Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

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?

My goodness, that is your most crazy question yet.

And have you forgotten our exchange in this forum on 24 November 2014?

I copy & paste it here:

ME: "I saw a documentary on the murder of Jill Dando a few weeks ago and the woman walking along the street who found the body and called the emergency services said that she was (quite properly) considered by the police to have been a suspect and was questioned on that basis, even though as far as I am aware, she did absolutely nothing suspicious. Here we have an individual who may have lied to the police (even if there was an innocent reason), in which case it stands to reason that he has to at least be in the frame and I see no harm in considering him as a suspect."

YOU: "Yes, of course he has to be in the frame! And I can see how you find the resistance towards that stance perplexing. That is all very correct, but I would not expect those who oppose it to accept that! To them, itīs just "somebody had to find her", although they arguably all know that the argument is rather a silly one."

[David Orsam]

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.

Okay fine, abandon your use of the word deception! I'm saying that if he gave a false name and address he would 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

[David Orsam]

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.
[/B]

Such a shame you had to run away before answering my question about the gun.

[Columbo]

This may be redundant but I can't seem to find the answer on the site. How wide was Buck's Row in the area Nichols was found?

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Did Cross tell a lie?

Fisherman, can I remind you that I posted the following in #218:

"If there was a risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself Cross I can certainly suggest a much better way of him disguising his identity with the same risk of being exposed as a liar."

In your response, in #222, you did not challenge my use of the phrase "risk of being exposed as a liar". On the contrary you said, "Let's hear it".

Now I've given you my answer you want to resile from the notion that Lechmere's false name was a "lie". This is a good example of why your position makes no sense.

[Columbo]

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.

That's the clearest response to this whole "found" debate. I should've thought of it that way myself.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

This may be redundant but I can't seem to find the answer on the site. How wide was Buck's Row in the area Nichols was found?

Columbo

Around 25 feet from wall to wall, with perhaps 6-8 feet taken up by the pavements. We are talking narrow streets here, Columbo.

[Columbo]

Fisherman, can I remind you that I posted the following in #218:

"If there was a risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself Cross I can certainly suggest a much better way of him disguising his identity with the same risk of being exposed as a liar."

In your response, in #222, you did not challenge my use of the phrase "risk of being exposed as a liar". On the contrary you said, "Let's hear it".

Now I've given you my answer you want to resile from the notion that Lechmere's false name was a "lie". This is a good example of why your position makes no sense.

Maybe we can look at it this way. If Cross used the name Lechmere on his deed of his house, but used the name Cross with the police, then yes he lied.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

That's the clearest response to this whole "found" debate. I should've thought of it that way myself.

Columbo

How does "found by the body of a freshly slain victim" change the implications...?

Of course, there will be those who will not accept the word "by" here, so maybe we should change to what Paul said in his paper interview ("standing where the body was"):

Lechmere was found where the slain body of Polly Nichols lay in Bucks Row.

How is that?

(Then again, Lechmere WAS found and he WAS with the body of Nichols, so Robert is merely puffing out one of his usual smokescreens here...)

[David Orsam]

Lechmere was found where the slain body of Polly Nichols lay in Bucks Row.

How is that?

Factually inaccurate.

[David Orsam]

Maybe we can look at it this way. If Cross used the name Lechmere on his deed of his house, but used the name Cross with the police, then yes he lied.

I fail to see the logic in that Columbo but anyway I need to hear the answer from Fisherman because he is the one who has been asking me for a "better" form of deception than a false name.

[Fisherman]

Such a shame you had to run away before answering my question about the gun.

Run away? Iīm still here, David. I am just not responding to you for the rest of the evening. Doing it the way I always do. I can stomach only so much per day.

[Columbo]

Around 25 feet from wall to wall, with perhaps 6-8 feet taken up by the pavements. We are talking narrow streets here, Columbo.

Thanks Fish, I believe you mentioned that before but I couldn't find it.


Columbo

[Columbo]

I fail to see the logic in that Columbo but anyway I need to hear the answer from Fisherman because he is the one who has been asking me for a "better" form of deception than a false name.

Well, it's kinda dumb but I'm looking at it like this for some bizarre reason. If he used Cross on his deed and told the police his name is Cross and gave them his correct address, then he really didn't lie in the context of which we're discussing.

If he put Lechmere on his deed and told them he was Cross then of course that would be a possible lie, because he hadn't been living at that address for very long.

It doesn't make sense but it would give us a very recent idea of what he legally went by and that would be suspicious if the deed was different from the inquest name.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

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.

It seems to me that there are things in the English language that YOU are unaquainted with, Robert.

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

There are 74 000 examples on Google. Do you want me to find one with other implications?
Lechmere was found because he stood still in the middle of the street. Paul reacted to his presence there, and when we do, we do so because we have found something that draws our attention.

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

Yes, I may well say that: "As I was walking my dog this evening, I turned into Bromley Street and found a cat sitting in the middle of the road there."

Objections?

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.

True. But things you find are not always things you look for, are they? "I turned into the sleeping room and found my nother-in-law in the bed", for example. In such a case, was there no finding, Robert?

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.'

Not if that man was unknown to me and a passer-by, no. But if he stood still in the road, I certainly could say that I found him there. "I turned the corner and found this man standing still in the middle of the road". There is absolutely not anything wrong with that construction.

Imagine, if you will, that Paul was asked about his relation to Charles Lechmere. Wat if he answered "Well, I found him standing outside Browns, didnīt I!"

Would you find that apalling? I would find it (!) quite unremarkable and a very logical thing to say.

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.

Paul himself would perhaps not say that he found the man with the body (although it would not be impossible), but we are not restricted to Pauls experience only. Paul did not initially see the body in the darkness and so was unaware of it, but we know full well that the body was there and that Lechmere was there with it.

Please stop this silliness, Fish.

The same to you, Robert!