Lechmere The Psychopath

[Harry D]

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

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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;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!

[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]

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

[Pierre]

Pierre, are you drunk?

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

[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?

[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

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, are you drunk?

[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

[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;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?