Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

I did not make the docu. How many more times must I say it before it sinks in?

I cannot possibly know why Payne-James do not talk about the order of the cutting and the severity of the abdominal ditto.

Is that clear by now? Or is it playing semantics to point it out to you?

No one is however saying that you did make it, but given it is your theory and "stars" you, this continued repeat of the documentary was nothing to do with me, everytime an issue is raised about it is getting a little stale.

Payne-James is the expert you quote time and time again, who we should not really question. Someone you have today used to support your case on timings, above all an expert you use to support your theory.

However ask a difficult question about why silence about a large section of that theory and suddenly you have no response. No reasoned argument, other than I didn't make the documentary, how should I know.

Of course you are playing semantics.

You claim Payne-James mentioned the wounds, yes he did in very general terms and that is not what I was talking about.

You claim Payne-James was aware of the serve wounds, which is certainly not the view expressed by him at all.

And when these points are repeated the response is to ignore and again divert.
The reply is total inadequate.


Steve

[Elamarna]

And it could have. And therefore we cannot know what Payne-James may have said or not. And therefore you should not claim that it is for me to explain. It is no such thing.

This started by asking why Payne-James had not mentioned Llewellyn's views on the abdomenial wounds.

The first response did not address this at all. Rather it took the question which was did he not have the testimony? Or did he ignore it? And made an argument that of course he had it. The issue of ignoring was not mentioned.

Then it was maybe it was cut from the documentary.

Then it was he knew about how serve the wounds were anyway, a claim not supported by the documentary itself.

Then it's I did not make the documentary.

And now it's back to maybe it was cut, we don't know, and so should accept this. And it's not for you to explain.

Sorry but the order of wounds is a large part of your theory, you have little evidence to support such. And now your leading expert is silent on the matter, of course you need to give a reasoned argument to explain this.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: No one is however saying that you did make it, but given it is your theory and "stars" you, this continued repeat of the documentary was nothing to do with me, everytime an issue is raised about it is getting a little stale.

No - it happens when I could and should not offer answers that I do not have, Steve. I cannot possibly say what Payne -James knew in detail about the case, since I do not know in detail what he had read.
He was well read up, that much was obvious, but please do not claim that I have a responsibility to know the exact extent of his knowledge. If I DID, I would open myself up to accusations of groundless claims, and letīs face it - there are those who have wet dreams about that proposition.

Payne-James is the expert you quote time and time again, who we should not really question.

Itīs not as if that has stopped you, though, is it? And thatīs as it should be. He is, however, extremely well qualified, and so he must remain an extremely trustworthy source, and any questioning of him runs an obvious risk of not gaining the same credibility unless it actually proves him wrong. If the source used has qualifications that equal or top Payne-Jamesī ditto, it becomes another question, of course.
So question away, but try to understand why I am sceptical.


However ask a difficult question about why silence about a large section of that theory and suddenly you have no response. No reasoned argument, other than I didn't make the documentary, how should I know.

How SHOULD I know, then? Explain it to me? How can I know what Payne-James knew and said on the issue, and whether it was cut away. Pray tell me! And what kind of "reasoned argument" are you talking about? Do you want me to guess? Is that it?

Of course you are playing semantics.

You claim Payne-James mentioned the wounds, yes he did in very general terms and that is not what I was talking about.

You claim Payne-James was aware of the serve wounds, which is certainly not the view expressed by him at all.

And when these points are repeated the response is to ignore and again divert.
The reply is total inadequate.

Is it now? Well, thatīs just too bad. Then again, you have yourself admitted that it is obvious that Payne-James had read the Llewellyn testimony, and it IS - he knew about the bruise on the lower right jaw. But that does not stop you from inferring that he may not have known about the severity of the abdominal wounds - which he MUST have, if he read the testimony. And then you say that I am the one doing semantics...? Priceless!
Once we both accept that he knew about the severity of the abdominal wounds, we are left with the answer you have already had a dozen times: I donīt know why that point is not spoken about in the docu.

And that is as far as we are going to come. Somehow, you think you have an argument of some sort owing to this, but I can assure you that you have nothing of the sort at all. You have a docu of an hour that could not possibly cover all angles and bring up all details relating to the case, and I suggest you need to start to live with that fact, instead of crying falsary.

It is a bit shameful, see.

[Fisherman]

This started by asking why Payne-James had not mentioned Llewellyn's views on the abdomenial wounds.

The first response did not address this at all. Rather it took the question which was did he not have the testimony? Or did he ignore it? And made an argument that of course he had it. The issue of ignoring was not mentioned.

Then it was maybe it was cut from the documentary.

Then it was he knew about how serve the wounds were anyway, a claim not supported by the documentary itself.

Then it's I did not make the documentary.

And now it's back to maybe it was cut, we don't know, and so should accept this. And it's not for you to explain.

Sorry but the order of wounds is a large part of your theory, you have little evidence to support such. And now your leading expert is silent on the matter, of course you need to give a reasoned argument to explain this.


Steve

AGAIN? The same frigginī post AGAIN? You are not doing yourself any services here, Steve!

[Fisherman]

Wait a second - I think I see what you are on about now!

You do not want the abdominal wounds involved in the discussion, because they could potentially detract from the time Nichols could have breathed after she was cut. And suddenly Lechmere starts to look like the only realistic bid.
If she WAS killed by the abdominal cuts and if they were inflicted a minute or so before the neck was cut, we are left with a lot less time for a phantom killer, if what Paul felt was Nichols breathing.

So thatīs why you speak of moving goalposts and me not having the support of Payne-James, eh?

God, I am slow on the uptake sometimes.

[Sam Flynn]

If she WAS killed by the abdominal cuts

She wasn't, though. A few slices into the belly wall, no matter how many or how long they are, simply aren't going to kill anyone within a few minutes.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: No one is however saying that you did make it, but given it is your theory and "stars" you, this continued repeat of the documentary was nothing to do with me, everytime an issue is raised about it is getting a little stale.

No - it happens when I could and should not offer answers that I do not have, Steve. I cannot possibly say what Payne -James knew in detail about the case, since I do not know in detail what he had read.
He was well read up, that much was obvious, but please do not claim that I have a responsibility to know the exact extent of his knowledge. If I DID, I would open myself up to accusations of groundless claims, and letīs face it - there are those who have wet dreams about that proposition.

Payne-James is the expert you quote time and time again, who we should not really question.

Itīs not as if that has stopped you, though, is it? And thatīs as it should be. He is, however, extremely well qualified, and so he must remain an extremely trustworthy source, and any questioning of him runs an obvious risk of not gaining the same credibility unless it actually proves him wrong. If the source used has qualifications that equal or top Payne-Jamesī ditto, it becomes another question, of course.
So question away, but try to understand why I am sceptical.


However ask a difficult question about why silence about a large section of that theory and suddenly you have no response. No reasoned argument, other than I didn't make the documentary, how should I know.

How SHOULD I know, then? Explain it to me? How can I know what Payne-James knew and said on the issue, and whether it was cut away. Pray tell me! And what kind of "reasoned argument" are you talking about? Do you want me to guess? Is that it?

Of course you are playing semantics.

You claim Payne-James mentioned the wounds, yes he did in very general terms and that is not what I was talking about.

You claim Payne-James was aware of the serve wounds, which is certainly not the view expressed by him at all.

And when these points are repeated the response is to ignore and again divert.
The reply is total inadequate.

Is it now? Well, thatīs just too bad. Then again, you have yourself admitted that it is obvious that Payne-James had read the Llewellyn testimony, and it IS - he knew about the bruise on the lower right jaw. But that does not stop you from inferring that he may not have known about the severity of the abdominal wounds - which he MUST have, if he read the testimony. And then you say that I am the one doing semantics...? Priceless!
Once we both accept that he knew about the severity of the abdominal wounds, we are left with the answer you have already had a dozen times: I donīt know why that point is not spoken about in the docu.

And that is as far as we are going to come. Somehow, you think you have an argument of some sort owing to this, but I can assure you that you have nothing of the sort at all. You have a docu of an hour that could not possibly cover all angles and bring up all details relating to the case, and I suggest you need to start to live with that fact, instead of crying falsary.

It is a bit shameful, see.

You protest too much.

No attempted to even look at possibilities, which is just what you expect everyone else to do all the time.

There is a logical region why he did not mention the possibility of the abdomenial wounds being that he did not accept them. It is certainly a possibility.

Now you accuse me of accusing you of falsary, that is a falsified of evidence, a forger. That is untrue. I have said no such thing. I am talking of what is not said by Payne-James, not anything you have said.
Once again you insult those who do not accept your ideas..
Continue on the hole gets deeper all the time.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Wait a second - I think I see what you are on about now!

You do not want the abdominal wounds involved in the discussion, because they could potentially detract from the time Nichols could have breathed after she was cut. And suddenly Lechmere starts to look like the only realistic bid.
If she WAS killed by the abdominal cuts and if they were inflicted a minute or so before the neck was cut, we are left with a lot less time for a phantom killer, if what Paul felt was Nichols breathing.

So thatīs why you speak of moving goalposts and me not having the support of Payne-James, eh?

God, I am slow on the uptake sometimes.

The only way it will have an effect on The breathing is if the Aorta is cut.

However if such were the case it would not point towards Lechmere as the time involved would be so short that it is highly probably to preclude Paul from detecting any breathing.
It was however that discussion which got me thinking about this point.
Actually by suggesting the Aorta was not cut , for which there is no evidence it was, I am strengthening the case for Paul to detect breathing, not weakening it!



Steve

[Elamarna]

AGAIN? The same frigginī post AGAIN? You are not doing yourself any services here, Steve!

As much the same post as the two separate post from you I was replying to.

If you repeat an argument, then you must expect the questions to be asked again. I certainly do.



Steve

[Fisherman]

She wasn't, though. A few slices into the belly wall, no matter how many or how long they are, simply aren't going to kill anyone within a few minutes.

You tell that to somebody who has the aorta in the abdomen severed, Gareth, and you may find you are very wrong. There is also the possibility that a large number of the major vessels were cut and together that would ensure quick death.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:You protest too much.

How indecent of me.

No attempted to even look at possibilities, which is just what you expect everyone else to do all the time.

Which possibilities is it you want me to look at? That Lechmere may have not been the killer? Or? Just tell me, and I will look ever so diligently.

There is a logical region why he did not mention the possibility of the abdomenial wounds being that he did not accept them. It is certainly a possibility.

Is "abdomenial" an accepted term? You keep using it, and you are the medically versed people, so Iīd like to know.
Otherwise, you need to tell me who "he" is - Payne-James? And what was it he did not accept? That there were abdominal wounds? Thatīs how it reads to me.

Now you accuse me of accusing you of falsary, that is a falsified of evidence, a forger. That is untrue. I have said no such thing. I am talking of what is not said by Payne-James, not anything you have said.
Once again you insult those who do not accept your ideas..
Continue on the hole gets deeper all the time.

Yes, there is a LARGE hole, but it seems to be inside your head, Steve. You need to be a lot more succinct and to the point. As it is, I cannot make heads or tails of your posts.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: The only way it will have an effect on The breathing is if the Aorta is cut.

In the abdomen, I suppose? That is what you are talking about here, yes? Then what about if a large collection of the other big vessels in the abdomen are severed? You go on breathing, no problems?

However if such were the case it would not point towards Lechmere as the time involved would be so short that it is highly probably to preclude Paul from detecting any breathing.

"Highly probable"? I see. And can we imagine a PARTIAL severing of the aorta, Steve? No?
Just asking away here, since it seems you are not exactly intent on looking at how Lechmere could fit the bill.
Then again, I am the one avoiding looking at all possibilities. Or so Iīm told. By you.
Naughty, naughty, Steve.

Itīs easy:
COULD Nichols have been killed very quickly by the wounds to her abdomen? Yes.
COULD it have taken many a minute to have her dying from her abdominal wounds? Yes.
COULD she have died at any stage between "very quickly" and "after many a minute" from the wounds in her abdomen? Yes.

Try and contradict that, and we shall see. It will be interesting to see you establish a zone between minute one and minute, say, ten, when she could not have died.
Go on, Steve - give it a shot!

It was however that discussion which got me thinking about this point.
Actually by suggesting the Aorta was not cut , for which there is no evidence it was, I am strengthening the case for Paul to detect breathing, not weakening it!

Why do you keep using the phrase "for which there is no evidence" when you know quite well that no evidence is not an indication either way? Explain it to me, please. Is it not true that there is no evidence that it was NOT cut either? And is it not true that since Llewellyn said that the damage to the abdomen would kill, there is a very reasonable chance that it WAS cut?

Why cannot we do it the logical eay? Why must it be done in the veiled and fallacious "there is no evidence for it" way?

You cannot do things like these, and then tell me that I am diffing myself into a hole, Steve. Fair is fair.

[Fisherman]

As much the same post as the two separate post from you I was replying to.

If you repeat an argument, then you must expect the questions to be asked again. I certainly do.

Steve

But YOU are the one asking questions of me. YOU are the one telling me to defend my theory, and leading on that I cannot do so.

So what am I to do, when nobdy comes up with one single new question? Itīs like Patrick, who repeatedly post "But he seems such a nice guy", "But his kids seems to have been raised just fine" and "But he would not have run, would he?", and people exclaim "Excellent post!" as if it was something new.
How can I provide other answers to it, if I never get asked anything new?

[Fisherman]

Hereīs a little help from the web. The question "How long does it take for a stab to the abdomen to kill you?"
Silly, I know, but the answers were a lot better:

Noah Tal Kaufman, MD, worked at Emergency Medicine

"That's like saying what's the worst sound a car can make when there's something wrong. It depends on so many factors. The knife can penetrate deeply or barely at all. 1/3 of abdominal stab wounds never even make it into the deep abdominal cavity. ...but you could die of infection 2 weeks later, or not at all. A knife hitting your abdominal aorta could kill you in seconds... So really it's either about refining the question or adding a few "ifs" as in "if the blade lacerated the such and such." I haven't read the other answers yet, but this is the answer I can tell you from years of experience with many of these traumas in the ER."

This is the MD Will Anderson:

"There is a difference between the time until death and the time until you lose consciousness.
A stab wound to the chest, if it involves the heart, will be fatal pretty quickly. You will lose consciousness in seconds, as the heart is unable to pump blood to your brain at a pressure necessary to maintain cerebral blood flow enough to keep you conscious. Brain death will follow in several minutes. If the stab wound involves major vessels of the lungs, massive haemorrhage will occur and you can quite easily bleed your entire circulating volume into your chest cavity. This could take up to a minute depending on how fit and healthy you were.
A stab wound to the belly is more difficult to say. If it involves the abdominal aorta or inferior vena cava you will bleed to death fairly quickly, within a minute or two. Smaller vessels will take longer to kill you by bleeding to death. If you avoid all major vessels then death will take days to weeks from infection if no medical attention is received."

[Fisherman]

Of course, given these data, we can conclude that regardless if Lechmere was the killer or not, he was definitely in place at a time that is perfectly consistent with the option.

We really need a phantom killer to exonerate him. And there is n ot much time to squeeze such a man in.

But since we must, because Lechmere would never have been the killer - I got that right, didnīt I? - we need to accept that Mr Phantom was there.

And covered the wounds before he fled.

Yeah, right.