Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

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

No I'm saying that somebody like yourself who does know the composition of a material should not be saying things like "You could be wrong" if I happen to be right.

[David Orsam]

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.

That does not make sense and certainly isn't correct. If I'm right and you know it then it is mendacious to say "you may well be wrong" isn't it?

[David Orsam]

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...

Funny then how you suddenly changed from "signatures" and "imprints" to "entries" in this thread dontcha think?

[David Orsam]

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

The difference is makes is that a signature is one thing while an entry made by someone else is another thing entirely.

Why use the word "signature" if you did not mean a signature?

[Fisherman]

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.

Somebody else SIGNED his name for him, David. It was a signature nevertheless, albeit not written in his hand.
And, like I say, it makes nil difference whatsoever, since it is just as much proof tht he had taken the active decision to call himself AND sign himself Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

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

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

Not least because you can put a gun but not a corpse in your pocket. Accordingly, a man with a gun is somebody who normally wears the gun, but a man with a corpse is somebody who normally does not.

WHoa! Ka-BOOOOM!! You did not see that one coming, did you?

But I understand that you need to change all the parameters to look like you are making some sort of sense; Brady Street and Baker Street - priceless. AND revealing in the extreme!

[David Orsam]

Somebody else SIGNED his name for him, David. It was a signature nevertheless, albeit not written in his hand.
And, like I say, it makes nil difference whatsoever, since it is just as much proof tht he had taken the active decision to call himself AND sign himself Lechmere.

I think you must mean that someone else wrote his name. You can't possibly mean that someone else signed Lechmere's name on Lechmere's behalf unless you are suggesting they forged his signature.

And of course it makes a difference. 100 signatures of Lechmere gives out a different impression to an official writing out Lechmere's name 100 times. No doubt that is why you chose to use the word "signatures" despite knowing that you do not have 100 signatures of Lechmere.

[David Orsam]

Not least because you can put a gun but not a corpse in your pocket. Accordingly, a man with a gun is somebody who normally wears the gun, but a man with a corpse is somebody who normally does not.

WHoa! Ka-BOOOOM!! You did not see that one coming, did you?

Yes I did see it coming. So why did you accept that it would NOT be fair, reasonable or accurate to say that a person in the street, in my scenario, was "found with a gun"?

I mean, he could have put the gun into his pocket couldn't he? So why was he not found with the gun?

And what about a rifle that couldn't be put into a pocket? It's the same thing isn't it?

[Fisherman]

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?

No, he gave it to the police, and the coroner decided tht the carman should be heard and accordingly be put on the witness list.
Are you under the impression that the coroner knew n ot name, address and working place of the carman as he was brought in? DO you think BAxter was taken by surprise by his appearance...?

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?

Once again, I did not do the voiceover. I did not write it, I did not read it, I did not see it or hear it until the docu was aired. But of course, he gave the coroner a false name, technically speaking. Thatīs how I regard it: All names but the registered one are false names.
I know others disagree, but that is the definition I am sticking with.

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.

At the stage Edward posted that, I donīt think we had noticed more. Since then, some matters have been added. All in all, it is still a very good and truthful documentary. And it has the right killer, for once!

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.

Dear me, David. You are hellbent to inflict as much damage as you can, are you not?
It is a waste of time, let me tell you that. But by all means, keep making a fool of yourself. It saves me valuable time.

[Fisherman]

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.

Dearest David, you have my definition: Any other name thn the registered one are false names. It cannot be ruled out that he used Cross too (although there is nil evidence that he ever did). But the fact that he normally approached authorities under the name of Lechmere (and as the 100+ signatures reveal, he did so when asked by authorities too) makes the suggestion that he lied a better one than the suggestion that he spoke the truth.

Is it hard to understand? Just tell me, and I will explain further. But not today - today I have but one post left to answer, and then I will run like a scared rabbit from the rest of your piercing, intelligent questions. I will run so far that I wonīt be with you. Which - according to your own definition establishes a truth: You cannot touch me, David. And your time is running out - you are getting repetitive, and that makes for an intorerable waste of space.
Our time together is soon but a memory.

[Fisherman]

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.

ANOTHER comprehension fail? You need to have a first such before that can happen. And you donīt.

Whatever pity you can muster, David, is best spent on your own person. Since you stepped into the ring you have been belted pretty badly. The problem is that I am in the ring with you.

Get it? WITH you, David. So why is it that you cannot hit me - you should be within touching distance...?

In a sense you are. Touching, that is...

We all take on impossible tasks at times. The difference between people is that some realize it, quit, and get busy doing something useful, whereas others cannot let it go.

Tomorrow, David, is the last time I am spending any time on you for the time being. The next best advice I can give you is to ask all the questions that are truly vital to you this very evening.

The best advice is of course not to do it.

Brady Street and Bakers Row... Oh dear, oh dear...

[David Orsam]

No, he gave it to the police.

If he gave his address to the police then he didn't give it to the Coroner, which means that the documentary must have been wrong in saying:

"He’d given his address to the inquest as 22 Doveton Street".

According to you, he never did any such thing!

[David Orsam]

makes the suggestion that he lied a better one than the suggestion that he spoke the truth.

Right, so he lied which means he took a risk of getting caught lying by the police. But if he was going to lie about his name it was a weak form of deception because he would have been identified by his address.

He could, however, also have lied about his address with the same risk of getting caught lying. In both cases he could have come up with some kind of explanation for lying.

The point is that giving a false name but not a false address was a weak form of deception. That's what was said by Steve many posts ago which, for some reason, you couldn't accept and went off an indignant rant that Steve had failed to understand your case.

There are times, Fisherman, when you need to accept reasonable points that are made against you.

[David Orsam]

Whatever pity you can muster, David, is best spent on your own person. Since you stepped into the ring you have been belted pretty badly. The problem is that I am in the ring with you.

Yeah in your dreams Fisherman. Not delusional at all.

[David Orsam]

Tomorrow, David, is the last time I am spending any time on you for the time being. The next best advice I can give you is to ask all the questions that are truly vital to you this very evening.

Don't worry Fisherman, I don't have any more questions for you. You've obviously forgotten how you were getting excited a while back that I couldn't answer one of your questions but we haven't heard about that for a while.

Obviously, I don't want you to be put to any inconvenience in replying to my posts and you've spent the last few days wriggling so much that I doubt you have any energy left.

Any thoughts about Lawende being silenced?