Lechmere The Psychopath

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421428]

Myself, I would say that making that kind of a mistake was totally idiotic, so we cannot exclude that they goofed up seriously in other departments too.

We must exclude that. The police never goofed up seriously. 99,9 percent of them never goofed up seriously.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Pierre;421430]

We must exclude that. The police never goofed up seriously. 99,9 percent of them never goofed up seriously.

Pierre

And old Mizen was the best.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Pierre;421430]

We must exclude that. The police never goofed up seriously. 99,9 percent of them never goofed up seriously.

Pierre

And old Mizen was the best.

Pierre

And old Niel.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421428]

Furthermore, I believe that IF they had found out that his name was Lechmere, they would have put the thumbscrews on him and gone to work properly.

Indeed. And the rope, they would definitely have put the rope around his neck.

If they had found out, which must have been very very difficult, that the REAL TRUE name of him was indeed Lechmere.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421428]

If there had been a situation where the police felt they had their man for the Nichols murder, but lacked the evidence to act on it, I feel certain that we would have heard about it in one way or another through the press.

Indeed. The police ALWAYS shared their feelings with the press. Always.

Bravo!

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421428]

...it does not strike me as any given thing at all that they checked Lechmere after each murder if they did not do so after the first.

But they might have checked Lechmere, yes, after every murder, and they may have gone straight to Doveton Street to check him efter each murder. And if they did, what did he say? Did he tell them his REAL TRUE name?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421428]

An interesting experiment on your behalf would be to ask yourself: "If he was NOT checked or suspected in any way, then what?"

Aha! THEN he would have murdered the Whitehall victim (victim of dismemberment =vod), Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, Jackson (vod), MacKenzie, Pinchin Street vod and the rest of the victims (take your pick).

And HE WAS NEVER DISCOVERED SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN LECHMERE!

Very intelligent thinking.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421398]

Patrick S: I don't think Mizen tried to intimate that Cross killed Nichols in any way shape or form. I don't think it entered his mind.

Fisherman:

Well, it should have - he reasonably knew that Lechmere was the finder of the body at this stage, and leading on that he had served the kind of lie that is implied by the "extra PC" would quite possibly get Lechmere into very serious trouble. Tampering with the evidence in a murder case will always turn perspectives and carry risks.

Yes, IT should have! What can we do? Change the past? Email him? Use a ouija board? Someone must tell Mizen that It should have entered his mind.

Agree.

Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, are you drunk?

[Elamarna]

Pierre, are you drunk?

Henry

You would need to go back to earlier in the thread where Fisherman gave a figure for how likely Doctors are to make mistakes.

Pierre in his own unique style is making a point on that.

Not defending Pierre, but I see what he is attempting to do in this instances.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Henry

You would need to go back to earlier in the thread where Fisherman gave a figure for how likely Doctors are to make mistakes.

Pierre in his own unique style is making a point on that.

Not defending Pierre, but I see what he is attempting to do in this instances.

Steve

I gave a figure for how likely doctors are to make mistakes? Really? A universal one, or? What figure was that, Steve?

[Pierre]

Pierre, are you drunk?

Yes, with insight. I just understood how to understand the writings of Fisherman.

[Pierre]

I gave a figure for how likely doctors are to make mistakes? Really? A universal one, or? What figure was that, Steve?

Fisherman:

"Doctors know what they are talking about, and when they say that an organ or vessel is damaged, it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged. And no, I cannot provide any statistic source for it. Nor do I have to."

#1293

[Elamarna]

I gave a figure for how likely doctors are to make mistakes? Really? A universal one, or? What figure was that, Steve?

Fish, I was responding to Henry and assumed he was referring to the figures Pierre used several times. I remembered that you had used a similar figure earlier in the thread and suggest that may be the reason.

I passed no comment and suggested Henry needed to check back to get the details.

Here are the details:

we need to go back to post # 1293 by Fisherman:

"Doctors know what they are talking about, and when they say that an organ or vessel is damaged, it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged. And no, I cannot provide any statistic source for it. Nor do I have to."

That appears to be giving a figure for how likely a doctor is correct about an assement of damage.
However without checking it I could not remember the details; thus why I suggested Henry needed to go back in the thread and check it.


So I am not sure of the reason for the tone in your post.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421164]

Nor is "my idea of objectivity" to dismiss the parts of Llewellyns testimony that fail to support my theory.

To begin with, no parts of LLewellyns testimony act against my theory

Priceless!