Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

To be fair to those who question Llewellyn's competence and findings, he was a relative amateur in forensic medicine (which was very much in its infancy at the time). In 1888, of the four physicians involved, he was the only one without a significant forensic practice, with Bond and Phillips both having near (or more than) twenty years experience as police surgeons. It is thus no surprise that the local obstetrician was quickly dropped for the veterans: both local (Phillips) and central (Bond) and why did Brown invite his colleague Phillips? Because he was giving away 15-16 years experience to the older man. Yes, medicine then was far more generalist than today and the police surgeon role was mostly that of in house GP and occupational health doctor, but a man with little apparent forensic experience would likely flounder in a coroners court. Only one man saw the reports of all the autopsies (Bond) and a second performed/was present at the majority (Phillips). I would thus trust Bond or Phillips over Llewellyn.

Questions:

Since Llewellyn said that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill taken each on their own, do you think it is reasonable to suggest that he was probably wrong on that score?

Since Llewellyn said that all the vital parts were hit, pointing to some anatomical knowledge, is it reasonable to suggest, that he was wrong on this count too?

If the abdominal wounds were only omentum deep, is it reasonable to suggest that Llewellyn would have believed this was enough to kill outright?

These are the questions looking for an answer or two, Paul.

[Fisherman]

>>I am sorry, Dusty, but you are not going to get any answer. <<

... and yet, here you are answering!?!

>>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.<<

The specific reports in question, as I pointed out, were all made pre-post mortem. At the time those reports were written, Llewellyn had only made a cursory 10 minute inspection of the abdominal wounds. Why would any serious researcher regard them as more reliable than the comments made by Llewellyn after the post mortem?

>>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.<<

It's been, what, a year so far, since I've asked you to back up any such claim?
Tick, tock.


>>Youīve got nerve, Iīll give you that. But there my interest ends.<<

Not nerve, just the knowledge that I can back up my comments and you can't.
Tick, tock.

Wrong again. Tock, tick.

[Fisherman]

>Lechmere strangles Nichols ...<<

Where does Llewellyn state Mrs Nichols was strangled?
Are you saying Llewellyn was not very good?

Wrong again. Tock, tick.

[Elamarna]

That is a VERY long post, considering it adds just about nothing new at all. I think saying that it is still a weird suggestion that Llewellyn was wrong and that you are right covers just about all that needs to be covered.

If you actually check you will see my contribution is less than the quotes from your post.

And you ignore the major point. It is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Llewellyn that is the major issue NOT Llewellyn himself.

However Paul's Post puts his experience into perspective.

And I have to say one more post that says nothing, no fact based rebuttal, just personal opinion which is not supported by any data. How sad, but also how very predictable.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Questions:

Since Llewellyn said that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill taken each on their own, do you think it is reasonable to suggest that he was probably wrong on that score?

Since Llewellyn said that all the vital parts were hit, pointing to some anatomical knowledge, is it reasonable to suggest, that he was wrong on this count too?

If the abdominal wounds were only omentum deep, is it reasonable to suggest that Llewellyn would have believed this was enough to kill outright?

These are the questions looking for an answer or two, Paul.

And it goes on.

Paul gives his view, you don't like it. Therefore you keep asking the same questions over and over using different wordings in an attempt to get an answe you can use.

Now what is funny is that only yesterday you suggested Paul was almost agreeing with you.



Steve

[Fisherman]

The one and only thing that is of real interest in all of this is the question whether Llewellyn was even remotely likely to make the kind of errors that is suggested.

I donīt think the suggestion is a valid one at all; far from it, in fact.

Paul says that Llewellyn was replaced by Phillips and Bond, but I do not think that should be in any way put forward as stregthening Steveīs case - I think that ANY medico would be replaced by Phillips and Bond, because those were the senior men available.

One thing that has not been said before, but needs saying, is that we know that Phillips was very reluctant to divulge the details of the damage done to Chapman, and had to be hard pressed by the coroner to do so. Could it be that Llwellyn did the exact same thing - suppressed the gory details on account of a wish to not to "thwart justice" as Phillips put it?

I would not rule such a thing out myself.

[Sam Flynn]

The one and only thing that is of real interest in all of this is the question whether Llewellyn was even remotely likely to make the kind of errors that is suggested.

I donīt think the suggestion is a valid one at all; far from it, in fact.

You have a touching, if somewhat misplaced, belief in the infallibility of authority figures, Fish.

[Pierre]

I have no idea where you got that from, ad it is of course a total no-starter. Pauls role in it all seems to have been that he made Lechmere come forward, but that does not men that the case against the carman is based on Paul. It is based on a large variety of things. And Paul had not very much to do with it.

But this is your main hypothesis for the whole case: Lechmere was "found with the body", "found with a freshly slain victim" - by Paul.

So Paulīs "role" for your narrative is essential. It is to "reveal" Lechmere as "the killer".

Pierre

[Elamarna]

The one and only thing that is of real interest in all of this is the question whether Llewellyn was even remotely likely to make the kind of errors that is suggested.

No the real issue is your intpretation.

I donīt think the suggestion is a valid one at all; far from it, in fact.

Paul says that Llewellyn was replaced by Phillips and Bond, but I do not think that should be in any way put forward as stregthening Steveīs case - I think that ANY medico would be replaced by Phillips and Bond, because those were the senior men available.

One thing that has not been said before, but needs saying, is that we know that Phillips was very reluctant to divulge the details of the damage done to Chapman, and had to be hard pressed by the coroner to do so. Could it be that Llwellyn did the exact same thing - suppressed the gory details on account of a wish to not to "thwart justice" as Phillips put it?

If he did what does it matter. Non existent presumed data cannot be used to support a view point.

I would not rule such a thing out myself.

Of course you would not, as the various arguments are questioned and shown to be lacking in substance, anything which cannot be disproved is bound to be championed.

However in the last 48 hrs you have supplied testimony stating that details were given of the wounds, which have not survived; and now we see a a suggestion of a possible alternative to this.

It's desperate stuff Fisherman.

Steve

[Pierre]

Questions:

Since Llewellyn said that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill taken each on their own, do you think it is reasonable to suggest that he was probably wrong on that score?

Since Llewellyn said that all the vital parts were hit, pointing to some anatomical knowledge, is it reasonable to suggest, that he was wrong on this count too?

If the abdominal wounds were only omentum deep, is it reasonable to suggest that Llewellyn would have believed this was enough to kill outright?

These are the questions looking for an answer or two, Paul.

Researchers: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...=.ce39f842d150

From the wrong diagnosis to the wrong prescription, medical errors kill as many as 100,000 people a year in this country—and injure thousands more.

http://www.oprah.com/health/what-hap...#ixzz4mF2kr1WV

Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/...ird_leading_ca use_of_death_in_the_us

So of course Steve is right. Doctors make mistakes. And they make a lot of mistakes.

You, Fisherman, have no idea of what you are saying, and your invented figures are WRONG.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;420941]

The one and only thing that is of real interest in all of this is the question whether Llewellyn was even remotely likely to make the kind of errors that is suggested.

I donīt think the suggestion is a valid one at all; far from it, in fact.

Researchers: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...=.ce39f842d150

From the wrong diagnosis to the wrong prescription, medical errors kill as many as 100,000 people a year in this country—and injure thousands more.

http://www.oprah.com/health/what-hap...#ixzz4mF2kr1WV

Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/...ird_leading_ca use_of_death_in_the_us

So of course Steve is right. Doctors make mistakes. And they make a lot of mistakes.

And this is in our time!

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no idea where you got that from, ad it is of course a total no-starter. Pauls role in it all seems to have been that he made Lechmere come forward, but that does not men that the case against the carman is based on Paul. It is based on a large variety of things. And Paul had not very much to do with it.

A strange reply.

If CL had found the body and gone straight to the police, without Paul arriving on the scene, I don't think that we would be discussing him now. It's because Paul arrived on the scene which allowed you to say the he disturbed CL. You've even said the same in your reply! 'Paul's role seems to have been that he made Lechmere come forward."

He didn't. As has been stated numerous times CL had ample time to walk away but he didn't. He chose to wait for Paul to arrive.

The difference is important.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But this is your main hypothesis for the whole case: Lechmere was "found with the body", "found with a freshly slain victim" - by Paul.

So Paulīs "role" for your narrative is essential. It is to "reveal" Lechmere as "the killer".

Pierre

Thank you Pierre.

Herlock

[Fisherman]

If you actually check you will see my contribution is less than the quotes from your post.

And you ignore the major point. It is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Llewellyn that is the major issue NOT Llewellyn himself.

However Paul's Post puts his experience into perspective.

And I have to say one more post that says nothing, no fact based rebuttal, just personal opinion which is not supported by any data. How sad, but also how very predictable.

Steve

You really should not find it sad and predictable, since you do the exact same thing: You push your personal opinion that Llewellyn was wrong and you cannot support it with any data.

Maybe itīs a good thing when you do it and a bad thing when I do it?

[Fisherman]

And it goes on.

Paul gives his view, you don't like it. Therefore you keep asking the same questions over and over using different wordings in an attempt to get an answe you can use.

Now what is funny is that only yesterday you suggested Paul was almost agreeing with you.



Steve

Itīs a good thing you are around to keep track of who is allowed to ask what, Steve. This time over, though, you have failed to realize that the questions I ask are pertinent to find out what applies in the core issue.

Or maybe it is just a case of you not wanting the questions answered...?