Lawende was silenced

[Columbo]

Yet you didn't answer my question properly.

In the circumstances I mentioned, are you saying I would have been found with a gun?

Yes you would have been found in the street with a gun. How close you are to it doesn't matter. The gun is in the street with you.

You're trying to use "with" as a measurement of distance and it doesn't work that way. You could say you were in the vicinity of the gun but you're still with the gun that's in the street.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

If I'm in a 20 by 20 room with one other person and that person is on the other side of the room 20 feet away, I'm still alone in that room with that person. If you're in the street with a gun 20 feet away from you and no one else is there then yes you're alone in the street with a gun.
Your argument is moot. You're trying too hard to make Fisherman wrong.

Yet you didn't answer my question properly.

In the circumstances I mentioned, are you saying I would have been found with a gun?

[Columbo]

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. If I walk along the street and there is a gun lying in the middle of the road, would I have been found "with a gun" if someone else had turned into that street? Of course not! Just to ask the question is to show how ridiculous it is.

It's interesting that you used the word "near" the body. That's not what I'm objecting to. If Fisherman had said that it would have been fine. But Lechmere definitely was not found with the body of Nichols.

If I'm in a 20 by 20 room with one other person and that person is on the other side of the room 20 feet away, I'm still alone in that room with that person. If you're in the street with a gun 20 feet away from you and no one else is there then yes you're alone in the street with a gun.
Your argument is moot. You're trying too hard to make Fisherman wrong.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

I don't know David, Ive seen the anti lech crowd use this argument many times before. Seems to me at the very least-he was seen/found near the body of Nichols before he tried to raise any kind of alarm. I'm with columbo on this one.

IMHO I don't have any problem with the statement that lech was found with the body. hes close enough-several feet-that I don't think using the word "with" is incorrect. Its not directly out of Pauls or anyone elses mouth but you can make the reasonable equation.

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. If I walk along the street and there is a gun lying in the middle of the road, would I have been found "with a gun" if someone else had turned into that street? Of course not! Just to ask the question is to show how ridiculous it is.

It's interesting that you used the word "near" the body. That's not what I'm objecting to. If Fisherman had said that it would have been fine. But Lechmere definitely was not found with the body of Nichols.

[Abby Normal]

I don't know David, Ive seen the anti lech crowd use this argument many times before. Seems to me at the very least-he was seen/found near the body of Nichols before he tried to raise any kind of alarm. I'm with columbo on this one.

IMHO I don't have any problem with the statement that lech was found with the body. hes close enough-several feet-that I don't think using the word "with" is incorrect. Its not directly out of Pauls or anyone elses mouth but you can make the reasonable equation.

Now of course, as soon as Paul got near, Lech called him over and pointed out the body. Now that does IMHO point towards innocence, strongly, for lech.

[David Orsam]

Yeah he did see that. He didn't see the body at that point and probably wouldn't have if Cross hadn't pointed it out to him. He also didn't see anyone else in the road. What you're doing is cherry picking the testimony. You're saying because Paul didn't see the body and only saw Cross that he "wasn't found alone with the body". That's total BS and you know it. He was in the middle of a narrow street a few feet away from Nichols. Just because Paul didn't see then both doesn't mean Cross wasn't alone.

Cross was not found with the body. Full stop.

[Columbo]

If that is what I wanted to say Columbo, that is what I would have said.

What I am saying is that Lechmere was not found alone with the body of Nichols.

I have no idea if he was ever alone with the body of Nichols.

What I am saying is based on the evidence of Robert Paul:

"..as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road."

Yeah he did see that. He didn't see the body at that point and probably wouldn't have if Cross hadn't pointed it out to him. He also didn't see anyone else in the road. What you're doing is cherry picking the testimony. You're saying because Paul didn't see the body and only saw Cross that he "wasn't found alone with the body". That's total BS and you know it. He was in the middle of a narrow street a few feet away from Nichols. Just because Paul didn't see then both doesn't mean Cross wasn't alone.

Columbo

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

My problem is that is alot of IF's. What we don't know for sure is why he was at the inquest to begin with. The simplest, easiest way to avoid this was to disappear. I think somewhere it was written that Paul would recognize Cross at work or something so he felt it necessary to go, but that's really a bit of a stretch. In all probability Lechmere only needed to change his route to work and he might never have seen Paul again, or run across Mizen and Neil for months, and that would've been the end of his involvement with Nichols.

Theoretically he actually screwed himself by going to the inquest because he not only used a different name from which he was known but gave his real address, so the idea he was trying to shield anyone is one that is very weak.

I think he attended the inquest because he was identified during the police investigation and he gave them the name Cross during the interview before being called to the inquest, so if anything he lied to the police before the inquest testimony. They're not going to allow just anyone to walk into an inquest and testify. It just doesn't work that way.

Columbo

and I pretty much agree with everything you say here.

so the idea he was trying to shield anyone is one that is very weak.

well we might think its a weak attempt-but lech might not have thought so.

[David Orsam]

So you're saying Lechmere was not alone with the body of Nichols.

If that is what I wanted to say Columbo, that is what I would have said.

What I am saying is that Lechmere was not found alone with the body of Nichols.

I have no idea if he was ever alone with the body of Nichols.

What I am saying is based on the evidence of Robert Paul:

"..as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road."

[Columbo]

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.

So you're saying Lechmere was not alone with the body of Nichols. Did Paul see someone with Lechmere and Nichols?

Per his own testimony Paul puts Lechmere a few feet away from the body of Nichols, so yes he was found alone with the body by Paul. Was he laying on top of her? no but he was the only person in the street with a body before Paul arrived.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

What you need to do is to provide an explanation to how the mix of documents would in any way affect the fact that he was known officially as Charles Lechmere and freely chose to use that name when in contact with the authorities.

What is it you do not understand about that?

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.

[David Orsam]

If you have no interest in it, why ask about it?

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."

[David Orsam]

Donīt be stupid, please. Nobody is saying that he was not asked to state his name and address. I am saying that he did not comply with the question, and was not taken to task for it.

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".

[David Orsam]

Lechmere was found alone with the body of the freshly slain Polly Nichols. Quibbling about semantics wonīt change the possible implications in any way at all.

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.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: 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?

[B]You did not suggest a false false name, did you? You suggested that heīd give a false address and a false working place too. And if he did, my hunch is that the police would settle for the idea that they were dealing with the probable perpetrator. Thatīs why heīd be smoked.

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.