Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

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

Tone? There is no tone, there is a genuine interest in finding out whether I have stated a figure for how often doctors are wrong.
Apparently, I have not.

I have said that when a doctor says that an organ is damaged (obviously after having looked at the organ in question as Llewellyn will have done), he will in almost every case be perfectly correct. I will merrily stand by that.

But I have never given any general figure for how often doctors are wrong, have I?

So I would be very pleased if you withdrew that statement. Consider it a request along the same line as always: Do not misrepresent me, and do not put words in my mouth that I have never uttered. Please?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421447]

Tone? There is no tone, there is a genuine interest in finding out whether I have stated a figure for how often doctors are wrong.
Apparently, I have not.

Yes, you have, i.e. wrong in their statements about organ or vessel damage.

"and when they say that an organ or vessel is damaged, it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged."

I have said that when a doctor says that an organ is damaged (obviously after having looked at the organ in question as Llewellyn will have done), he will in almost every case be perfectly correct. I will merrily stand by that.

"Almost every case"??? In all cases but one!!!

Ha. Ha.

I love your posts!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421447]

I have said that when a doctor says that an organ is damaged (obviously after having looked at the organ in question as Llewellyn will have done), he will in almost every case be perfectly correct. I will merrily stand by that.

Where did you look at the organ: in a museum?

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Pierre;421448]

Yes, you have, i.e. wrong in their statements about organ or vessel damage.

"and when they say that an organ or vessel is damaged, it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged."



"Almost every case"??? In all cases but one!!!

Ha. Ha.


I love your posts!

I wouldn't laugh too hard Pierre. the jokes on you.

[Harry D]

I don't know about you, chaps, but I'm starting to doubt if this Lechmere fella was the killer after all!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;421450]

I wouldn't laugh too hard Pierre. the jokes on you.

Abby Normal to the rescue!

Relax Abby, the Lechmere idea will survive.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Harry D;421451]

I don't know about you, chaps, but I'm starting to doubt if this Lechmere fella was the killer after all!

No, you donīt say?

[Pierre]

Tone? There is no tone, there is a genuine interest in finding out whether I have stated a figure for how often doctors are wrong.
Apparently, I have not.

I have said that when a doctor says that an organ is damaged (obviously after having looked at the organ in question as Llewellyn will have done), he will in almost every case be perfectly correct. I will merrily stand by that.

But I have never given any general figure for how often doctors are wrong, have I?

So I would be very pleased if you withdrew that statement. Consider it a request along the same line as always: Do not misrepresent me, and do not put words in my mouth that I have never uttered. Please?

Dear Fisherman,

my apologies if you find my posts less friendly. I donīt mean to be rude, itīs just that your ideas are ever so funny. Your whole Lechmere idea is funny! Sorry! But do carry on. It is highly amusing!

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Pierre;421452]

Abby Normal to the rescue!

Relax Abby, the Lechmere idea will survive.

Cheers, Pierre

Yes it probably will. Fortunately, you will not.

[Elamarna]

Tone? There is no tone, there is a genuine interest in finding out whether I have stated a figure for how often doctors are wrong.
Apparently, I have not.

I have said that when a doctor says that an organ is damaged (obviously after having looked at the organ in question as Llewellyn will have done), he will in almost every case be perfectly correct. I will merrily stand by that.

But I have never given any general figure for how often doctors are wrong, have I?

Well you said "Doctors" and "they" and there was no mention of Llewellyn. So I see that as a general comment about doctors.

(Of course the real issue was that Llewellyn NEVER says major vessels and organs in the abdomen are damaged. He simply mentions "all the vital areas" which you intperet as applying exclusively to the abdomenial wounds; when nothing says that is the case).

So I would be very pleased if you withdrew that statement. Consider it a request along the same line as always: Do not misrepresent me, and do not put words in my mouth that I have never uttered. Please?

I will repeat exactly what you posted:

"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."

Your words, from your keyboard if not your mouth.

And given that I have passed no comment today other than to indicate to Henry what Pierre was referring to I have no intention of withdrawing anything particular when the quote is so very clear.

Steve

[Jon Guy]

I think those who are enthusiastic about the suggestion mainly look at the theatrical manner in which the stage was set, and the extensive damage done to the face, coupled with the deviating age of the victim as compared to the rest in the series.

But she no doubt belongs to the Ripperīs tally, yes.

What do you mean by theatrical manner ?

[Henry Flower]

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

It's as though you suddenly gained a sense of humour! Did you suffer a blow to the head or something?

Congratulations!

[Patrick S]

But why would his knowledge of another PC having requested his help make him go lazy? Why would it not produce the exact opposite reaction? It makes no sense to me.

[/B]

Simple. Having been told that a PC was already in Buck's Row, attending the situation, explains Mizen's lack of urgency (which Paul thought "a great shame") - and the fact that he didn't report the interaction with Paul and Cross - to the public and/or his superiors at the Met, allowing Neil to take the stand and testify as he did.

For me, the scenario is far less elaborate, more plausible than the "Mizen Scam", by which Cross is pulling Mizen aside for clandestine conversations, excluding Paul, duping them both, making assumptions about how Mizen will behave, what he'll do, once he's told a PC in Buck's Row.

This has Mizen - already with information in the form of what's been printed in Lloyd's - and presenting an explanation after the fact, not in advance of a set of actions that the "Mizen Scam" perfectly informs as necessary to get Cross "off the hook". Of course, as we know, Cross jumped BACK ON THE HOOK two days later by showing up ant the inquest. And that makes my scenario - again, in my view - far more likely.

[Fisherman]

Well you said "Doctors" and "they" and there was no mention of Llewellyn. So I see that as a general comment about doctors.

(Of course the real issue was that Llewellyn NEVER says major vessels and organs in the abdomen are damaged. He simply mentions "all the vital areas" which you intperet as applying exclusively to the abdomenial wounds; when nothing says that is the case).




I will repeat exactly what you posted:

"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."

Your words, from your keyboard if not your mouth.

And given that I have passed no comment today other than to indicate to Henry what Pierre was referring to I have no intention of withdrawing anything particular when the quote is so very clear.

Steve

Okay, then, so letīs pick this apart and be done with it!

A/ It should be clear to everybody that Llewellyn and his assessments was what we were speaking of, more specifically that you made the suggestion that he may have been wrong in saying that the vital parts had been damaged.
Now you of course want to wring things out of context, so this should be a timely reminder to you- I was speaking of LLewellyn and whether he would be able to tell if the inner organs of Nichols were damaged.

B/ "it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged" does not represent any percentage weighing. It says that the vessles and organs are damaged in 99,999 cases. It does not say in 99,999 casses out of a hundred, Iīm afraid. So I COULD have been speaking about ANY relation.

C/ I Very clearly stated that I was not leaning against any statistics, thus making it abundantly clear that what I said was MY view, and not any statistically verifiable one.

D/ You wrote that I had offered a number for how ofte doctors are wrong, but that makes it sound as if I was giving a general figure. I was not, I was giving a figure for a specific case. And it applies that one can give a number of a 100 per cent certainty in some cases (doctors know that the earth is round) and a much lower certainty in other cases (doctors can always tell closely related diseases from one and other, without checking first). That effectively means that you CANNOT claim that I have given a figure for how often doctors are correct, without clarifying the exact matter I was speaking about. Withholding that information turns your suggestion to nothing but a simple lie.

E/ ... and this is my favourite point: if THIS is the best you can offer in terms of levelling a valid criticism against the Lechmere theory, then I may just as well uncork the champagne right now! Not only do you choose to criticize ME instead of my theory, but you also go out of your way to take it out of context and serve it up as if I had spoken generally about doctors.
Let me assure you, that whenever you try something like this, I will force it back down your throat and out the natural way - I have long arms.

Now, if thereīs nothing more...?

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;421455]

Yes it probably will. Fortunately, you will not.

that seems a bit harsh.