Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: I think it would be quite interesting to re-enact the scenes in Buck's Row and Baker's Row, respectively, exactly according to the theory presented by Fisherman. I'd pay to see that at a conference, provided the audience was polled afterward to judge how plausible they found it.

Actually, that has been done already, when the theory was originally presented in St Johns Church, Bethnal Green, before a crowd of some threehundred people, many of them ripperologists (Bill Beadle and Lindsay Siviter were present, to mention but two, as were many members of the Whitechapel Society). We received much acclaim, and the only critical voice that I heard came from a man who was very sure that Tumblety was the killer.

I've actually done it (as sad a commentary as that may be on my chosen forms of entertainment). It's was difficult for those viewing the re-enactment to get past the first few seconds: Lechmere murdering Nichols, engaging in a little mutilation, hearing Paul approach from some 40 yards off....only to stand up, take a few steps away from the body, wait for Paul, approach Paul as he tries to AVOID him, touch him on the shoulder and say, "Come see this woman!" That's a mountain of unnatural behavior to process when you see represented physically.

Hmmm. Then maybe the difference was coloured by the different audiences and the way the material was presented, Patrick.

I'm interested to see how people would react to the rather new wrinkle of Lechmere pulling Mizen aside in Baker's Row and telling him that a.) a woman is lying in Buck's Row (not dead), and b.) he's wanted a policeman there. He manages to tell Mizen this without Paul hearing (even though it's before dawn on deserted streets) and without Mizen saying, "Why is that guy standing over there? Who is he? Why isn't he here too? This is pretty odd, you know?" And then having Lechmere return to Paul (as Mizen rushes to Buck's Row) and tell him that Mizen "didn't seem to care! He continued calling people up! I told him she was dead! And he didn't do much of anything!"

I find it a completely credible scenario, so we may have more of the same here - different takes.

Now that civility is carrying the day, I say we do it! When and where?

Well, Patrick, who gets to invite the guests? Should they be ripperologists or randomly chosen people? There are a number of questions that will be tricky to answer in that context, and when the fog lifted, we would still have no more than the thoughts of a group we cannot assess when it comes to credibility. And that works both ways - if theyt said "That must be how it happened", you would find it odd, and if they said "That is completely unbelievable", I would find it odd.
It is what it is - and you will not find a more harsh questioning than the one that is provided on these boards anyway.


PS. Here´s a link to the event, which also was a fundraiser for the Stairway to Heaven Memorial Fund:
http://www.stairwaytoheavenmemorial....ening2012.html

In the article, you will find the wording: "Cross was discovered standing over the body by the witness Robert Paul." Please don´t blame me or Edward for it, it was a piece of information given to the press by a person knit to the fund, who helped arrange the evening and who was (probably) incorrect. Don´t let that passage disturb you, it has been discussed a million times afterwards, and I would have preferred to spare that time.

My group was not comprised of a single Ripperologist. One policeman, two lawyers, a beer distributor, my wife (a project manager), her sister (a pain in the ass), my brother-in-law (a bum), an engineer, a professor of political science, a landscaper, my mother-in-law (who is Chinese and her English is not that great), an investment banker, three stay at home mothers, and my two boys (aged 12 and 7) and various other children or roughly the same age. Basically, people who were at my house for a party. So, I think my group was more reliable.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: My group was not comprised of a single Ripperologist. One policeman, two lawyers, a beer distributor, my wife (a project manager), her sister (a pain in the ass), my brother-in-law (a bum), an engineer, a professor of political science, a landscaper, my mother-in-law (who is Chinese and her English is not that great), an investment banker, three stay at home mothers, and my two boys (aged 12 and 7) and various other children or roughly the same age. Basically, people who were at my house for a party. So, I think my group was more reliable.

That may be hard to establish. "My" group was made up by ripperologists or people with an interest in the ripper, plus people with no such interest at all, and it was split in halves, more or less. Given how Ripperologists are very hard nuts to crack when it comes to getting them to accept a new Ripper theory, I´d say we accomplished quite a lot that day...
I especially remember how a guy from the Whitechapel Society was very appreciative and gave me a lot of praise after my speech. Speaking in front of a couple of hundred people is daunting and inspiring at the same time, and if it goes well, it is a high you live long on...

[Elamarna]

He need not be audible, but you do not seem to want to listen, and he would only be seen if Lechmere is looking.

How could he not be audible? How would he be able to move without a sound?
I think that we need to stretch the possibilities into ridicule to be able to present a scenario where such a man was neither seen nor heard. Going by what Lechmere said, he would have heard or seen anyone moving down at Browns, and I think that is a fair assumption.

You have in his thread suggested that Lechmere could have done just that.

Anchored suggests firm held, that is not the case, he is loosely tied.
He is only "proven" to have been at the murder site at the right time, if we accept the view of Payne-James.

And what is the phantom killer proven to be, Steve? Historically, an existence for the phantom has been established - it was always very clear that SOMEBODY killed the women, and must have been in place.
That all goes away if Lechmere was the killer. So it´s a dilemma - suddenly, it may very well be that the need to accept a phantom killer is no longer there. Like I say, it´s an either/or situation. So we either choose Lechmere because we know he was there, because we know he used an alias, because we know he disagreed with the police, because we know the clothing was pulled down, etcetera, or we choose the phantom killer, because... Because what?
Because we don´t want to accept Lechmere as the killer? Is that it?

We will not agree, that much is clear.
Time I am sure will tell the truth.(maybe)

of course, I have said it is probable that he is correct, however it is always possible that both of us are wrong. (given the severity of the neck wounds I doubt it).

So do I - and I add my personal belief that she had been leaking a considerable amount of blood into the abdominal cavity even before the neck was cut.

Now this is interesting.

Can I ask what you base is suggestion on?

Are you suggesting the abdominal wounds are inflected first? otherwise i struggle to see where this blood comes from.

While medicine is more objective than law, we are still dealing with a subjective opinion, or rather opinions as I have agreed.

Yes, agreed. Although I think it would be hard to find a better informed opinion than that of Payne-James. He has credentials enough to top just about anybody else.

That my dear Fisherman is one of your issues, you give the impression, (please note I say impression) and you are not alone in this on the forums, that if an expert speaks, and they are held in high enough regard they are almost infallible.

I will always argue you need more than one to get a balanced view.

No that is not the correct conclusion in my opinion.

It is where accepting Payne-James most likely will take us.

It is where it maytake us, i will argue that it is a high possibility, but not a probability.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: You have in his thread suggested that Lechmere could have done just that.

No Steve, I have not suggested that Lechmere may have hurried soundlessly 130 yards down Bucks Row. I have de facto said that Paul should have heard him if he did so.
What I have instead suggested is that Lechmere may have taken a few cautious steps out into the street from Nichols´ body, trying to stay as silent as possible.
There is really a very big difference, and I am starting to ask myself what it means when you refuse to acknowledge this...?


We will not agree, that much is clear.
Time I am sure will tell the truth.(maybe)

Well, if you are going to compare the sound of a 130 yard dash to a two-yard cautious and slow movement, then you are right - we will NOT agree.


Now this is interesting.

Can I ask what you base is suggestion on?

Are you suggesting the abdominal wounds are inflected first? otherwise i struggle to see where this blood comes from.

There are two of us making the suggestion, me and Rees Ralph Llewellyn. Inspector Helson seems to have done his best to dissolve the suggestion, but it seems Llewellyn stood by it throughout.

If a person´s neck is cut while alive, there will be a large spurt of blood. There was none.

If a person´s neck is cut when very recently dead, there will still be a marked pressure, and there will be a blood spurt. There was none.

If a person´s neck is cut after that person has suffered great damage to the abdominal arteries and veins - and there are numerous such vessels in the abdomen - then the pressure will be gone, and there will be no blood spurt. If much of the blood has leaked into the abdominal cavity before the neck is cut, there will not be much bleeding from the neck wound.


That my dear Fisherman is one of your issues, you give the impression, (please note I say impression) and you are not alone in this on the forums, that if an expert speaks, and they are held in high enough regard they are almost infallible.

Nobody is infallible. Do not put words in my mouth, please. Google Payne.James, and you will find his credentials. I won´t post them here, since it woud take up a large amount of space. The man is a top authority on these matters. If you disagree, I am going to need to see what it is you think he lacks, and who it is you think has better credentials. The matter is a VERY simple one.

I will always argue you need more than one to get a balanced view.

Or more than two to get a better view. Or more than three to get an even more reliable view. Or more than four to ...

I can see how that works.

It is where it maytake us, i will argue that it is a high possibility, but not a probability.

Then we will have to differ again. Which is fine.

[Pierre]

Elamarna: You have in his thread suggested that Lechmere could have done just that.

No Steve, I have not suggested that Lechmere may have hurried soundlessly 130 yards down Bucks Row. I have de facto said that Paul should have heard him if he did so.
What I have instead suggested is that Lechmere may have taken a few cautious steps out into the street from Nichols´ body, trying to stay as silent as possible.
There is really a very big difference, and I am starting to ask myself what it means when you refuse to acknowledge this...?


We will not agree, that much is clear.
Time I am sure will tell the truth.(maybe)

Well, if you are going to compare the sound of a 130 yard dash to a two-yard cautious and slow movement, then you are right - we will NOT agree.


Now this is interesting.

Can I ask what you base is suggestion on?

Are you suggesting the abdominal wounds are inflected first? otherwise i struggle to see where this blood comes from.

There are two of us making the suggestion, me and Rees Ralph Llewellyn. Inspector Helson seems to have done his best to dissolve the suggestion, but it seems Llewellyn stood by it throughout.

If a person´s neck is cut while alive, there will be a large spurt of blood. There was none.

If a person´s neck is cut when very recently dead, there will still be a marked pressure, and there will be a blood spurt. There was none.

If a person´s neck is cut after that person has suffered great damage to the abdominal arteries and veins - and there are numerous such vessels in the abdomen - then the pressure will be gone, and there will be no blood spurt. If much of the blood has leaked into the abdominal cavity before the neck is cut, there will not be much bleeding from the neck wound.


That my dear Fisherman is one of your issues, you give the impression, (please note I say impression) and you are not alone in this on the forums, that if an expert speaks, and they are held in high enough regard they are almost infallible.

Nobody is infallible. Do not put words in my mouth, please. Google Payne.James, and you will find his credentials. I won´t post them here, since it woud take up a large amount of space. The man is a top authority on these matters. If you disagree, I am going to need to see what it is you think he lacks, and who it is you think has better credentials. The matter is a VERY simple one.

I will always argue you need more than one to get a balanced view.

Or more than two to get a better view. Or more than three to get an even more reliable view. Or more than four to ...

I can see how that works.

It is where it maytake us, i will argue that it is a high possibility, but not a probability.

Then we will have to differ again. Which is fine.

Beware, Fisherman. You are talking to a man within the field of medicine.

[Fisherman]

I asked this question earlier, Steve. Do you have an answer to it?

Historically, an existence for the phantom has been established - it was always very clear that SOMEBODY killed the women, and must have been in place.
That all goes away if Lechmere was the killer. So it´s a dilemma - suddenly, it may very well be that the need to accept a phantom killer is no longer there. Like I say, it´s an either/or situation. So we either choose Lechmere because we know he was there, because we know he used an alias, because we know he disagreed with the police, because we know the clothing was pulled down, etcetera, or we choose the phantom killer, because... Because what?
Because we don´t want to accept Lechmere as the killer? Is that it?

[Pierre]

I asked this question earlier, Steve. Do you have an answer to it?

Historically, an existence for the phantom has been established - it was always very clear that SOMEBODY killed the women, and must have been in place.
That all goes away if Lechmere was the killer. So it´s a dilemma - suddenly, it may very well be that the need to accept a phantom killer is no longer there. Like I say, it´s an either/or situation. So we either choose Lechmere because we know he was there, because we know he used an alias, because we know he disagreed with the police, because we know the clothing was pulled down, etcetera, or we choose the phantom killer, because... Because what?
Because we don´t want to accept Lechmere as the killer? Is that it?

"Because the clothes were pulled down". If that was the case, it is impossible that Lechmere would have been cutting Nichols and suddenly, when hearing someone approaching, whould have pulled down the clothes and after doing so would have stepped out in the road to WAIT for the other man.

The killer would have walked away, if he did not want a witness.

I am now working with the hypothesis that the killer wanted a witness for a specific reason.

[Harry D]

Serial killers don't tend to hang around. Oh, but I'm sure someone will bring up the fact that Dahmer brazened it out with a couple of cops when one of his victims was found in the street, exhibiting the same sociopathic behaviour as Lechmere. Difference being, of course, that this took place on the street outside Dahmer's apartment, and more importantly the victim was still alive. Dahmer didn't have much choice. Lechmere, if he was the killer, had choices. The one he took didn't make much sense.

And you know what? After all this time, I'm still waiting to hear any incriminating evidence against Lechmere other than his proximity to the crime-scene, which itself has to put into context. Paul was only a few minutes behind Lechmere, so if Charlie had skipped work that day, perhaps another carman would be the subject of wild accusation.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: You have in his thread suggested that Lechmere could have done just that.

No Steve, I have not suggested that Lechmere may have hurried soundlessly 130 yards down Bucks Row. I have de facto said that Paul should have heard him if he did so.
What I have instead suggested is that Lechmere may have taken a few cautious steps out into the street from Nichols´ body, trying to stay as silent as possible.
There is really a very big difference, and I am starting to ask myself what it means when you refuse to acknowledge this...?

Sorry but this particular debate began in #post 67

Originally Posted by Fisherman:

"Could a killer be impossible to see when turning into the street? Quite possibly, yes. But he would be audible. And if there was a light where the street opened up, then he would be visible too if he took that way."


Elamarna:

"He need not be audible, but you do not seem to want to listen, and he would only be seen if Lechmere is looking."



So with regards to being audible we were talking about him being over the body.

You then replied:

"How could he not be audible? How would he be able to move without a sound?
I think that we need to stretch the possibilities into ridicule to be able to present a scenario where such a man was neither seen nor heard. Going by what Lechmere said, he would have heard or seen anyone moving down at Browns, and I think that is a fair assumption."

It is clear that you are already trying to move the debate from being audible over the body, to a killer going down the street.

Above, you agree that you said:

What I have instead suggested is that Lechmere may have taken a few cautious steps out into the street from Nichols´ body, trying to stay as silent as possible.

Where is the difference from my original comment that he need not be audible over the body and when taking a few steeps from it and what you posted.?

Well, if you are going to compare the sound of a 130 yard dash to a two-yard cautious and slow movement, then you are right - we will NOT agree.

I never did!

There are two of us making the suggestion, me and Rees Ralph Llewellyn. Inspector Helson seems to have done his best to dissolve the suggestion, but it seems Llewellyn stood by it throughout.


If a person´s neck is cut while alive, there will be a large spurt of blood. There was none.

If a person´s neck is cut when very recently dead, there will still be a marked pressure, and there will be a blood spurt. There was none.

Only if the heart is still beating, if not it flows, spurting is a result of the compression of the heart.

However the apparent lack of blood as often been cited. it certainly asks questions if true.

If a person´s neck is cut after that person has suffered great damage to the abdominal arteries and veins - and there are numerous such vessels in the abdomen - then the pressure will be gone, and there will be no blood spurt. If much of the blood has leaked into the abdominal cavity before the neck is cut, there will not be much bleeding from the neck wound.

I question here if the wounds were sufficiently serve to the abdomen to have the effect you suggest, the Aorta and Vena Cava are behind the abdominal organs, not at the front. I see nothing to suggest the level of damage that would be required.

An interesting theory but I am not sure it holds up .

It will depend on the exact damage done.

That my dear Fisherman is one of your issues, you give the impression, (please note I say impression) and you are not alone in this on the forums, that if an expert speaks, and they are held in high enough regard they are almost infallible.

Nobody is infallible. Do not put words in my mouth, please. Google Payne.James, and you will find his credentials. I won´t post them here, since it woud take up a large amount of space. The man is a top authority on these matters. If you disagree, I am going to need to see what it is you think he lacks, and who it is you think has better credentials. The matter is a VERY simple one.

Your post really does demonstrate what I mean perfectly


No one is questioning anyone’s expertise, do you not see that?

I was not talking about Payne-James in particular, but the use of experts opinion on these boards in general.

I have searched him, Did so before I even spoke spoke about the bloodflow issue. Impressive certainly.



However it does not matter what an individual's credentials are, any opinions they give are the opinions of one person.

Or more than two to get a better view. Or more than three to get an even more reliable view. Or more than four to ...

I can see how that works.

It is where it maytake us, i will argue that it is a high possibility, but not a probability.

Really what a fuss about standard scientific practice.

Two is perfectly acceptable, its about consensus, trying to ensure that the view given is balanced.
Your comments above show that you understand this; so one has to ask why the objection?


No one is putting words in your mouth, look at how you treat what experts say
I am not talking about any particular expert or discipline, in the last few days you have quoted three experts I believe it is in your posts, all highly qualified and respected.

And you appear to automatically accept the opinion they give.

Then we will have to differ again. Which is fine.

Yes it is,



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

This is what you posted:
Then Dr Llewellyn says he believed she had been dead no more than 30 minutes, again that fits you theory give or take a few minutes does it not. As a medical expert he gives no evidence regarding blood flows, and only says there was an absence of blood. This is the same doctor who failed to notice the abdominal wounds at the crime scene, and had to be directed to the mortuary later on to observe them.

Are you going to tell me that you are NOT pointing to Llewellyn as being incompetent? "This is the doctor...who had to be directed to the mortuary..."

If you are going to tarnish people like that, could you please muster the guts to stand for it afterwards?

This abdominal injuries were not spotted by him at the crime scene. His inquest testimony reads " Witness gave the police directions to take the body to the mortuary, where he would make another examination" That suggests that would be later that day. Then he says "about an hour afterwards he was sent for by the Inspector to see the other injuries(abdominal) he (the inspector) had discovered on the body"

So he missed seeing the abdominal injuries and they were later pointed out to him when the body was stripped at the mortuary and he was sent for then to view them.

He missed them at the crime scene and he didn't go to the mortuary with the body does that make him incompetent ? Its as Dr Biggs says his evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt.

So Christer at the end of the day you have a theory, which is just that, all the flaws have been highlighted yet you still remain adamant that Lechmere was the killer, but being adamant is not enough to convince people that Lechmere is a viable suspect for the murder of Nichols, and that he was the killer known as Jack the Ripper.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I asked this question earlier, Steve. Do you have an answer to it?

Historically, an existence for the phantom has been established - it was always very clear that SOMEBODY killed the women, and must have been in place.
That all goes away if Lechmere was the killer. So it´s a dilemma - suddenly, it may very well be that the need to accept a phantom killer is no longer there. Like I say, it´s an either/or situation. So we either choose Lechmere because we know he was there, because we know he used an alias, because we know he disagreed with the police, because we know the clothing was pulled down, etcetera, or we choose the phantom killer, because... Because what?
Because we don´t want to accept Lechmere as the killer? Is that it?

Sorry, after your request for me to reduce reply length, I excluded this as I did not see it essential, the answer having been made clear to you many times why I do not choose Lechmere.

No Its because I, not we, do not see anything more than a possibility that he may have killed Nichols, it is really as simple as that.


steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Easily. Some people are naturally warm, others tend to freeze. Especially people with circulatory problems, they tend to have very cold hands. The hands and face are also the parts of the body which are the most exposed to the surroundings.



How can she recover temperature anywhere if she is dead? We are warm-blooded animals, meaning we use nutrients to generate heat - but this process ceases upon death. Once dead, we will keep losing temperature until we are the same temperature as our surroundings - as per the laws of thermodynamics. Covering extremities will not heat them up, but will at best cause them to cool more slowly.

No, you are right covering wont heat them up, but as you say it will stop them cooling at a different rate to the parts exposed to the elements. Just for info the body after death on average cools at only 1.5 degrees in an hour dependant on conditions. The weather at the time of finding the body was described as being chilly.

So had she been outside for some time prior to her death, and her hands and face and wrists had gotten cold, and then she was murdered at the time Christer suggests, or had she been murdered some time before Lechmere came along, and when the abdomen was then covered by them the cooling process of that part of the body was slowed down, and that was how the anomalies came to be present.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I question here if the wounds were sufficiently serve to the abdomen to have the effect you suggest, the Aorta and Vena Cava are behind the abdominal organs, not at the front. I see nothing to suggest the level of damage that would be required.

Fisherman, I have sent a bit of time now looking at the evidence, and there appears nothing which suggests the major vessels the Aorta and the Vena Cava were damaged.


The coroner does mention several arteries were cut, but that they appeared to bleed little.
He does not say which, and these could be the arteries to the intestines, which if cut would certainly cause death eventually, but this would be relatively slowly compared to cutting of the Aorta or indeed the neck vessels.

The Coroner also says there was less bleeding from the abdominal wounds than the neck.

coroner:
"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck."



Dr Llewellyn is certainly of the opinion that the cause of death was the attack on the abdomen.
However his testimony at the inquest on first sight appears to be less than fully informative about these wounds.


"No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards."


There is no measurement for depth of the cut, and while he says the "tissues were cut through" he does not say which, so actually unhelpful.

His description of the area of the cuts does not really help with identifying which arteries had been damaged. other than they appear not be those supplying either the liver or kidneys.


Are you aware of any sources which are more informative?




Steve

[Fisherman]

Sorry, after your request for me to reduce reply length, I excluded this as I did not see it essential, the answer having been made clear to you many times why I do not choose Lechmere.

No Its because I, not we, do not see anything more than a possibility that he may have killed Nichols, it is really as simple as that.


steve

Yes, I know that this is what you have said. But how can a phantom killer be a BETTER suggesiton than Lechmere, that´s what I am asking.
Why is not Lechmere a better bid than a killer there is absolutely zilch evidence for?
Can you explain that to me?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

"Could a killer be impossible to see when turning into the street? Quite possibly, yes. But he would be audible. And if there was a light where the street opened up, then he would be visible too if he took that way."


Elamarna:

"He need not be audible, but you do not seem to want to listen, and he would only be seen if Lechmere is looking."


So with regards to being audible we were talking about him being over the body.

Eh - why? He would become audible when moving, not if he is still over the body.

You then replied:

"How could he not be audible? How would he be able to move without a sound?
I think that we need to stretch the possibilities into ridicule to be able to present a scenario where such a man was neither seen nor heard. Going by what Lechmere said, he would have heard or seen anyone moving down at Browns, and I think that is a fair assumption."

It is clear that you are already trying to move the debate from being audible over the body, to a killer going down the street.

What!!?? If there was a killer down by the body, he COULD stay silent as Lechmere passed down the street, but that would predispose that he did not move. And so, when Lechmere arrived at Browns, he would see the killer with the body.
I am working from the suggested idea of a phantom killer, who fled the scene as Lechmere came down the street, and that is - and was always - what would make him audible.

Above, you agree that you said:

What I have instead suggested is that Lechmere may have taken a few cautious steps out into the street from Nichols´ body, trying to stay as silent as possible.

Where is the difference from my original comment that he need not be audible over the body and when taking a few steeps from it and what you posted.?

We are talking here about TWO killers:
1. The dreaded phantom killer
2. Charles Lechmere

It has been suggested by you that a killer may have been in the street as Lechmere arrived, and that this killer fled at that stage. To do so, he would need to get up and scramble past the school building, a fair stretch. I am saying that this would be audible.

I am also saying that Lechmere himself would be audible, walking down Bucks Row.

I am also saying that if Lechmere was the killer, and heard Paul entering the street, then he could have very cautiously moved away from the body, a yard or two, without making much of a sound at all.

What is it in this that you cannut understand or will not accept?

I never did!

You sure made it seem so. If not, so much the better.


Only if the heart is still beating, if not it flows, spurting is a result of the compression of the heart.

Not really. Fo a short time, when the heart has just stopped, there will be some little pressure left, and that can result in spurting too, although with much less pressure. Or so I´m told, by people with medical insights.

However the apparent lack of blood as often been cited. it certainly asks questions if true.

It does. And Llewellyns answer makes perfect sense to me.


I question here if the wounds were sufficiently serve to the abdomen to have the effect you suggest, the Aorta and Vena Cava are behind the abdominal organs, not at the front. I see nothing to suggest the level of damage that would be required.

A/ The wounds were very deep, and could well have damaged these vessels.
B/ There are many arteries and veins in the abdominal cavity, as c an be seen from this:
https://www.pinterest.se/pin/43136108904736799/
link.
The bottom line is that there were numerous cuts, and that some of them were described as very deep. Exactly which organs and vessles were damaged is anybody´s guess, but Llewellyn said that the damage to the abdomen was enough to kill immediately (or something such), and that makes me think of a cut main artery or two.
Whether you question it or not is of secondary interest, since you did not see the damage. Llewellyn did, and he spoke of how the blood had leaked into the abdominal cavity. Either he knew what he did and saw what he saw, or you are the better judge without both knowing and seeing.

An interesting theory but I am not sure it holds up .

It will depend on the exact damage done.

But why would we even think of questioning it, when there was a very competent medico who saw the body, who did the autopsy and who remained at his stance that the abdominal wounds came first? Is that not totally disingenous? There is so much such things going on out here, and it makes me very tired. What would Killeen know about comparing wounds? The idiot! And Phillips, the moron, who suggested that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours and probably more. What did he know, the old goat? And Llewellyn, suggesting that the abdomina wounds came FIRST! How utterly silly! We all know they did not!

This is not the kind of thing I am willing to go along with. If there is definite proof that the medicos must have been wrong, then present it. If there is not, then their work needs to be respected.



Your post really does demonstrate what I mean perfectly


No one is questioning anyone’s expertise, do you not see that?

I was not talking about Payne-James in particular, but the use of experts opinion on these boards in general.

I have searched him, Did so before I even spoke spoke about the bloodflow issue. Impressive certainly.

However it does not matter what an individual's credentials are, any opinions they give are the opinions of one person.

Of course. And I say so myself. However, you were blabbering on about how I regard expert´s opinions as infallible, so clearly you had not taken this on board.



Really what a fuss about standard scientific practice.

Two is perfectly acceptable, its about consensus, trying to ensure that the view given is balanced.
Your comments above show that you understand this; so one has to ask why the objection?


No one is putting words in your mouth, look at how you treat what experts say
I am not talking about any particular expert or discipline, in the last few days you have quoted three experts I believe it is in your posts, all highly qualified and respected.

And you appear to automatically accept the opinion they give.

Even if that WAS so, I do think it would be a wiser approach than working from the presumption that they are as wrong as some think the victorian doctors were.


If you are uncomfortable with what they say, check yourself. They are not the only experts in the world, just as you say. Fel free!