Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

Changing the angles: You are suspected of a gunfire murder by the police. They arrive at your house, and they walk into your lounge. On a small table, fifteen feeet from where you stand, there lies a gun. It is ballistically examined and proven to be the murder weapon.

Do you for a second believe that no paper would ever write "David Orsam was found with the gun"?

This is hilarious because you have contradicted yourself completely in a single post.

Yes, you are right, in those circumstances, in a room or a house, you would be "found with the gun". The problem for you is that immediately afterwards you wrote about my scenario of the gun in the street, saying that "we are speaking about an object an not about people. The game changes when we do."

So how does that work? You've just admitted that the correct formulation in your scenario is "David Orsam was found with the gun". The gun being an object!!

So it can't possibly be the fact that the gun is an object which is the relevant factor here.

No, the relevant factor is the location of the gun. In the street, as you have fully and freely admitted, it would not be fair, reasonable or accurate to say "found with a gun" yet, in a room, when you are exactly the same distance from the gun, it IS acceptable to say "found with a gun".

So it's clear that, in the case of Lechmere, where the body of the woman was lying in the street, just like the gun, it is NOT reasonable, fair and accurate to say that he was found with the body, just like you have accepted it is not fair to say that if the gun had been lying where the body of Nichols was, he was found with a gun.

[Fisherman]

So they are not signatures then!

See the above. And ponder what difference it makes. Please?

[Fisherman]

I love the way you use the word "entries" now. Before it was "signatures" and "imprints". Now it is "entries with the carmans name on them". At least we are making some progress I guess.

Progress? It has been officialy posted dozens of times over a number of years. If progess came this late, it must be due to a sudden ability to read on your part...

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: If I am right in what I say about the vast bulk of the 100+ "entries" comprising electoral registers, birth/death/marriage certificates and census returns then it is untrue to say that "may well be wrong" isn't it?

Theoretically speaking, no.

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry Fisherman but that strikes me as a disingenuous or even deceptive statement on your part. As you know what the 100+ "entries" comprise of, then, if I am right, it is nothing short of mendacious for you to say that I "may well be wrong" in the full knowledge that I am not wrong.

So you disagree? You think that somebody who does not know the composition of a material cannot be wrong about it?

Donīt do this to yourself. You are getting hammered and you have the power to stop it. Do so!

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Don't be stupid!

Oh God - I am SOOOO offended (but I know that it was only a recommendation).

As Robert has already mentioned, context is everything. What I have been saying relates to being in the open, such as in a street, because that is where Lechmere and the body were.

Wait a minute - "context is everything" is MY thing. And it does not matter that it was in the open, thatīs just ridiculous to suggest. I posted an article from a British paper, and the time has come for you to swallow that pill.

If we are talking about some form of confined space, i.e. a house or room, (including house and garden because it's all one area) then, yes, one doesn't need to be in touching distance because one is found in a situation where one has exclusive access to the body. That's not what we are talking about in the case of a body being discovered in the open, in a street. In that case, the person simply has to be within touching distance for the sentence to make sense otherwise it's meaningless.

"Meaningless" is the word - applying to your pathetic attempts at baconsaving, David. Donīt make me bring a linguist in, just acknowledge what I am saying, please.

Just to give you an example of what I mean. If the body of Nichols had been lying in Bucks Row at the corner of Brady Street, and Lechmere had been standing in Bucks Row at the corner of Bakers Row, some hundreds of yards away, would it have been fair to say that Lechmere was found with the body?

Would it in any way compare to the real situation? Why not suggest that Lechmere stood in Via Doloriosa in Jerusalem and Nichols lay in Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
Desperation, David, is rarely a becoming thing. Lechmere had taken the decision to approach the body himself, he walked up to it himself and he stood there looking at it himself. He was with the body, he was in a sense intereacting with it. Hiw the f-ck do you suggest he would so that from 200 yards away in the darknes. Sober up, please!

I assume your answer is no, therefore there must be some kind of distance cut off where it is fair to say that a person is found "with" someone. In the context of an open street it has to be touching distance.

In your mind only. Has it not dawned on you that I disagree? And whay makes you think you have the defining prerogative?

[David Orsam]

Incidentally, since you wrote that I am a bit pathetic (or something to that effect), spending my time out here, I kind of wondered what that makes you, who actually answer my every post...?

No, no, another total comprehension fail Fisherman. I didn't say that at all or anything like it. I said that you are, perhaps, to be pitied for having to spend your life advocating a case against Lechmere for multiple murder when he was probably innocent and when there is such a lack of evidence against him.

[David Orsam]

If there is something I have run from today, you are going to have to point it out to me, David, and I will keep running until tomorrow.

With pleasure.

You failed to answer my question to you in #355.

You also failed to respond to my post #361 (which also contained a question). This is ironic because it's on the point which started this discussion off, i.e. that Lechmere calling himself "Cross" was a weak form of deception, which you challenged. It's such an uncontroversial point that it should never have led to a thousand further posts but you have managed to get yourself into a terrible intellectual tangle with your "optimal deception" argument. I repeatedly asked you if by calling himself "Cross", Lechmere was lying and you basically said he was, now you wriggle around because you can see that this means that if he lied about one thing he could lie about two things.

[David Orsam]

Anything else I can straighten out for you?

Yes, how did Lechmere give his address to the inquest? Did he write to the inquest or did he invite the inquest round to his house for a chat?

Perhaps you have also forgotten that the voiceover in the documentary said:

"When Robert Paul’s newspaper interview revealed his presence at the scene that night Cross had no choice but to come forward to the inquest. But when he appeared he gave the coroner a false name."

Another mistake?

I'm aware that you and Edward are not responsible for the documentary but I'm also aware that you have posted on this forum that there was only one mistake in the documentary, namely the statement that Lechmere was found standing over the body of Nichols.

But we now know that it was also wrong to say that Lechmere's route from his home to Bucks Row is unchanged, wrong to say that Lechmere "found the body some sixteen minutes after he claimed he left home" and, despite your above feeble explanation, it must have been wrong (according to you) when it said that Lechmere gave his address to the inquest.

[David Orsam]

In your example, you are supposedly an innocent man passing by a gun lying in the street, and so it would not be fair to say that you were found with a gun. In that context, you would need to have the gun on your person to justify the expression.

But that is to a great deal because we are speaking about an object an not about people. The game changes when we do.

Aha! Now who is randomly changing the meaning of words???!!!!

Why does the game change when we talk about an object not a person?

The exact same words are being used "found" and "with" in the exact same expression where by "found with the body" is replaced with "found with the gun" in the exact same context of being in a street.

You accept that to say "found with the gun" is not fair, reasonable or accurate in the example I gave.

It's time for you to accept that to say that Lechmere was found with the body is, by the exact same token, not fair, reasonable or accurate.

[David Orsam]

Have you been deceived again now, David, or have you simply not read my posts on the errand over the years?

I have certainly not read all your posts over the years and I'm sure I'm not alone. You can't wrongly use words like "signature" and "imprint" because you have once, some years ago, mentioned that they are not really signatures or imprints. This is the problem with your presentation of the facts. You need to take care so that people who have not read every single one of your posts are not misled.

[David Orsam]

the signatures are not always in his own hand

So they are not signatures then!

[David Orsam]

There are 100+ entries with the carmans name on them, that is a fact.

I love the way you use the word "entries" now. Before it was "signatures" and "imprints". Now it is "entries with the carmans name on them". At least we are making some progress I guess.

[David Orsam]

No, it does not border on deception in any way at all. To deceive, I would need to state someting that was not true, and I am not doing that in any shape or form.

If I am right in what I say about the vast bulk of the 100+ "entries" comprising electoral registers, birth/death/marriage certificates and census returns then it is untrue to say that "may well be wrong" isn't it?

If I am wrong, and you know that I'm wrong, it's also not being frank in saying that I "may well be wrong" is it?

But, from your reactions in this thread, I'm quite sure I'm not wrong.

[David Orsam]

I am not suggesting that you are wrong. I am saying that as you donīt know what the entries look like, you may well be wrong.

I'm sorry Fisherman but that strikes me as a disingenuous or even deceptive statement on your part. As you know what the 100+ "entries" comprise of, then, if I am right, it is nothing short of mendacious for you to say that I "may well be wrong" in the full knowledge that I am not wrong.