Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

You still havent offered any suggestion to how he could have come up with a better deception if he wanted to stay clear with the police. Suggestions?

I have, in fact, already done so but will repeat.

You say his deception was in giving a false name. While disagreeing with you that it was a false name, I have said that a better form of deception would be giving a false name and a false address.

You say that in giving a false name he would "stay clear of the police" by coming up with an explanation for giving a false name that would satisfy the police. I have said that he would "stay clear of the police" by coming up with an explanation for giving a false name and address that would satisfy the police.

Job done.

[David Orsam]

Who was there with him, then?

I'm afraid this is another failure of comprehension on your part Fisherman because when I said "Lechmere was not found alone with the body of Nichols in any normal usage of the English language" I underlined the word "with" not the word "alone". The word alone is superfluous and can be removed.

Thus, to the same effect: Lechmere was not found with the body of Nichols.

[David Orsam]

Semantics again? Okay - he was required to, but did not comply.

It's not semantics at all Fisherman and I can simply rephrase the sentence as follows: "I can't imagine why every single witness at the inquests was required to state his or her name and address, and did so, but not Lechmere".

[David Orsam]

Let´s see, you are annoyed by me saying "Don´t be stupid", but you find it appropriate to refer to me as failing totally to comprehend.
Great stuff.

Wrong again. I didn't express any annoyance at you in my post and your tortuous use of language by which you want to suggest I am referring to you as failing to comprehend when I was, in fact, referring to your failure to comprehend is obvious.

What I was saying was that it was perfectly out of order for you to refer to me as "stupid" in circumstances where you failed to understand a very simple sentence. That sentence was "I have no interest [in the 100+ imprints] other than in trying to understand your argument." What is clear from your post is that rather than apologise for getting it wrong, or even acknowledge doing so, you bluster and fluster, ineffectually as usual.

[David Orsam]

And once again, to you, no information represents confirmation of what you think.

Exactly why would i be misleading if many of the entries were from the electoral registers, confirming that year out and year in, he remained "Lechmere".
How is that misleading?
Has any body said that the entries are all from different walks of life? Is that how you were misled?

This really is a classic forum post. You begin by suggesting that I am wrong in thinking that a large number of the 100+ total is comprised of many years of electoral registers and then ask me "well what if they are?" thus effectively confirming that I'm absolutely right!

The point is that once Lechmere called himself by that surname on the first occasion he provided his details for the electoral register, that name was simply repeated every subsequent year so it's really one example rather than 40 or 50 different examples. This is misleading for anyone who doesn't see through the veil of deception. Further I don't believe for one second that you have any "imprints" or "signatures" to prove Lechmere signed his name every year for the electoral register.

[David Orsam]

And this specification is suggested and accepted by whom? Where is it laid down? In "The Orsam guide to how you can be found alone with a body"?

How utterly ridiculous!

No, Fisherman, it is how English is used and is based on the authority of the dictionary definition of the word "with" in the sense of "against, alongside". That is what is meant by being found with the body. It means being found against or alongside the body which, by definition, must mean within touching distance.

[David Orsam]

What you need to do is not to try and deny the physical facts

Of course I'm not denying the physical facts. I actually stated the key physical fact which is that Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road as Paul turned into Bucks Row (as per the evidence at the inquest). What I am complaining about is a misleading presentation of the physical facts.

[David Orsam]

What you need to do is not to try and deny the physical facts, since that In essence, you need to say that Lechmere had the great misfortune to be found with the freshly slain corpse of Polly Nichols. That is how you can best try to exonerate the carman. Plus it is in line with the rest of the defence on his behalf:

Blah, blah...misfortune..blah, blah...disaster....pity.....

Even though I haven't been discussing with you the issue of whether Lechmere was or was not Jack the Ripper you still try to suck me into this and divert the discussion - which is on a discrete point of whether Lechmere could be said to have been found with the body – by giving me a long and mostly silly list of all the points against Lechmere in which you refer to things as "misfortunes" and "disasters" for him which were nothing of the sort because he continued to his life as normal. They are only points that you and others have invented 120 years later.

It is tiresome and unnecessary for me to have to respond to this and such an obvious smokescreen where you are trying and compensate for an indefensible position by providing a list of things that you think collectively point to Lechmere as the Ripper when this is really in your mind only.

As you no doubt recall, I agree that Lechmere should be considered a suspect due to the fact that he discovered the body and because of the unresolved conflict of evidence with Mizen. But that only brings into sharp focus the fact that you are trying to augment this with some really bad points which, in my view, actually undermine your case against Lechmere.

Although you say you we should 'pity' Lechmere I think, perhaps, we should pity you in having to spend your life trying to build up a case of multiple murder against someone who is probably innocent and against whom there is a marked lack of evidence.

[David Orsam]

You know, David, I have even had it suggested that Lechmere was the one who found Paul, and not the other way around. I can´t remember who came up with that sizzler of an idea, but I swear somebody DID! And posted it here, or on the other site, I can´t remember.
That is the rank of goofs you are risking to join right now.

This is really poor. Almost a smear. You identify a bad argument that has been made against you, one that I have never made nor ever would make, and then attempt to link me to that bad argument in order to suggest that I am, or might be, a "goof". It's this kind of warped thinking that has undermined your case against Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

No Fish, this is not how the words "find/found" would be used in this context.

There are countless situations in which the words might be used correctly, sometimes in completely different contexts, e.g. :

"I found Fred's café, even though the directions were vague" (a search).

"He looked through the window, only to find a face looking back at him" (a surprise).

Paul might have said "I tried to walk round the man, only to find my way blocked." But he did not find the man standing in the road.

Moreover, "found" in this context carries a distinct whiff of being taken unawares. I have tried to get you to use the neutral word "encountered" and occasionally you do, but you soon slip back into your bad old ways.

As for your jewellery, again, context is everything. If you notice the jewellery and walk past it, there is a sense in which you found it. You might also have swerved to avoid a lamppost, and doubtless you would want to claim that you found the lamppost too.

If, two weeks later, you read that a jewellers in the area had been robbed just before you found the box, and you then rang the police to say that you had found the jewellery, they might say "Splendid, sir. Give me your address and we'll send an officer to pick up the box." If you then say "I said I'd found it, but that was two weeks ago. I've been down that street since, and it isn't there now" - well, I think the police might call you things which even you would have trouble twisting into a complimentary meaning.

So "When I got up to Bucks Row, just by the stable doors, I found a man standing there, in the middle of the street" is an impossibility to say? Interesting!

Let´s google the term "found him standing in the street" and - oooh! 34 500 results!

Let´s try "found a man standing in the street". Wow! 74 500 results!!! Sorting just the one out, here is a snippet from a US paper:
"Deputy Jonathan Simerly reported that when he arrived around 12:25 a.m. he found a man standing in the street in nothing but his underwear."

It made me think of you, Robert - well, not the "standing in the street" bit, but the "in nothing nut his underwear" part.

Quite similar, I´d say.

[Fisherman]

If you think I'm wrong put an argument forward. The fact that you haven't leads me to believe you can't. And I don't think that's "very me", just a normal reaction.

Then we are going to have to disagre on that too - to me it IS very you.

[Fisherman]

I have, in fact, already done so but will repeat.

You say his deception was in giving a false name. While disagreeing with you that it was a false name, I have said that a better form of deception would be giving a false name and a false address.

You say that in giving a false name he would "stay clear of the police" by coming up with an explanation for giving a false name that would satisfy the police. I have said that he would "stay clear of the police" by coming up with an explanation for giving a false name and address that would satisfy the police.

Job done.

Nope. You are trying to present an angle where the police revelealed his lie but accepted it.

Not being able to reveal a lie is something else.

Just face it, David, what you called a poor attempt at deceiving is actually the best attempt that he could make if he wanted to avoid lying to the police.

[Fisherman]

I'm afraid this is another failure of comprehension on your part Fisherman because when I said "Lechmere was not found alone with the body of Nichols in any normal usage of the English language" I underlined the word "with" not the word "alone". The word alone is superfluous and can be removed.

Thus, to the same effect: Lechmere was not found with the body of Nichols.

Oh yes, he was. Emphatically so.

[Fisherman]

It's not semantics at all Fisherman and I can simply rephrase the sentence as follows: "I can't imagine why every single witness at the inquests was required to state his or her name and address, and did so, but not Lechmere".

Then we are back to a poor fantasy on your behalf: because he wanted the name to stay unknown to the readers of the papers.

But you cannot even imagine that...?

[David Orsam]

If, on your promenade, you did not pass Mr Smith, but instead noticed a box of jewellery in the middle of the street you were walking - a box of jewellery that you have never met before... - and then passed it, what would apply afterwards? That you walked passed the box without finding it?

My answer is that Robert would have seen the box of jewellery but he can't be said to have found it because he ignored it. He's not the finder, in other words. The person who sees it and then takes possession of it is the finder.

Now, Fisherman, having answered your question to Robert perhaps you could respond to the challenge I set for Abby yesterday.

I am walking along the street (alone) on the pavement and I pass by a gun in the middle of the road at which point someone else turns into the street and sees both me and the gun.

Would it be fair, accurate and reasonable to say that I was found with a gun?