Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lawende was silenced
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostSo Lechmere was found (which you now seem to accept) alone with the body (meaning that Lechmere and the body were both in the same premises, or as Merriam-Webster puts it:
Simple Definition of with
used to say that people or things are together in one place (and together is NOT defined in terms of proximity, my remark)) of the freshy slain Polly Nichols (as evidenced by the bloodflow).
For example, replace "found with body" with "found with ease".
The words "found" and "with" have different meanings in each phrase. In the latter, "found" is in the context of looking for something and "with" has nothing to do with closeness.
So you can't just take words in the abstract.
In the sentence "found with the body", in the context of an open area such as a street, it implies alongside or against and thus implies guilt of murder.
Yes "found" on its own is a bit loaded but not so offensive when used to indicate he was a few feet from the body. A "few" is sufficiently vague that I can't see any real objection on the basis of the evidence.
I don't know why you have brought in "freshly slain" into this discussion. You say you want to close it then try extend it with a completely new concept that we weren't even arguing about!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostDav. That is your prerogative, but when challenging the sentence, you would be much better off by saing "Yes, this is all true, but there may well be innocent explanations to all of this; The carman had to use Bucks Row, he had to pass close to the body and there may well have been time for an alternative killer".
Then I would have said "Fine!". But when it comes down to claiming that I am factually incorrect, deceptive and lying away (which has admittedly been more implied than said), you are going to get shot down.
Your use of the word "deceptive" is inappropriate in the context of your post because that was about a totally different issue relating to the "100+ signatures" about which you have yet to provide any form of adequate response.
Comment
-
The title of this thread is "Lawende Was Silenced".
Can we please confine interminable discussions of Charles Allen Lechmere to Lechmere threads. It's not as though there aren't enough to choose from.Last edited by Bridewell; 07-02-2016, 04:47 AM.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robert View PostFish, when will you learn that you cannot robotise language? Your formulations are akin to something a computer would come out with.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostYes, but does that mean that Lechmere was not found with the body? Go back to the gun example, and imagine that Lechmere had a gun in his pocket that Paul could not see.
Would in such a case Lechmere be with or without the gun?
Whether somebody is with someone or something hinges on that somebody himself. Lechmere was found with Paul and he was at that stage with the body. Paul only realized this some seconds after having seen Lechmere, but that was not because the body materialized out of thin air at that stage - it was there all the time, and Lechmere was with it all the time after he had recognized itīs presence and stopped in the street.
Overall, this discussion is a tad ridiculous, since it would have been a priority of Lechmeres to distance himself from the body before Paul arrived and could see him. I offered an example in which Lechmere was within touching distance of the body, but realistically, if he was the killer and wanted to bluff Paul, he would have stepped back a significant distance from the body - at least out of touching distance.
It canīt be proven either way, but that is how I look upon it. But when people imply that a longer distance from the body equals innocence, the time has come to protest.
Think Iīm done with the with for now...
Colombo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Columbo View PostIt got ridiculous a long time ago, I agree. I never thought I would get an English course here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostAlthough you contributed wholeheartedly to the discussion, for example in your posts #305, #308, #312, #314 and #376, even asking in #364 how wide Bucks Row was.
But at least I learned something and came to the shocking revelation that Lawende was silenced!
Columbo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostWell, Gary, if he feared retribution (for whatever inecplicable reason - he did nothing tht could any any gang, did he?)
... and if he, as you suggest, gave the wrong name but the correct address: would that not be utterly stupid?
Speaking of stupidity, though, Fish, where was the sense in Lechmere the Ripper attempting to dupe investigators by giving them a false name whilst at the same time providing his correct address?
I genuinely don't understand your argument in this respect.
Comment
-
Garry Wroe: With respect, Fish, do some reading up on the viciousness of the local extortion gangs and the fear that they engendered in the community.
With an equal amount of respect, Garry, I HAVE read up on them, But that doens not mean that they had any reason at all to mistreat Charles Lechmere. There was absoutely nothing in what he said or did that in any way implicated them as being part of the murder.
Now, I am fully aware that people sometimes beat up others for no reason at all, and maybe that is what you are suggesting - that Lechmere thought "Iīd better not give my name, sonce that culd have somebody wanting to beat me up for no reason at all"...?
Any which way, for you argument to carry any real power, there would have to be something that would encourage the ruffians and gangs you speak of to want to teach Lechmere a lesson, and there is efffectively no such thing at all present. Thatīs why I think that the suggestion is a less good one.
Not if Lechmere reasoned that any gang member searching him out would fail to make the connection between himself and Cross the witness.
Letīs make the assumption that you are actually right - lets work from the suggestion that the reason Lechmere hid his name was that he was afraid to get beaten up by the East End gangs for no reason at all. In such a case, you are making the assumption that the carman made the call that the one thing they would be able to find him by was his name. The address, however, would be something they were too stupid to visit? And they would not go to Pickfords and ask the carmen there who of them was the witness from the inquest?
I am sorry, Garry, but that plan makes no sense at all to me. The one piece of information a frightened witness would never want to give up would be where to find him.
Speaking of stupidity, though, Fish, where was the sense in Lechmere the Ripper attempting to dupe investigators by giving them a false name whilst at the same time providing his correct address?
[B]So you belong to the large group of people who has failed to read/understand what I am saying? He did NOT attempt to dupe the investigators. If anything, he was probably annoyed with how he was not able to give them not only his correct address and hos correct place of work, but also his correct name. This, however, was not possible to do on his behalf.
Once again, it was NOT the investigators he tried to keep out of the loop - it was people who knew him, were aware of his paths and timings and who would perhaps be able to put two and two together and realize that the carman could be the killer. It could be his wife and family, perhaps, but equally some friend or aquaintance.
These people would not get access to who the witness was if they diod not get the real name or the address. And since one paper only, the Star, HAD the address, it becomes a very feasible suggestion that Lechmere did not read it out to the inquest, and that the Star reporter obtained it from the coronerīs witness list.
Now do you see what I am saying, Gary? There was never any attempt to fool the investigators, for the simple fat that such a thing would put him at risk if they checked him out thoroughly. At the same time, he wanted to keep those who knew him out of the loop. The best compromise would be to call himself Cross - a name he could explain - and to give the address to the police but keep it from the papers. The working place was huge, so it was not much of a risk to give it to both to the police and the public.
[B]
I genuinely don't understand your argument in this respect.
I just realized that. And generally speaking, that seems to be one of the problems when discussing this aspect of the Lechmere drama - people who have not understood what the theory suggests criticize it from the wrong angle.
Last edited by Fisherman; 07-03-2016, 12:27 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by harry View PostLechmere was seen standing in the road.The body of a woman was close by.
Lawende was no where to be seen.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
Comment