Lawende was silenced

[Columbo]

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!

I think we also have to realize that people use words different from the meaning but we know what they're talking about.

If I said "I went through Buck's Row and found a man standing in the middle of the road" that may not be the proper use of "found" but we know what was trying to be said. Let's not pretend all of us don't do that to some extent.
We all know what Fisherman meant by using the word "found", so let's put this foolishness aside.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

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.

What deed? Are you saying he owned 22 Doveton Street?

[David Orsam]

We all know what Fisherman meant by using the word "found", so let's put this foolishness aside.

Yes, he means that Lechmere murdered Nichols.

[Columbo]

What deed? Are you saying he owned 22 Doveton Street?

I don't know if he rented or purchased. If he rented I'm guessing there was some record of it. If he purchased there should also be a record.

I'm guessing he purchased because he lived there for quite a while didn't he?

Or maybe I'm completely off my brain and it's a very stupid idea.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Yes, he means that Lechmere murdered Nichols.

I guess that's one interpretation. Not the one I would've gone with but none the less.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

I don't know if he rented or purchased. If he rented I'm guessing there was some record of it. If he purchased there should also be a record.

I'm guessing he purchased because he lived there for quite a while didn't he?

I rather doubt it but I'm sure Fisherman will know.

But in any case you do realise that the point against Fisherman is that both Lechmere and Cross were legitimate names for him to use, that he might have been using the name Cross since he started working for Pickfords because he was still living with his stepfather at the time and that in the context of him being on his way to work when he discovered the body - the police might even have contacted him at Pickfords - it was perfectly acceptable for him to call himself Charles Cross, whatever name he used for official documentary purposes.

[David Orsam]

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 ...

Missed this one.

There's no such thing as an "official definition" of a phrase. But to say that someone was "found with a dead body" implies (a) that they were within touching distance of that body and (b) that there was something suspicious about this which potentially implicates them in the death. It's a loaded expression. You can't remove that from the English language. So when you try to claim that Lechmere was found with the body, even though he was standing some distance from it, you knowingly misrepresent the facts to try and make Lechmere appear guilty of the murder.

[David Orsam]

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.

It's a funny thing. You could have answered my question about the gun. But you decided to post that, before running away again.

[Robert]

Look Fish, I have just spent a lot of time carefully pasting your answers into the mail box, putting them in italics and then adding my responses, only to hit a wrong button and lose the lot. I can't be bothered with this.

[GUT]

Missed this one.

There's no such thing as an "official definition" of a phrase. But to say that someone was "found with a dead body" implies (a) that they were within touching distance of that body and (b) that there was something suspicious about this which potentially implicates them in the death. It's a loaded expression. You can't remove that from the English language. So when you try to claim that Lechmere was found with the body, even though he was standing some distance from it, you knowingly misrepresent the facts to try and make Lechmere appear guilty of the murder.

And they go even further in the documentary with him crouching over the body when Paul arrives in the scene. And then disregard that Paul tried to avoid Cross. Yet to hear a logical explanation as to why Cross didn't let him just walk on by if he was trying to hide something.

Oh that's right the killer was a psychopath, so Cross must be a psychopath even though there isn't one thing in the rest of his life to support such a claim.

Not sure why when someone gets a suspect worth looking at they then need to over egg the pudding with claims like those, but seems to be the norm in the world of Ripperology.

[Columbo]

I rather doubt it but I'm sure Fisherman will know.

But in any case you do realise that the point against Fisherman is that both Lechmere and Cross were legitimate names for him to use, that he might have been using the name Cross since he started working for Pickfords because he was still living with his stepfather at the time and that in the context of him being on his way to work when he discovered the body - the police might even have contacted him at Pickfords - it was perfectly acceptable for him to call himself Charles Cross, whatever name he used for official documentary purposes.

I recall seeing the documentary and they showed a census register with Lechmere listed at Doveton. I think it would be interesting to see what, if any property agreements exist and what name he used. Like I said this is a red herring I'm sure but you never know.

Again I may be wrong, but as I mentioned before the police would know all this info before he walked into the inquest. They have a witness list for these events that is compiled before the inquest so if he used a different name it was during the initial interview.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

I recall seeing the documentary and they showed a census register with Lechmere listed at Doveton. I think it would be interesting to see what, if any property agreements exist and what name he used. Like I said this is a red herring I'm sure but you never know.

He's certainly on the census and I'm sure that if any property documentation exists for Lechmere it will already be in Fisherman's list of 100+ examples so you'll have to ask him...although the 100+ examples are Top Secret for some unknown reason.

[David Orsam]

And they go even further in the documentary with him crouching over the body when Paul arrives in the scene.

Yes, the voiceover in the documentary states:

"A man called Robert Paul claimed that he had found the body before the police and that when he did there was another man standing over it."

As you say, the accompanying graphic shows Cross actually crouching over the body.

Interestingly, the voiceover also states:

"Christer tried to find out more about the elusive Charles Cross but the mystery only deepened. He’d given his address to the inquest as 22 Doveton Street in Whitechapel. However the official records show no-one called Cross living at that address."

Someone needs to have a word with them because that must be another thing they got wrong!!!

[GUT]

He's certainly on the census and I'm sure that if any property documentation exists for Lechmere it will already be in Fisherman's list of 100+ examples so you'll have to ask him...although the 100+ examples are Top Secret for some unknown reason.

A ew times he has said Lechmere has them and he doesn't think he has the right to disclose them. Not sure why they take the view that they are "Top Secret" official "For Your Eyes" documents.

[Columbo]

A ew times he has said Lechmere has them and he doesn't think he has the right to disclose them. Not sure why they take the view that they are "Top Secret" official "For Your Eyes" documents.

Oh well, just a thought.

Columbo