Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

The official documents have the carmans signature on them as well as his name signed by other people.

"his named signed by other people" is just a nonsense statement. There is no such thing unless you mean a forgery or Lechmere was unable to sign his own name.

[David Orsam]

He did not call himself Cross on the documents that lie close in time to him having had Thomas Cross as a stepfather.

But only on a very small number of documents in limited categories. You don't know what he called himself on any work related documents. Nor do you have any idea what he called himself, or was called, by his friends or people who knew him as the son or stepson of Thomas Cross.

[David Orsam]

As for the fact that he was found with the body, this is something that is not shaken, stirred or even ever so lightly touched by your very odd assertion that touching distance is the demand to create a "withship".

It's not an odd assertion, it comes from a dictionary definition of "with" as being "against or alongside". That's what it must mean in context and "touching distance" is no more than a practical expression of this. You might have forgotten that when I made this point to Abby I said: "saying that someone is found with a body is a very specific statement which means, at the least, that they are found within touching distance of that body". It's not the requirement in other words, it's the minimum requirement, otherwise how could he have been said to have been "against or alongside" the body?

[David Orsam]

There is one point that needs addressing here before we move on, and that is the point that it has not been established that the carman was NOT within touching distance! Not that it matters, since the distinction is ridiculous from beginning to end, but it is nevertheless interesting that you are working from a position where you regard it as proven that the carman was out of touching distance from the body.

According to the evidence in the case, he was standing "in the middle of the road" Fisherman and, on the basis that Lechmere had normal human arms, of course it has been proved that he wasn't within touching distance of the body.

[David Orsam]

When that PC arrived, if Lechmere was standing six feet from the woman, would the police not be entitled to say that he found Lechmere with the woman? In spite of how it was in a public street? Oh yes, he would be VERY much entitled to say so.

Why would Lechmere have been standing six feet from the body having been asked to wait there with the body?

Bearing in mind that the policeman in the circumstances you have outlined would have been expecting to find Lechmere with the body, it would have been more natural for him to say that he found Lechmere standing six feet from the body.

[David Orsam]

No silly comparisons with rifles and guns will change that. Once we look at the REAL picture instead of any suggested comparison with guns, rifles or trebuchets, we are faced with the fact that once Lechmere stopped on account of seeing the body and approached it in the darkness, he also positioned himself with the body in that street.

You don't like the gun example because you have been forced to admit that "found with a gun" carries a distinct meaning which is very different from simply being close to and in the same street as a gun. It's exactly the same with "found with a body" and nothing you can do or say will ever change that.

[Mr Lucky]

At the Eddowes inquest Lawende was about to testify about the dress of the man he saw together with Eddowes near the murder site.

But Lawende was silenced by the city solicitor.

The city solicitor said that for particular reasons evidence about the dress of the man should not be given.

Hello Pierre.

This was caused by a growing schism between the giving of evidence at inquest and at trial which had actually existed in the legal system for centuries but had grown in importance during the development of the adversarial criminal trial process during the 18th and 19th centuries, - effectively for the defendant to have a fair trial he must be able to hear and object to evidence going down on record. If evidence goes down on record at the public inquest it may influence the jury at trial without the defendant being able to do this. If the inquest was likely to end in a named verdict (murder by X instead of person or persons unknown), then evidence could be given “in camara” effectively in secret, not an option with the Eddowes murder. However even in these circumstances the inquest was still technically public, the Coroner could not exclude “the people of the vill” - inhabitants of the area where the body was found - from hearing anything, and the Coroner's jury could not be bound to secrecy.

The only thing Lawende was allowed to say was that the man had a peaked cap.

Why did they withhold the information about the dress of the man seen with Eddowes before the murder?

So that the evidence could still be used at criminal trial.

[Mr Lucky]

Below is current UK Law, but I would think it was the same back then.

Reporting restrictions
Typically, the police will inform the Coroner of any reporting restrictions in place as a result of criminal proceedings ongoing and any subsequent impacts thereafter. In most cases, reporting restrictions will be lifted following the finalisation of criminal proceedings, but it is for the police to ensure the Coroner is apprised of restrictions where required for a longer period.

It would seem the City Police had disclosed info and the Metropolitan Police were going to search the boats for a sailor, so requested non disclosure at that time (or vice versa).

Pat................

Hello Paddy,

No this wasn't the case in 1888. In 1888 the police couldn't tell the Coroner to do anything. This was likely one of many changes that occurred due to the aftermath of the Lord Lucen inquest , most of which are found in the Criminal Law act 1977

[David Orsam]

Hello Pierre.

This was caused by a growing schism between the giving of evidence at inquest and at trial which had actually existed in the legal system for centuries but had grown in importance during the development of the adversarial criminal trial process during the 18th and 19th centuries, - effectively for the defendant to have a fair trial he must be able to hear and object to evidence going down on record. If evidence goes down on record at the public inquest it may influence the jury at trial without the defendant being able to do this. If the inquest was likely to end in a named verdict (murder by X instead of person or persons unknown), then evidence could be given “in camara” effectively in secret, not an option with the Eddowes murder. However even in these circumstances the inquest was still technically public, the Coroner could not exclude “the people of the vill” - inhabitants of the area where the body was found - from hearing anything, and the Coroner's jury could not be bound to secrecy.

So that the evidence could still be used at criminal trial.

That can't be what happened here. As can be seen from the newspaper extract Pierre posted in the OP, the city solicitor said that he would rather the evidence should be withheld "unless the jury desired it". Had the reason for withholding been as you suggest it would have been the decision of the Coroner and not left to the whim of the jury.

[Mr Lucky]

That can't be what happened here. As can be seen from the newspaper extract Pierre posted in the OP, the city solicitor said that he would rather the evidence should be withheld "unless the jury desired it". Had the reason for withholding been as you suggest it would have been the decision of the Coroner and not left to the whim of the jury.

No, it's exactly what's happened. Obviously the evidence is being given for the benefit of the jury, that's why it's their choice. There is nothing I've said that's in anyway inconsistant with anything in the newspaper quote posted in the OP.

I'm not wasting time trying to reason with you - I have tried that before and it's futile, you can and will believe whatever you want . The OP asked a question, and now it's answered.

[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...)

I'm late with this but by Lechmere's action of calling Paul's attention to the body would indicate that Paul didn't see the body at the same time as he saw Lechmere, so he technically didn't see Lechmere with it when he first saw him. I think that's a fair assessment.

Colombo.

[Fisherman]

I'm late with this but by Lechmere's action of calling Paul's attention to the body would indicate that Paul didn't see the body at the same time as he saw Lechmere, so he technically didn't see Lechmere with it when he first saw him. I think that's a fair assessment.

Colombo.

Yes, but does that mean that Lechmere was not found with the body? Go back to the gun example, and imagine that Lechmere had a gun in his pocket that Paul could not see.
Would in such a case Lechmere be with or without the gun?

Whether somebody is with someone or something hinges on that somebody himself. Lechmere was found with Paul and he was at that stage with the body. Paul only realized this some seconds after having seen Lechmere, but that was not because the body materialized out of thin air at that stage - it was there all the time, and Lechmere was with it all the time after he had recognized itīs presence and stopped in the street.

Overall, this discussion is a tad ridiculous, since it would have been a priority of Lechmeres to distance himself from the body before Paul arrived and could see him. I offered an example in which Lechmere was within touching distance of the body, but realistically, if he was the killer and wanted to bluff Paul, he would have stepped back a significant distance from the body - at least out of touching distance.
It canīt be proven either way, but that is how I look upon it. But when people imply that a longer distance from the body equals innocence, the time has come to protest.

Think Iīm done with the with for now...

[David Orsam]

No, it's exactly what's happened. Obviously the evidence is being given for the benefit of the jury, that's why it's their choice. There is nothing I've said that's in anyway inconsistant with anything in the newspaper quote posted in the OP.

I'm not wasting time trying to reason with you - I have tried that before and it's futile, you can and will believe whatever you want . The OP asked a question, and now it's answered.

I'm sorry Mr Lucky but I happen to think have answered the question wrongly and it requires correction. It's inconceivable to my mind that a simple description of the man Lawende saw could have prejudiced a future prosecution. But if it would have prejudiced a future prosecution then it would have been foolish for the city solicitor to suggest to the jury that they could hear the description if they wanted to.

[David Orsam]

Overall, this discussion is a tad ridiculous

You may be right Fisherman but it all stems from your insistence on using a loaded and misleading expression which, by its very nature, implies guilt on the part of Lechmere.

"Lechmere was found in an empty Bucks Row standing a few feet from the body of Nichols."

What's wrong with saying that?

[Fisherman]

You may be right Fisherman but it all stems from your insistence on using a loaded and misleading expression which, by its very nature, implies guilt on the part of Lechmere.

"Lechmere was found in an empty Bucks Row standing a few feet from the body of Nichols."

What's wrong with saying that?

David, please donīt try and engage me in disucssion with you again, I have told you that I do not wish to prolong the discussion on account of it getting very repetitive.

I will answer the question you put to me since it is a direct one, but after that, I want you to respect that Iīm through with the discussion.

The question you now ask is misworded since it predisposes that I think something is wrong with it. In essence, I donīt.

However, it has the slight flaw of making a guess about Lechmereīs stance, laying down that it was "a few feet" away from the body.

If you have read Rob Clacks posts on the matter, you would have seen that he went through the roof when such a thing was suggested. To him, it was a more or less proven thing that there were MANY feet inbetween body and finder.

So you see, trying to please everybody by somehow determining the distance will end in disaster. That is why I am saying that he was found with the body and leave the distance out. And since it is totally relevant for the case as such, I also point out that the body was freshly slain, since that forms a basis for the interest we may take in Lechmereīs close proximity to the body. If Nichols had been long dead, it would be potentially misleading to say that Lechmere was found with the body. That only becomes interesting in light of her very fresh demise, suggesting that the carman may indeed have been her slayer.

So Lechmere was found (which you now seem to accept) alone with the body (meaning that Lechmere and the body were both in the same premises, or as Merriam-Webster puts it:
Simple Definition of with
—used to say that people or things are together in one place (and together is NOT defined in terms of proximity, my remark)) of the freshy slain Polly Nichols (as evidenced by the bloodflow).

The main problem you (and Robert) are having seems to be that you are thinking that I am being too provocative when stating this. That is your prerogative, but when challenging the sentence, you would be much better off by saing "Yes, this is all true, but there may well be innocent explanations to all of this; The carman had to use Bucks Row, he had to pass close to the body and there may well have been time for an alternative killer".
Then I would have said "Fine!". But when it comes down to claiming that I am factually incorrect, deceptive and lying away (which has admittedly been more implied than said), you are going to get shot down.

Now, please respect that my discussion with you is over until further notice!