Lawende was silenced

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Lawende saw Lechmere!

Just think about it: Lawende was getting out of his club. It's safe to believe that he used to go there often, possibly more than once or twice in a week.
Lechmere's work route included all the crime scenes. So it's almost certain that Lawende should have saw Lechmere quite often, and by all means he must have been able to recognize him.

Why he was silenced then? Because of the prejudice of the police against the idea that Lechmere could have been the killer. While Lawende was going to describe him, the City solicitor though: "Oh no, not Lechmere again!" and silenced him at once.

Then Swanson and the CP discovered that Lechmere was indeed the ripper but decided to let him run to save the police from the embarrassment.

Can you disprove this theory? No? Then that's it: Lechmere the ripper confirmed.

[Fisherman]

Totally missing the point. Lechmere doesn't know how many newspapers are going to report his evidence or what parts of it they are going to report. Surely he has to assume everything is going to be reported. We are only talking about the supposed attempt at deception so all that matters is what is in Lechmere's mind.

I´m back from Ugglarp, David, and consequentially, you are entitled to a little elucidation.

Beginning with this post of yours, working from a faulty assumption.

You seem not to have grasped that what I am saying is that Lechmere AVOIDED giving his address at the inquest. So even if he assumed that everything that was said was going to be reported, that address would not have been amongst those things.

Very apparently, the Star got the address from another source than directly from the carman.

Speaking about totally missing the point...

[Fisherman]

Really??? If I deliberately keep you out of the loop as to what I'll be doing this weekend I'm deceiving you about it am I?

The INTENTION was to keep somebody out of the loop, the DECEPTION was to use a name he otherwise did not use.

Once your arguments are scrutinized, David, very little substance is left. And what IS left is very unflattering.

[David Orsam]

You seem not to have grasped that what I am saying is that Lechmere AVOIDED giving his address at the inquest. So even if he assumed that everything that was said was going to be reported, that address would not have been amongst those things.

I did notice you saying that actually but I could hardly believe it considering that you were just making it up.

[David Orsam]

the DECEPTION was to use a name he otherwise did not use.

And that Mr Fisherman is something you are not entitled to say.

Would you not accept that a serious problem with your case is that you have absolutely no idea what name he used in his day-to-day life, with his friends and acquaintances, and specifically no idea what name he used at work?

What you have, I assume, is about 40 years of electoral register entries which you presumably refer to as "40 imprints", some birth, death and marriage certificates and some electoral roll entries, one of which has him down as Charles Cross.

But you have so far refused to tell us what the 100+ imprints consist of so I can only draw my own conclusions.

[Fisherman]

I did notice you saying that actually but I could hardly believe it considering that you were just making it up.

The exact same would in such a case apply to your stance that he gave his adress before the inquest, so that "point" is rather a pathetic one...

[David Orsam]

The exact same would in such a case apply to your stance that he gave his adress before the inquest, so that "point" is rather a pathetic one...

Well what is your evidence that Cross did not state his address at the inquest?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: And that Mr Fisherman is something you are not entitled to say.

It´s a good thing that I do not take advice from you about what I am entitled to say or not, then.

Would you not accept that a serious problem with your case is that you have absolutely no idea what name he used in his day-to-day life, with his friends and acquaintances, and specifically no idea what name he used at work?

Would you not say that a serious problem with your case is that you work from the assumption that he used the name Cross - especially since there is no evidence at all to suggest that he ever did, other than in combination with a legal case where he as found alone with a freshly killed victim...?
If you are proposing that you don´t have a case, I could not agree more.

What you have, I assume, is about 40 years of electoral register entries which you presumably refer to as "40 imprints", some birth, death and marriage certificates and some electoral roll entries, one of which has him down as Charles Cross.

Assume away, David. Even if you were correct, I fail to see how we do not have a case that suggests that he used the name Lechmere with the authorities.
Then again he may have called himself Cross with the Fire Department, the police and the London Zoo. It´s a world of possibilitites.

But you have so far refused to tell us what the 100+ imprints consist of so I can only draw my own conclusions.

No, I have not refused to tell you, I have omitted to do so and enjoyed it. And I have no illusions about you employing my conclusions, had you been given the entries. It´s would be quite beyond you, as far as I understand.
Anyway, since you do not answer my questions, I see no reason for me to answer yours.

[Fisherman]

Well what is your evidence that Cross did not state his address at the inquest?

The fact that the papers ordinarily all tired to - and normally failed to - mention their takes on the different witnesses´ addresses, while one paper only tried - and completely succeeded - in the carmans´ case.

That points to how the Star got the address from another source than directly from the carman.

Regardless, that is, if YOU agree or not.

[Fisherman]

Supper´s coming up. You are on your own, David. Use the opportunity well, and I may see you tomorrow.

[David Orsam]

Would you not say that a serious problem with your case is that you work from the assumption that he used the name Cross

I'm not making a case here. I don't "work" from any assumption. All I know is that you failed to answer my question.

[David Orsam]

other than in combination with a legal case where he as found alone with a freshly killed victim...?

He wasn't "found alone with a freshly killed victim". That is a misrepresentation of the known facts.

[David Orsam]

The fact that the papers ordinarily all tired to - and normally failed to - mention their takes on the different witnesses´ addresses, while one paper only tried - and completely succeeded - in the carmans´ case.

That points to how the Star got the address from another source than directly from the carman.

Regardless, that is, if YOU agree or not.

This is pure speculation and doesn't make any sense to me considering that the report from the edition of the Star that has survived was obviously filed by the reporter while the inquest proceedings were ongoing so I can't imagine how you think the reporter got the address unless Lechmere gave it from the witness box.

[David Orsam]

No, I have not refused to tell you, I have omitted to do so and enjoyed it.

I find this a quite extraordinary and baffling statement. Why would you possibly enjoy omitting to provide relevant information?

It's a psychological puzzle that I can't even pretend to understand.

[David Orsam]

Anyway, since you do not answer my questions, I see no reason for me to answer yours.

I have answered all your questions Fisherman.