Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

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...?

No I can't because it's not a question of what Lechmere wanted.

He would have been required to state his name and address for it to be included in his deposition.

[Fisherman]

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"...

Then you will get the exact same semantic garbage back - I never called you stupid, I urged you not to be.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: 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!

Nope. The question "what if they are?" does not give away how the material is construed. It asks a theoretical question.
Can you see the difference?

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.

But you donīt know what the material looks like, remember? And far from being worhtless, it would point ut that albeit he found it okay to use the name Cross with the authorities, he was pretty consistent in NOT doing so over the years with other authorities.
Your point is not a very good one, therefore.

This is misleading for anyone who doesn't see through the veil of deception.

Watch your tongue, David. When it is said that there are 110 examples of how he signed himself Lechmere with the authorities, there is absolutely no deception involved. Eacj signature is an example of this, regardless if it was signed to the same authority.
The only misleading and smearing here is signed David Orsam, and it is very unbecoming.

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.

And when did I claim I had?

[Fisherman]

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.

Thatīs your interpretation only, and it is every bit as ridiculous. Does that mean that you will only say "Iīm with my wife" when she is within touching distance?
Balderdash!

"With" in Merriam-Webster:

Simple Definition of with
—used to say that people or things are together in one place (for example outside stable doors; my remark)
—used to say that two or more people or things are doing something together or are involved in something

I can swear that there is no accepted definition of "found with" that involves any demand to mean "within touching distance". I am therefore suggesting that you simply made it up.

You are free to prove me wrong if you can.

[Fisherman]

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.

You should not speak about tortuous language in my case, David, just let me say that. To begin with, I am a Swede and therefore at a disadvantage, and I think I am entitled to some slack therefore. To proceed, it is much worse to make up homemade definitions and try to pass them of as facts.

Charles Lechmere was found (yes!) by Robert Paul with (yes!) the freshly slain body in Bucks Row.

[David Orsam]

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

You'll have to help me out here Fisherman. Isn't that exactly what you are saying the police would have done had they "revealed" his lie about his surname?

[David Orsam]

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.

Now you are confusing me.

Did Lechmere give a false name to the police or didn't he?

And if he gave them a false name wasn't he lying to them?

I remind you that you have been using the word "deception" throughout.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: 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.

Nope. They are facts. Did not Mizen disagree with Lechmere? Fact. Did not his road to work traverse the killing fields? Fact. Und so weiter.

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.

Dear me, you ARE getting desperate!

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.

You should never be regarded a suspect because you find a body. Somebody has to. Howard Carter found Tutanchamon - do you consider him a suspect in the murder of the Egyption boy pharaoh?
The Mizen scam, however, is potentially a very damning point.

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.

A "marked" lack? What is a "marked" lack of evidence? Ah, you mean there is no proof - well, that is why he cannot be convicted. But every guilty man who cannot be proven guilty has a "marked" lack of evidence against him.

Didnīt you know?

As for pitying me, it will make you pretty damn stupid if you are wrong about Lechmere - and that you are in many a way, David.

There you are, todays harvest. Enjoy. I know I do whenever you chat with me. Or maybe I should not say "with", since the fact is that you cannot touch me.

[David Orsam]

Oh yes, he was. Emphatically so.

And that's the best you can do?

Ever thought of auditioning for a role in Punch and Judy?

[David Orsam]

Then you will get the exact same semantic garbage back - I never called you stupid, I urged you not to be.

Right then, do you accept that when 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" I was not being stupid?

[Fisherman]

You'll have to help me out here Fisherman. Isn't that exactly what you are saying the police would have done had they "revealed" his lie about his surname?

If I have said that, then surely you can find it and quote me? Nah, just kiddinī, you canīt. Because you are - as you like to say - misrepresenting me.

I am not saying that the police would accept his nameswop if they found out about it. I am saying that he will probably have nourished a hope (or felt sure if he was a confident psychopath) that he would be able to talk them into accepting it.

Now I really canīt be bothered with somebody who cannot read English. See you some other day.

[Fisherman]

Oh, and if you have nothing better to do, go find me the official definition of "found with a body" that predisposes that the body in such a case must be "within touch".

Waiting, waiting, waitwaiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting ...

Nighty-night!

[David Orsam]

ME: This is misleading for anyone who doesn't see through the veil of deception.

YOU: Watch your tongue, David.

You were the one, Fisherman, who told me that deception is nothing more than keeping quiet about certain information. Now you don't like it when I use the word in response to you keeping quiet about the content of these 100+ imprints.

But it goes further than this. You are playing a game where on the one hand you want to suggest I am wrong about the 40 or 50 years of electoral registers, telling me I don't know what the 100+ imprints comprise of, while on the other hand trying to claim that there would be nothing wrong with 40 or 50 years of electoral registers being included in the total.

Given that the contents of these 100+ imprints must be within your personal knowledge, what you are doing in these posts borders on deception by any definition of the word.

[David Orsam]

ME: 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.

YOU: And when did I claim I had?

Well either there are imprints/signatures are there are not.

I've been on the electoral register for over 30 years and to the best of my recollection I've never signed a thing!

[Robert]

Fish, you are a Swede and you are entitled to some slack - but only on condition that you admit that there are some subtleties of the English language that you aren't familiar with.

The man in his underwear was found because his presence arrested the attention of the finder - he was in his underwear.

You would not say "I turned into the road and found a cat."

You might say that you found a man in the road if, for some strange reason, you were looking for a man in the road.

You might say that you found a man in the road if you didn't want to find a man in the road - if, for instance, you thought you had dropped your wallet there minutes before.

You would not simply find 'a man in the road.'

In particular, you would not find a man with a body, if the man then went out of his way to point out the body to you.

Please stop this silliness, Fish.