Browns.

He was alone there - but for the slain body of Nichols.

Nichols still bled for a number of minutes afterwards, and Paul felt her stir.

[Fisherman]

This is pure speculation and doesn't make any sense to me considering that the report from the edition of the Star that has survived was obviously filed by the reporter while the inquest proceedings were ongoing so I can't imagine how you think the reporter got the address unless Lechmere gave it from the witness box.

You can´t imagine...? That´s a serious lack of fantasy, David.
And once again, your argument works against you - it is pure speculation on your part that the Star reporter was the only one who heard the address spoken and bothered to write it down. You are purely speculating that all the other reporters - who took the other addresses down, regardless of they heard them sufficiently or not - decided not to have a go at the address Lechmere gave so loud and clear as to enable the Star reporter to get it perfectly correct.

One person´s conjecture is as good or bad as anothers, David.

[Fisherman]

I find this a quite extraordinary and baffling statement. Why would you possibly enjoy omitting to provide relevant information?

It's a psychological puzzle that I can't even pretend to understand.

That´s on account of your attitude, David. You see, you are every bit as much of a psychological puzzle yourself, being well read up and intelligent, but time and again not being able to take in the possibility that you may be wrong.

I have said it before, but it seemingly fails to sink in.

And now - as you will no doubt have guessed - I am through with you for today.

As for ommitting to provide relevant information, I believe you stated a long while back that you had found a detail in the timings given by the carman that seemingly pointed to guilt on his behalf.

But that was perhaps not relevant information?

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Once again, we can assume that Lechmere gave no address at the inquest cause only one newspaper was able to report it...but for some reason the fact that this honored address was arguably and perfectly accessible to this newspaper that wanted it is not going to suggest us that there were no deception at all involved in not giving it.
And Lechmere was supposedly trying to fool the POLICE, which could have had the means and the right to find it way better than a random reporter.
And let's not even mention the possibility that this mysterious "source" that supply the holy secret of Lechmere's address was none but someone in the Police.
If that's not cherry-picking, i don't what it is...

[GUT]

Once again, we can assume that Lechmere gave no address at the inquest cause only one newspaper was able to report it...but for some reason the fact that this honored address was arguably and perfectly accessible to this newspaper that wanted it is not going to suggest us that there were no deception at all involved in not giving it.
And Lechmere was supposedly trying to fool the POLICE, which could have had the means and the right to find it way better than a random reporter.
And let's not even mention the possibility that this mysterious "source" that supply the holy secret of Lechmere's address was none but someone in the Police.
If that's not cherry-picking, i don't what it is...

Cherry picking is the "norm" in all suspect theories, goes hand in hand with "a better suspect than (insert any name here)", as if that makes them a good suspect.

Sheesh it's getting to the stage where I could pretty much write most posters responses for them.

[Fisherman]

Once again, we can assume that Lechmere gave no address at the inquest cause only one newspaper was able to report it...but for some reason the fact that this honored address was arguably and perfectly accessible to this newspaper that wanted it is not going to suggest us that there were no deception at all involved in not giving it.
And Lechmere was supposedly trying to fool the POLICE, which could have had the means and the right to find it way better than a random reporter.
And let's not even mention the possibility that this mysterious "source" that supply the holy secret of Lechmere's address was none but someone in the Police.
If that's not cherry-picking, i don't what it is...

It´s not that I don´t like cherries, CRW, but let´s take a look at what you post here, shall we...?

Once again, we can assume that Lechmere gave no address at the inquest cause only one newspaper was able to report it...

It is an assumption that we CAN make, not one we must make. But have a look at how for instance Edward Walkers address is reported by every paper, and notice how the address differs between the articles. This shows us that the reporters WANTED to state the addresses, but that they were unable to hear them clearly. They nevertheless wrote them down in all cases but one - Lechmere´s. In his case, all the papers failed to hear/report the address but one single paper, the Star.
So the conclusion must be that the carman mumbled severely or spoke in an extremely low voice, so as to disenable the eager muckrackers to hear him. But NOT the Star reporter, who caught every syllable, letter and digit!

Who shall we compare with? How about Paul, who was the other carman present? An easier task, and "Forster Street" and "Foster-street" are the two suggestions that occur - but the relevant observation is how each and every paper has a go at the address.
So why was Lechmere´s address uninteresting What is your explanation to how one paper and one paper only had the address when all the papers had all the other addresses or attempts at them, more or less?

but for some reason the fact that this honored address was arguably and perfectly accessible to this newspaper that wanted it is not going to suggest us that there were no deception at all involved in not giving it.

Do you find it an unreasonble and unrealistic suggestion that he ommitted to give his address? If so, why?

And Lechmere was supposedly trying to fool the POLICE, which could have had the means and the right to find it way better than a random reporter.

You have some catching up to do - I have said a thousand times that the police would have been the one institution he would NOT want to try and fool. Have you overindulged in Trevors posts...?

And let's not even mention the possibility that this mysterious "source" that supply the holy secret of Lechmere's address was none but someone in the Police.

A desk clerk, more likely. The address would have been included in the coroner´s witness list. But why accept the undramatic, easy solution, when we can imply a much more convoluted and strange option?

If that's not cherry-picking, i don't what it is...

That´s correct - you seemingly don´t know what cherry-picking is. In this case, I am observing a glaring deviation from the common procedure and I am asking myself how it came about. If you want to call that cherry-picking, you need a crasch course in fruits and berries.

[Fisherman]

Cherry picking is the "norm" in all suspect theories, goes hand in hand with "a better suspect than (insert any name here)", as if that makes them a good suspect.

Sheesh it's getting to the stage where I could pretty much write most posters responses for them.

I´d be grateful if you refrained from that in my case, Gut.

And Lechmere is not a good suspect - he is a great one.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

I'm sincerely amazing by you determination in mentioning by yourself the flaws in your hypothesis while, at the same time, airily declaring that you would rather stick to them for some reason.

Once again, infact, we got to believe that the guy tried an incredibly unlikely shot at deception in spite of the fact that:

1) His address was already possessed by the police.
2) One newspaper was able to report it, which tell us that get to it was anything but difficult.
3) There are several other cases of newspapers that failed to report those kind of informations correctly, but arguably not as a result of a tentative deception.

Still that's not cherry-picking in your book? Well, if you say so..

[Fisherman]

I'm sincerely amazing by you determination in mentioning by yourself the flaws in your hypothesis while, at the same time, airily declaring that you would rather stick to them for some reason.

Once again, infact, we got to believe that the guy tried an incredibly unlikely shot at deception in spite of the fact that:

1) His address was already possessed by the police.
2) One newspaper was able to report it, which tell us that get to it was anything but difficult.
3) There are several other cases of newspapers that failed to report those kind of informations correctly, but arguably not as a result of a tentative deception.

Still that's not cherry-picking in your book? Well, if you say so..

Here´s more to be baffled by, CRW, answering your points one by one:

1. Of course his address was with the police - he gave it to them. And he would not mind for a second that they had it. He contacted the police twice, and freely presented himself to the police, so giving them a false address would not erase his existence from their minds, would it.
Once more: He wanted to pass on as truthful information as he possibly could to the police! It was NOT them he wanted to keep out of the loop. It was somebody else, who could access his name and address by the press. That somebody would know it was him if he said "Charles Lechmere, 22 Doveton Street" - but if he said "Charles Cross" and gave no address, it would be another thing altogether.
Capisce? Si?

2. He could only do what he could do. If his address was dug out, so be it. If it was not, so much the better.
Comprendre?

3. The normal procedure was that the papers tried to give the address as best as they could if it was read out loud enough to do so. Check for yourself and you will see that I am correct.

As for cherry-picking, all cherries that can be eaten are worth the exact same amount of money. And finding the Ripper is about eating the correct cherries. One can easily comprehend that the solution will not be very obvious - but if the cherries are there, then they are as edible as any other cherries.
And better tasting.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

All well and good. So, now that again you have provide even more elements that corroborate the simplest solution, i would really like to know what makes you think that the simplest solution is instead NOT to conclude that he never really tried to deceive anyone.

[Fisherman]

All well and good. So, now that again you have provide even more elements that corroborate the simplest solution, i would really like to know what makes you think that the simplest solution is instead NOT to conclude that he never really tried to deceive anyone.

The fact that he did not give the police his usual name.
The fact that Mizen claimed to have been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.
The fact that Nichols was still bleeding at least five, six minutes after Lechmere left her.
The fact that the carmans road to work took him through the killing zone at the approximate killing hours.
The fact that Paul never said that he heard or saw Lechmere in front of him.
The fact that Lechmere should have been way past Bucks Row at 3.45.
Among other things.

You know, if you want to deceive somebody, it is not a bad thing if you can do it in a manner so as to suggest innocence. Any culprit with a head on his shoulders would have it that way - if they could choose.

By the bye, you still have not answered the question why you think that just one paper had the address and had it correct. Any ideas?
Did the other reporters go out into the lobby for a quick snack?
Or did the Star reporter speak the same odd dialect as the carman?

Any ideas? At all?

[David Orsam]

And then he would be more smoked than a kipper if the cops checked him out. What I want to know is how he could have come up with a better deception and still be kosher with the police, David. I thought I was very clear on that point?

But why is he not "more smoked than a kipper" if the cops checked him out to discover he had given a false false name?

On your case, as I understand it, Lechmere gave the police a false name but believed that if the police discovered this deception he would be able to give them an explanation as to why he had used a false name which would satisfy them (or at least prevent him being more smoked than a kipper).

What I am saying is that Lechmere could have given the police a false name, address and occupation but believed that if the police discovered this deception he would be able to give them an explanation as to why he had used a false name, address and occupation which would satisfy them (or at least prevent him being more smoked than a kipper).