Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 50 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 1 hour and 14 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (29 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (14 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (1 posts)
Neil, P.C. John: Running towards me without a hat, which raised my suspicions!!! - (1 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack the Poet - (1 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Jack the Poet - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1431  
Old 07-06-2017, 03:39 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Lloyds Weekly, 2 September
There was a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it was accompanied by another one which reached around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body. The ghastliness of this cut, however, paled into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upwards twice.
Forgot to mention that this journalist report is actually at odds with the report of Dr Llewellyn's inquest testimony carried in the same edition.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1432  
Old 07-06-2017, 10:52 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 952
Default

Actually Steve, it's copied almost verbatum from the Star's first report on 31 August, written when information was scarce.

"There is a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it is accompanied by another one which reaches around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body.
THE GHASTLINESS OF THIS CUT,
however, pales into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upward, not once but twice. ..."

A good indication of the of research used in picking those quotes.


__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1433  
Old 07-06-2017, 11:16 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 952
Default

Fish also quotes East London Advertiser, 1st Sept, but seemingly avioded what else they wrote that day,

"
Constable Neale at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary, which is situated in the Pavilion Yard close by. Mr. Edmunds, the keeper of the mortuary, was in attendance, and assisted by the officer and the scavengers, undressed the poor creature and placed her in one of the black coffins lying about the mortuary.
"

__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman

Last edited by drstrange169 : 07-06-2017 at 11:32 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1434  
Old 07-06-2017, 11:53 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 952
Default

On a roll, Fish continued with a quote from the Moring Advertiser, which yet again was cribbed from the Pall Mall Gazette's August 31st story.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1435  
Old 07-07-2017, 12:23 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Sam Flynn: No, "bleeding from the several vessels" is weird English, pure and simple, irrespective of what had been said before. I should know; I'm bloody good at English.

Itīs possible English, though. Thatīs what matters. And a point that shuld not be lost is that we do not know whether the reporter cut what he head down - not everything that was said was taken down and printed, we know that quite well. So it the reporter heard "The bleeding from the several vessels that had been cut", he may well have skipped over the obvious, latter part. What we cannot do is to try and rule out what we have in print just because we dislike itīs implications.

So? There were some severe cuts and stabs. That makes perfect sense.No. It's nonsensical, crappy English.

Severe cuts and stabs with a longbladed knife used with violence will damage the innards. That too makes perfect sense. It makes no sense at all that it would only travel into the omentum.

"from the severed arteries" makes demonstrably more sense.Nothing childish about it. It's called "logic".

No, there is nothing childish at all about that, I agree. It is a sensible suggestion that really has something going for it.
The childish thing was when you said that you were 100 per cent certain that you knew the actual wording.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1436  
Old 07-07-2017, 12:24 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Thank you John.

I think that the sandcastle is crumbling.

Regards
Herlock
Donīt say that - why not go all the way and say that it has been washed out to sea and disappeared? It would be equally correct.

Rest assured, though, it will come back to haunt you.

Producing a list like you did is not very decisive. I did the same before, posting 30 points plus in favour of Lechmere being the killer. But just as your list does nothing to dissolve the suggestion that he was, my list cannot cannot be more than an opinion.

We do not have facts to tell decisively either way, itīs that simple.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1437  
Old 07-07-2017, 12:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I've noticed Pierre. It's strange that all who disagree with him are closed minded, use faulty reasoning or just don't understand all those complicated facts.

Regards
Herlock
I never said that they are.

Itīs just another thing you invented on my behalf, as you well know.

But I agree it would be stranger if they were open-minded, used correct reasoning and understood the case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1438  
Old 07-07-2017, 12:34 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
We shall see

Statement of Dr Llewellyn, it adds nothing new to what we have discussed.

Journalist's report, it is not given as a quote from any knowledgeable authority and as such is of limited value

Journalists report again. The degree of sharpness of the blade is somewhat out with Llewellyn’s report; It's reliability is therefore questionable..


Yet again a Journalist’s report and somewhat selectively quoted as well, Directly after the above it says
“it was early evident that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found”
So it is obvious that early rumors are being published.


Again another journalist report, no attribution of the source of the information. Again of limited value.

Yes its reporting Llewellyn’s testimony thats better; unfortunately the detail is not reported.

Before looking at the comments lets take an overall view of the sources above:

1. 6 reports
2. The first is part of Llywellyn’s press statement, it adds nothing to the discussion.
3. Reports 2-5 appear to be the reports of journalist’s, they do not appear to be quoting any medical source,.
4. From reading the whole of each of the reports used, and not just the sections quoted above, it is clear that there is much reporting of , rumors and half truths. As such these reports much be question for reliability.
5. The last report is part of Llewellyn’s testimony, unfortunate it mentions details, but does not report such and so adds nothing,

So we have six reports which add no reliable evidence, and nothing to the debate.

And has you rightly say when you say “the reporter thought” its a journalists opinion not that of a doctor.

Its a newspaper report, its not gospel. Papers make mistakes, papers print false stories the apparent indignation that a paper may not tell the truth is astounding.,

The fact is that the Omentum is the deepest recorded cut,There is no mention of the underlying intestines being hit, and a hit on them would not be immediately or indeed certainly fatal.
Is Llewellyn wrong?
The real question is are you interpretations his comment regards vital areas correctly, I think many would say not and there is no reason to think he is not referring to the neck.
The arguments are reasoned, unlike the post above, which I am afraid is full of dubious Journalistic reports, and no actual facts apart from Llewellyn reported in details of the wounds.


Steve
Your problem, Steve, lies in how it is never said that miraculously, not a single organ or vessels was damaged in he abdomen of Nichols. This is what you wanīt to lead on, though. But it is not going to work for the simple reason that we know that the examining doctor, who made the post mortem, laid down very clearly that the wounds on the abdomen were inflicted with a long-bladed knife, used with violence and downwards, that the wounds on the abdomen were in some instances very deep and that the wounds of the abdomen were, separately, enough to kill.

After that, it is only a question of which of the organs were struck, not IF they were struck. And LLewellyn answers this too, since he said that all of the vital parts were struck, indicating anatomical insights.

There are two ways only to get around this complex, and that is to claim that Llewellyn either did not know what he was talking about, or he was consciously lying about it.

And that is where your argument effectively ends.

Last edited by Fisherman : 07-07-2017 at 12:40 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1439  
Old 07-07-2017, 12:38 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

I am sorry, Dusty, but you are not going to get any answer. The paper reports are all we have, and if we were to totally discard every report that involves some material that seems at odds with the real picture, we would be left with no material at all, more or less.

Anyway, once you imply that I leave things out of quotations, it brings a rye smile to my face... Itīs not like throwing stomes in a glass house, itīs like dropping mount Everest on a schnaps glass.

Youīve got nerve, Iīll give you that. But there my interest ends.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1440  
Old 07-07-2017, 01:40 AM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 137
Default Llewellyn stated throat cut first

So, was dr. Llewellyn of the opinion that Nicholl's abdomen was cut first?

No.



Lloyd's Weekly, September 2nd
Quote:
An interview was had with Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London hospital, and he most courteously gave his opinion of the manner of the murder. In effect he said that the woman was killed by the cuts in the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae.
Pall Mall Gazette
Daily News
Evening Standard
September 3rd:
Quote:
That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming.
Echo, September 1st
Quote:

Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post mortem examination of the body this morning, the injuries are even more extensive than he at first supposed. It is his impression that she was not murdered at the spot where her body was found, but that her throat was cut, the dreadful abdominal injuries then inflicted, and that the body was then carried, enveloped in her large, heavy cloak, and thrown outside the gateway at Essex Wharf. Mr. Seccombe, Dr. Llewellyn's assistant, is of the same opinions, especially, he says, as there was comparatively little blood where the deceased lay
Does the good doctor ever change this stance? Not to my knowledge.

Wynne Baxter in his summation argues that Llewellyn may be understood as claiming that the abdominal wounds came first. But note the careful phrasing: "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion" - seems to, meaning he (Llewellyn) has not actually stated this; incline to, meaning even if he were of that opinion, he would not consider it certain.

At any rate, we have Fisherman's oft-repeated point that Baxter was not a medical man. When Baxter and Llewellyn disagree, we should therefore go with Llewellyn, who explicitly stated the throat was cut first.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.