Lechmere The Psychopath

[Patrick S]

Well, they certainly do not impress me that way. As I said, it would involve a very obvious risk, a near certainty in fact, that Mizen would loose his job and be forced stand trial himself, on accusations of wilfully having obstructed justice.

Risk. So, this is implausible because Mizen was taking "very obvious risk". But your has Cross killing Nichols, grabbing the first fellow that happens along and forcing him to have a look at his victim, then dashing off with the man to find a PC to tell about the woman he's just killed, telling that PC lies about another PC awaiting him at the scene, then appearing voluntarily at the inquest two days later to tell lies about the PC he lied to, in court. And that's plausible....because Cross was a psychopath. At this point I'll remind you that we have exactly the same amount of evidence that Mizen was a psychopath as we have evidence telling us that Cross was a psychopath. So, now what?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Simple.

If it is, why is it that there are two camps, Patrick?

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.

No, it does no such thing at all. If, as you seem to believe, Mizen was told that the woman coud well be dead, then she could also well be dying. And if a colleague requests your help, then that would be because the overall situation required that help. And in cases of near death, dragging your legs behind you is not an alternative.
So when Mizen heard that a woman that could be dead or dying was lying in Bucks Row, where a colleague awaited his help, he should have run as fast as he could, and double quick too.
And that means that if he did NOT run, then he was probably NOT told about the potential severity of the errand.
Odd, but I feel like saying "simple" now.

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.

Yes, I agree. I think the whole world agrees. The innocent scenario is much simpler than the guilty one. But that does not have any bearing on whether Lechmere was the killer or not. If he WAS the killer, then he HAD to find a more elaborate, guilty scenario to get out of the spot he was in than the innocent scenario.
The fact that an innocent scenario is simpler than a guilty one cannot influence the events in retrospect, Patrick- that is an illusion.

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.

Can I please ask you to clarify this passage? I cannot make heads or tails of them, so I do not know what you are trying to say. Let me just say once more that "simpler" scenarios are not per se more credible than "complex ones", other than in a strictly general meaning. When we have a specific case, the facts must be weighed in before a decision can be made.

[Patrick S]

On that we agree - but if the carman told him that she was probably dead, it would involve great risks to be tardy.

Because - as you well know - a key feature of Mizen's testimony was that he was NOT told that the woman was dead. I'll remind you here that both Paul and Cross say he WAS told the woman was dead. Mizen testified that he was told only that he was "wanted in Buck's Row where a woman was lying".

[Henry Flower]

Surely Fisherman gave a precise figure ONLY if we know what the sample size was from which the 99,999 correct diagnoses were drawn?

I do begin to doubt whether the Lechmere case will be proved or disproved on this particular thread.

But on the plus side, it is a relief to see Pierre at last perfecting his impersonation of a human being, and responding to what he sees as the absurdities of others' theories with the same level of derisive, amused scorn that others so frequently heap upon his own

[Fisherman]

What do you mean by theatrical manner ?

The placing of the organs around the body, the pillow made up by the uterus and a breast, then hand seemingly resting in the opening of the abdominal cavity, the flesh on the table... Those kinds of things. There is not much of that character in the other cases; perhaps the things at Chapmans feet, perhaps the colon piece stretched out alongside Eddowes, but no real comparison.

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;421455]

Yes it probably will. Fortunately, you will not.

that seems a bit harsh.

[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]

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.

[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!

[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 ?

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

[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