Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

David, please donīt try and engage me in disucssion with you again, I have told you that I do not wish to prolong the discussion on account of it getting very repetitive.

No Fisherman, I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. I respond to whatever posts I choose to. If you want to respond or not respond it's up to you but I don't listen to people who say "I'm not going to reply again" because it's rarely true, as indeed in this case.

[David Orsam]

So 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).

As I've said all along, the problem is the combination of words within a certain context. You can't simply take one definition of the word "found" and one of the word "with" and then say innocently "oh there's nothing in this sentence which implies guilt".

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!!!

[David Orsam]

Dav. 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.

The point made against you about the "found with body claim" is that it is both inaccurate and misleading. One cannot respond "Yes, this is all true" because Lechmere was not factually found alongside or against the body of Nichols. It is also misleading because anyone who does not know the facts - especially in the context of the TV documentary - might be misled into thinking he was found standing over the body.

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.

[Robert]

Fish, when will you learn that you cannot robotise language? Your formulations are akin to something a computer would come out with.

[Bridewell]

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.

[Robert]

The Lechmere discussion can be continued here :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=386708#post386708

[Fisherman]

Fish, when will you learn that you cannot robotise language? Your formulations are akin to something a computer would come out with.

I am a Swede, as you may remember. Iīve learnt as best as I could, and I got top grades in school. Whether that makes for a useful language or not is not exactly up to me. But you may have seen that David accepts that Lechmere WAS found in Bucks Row, so either you are wrong or he is just as bad as I am languagewise....

[David Orsam]

But you may have seen that David accepts that Lechmere WAS found in Bucks Row, so either you are wrong or he is just as bad as I am languagewise....

Even though in #467 I said it was 'a bit loaded".

[Columbo]

Yes, 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...

It got ridiculous a long time ago, I agree. I never thought I would get an English course here!

Colombo

[David Orsam]

It got ridiculous a long time ago, I agree. I never thought I would get an English course here!

Although 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.

[Columbo]

Although 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.

Of course! I didn't want to miss out on the fun!
But at least I learned something and came to the shocking revelation that Lawende was silenced!

Columbo

[Garry Wroe]

Well, Gary, if he feared retribution (for whatever inecplicable reason - he did nothing tht could any any gang, did he?)

With respect, Fish, do some reading up on the viciousness of the local extortion gangs and the fear that they engendered in the community.

... and if he, as you suggest, gave the wrong name but the correct address: would that not be utterly stupid?

Not if Lechmere reasoned that any gang member searching him out would fail to make the connection between himself and Cross the witness.

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.

[harry]

Lechmere was seen standing in the road.The body of a woman was close by.
Lawende was no where to be seen.

[Fisherman]

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.

[GUT]

Lechmere was seen standing in the road.The body of a woman was close by.
Lawende was no where to be seen.

Or maybe he was there and that's why he had to be silenced.