My own feeling was always that you are so opposed to the idea that the abdomen came first that you are not only willing to claim that LLewellyn was wrong about it whereas you are right, you will also try and paint a picture where not a single inner organ or vessel was cut, since such a thing would be in line with what both myself
and Llewellyn think about it all - that the abdomen WAS cut first.
I see no other reason at all for your revisionistic suggestions in this field of reseach,
YOU ARE NOT IN A FIELD OF RESEARCH. YOU ARE A JOURNALIST ON AN INTERNET FORUM.
Of course it cannot rule him out, it's not pricise enough to do that.
However you translate "can't be ruled out" into "fits perfectly." It does not, because the hypothesis you use is faulty, nor is the evidence you apply to it compelling, despite your belief it is.
The population of men over 20 years in Whitechapel 1888. Can it be ruled out?
I KNOW that you wish you could. ("Itīs not precise enough to do that" - as if the implication was that it comes close to ruling him out; priceless!)
Not at all. It is impricise end of.
Originally Posted by Fisherman
And I KNOW that he fits the bill, because that is what Jason Payne-James has told me. As I have repeatedly stated, he does allow for another killer, but thinks that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm, owing to the bleeding times implied and the coagulation observed. If fits like a glove.
Itīs a bummer, is it not - all these medicos who will not accept that you are the better judge?
Actually that is how you interpret the answers you got from Payne-James; if what he said was fully understood it would be clear that.
A. The hypothesis fails because it is not robust, the logic it uses is faulty or incomplete.
B. The evidence you fit to the hypothesis in an attempt to make you case is impricise and does not produce the results you desire.
It appears you have not actually test the hypothesis my friend, oh dear.
Perhaps we ought to contact this Payne-James and ask him if he as told you that.
Before critizise other you should speak out, and put your theroy to the test, since you do not have the balls to do so all that is left is to
a.) hide behind your allegedly expertise as a historian
b.) critizise and patronizing everybody else who at least has got a Theroy and put it to the test
P.S.: I īd like to add that a.) is still unproven by any scientific means.....
kjab3112: To be fair to Fish, I suspect the "several arteries" represents those supplying the abdominal wall musculature. My issue with involvement of the aorta lies in the pure depth of these arteries. The mean depth of the aorta from the abdominal wall are 6cm (normal), 10cm (overweight) and 13cm (obese) [Hunt teal 1992]. With a given knife length of 6-8 inches (15-20 cm) and the clothing position, I doubt the wounds are quite deep enough. Do they enter the peritoneal cavity, yes (Spratling: the omentum was cut); would some vessels be involved, undoubtedly; would these be fatal, eventually; would they cause death early enough to result in no scream by the time the larynx was cut, there lies the problem. The neck cut though would sever both carotid arteries and cut the trachea below the larynx, hence no scream.
Well, thanks for that, Paul. I am quite pleased to hear that you think that the blade would have entered the peritoneal cavity and that some vessels would undoubtedly be involved in the cutting process, and that the damage done may have been fatal. I think your estimation of the blade lenght is a fair one; the one medico who gave a length was Phillips in the Chapman case, who said "It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer."
If this was the same knife - and Llewellyn said it was a longbladed one - then we should keep in mind that Llewellyn aslo said that the knife was used with violence and downwards, so we must predispose that the pressure power towards the underlying organs would have been considerable. I have no problems, therefore, to envisage the aortas suppying the organs with blood being cut. And I think this would answer better to Baxters being surpised abut the dearth of blood - I take it these aortas would hold a lot more blood than the ones supporting the muscles attached to the abdominal wall. Please correct me if that is wrong.
You write that the distance from the abdominal wall to the aorta is 6 centimeters, about two inches therefore, in a normal person. And Nichols was not overweight, apparently. So with a blade of 15-20 centimeters, applied with violence as per Llewellyn, likely compressing the tissues during the stabbing motion, I fail to see why we would not reason that the aorta quite possibly could be cut. Indeed, if the stab was directed towards itīs exact position, why would it NOT get struck?
Your problem lies with how you would have expected Nichols to cry out if the abdomina cutting preceded the neck cutting. Could it be that Nichols had been strangled/partially strangled before the cutting commenced, and that this was what kept her silent?
I will point to Martha Tabram, who suffered 39 stabs to her body and who did not make a sound in the process. In the Tabram deed, we also have Dr Killeen saying that the final stab was dealt with a much larger and stronger instrument. It went through the heart, piercing the breastbone in the process, and it looks like a coup-de-grace. In that respect, it offers a parallel to what I see in the Nichols case - the abdominal cutting precedes the final coup-de-grace, in Nicholsī case dealt as a cut neck.
Does this mean the killer did not commit overkill by performing several unnecessary cuts, the opposite is true.
I take this to mean that you mean that there was an overkill, something I agree with.
Does this mean Lechmere/Cross was not present within a few minutes of the cut, undoubtedly.
This I fail to understand. Are you saying that Lechmere could not have been there as whe was cut? Or is there a "not" too much here?
Can Lechmere/Cross be ruled out by the bleeding time, no.
My take too. Not in a million years. If anything, he fits perfectly.
Do I believe Lechmere/Cross the killer, as stated before a person of interest, but unlikely. Why? He was caught at the scene, the killer though didn't change his pattern until MJK to move indoors, surely Lechmere/Cross, if the killer, would have switched earlier and although Annie was in a secluded yard, Kate and Mitre Square are not exactly the action of someone taking more care.
So your misgivings are centered around the fact that you do not believe that he would keep on killing in the streets if he had been nearly caught in the act? If so, you are welcome to your view, but there are numerous examples of serialists inviting risk, so I really cannot agree at all. It will all come down to a weighing together of the opportunities open to the killer, his willingness to take risks, his sense of being impossible to stop (something many serialists have witnessed about - they feel invincible if they are not caught, and that makes them careless), his position on the scale of opportunism and a few other factors. The possibilities are endless. But I always warn against the idea that men like these are unwilling to take risks. If it had applied in the Rippers case, he would never have taken to the streets killing in the first place.
But we've been here before. Your theory is that the perpetrator strangled Nichols, before focussing on the abdomen and then returning to the neck to inflict the knife cuts. However, this is a highly convoluted theory that makes little logical sense: put simply, if he strangled the victim the neck cuts would, from at least a practical perspective, be sequentially the next step.