Lawende was silenced

[Columbo]

I fail to see the logic in that Columbo but anyway I need to hear the answer from Fisherman because he is the one who has been asking me for a "better" form of deception than a false name.

Well, it's kinda dumb but I'm looking at it like this for some bizarre reason. If he used Cross on his deed and told the police his name is Cross and gave them his correct address, then he really didn't lie in the context of which we're discussing.

If he put Lechmere on his deed and told them he was Cross then of course that would be a possible lie, because he hadn't been living at that address for very long.

It doesn't make sense but it would give us a very recent idea of what he legally went by and that would be suspicious if the deed was different from the inquest name.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Around 25 feet from wall to wall, with perhaps 6-8 feet taken up by the pavements. We are talking narrow streets here, Columbo.

Thanks Fish, I believe you mentioned that before but I couldn't find it.


Columbo

[Fisherman]

Such a shame you had to run away before answering my question about the gun.

Run away? I´m still here, David. I am just not responding to you for the rest of the evening. Doing it the way I always do. I can stomach only so much per day.

[David Orsam]

Maybe we can look at it this way. If Cross used the name Lechmere on his deed of his house, but used the name Cross with the police, then yes he lied.

I fail to see the logic in that Columbo but anyway I need to hear the answer from Fisherman because he is the one who has been asking me for a "better" form of deception than a false name.

[David Orsam]

Lechmere was found where the slain body of Polly Nichols lay in Bucks Row.

How is that?

Factually inaccurate.

[Fisherman]

That's the clearest response to this whole "found" debate. I should've thought of it that way myself.

Columbo

How does "found by the body of a freshly slain victim" change the implications...?

Of course, there will be those who will not accept the word "by" here, so maybe we should change to what Paul said in his paper interview ("standing where the body was"):

Lechmere was found where the slain body of Polly Nichols lay in Bucks Row.

How is that?

(Then again, Lechmere WAS found and he WAS with the body of Nichols, so Robert is merely puffing out one of his usual smokescreens here...)

[Columbo]

Fisherman, can I remind you that I posted the following in #218:

"If there was a risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself Cross I can certainly suggest a much better way of him disguising his identity with the same risk of being exposed as a liar."

In your response, in #222, you did not challenge my use of the phrase "risk of being exposed as a liar". On the contrary you said, "Let's hear it".

Now I've given you my answer you want to resile from the notion that Lechmere's false name was a "lie". This is a good example of why your position makes no sense.

Maybe we can look at it this way. If Cross used the name Lechmere on his deed of his house, but used the name Cross with the police, then yes he lied.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

This may be redundant but I can't seem to find the answer on the site. How wide was Buck's Row in the area Nichols was found?

Columbo

Around 25 feet from wall to wall, with perhaps 6-8 feet taken up by the pavements. We are talking narrow streets here, Columbo.

[Columbo]

In particular, you would not find a man with a body, if the man then went out of his way to point out the body to you.

That's the clearest response to this whole "found" debate. I should've thought of it that way myself.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Did Cross tell a lie?

Fisherman, can I remind you that I posted the following in #218:

"If there was a risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself Cross I can certainly suggest a much better way of him disguising his identity with the same risk of being exposed as a liar."

In your response, in #222, you did not challenge my use of the phrase "risk of being exposed as a liar". On the contrary you said, "Let's hear it".

Now I've given you my answer you want to resile from the notion that Lechmere's false name was a "lie". This is a good example of why your position makes no sense.

[Columbo]

This may be redundant but I can't seem to find the answer on the site. How wide was Buck's Row in the area Nichols was found?

Columbo

[David Orsam]

There you are, todays harvest. Enjoy. I know I do whenever you chat with me. Or maybe I should not say "with", since the fact is that you cannot touch me.
[/B]

Such a shame you had to run away before answering my question about the gun.

[David Orsam]

I am not saying that the police would accept his nameswop if they found out about it. I am saying that he will probably have nourished a hope (or felt sure if he was a confident psychopath) that he would be able to talk them into accepting it.

Okay fine, abandon your use of the word deception! I'm saying that if he gave a false name and address he would probably have nourished a hope (or felt sure if he was a confident psychopath) that he would be able to talk them into accepting it

[David Orsam]

You should never be regarded a suspect because you find a body. Somebody has to. Howard Carter found Tutanchamon - do you consider him a suspect in the murder of the Egyption boy pharaoh?

My goodness, that is your most crazy question yet.

And have you forgotten our exchange in this forum on 24 November 2014?

I copy & paste it here:

ME: "I saw a documentary on the murder of Jill Dando a few weeks ago and the woman walking along the street who found the body and called the emergency services said that she was (quite properly) considered by the police to have been a suspect and was questioned on that basis, even though as far as I am aware, she did absolutely nothing suspicious. Here we have an individual who may have lied to the police (even if there was an innocent reason), in which case it stands to reason that he has to at least be in the frame and I see no harm in considering him as a suspect."

YOU: "Yes, of course he has to be in the frame! And I can see how you find the resistance towards that stance perplexing. That is all very correct, but I would not expect those who oppose it to accept that! To them, it´s just "somebody had to find her", although they arguably all know that the argument is rather a silly one."

[Robert]

Fish, you are a Swede and you are entitled to some slack - but only on condition that you admit that there are some subtleties of the English language that you aren't familiar with.

The man in his underwear was found because his presence arrested the attention of the finder - he was in his underwear.

You would not say "I turned into the road and found a cat."

You might say that you found a man in the road if, for some strange reason, you were looking for a man in the road.

You might say that you found a man in the road if you didn't want to find a man in the road - if, for instance, you thought you had dropped your wallet there minutes before.

You would not simply find 'a man in the road.'

In particular, you would not find a man with a body, if the man then went out of his way to point out the body to you.

Please stop this silliness, Fish.