Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Predictive text error. Your obviously mixing me up with yourself, as your the one prone to language errors!

I haven't denigrated Dr Llewellyn. It's not his fault that he was practising at a time when forensic science didn't even exist as she discipline. Were you not even aware of that.

A prize for minor surgery? Are you also unaware that even nurses carry out minor surgery these days.

I don't claim to be a medical expert, but Paul is and I believe he had given an opinion that the abdominal injuries would not be sufficient to kill. If he'd opined otherwise I'd have fully accepted that opinion. In fact, the irony is that even you've acknowledged that you have no idea how the abdominal injuries could have killed. But then you don't do irony, do you?

"Weird suggestions". Oh dear, it's back to the pantomime nonsense, I see.

I just want to make a comment about Post 1694. You made an implied threat to Steve, which is frankly a disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such outrageous tactics. Had you been drinking, by any chance? Either way you should apologize. However, I bet you don't, and what does that say about you?

You may need to read Pauls answer again as you got that wrong.

And you may need to read what made me very displeased with Steve before you comment on it. When he apologizes for having misrepresented what I said, I will apologize to him for becoming pissed by it. I really need to learn to let people piss all over me without getting frustrated about it.

What do YOUR posts say about YOU, John? Clever? Knowledgeable? Level-headed? Uninflammatory? Given to repeatedly imply that fellow posters are in the habit of drinking when you disagree with what they say? A keen disciple of the Marriott/Biggs team?

You tell me.

[Fisherman]

In which case Fish, is it not questionable to post the likes of this:

"Exactly - he retains the exact position he always have had as the best suspect overall and the only truly factually based suspect. Nothing less, nothing more."

The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" post # 271.



Steve

A/ It should be plentyfully obvious that this is my impression.

B/ Even if it was not, I would say that it is correct anyway. There is more factual evidence connected to Lechmere than to any other suspect. It is circumstantial, but people can be hanged on circumstantial evidence.
If you wish to challenge this, you need to produce a barrister and queens councellor who can point to another suspect who also has a prima faciae case that according to the barrister and queens councellor is good enough to take to court.

[Fisherman]

At the end of the day nothing but a storm in a teacup.

Steve

That is the aptest description I have found so far when it comes to describing your post about how I have put a figure to doctorīs propensities to get things wrong.

A storm in a teacup. Much ado about nothing. A desperate attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Best forgotten.

[Fisherman]

Fair enough. You are "not obliged to provide any facts at all!" But all those who wish to challenge you must present FACTS and hard EVIDENCE, lest they be shamed by the attempt!

Am I the only one who thinks this may not be Christer's finest hour? Again, going 'round with Christer accomplishes only so much. Others should weigh in at this point.

I will weigh in myself, if you donīt mind.

I agree that this is not my finest hour. My finest hour is instead tied to findings and discussions about the case.

Quibbles over the kind of matters that are quibbled over now do not offer the chance to produce your finest hour.

When was YOUR finest hour, Patrick? What is the best and most intriguing material you have brought to the table? I see a lot of criticism, based on an idea that Lechmere was probably a nice guy, and therefore LLewellyn must have been a fadt one and Mizen a dishonest one.

Does that amount to your finest hour? Or is it still to come?

[Jon Guy]

Cheers Jon.

Do we know for sure that there was a crowd there at that time of the day?

Regards
Herlock

Hi Herlock

Yes, there were crowds gathered outside the mortuary gates, and there were people hanging around the murder scene. The scenes described by the reporters who were amongst the crowd.

I`ll try and find the news paper source today.

At most, Paul would have worked a 12hr shift, so would have walked home through Bucks Row about 5pm/6pm at latest.

[Paddy Goose]

...give others information by presenting your argument and allowing them to decide for themselves.

But what if we decided years ago

Paddy

[Henry Flower]

Its a phenomenon that exists today, although to a much smaller extent owing to the fact that we've many ways to amuse ourselves these days. People want to see a place where something happened, share it and talk about it with others, feel as if they've become a part of it.

As recently as the 1990s you had the residents of Bundy and Rockingham in Brentwood complaining to anyone who would listen that their streets had turned into tourist attractions. They still are today, actually, to a much smaller extent.

Quite so, and I am unashamedly one of those sad souls! There's not much to see on Bundy though, too much greenery - though just across San Vicente Blvd you can see the bungalow where Marilyn accidentally overdosed / committed suicide / was assassinated by the Kennedys / CIA / Mafia / Frank Sinatra's hairpiece. Oh what a honeymoon we had, driving by great American crime scenes. My poor wife...

[Patrick S]

Thanks Steve. I think it's largely frustration at seeing his Professor Lechmere-Moriarty theory collapse. In any event, that's no excuse for personal threats, regardless of whether he was enjoying a drink or ten at the time!

I know your frustration, John. Simply become a happy warrior and realize that you're not working to change Christer's mind, but to give others information by presenting your argument and allowing them to decide for themselves. Trusting, for course, they'll make the obvious, more reasonable choice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi John

We can't blame Fisherman for adding Moriarty-like super villain characteristics to old CL can we? After all what would we see if we treated him as a real person?

Oh yeah...a totally innocent witness who has been falsely accused of being a psychopathic serial killer based on non-existant evidence.

The main reason that I'm not posting much recently is because the arguements are largely on the medical evidence and I don't have anything to add as I have zero medical knowledge (like CL). From what I can understand though Steve is way ahead on points and Fish needs a final round KO to stay in the game!

Regards
Herlock

[John G]

What can one say John. I told him last week he was sailing near to the wind.
However he just carries on.

I just let it go over me. I will not play that game.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I think it's largely frustration at seeing his Professor Lechmere-Moriarty theory collapse. In any event, that's no excuse for personal threats, regardless of whether he was enjoying a drink or ten at the time!

[Elamarna]

His comments were outrageous Steve. Frankly he showed 's apologize to you. I bet he doesn't.

What can one say John. I told him last week he was sailing near to the wind.
However he just carries on.

I just let it go over me. I will not play that game.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Predictive text error. Your obviously mixing me up with yourself, as your the one prone to language errors!

I haven't denigrated Dr Llewellyn. It's not his fault that he was practising at a time when forensic science didn't even exist as she discipline. Were you not even aware of that.

A prize for minor surgery? Are you also unaware that even nurses carry out minor surgery these days.

I don't claim to be a medical expert, but Paul is and I believe he had given an opinion that the abdominal injuries would not be sufficient to kill. If he'd opined otherwise I'd have fully accepted that opinion. In fact, the irony is that even you've acknowledged that you have no idea how the abdominal injuries could have killed. But then you don't do irony, do you?

"Weird suggestions". Oh dear, it's back to the pantomime nonsense, I see.

I just want to make a comment about Post 1694. You made an implied threat to Steve, which is frankly a disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such outrageous tactics. Had you been drinking, by any chance? Either way you should apologize. However, I bet you don't, and what does that say about you?

Hi John

What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.

However he doubted that the Aorta and Vena Cava would have been cut because of the depth of wound needed.
The other major vessels would in his opinion not kill fast enough to fit the time frame.


Basically he considers death by the abdomenial wounds more unlikely than the neck.

If I am wrong on that I am sure Paul will correct.

As for the comments from Fish. I am used to them.
But thanks anyway.


Steve

[John G]

That was not what was written. Maybe you should have been clearer and not used The pleural "Doctors" and "they" .




Percentage does not come into it.
It's not 99.999% its 99,999 cases that is 99 thousand 9 hundred and 99.
And yes I know some places use a comma, not seen it used often on this site.
You were asked what this meant at the time. Was it out of one hundred thousand?
It seems you either missed the several posts or chose not to respond, if you had we would not be debating this now.





And no one has claimed it was anything but your view
Henry was asking about Pierre's post and I pointed out it was possibly in response to a previous post about doctors mistakes and a figure quoted. But if he wanted more he or anyone esles needed to check it and having done so decide if Pierre's comments looked more reasonable in that light



It was not a critism of anything to do with the case against Lechmere; so do not try that one.
With regards to taking out of context, it really is a case of the pot calling the kettle Black, or people in glass house should not throw stones.

It seems it is considered ok to verbal abuse others, and to do the same as you are claiming is now done to you.
The level of indignation shown every time you feel you are portrayed differently to what you meant, not what you wrote is tiresome to say the least.

At the end of the day nothing but a storm in a teacup.

And I shall ignore the final comment; which some my view as a threat. I don't far too mature for that type of thing


Steve

His comments were outrageous Steve. Frankly he showed 's apologize to you. I bet he doesn't.

[John G]

John G: I meant, of course, "isn't it easier to conclude." It was a predictive text error, which I would have thought you would have realized considering you seem to frequently make them yourself.

Being prone to make language errors does not make you good with language understanding, John. That is a total miscomprehension.

Your argument that Dr Phillips was merely an "overseer" is somewhat bizarre, considering that he was integral to the investigation and actually examined the last 4 canonical victims. Were you unaware of this?

Please tell me when I said that he was MERELY an overseer? I said that he WAS an overseer, meaning that he looked into all of the cases. That si a different matter.

Your veneration of Dr Llewellyn is touching.

Your denigration of him is sad. And based on not a single fact. Thatīs worse, but to be expected.

However, you should know that even modern forensic experts frequently disagree on important points, so I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in the infallibility of a Victorian GP.

Can you please take that statement and shove it where the sun never shines? I have a MILLION times said that I do not regard any person infallible. When will you understand that? Never? Is it really that bad?

And by the way, what precisely was his surgical experience?

He was a house surgeon in London Hospital, he won a prize in minor surgery, and he worked as a surgeon.

What precisely was Phillipsī surgical experience? By the way?

You see, I can play that game too. And it doesnīt lead anywhere but to embarrasment for you...

His comments that the cuts to the abdomen would kill instantly are questionable to say the least.

Says you? Based on your own rich surgical experience?

What is your line of work, John? Are you in the medical business in any fashion? You must be, must you not, to be able to make that kind of a comment. And you must be in the clairvoyance business too, to know what there was to see inside Nichols.
That baffles me. I always had you down as a bureucrat of some sort.

i In fact, even you're perplexed on this point: "All we need to do now is to find out why they would kill instantly." Well, as I opined before, good luck with that one.

How does that mirror perplexion? Not at all, Iīm afraid. If I am perplexed, it is on account of your rather weird suggestions. Then again, I am not perplexed.
The damage to the abdomen could be a number of things. Therefore, it remains to see what it was.

Predictive text error. Your obviously mixing me up with yourself, as your the one prone to language errors!

I haven't denigrated Dr Llewellyn. It's not his fault that he was practising at a time when forensic science didn't even exist as she discipline. Were you not even aware of that.

A prize for minor surgery? Are you also unaware that even nurses carry out minor surgery these days.

I don't claim to be a medical expert, but Paul is and I believe he had given an opinion that the abdominal injuries would not be sufficient to kill. If he'd opined otherwise I'd have fully accepted that opinion. In fact, the irony is that even you've acknowledged that you have no idea how the abdominal injuries could have killed. But then you don't do irony, do you?

"Weird suggestions". Oh dear, it's back to the pantomime nonsense, I see.

I just want to make a comment about Post 1694. You made an implied threat to Steve, which is frankly a disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such outrageous tactics. Had you been drinking, by any chance? Either way you should apologize. However, I bet you don't, and what does that say about you?

[Patrick S]

Hi Steve

You could be right there. Give some people an audience....

Regards
Herlock

Others can chime in, but its nearly certain there were crowds around Bucks Row following the murder. The largest crowds in the hours and days following the murder, as word spread, newspaper accounts circulated, etc., and decreasing as time went on and, of course, more murders were committed, diverting the crowds elsewhere.

Its a phenomenon that exists today, although to a much smaller extent owing to the fact that we've many ways to amuse ourselves these days. People want to see a place where something happened, share it and talk about it with others, feel as if they've become a part of it.

As recently as the 1990s you had the residents of Bundy and Rockingham in Brentwood complaining to anyone who would listen that their streets had turned into tourist attractions. They still are today, actually, to a much smaller extent.