Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

The problem is not the word "with". The problem is the word "found".

I would suggest it's a combination of both actually. Being found with a dead body carries a definite and specific connotation of the person so found being a murderer.

[Robert]

Of course, Crossmere wasn't found at all. If I am walking along a high street and I pass Mr Smith, who is completely unknown to me, and we keep on walking in opposite directions, then did I find Mr Smith? Of course not. Yet that's exactly what would have happened in Buck's Row, had not Crossmere intercepted Paul to prevent him from walking on.

[Columbo]

I would suggest it's a combination of both actually. Being found with a dead body carries a definite and specific connotation of the person so found being a murderer.

I agree with that.

Columbo

[Robert]

I've been going on at Fisherman for years about this. I think his most damning formulation was "found alone with a freshly slaughtered body without an alibi."

[Pierre]

I've been going on at Fisherman for years about this. I think his most damning formulation was "found alone with a freshly slaughtered body without an alibi."

Someone like Lechmere was bound to come along and find Polly Nichols. If it had not been Lechmere, it would have been Paul. Carmen going to work.

[Fisherman]

The second "false" in my sentence was an unfortunate typo. I meant to say:

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

But it doesn't matter because the effect of your answer absolutely confirms what I said at the very start of this discussion. It was such a weak form of deception that Cross would not be "more smoked than a kipper" if the police discovered it.

It must be good think that everything you hear absolutely confirms what you have been saying all along. Very comfortable! And very you...

You still havent offered any suggestion to how he could have come up with a better deception if he wanted to stay clear with the police. Suggestions?

[Fisherman]

There really are no semantics here. Being alone in a room with a person is one thing. Walking along the road next to someone is another. But Lechmere was not found alone with the body of Nichols in any normal usage of the English language.

Who was there with him, then?

[Fisherman]

Clearly, despite feeling justified in calling me "stupid", you didn't read my post properly. I said: "I can't imagine why every single witness at the inquests was required to state his or her name and address but not Lechmere".

Semantics again? Okay - he was required to, but did not comply.

[Fisherman]

Once again, a total failure of comprehension. I did not say I had no interest in it. I said "I have no interest other than in trying to understand your argument."

Letīs see, you are annoyed by me saying "Donīt be stupid", but you find it appropriate to refer to me as failing totally to comprehend.
Great stuff.

[Fisherman]

I don't know why you think I need to do anything. Your defensive answer clearly confirms what I was saying, i.e. that probably about 40 of those 100+ imprints are 40 years of electoral registers. Perhaps even 50 or more. The rest being almost entirely birth/death/marriage certificates and census returns. Thus, your figure of 100 is very misleading and highly dubious.

And once again, to you, no information represents confirmation of what you think.

Exactly why would i be misleading if many of the entries were from the electoral registers, confirming that year out and year in, he remained "Lechmere".
How is that misleading?
Has any body said that the entries are all from different walks of life? Is that how you were misled?

[Fisherman]

I'm not in the "anti Lech crowd" Abby but saying that someone is found with a body is a very specific statement which means, at the least, that they are found within touching distance of that body.

And this specification is suggested and accepted by whom? Where is it laid down? In "The Orsam guide to how you can be found alone with a body"?

How utterly ridiculous!

[Fisherman]

I would suggest it's a combination of both actually. Being found with a dead body carries a definite and specific connotation of the person so found being a murderer.

What a bitch then that this is exactly what happened, David - Paul found Lechmere "where the body was". Which is totally in sync with having stood out in the street where the body lay on the adjoining pavement.

What you need to do is not to try and deny the physical facts, since that makes you look every bit as desperate as the crusaders who have gone before you with this aim. What you need to do is to recognize that you can be found with a freshly slain corpse without having been the killer. In essence, you need to say that Lechmere had the great misfortune to be found with the freshly slain corpse of Polly Nichols. That is how you can best try to exonerate the carman. Plus it is in line with the rest of the defence on his behalf:

-He had the misfortune to use two names, one officially and one colloquially.

-He had the misfortune to use his colloquial name officially in combination with the inquest, making him open to the suggestion that he had tampered with the names to deceive.

-He had the misfortune to have all the reporters save one miss out on his address at the inquest. It could have happened to Edward Walker, to Robert Paul, to Emma Green - to just about anybody else. But unfortunately it happened to him, unfairly leaving him open to the suggestion of having kept his address from the inquest.

-He had the great misfortune to have Paul not hearing him walking in front of himself, or not mentioning this loud enough for the reporters to hear it. In any case, itīs a disaster, since such a mentioning would have cleared him.

-He had the misfortune of having the real killer covering Nicholsī wounds, something that never happened otherwise. Unfortunately, as it DID happen in Bucks Row, it seemingly implicated that the killer was still around when the body was found. And look who had the misfortune of still being around!

-He had the misfortune of having the body of Nichols still bleeding when Mizen saw it. Thatīs a great misfortune, since it very clearly puts the innocent carman in the middle of the frame for the murder. As if he had not gone through enough misfortunes before!

-He had the misfortune of a lazy PC lying about him having said that another PC was present in Bucks Row. That devious PC could have used any other lie in order to save his own measly bacon, but as misfortune would have it, he came up with a lie that seemed exactly shaped to take the carman past him.
Itīs either that or the carman had the misfortune of that PC misunderstanding him - and misunderstanding in the same disastrous manner to boot!

-He had the incredible misfortune to have the sneaky real killer perpetrate four out of his six killing along the area the carman traversed when going to work. And as if that was not enough, that worthless, no good son-of-a-bitch killer had to committ the other two murders in areas that ALSO were very closely tied to the carman. How unlucky can a man get?

-And while fate was at it, handing him the worst hand of cards ever, that caniving killer also killed at hours that were seemingly totally consistent with the carman having been at or close by the murder sites when the victims died! That is as unfortunate as it gets!

-And then, when it is found that the torso deeds have a number of very rare features in common with the Ripper deeds, the carman has the misfortune of being of the exact age that would fit both series. Why did he have to be born in 1849? Come to think about it, why did he have to be born at all, if all he was ever going to see was misfortune?

See what I am saying, David? THAT is how we exonerate the carman! He was simply a very misfortunate man, and had the disatrous luck of having these things happen to him. So we should not accuse him of anything, but instead pity him.

I mean, if he was subjected to all of this lousy luck, then how fair is it that he should ALSO be suggested as the killer? No, no, no - there has to be some justice in the world: letīs forbid that!

You know, David, I have even had it suggested that Lechmere was the one who found Paul, and not the other way around. I canīt remember who came up with that sizzler of an idea, but I swear somebody DID! And posted it here, or on the other site, I canīt remember.
That is the rank of goofs you are risking to join right now.

Just saying.

[Fisherman]

Of course, Crossmere wasn't found at all. If I am walking along a high street and I pass Mr Smith, who is completely unknown to me, and we keep on walking in opposite directions, then did I find Mr Smith? Of course not. Yet that's exactly what would have happened in Buck's Row, had not Crossmere intercepted Paul to prevent him from walking on.

And was this a case of two men, unknown to each other, passing one and another in the street?

Or was it a case of somebody walking down a street, finding a man standing in the middle of that street, and being engaged in conversation with him?

If, on your promenade, you did not pass Mr Smith, but instead noticed a box of jewellery in the middle of the street you were walking - a box of jewellery that you have never met before... - and then passed it, what would apply afterwards? That you walked passed the box without finding it?

This should be interesting.

[Robert]

No Fish, this is not how the words "find/found" would be used in this context.

There are countless situations in which the words might be used correctly, sometimes in completely different contexts, e.g. :

"I found Fred's café, even though the directions were vague" (a search).

"He looked through the window, only to find a face looking back at him" (a surprise).

Paul might have said "I tried to walk round the man, only to find my way blocked." But he did not find the man standing in the road.

Moreover, "found" in this context carries a distinct whiff of being taken unawares. I have tried to get you to use the neutral word "encountered" and occasionally you do, but you soon slip back into your bad old ways.

As for your jewellery, again, context is everything. If you notice the jewellery and walk past it, there is a sense in which you found it. You might also have swerved to avoid a lamppost, and doubtless you would want to claim that you found the lamppost too.

If, two weeks later, you read that a jewellers in the area had been robbed just before you found the box, and you then rang the police to say that you had found the jewellery, they might say "Splendid, sir. Give me your address and we'll send an officer to pick up the box." If you then say "I said I'd found it, but that was two weeks ago. I've been down that street since, and it isn't there now" - well, I think the police might call you things which even you would have trouble twisting into a complimentary meaning.

[David Orsam]

It must be good think that everything you hear absolutely confirms what you have been saying all along. Very comfortable! And very you...

If you think I'm wrong put an argument forward. The fact that you haven't leads me to believe you can't. And I don't think that's "very me", just a normal reaction.