Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

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

Maybe you have not read the former posts on the thread, Gareth? I have pointed out before that it is not a question of finding anybody infallible. Making that mistake is something some people easily and VERY willingly do, it seems.

In this case, a small addition of subtlety is called for. As I clearly have stated, I do not think that Llewellyn or anybody else is infallible.

But I DO think that LLewellyn is a lot more likely to be right than wrong, not least when he is dealing with very basic things.

I think, for example, that he is very unlikely to mistake a cut to the omentum for a deadly wound.

I also think that when he says that the vital parts have been hit, they probably HAVE been hit.

Maybe you disagree with these points, I don´t know.

I also believe that when somebody says that something a person does shows anatomical knowledge, there will have been more options than just the one. Cutting a neck down to the bone does not mean that anatomical knowledge has been shown - when ALL the tissue and vessels are cut, the killer has made no choice, and has not made it evident that he chose to cut A because it would kill, but omitted to cut B because it wold not serve that purpose.

I am therefore convinced that LLewellyn was not speaking of the neck cuts when he spoke of anatomical knowledge, but instead of the abdomen.

If you give it some afterthought you may also realize that he said that the abdomonal cuts were, taken on their own, enough to kill, each and every one of them. Can you see how that fits the bill of the killer having hit the vital parts, whereas he could well have missed them if not anatomically versed?
That does not apply for the neck wound, where cutting one artery and the windpipe would have sufficed and moreover, THAT would have evinced anatomical insights. Like in the Stride case.

Anyway, if you could desist from claiming that I think that somebody is infallible, it would be great. It is not true, you see, and we do not wish to spread false information about somebody, do we?

Thanks in advance!

[Fisherman]

No the real issue is your intpretation.




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




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

Here we go again! When I suggest something that cannot be proven, it is "desperate".

But when you suggest that Llewellyn was wrong on some very basic stuff, and do so on no proof at all, it is apparently "reasoned" arguing.

I´ll be damned if I can see the difference? If anything, I at least have a good case, whereas you have a really bad one.

Why does that not count?

[Fisherman]

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.

Strange? The only strange thing is to suggest that Paul is the only reason Lechmere is under suspicion.

Much as he contributed to flushing Lechmere out, the reasons for suspicion against Lechmere are a large collection of matters, most of them not tied to Paul in any shape or form.

The point you seem to be wanting to make is that Paul´s role in the drama was important to bring Lechmere to light, and yes, that is true to a significant degree.

But if Lechmere had NOT come forward, he would not become uninteresting as a suspect anyway. He would become the man who stood close to the victim only to disappear afterwards. And that would not look good at all.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421008]

He would become the man who stood close to the victim only to disappear afterwards. And that would not look good at all.

Who "would have" seen the killer standing close to the victim only to disappear?

[kjab3112]

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.

Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck

All the vital parts hit? Considering he wasn't even certain the uterus was present, I would question how reliable his autopsy was. ALL the vital parts would also suggest injuries to the heart and lungs which would be the only time in the canonical five prior to MJK

Omentum deep only sufficient to kill? No, at least not immediately

I am not questioning Llewellyn's competence, simply his dearth of experience.

Paul

[Fisherman]

kjab3112: Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck

Agreed, unless the aorta was severed. But to me, the more vital question is whether the abdominal wounds were only wounds to the omentum. If so, would they be deadly? Not very likely, is it?

All the vital parts hit? Considering he wasn't even certain the uterus was present, I would question how reliable his autopsy was. ALL the vital parts would also suggest injuries to the heart and lungs which would be the only time in the canonical five prior to MJK

I think the reasonable suggestion is that Llewellyn meant that all the vital parts in the area attacked were hit, and to me, that means that he spoke of the vital parts of the abdomen.
What evidence are you using to suggest that LLwellyn could not say if the uterus was present...?

Omentum deep only sufficient to kill? No, at least not immediately.

And if it would kill over time, what would be the cause of death? And would Llewellyn not be aware of these matters? Plus when you say that the abdominal wounds would probably be enough to kill, whereas you say that the omentum wounds would not do that - what kind of damage do you envisage was done to the abdomen that would kill...?

I am not questioning Llewellyn's competence, simply his dearth of experience.

But do we even know how far his experience stretched? Do we know wich cases he had handled previously and what they had involved? Would we not need to have that information before we can say to what lenghts his experience went?
At the time of the Whitechapel murders, he had around 15-20 years experience of matters medical, surgery included. That is no small thing.

[Sam Flynn]

I think the reasonable suggestion is that Llewellyn meant that all the vital parts in the area attacked were hit, and to me, that means that he spoke of the vital parts of the abdomen.

It does not follow that Llewellyn meant "all the vital parts (in the area attacked)" - he simply says that the killer seemed to attack all the vital parts, period. That being the case, it does not follow that he meant "all the vital parts in the abdomen" - because, frankly, the "parts" in the abdomen aren't quite as vital as the "parts" in the head and thorax, especially if you want to kill someone quickly.

Besides if, as Llewellyn says, the killer's attacking of "all the vital parts" was somehow indicative of his knowledge of anatomy, how does Nichols' abdomen end up with such apparently random wounds? What on earth would prompt Llewellyn, or anybody else, to draw conclusions about the killer's anatomical knowledge on the basis of the abstract mess he made of Nichols' belly?

[kjab3112]

What evidence are you using to suggest that LLwellyn could not say if the uterus was present.[/B]

In response to inquest question where was asked if any organs were missing after the discovery of Chapman's missing uterus

"Mr. Llewellyn, surgeon, recalled, said that since the last inquiry he had been to the mortuary and again examined deceased. She had an old scar on the forehead. No part of the viscera was missing. He had nothing to add to his previous evidence." Times Sept 18th 1888

If he had performed a competent forensic autopsy initially, surely he would not have needed to recheck if organs were missing!

[kjab3112]

But do we even know how far his experience stretched? Do we know wich cases he had handled previously and what they had involved? Would we not need to have that information before we can say to what lenghts his experience went?
At the time of the Whitechapel murders, he had around 15-20 years experience of matters medical, surgery included. That is no small thing.

I've attached (hopefully) Llewellyn's entry in the 1890 medical directory. He took over the Whitechapel Road practice from his father and worked there with his brother. Although a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, his entry clearly demonstrates he was an obstetrician.

[ChrisGeorge]

I've attached (hopefully) Llewellyn's entry in the 1890 medical directory. He took over the Whitechapel Road practice from his father and worked there with his brother. Although a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, his entry clearly demonstrates he was an obstetrician.

Thanks, kjab!

Chris

[kjab3112]

Also compare and contrast the entries for Bond and Brown. Phillips seems a more reserved and less self advertising type of person listing only his name and address

[kjab3112]

And Brown

[kjab3112]

Although Phillips register entry is uninfomative, here's his 1897 obituary

[Sam Flynn]

But do we even know how far his experience stretched?

Perhaps "dilated" would be a more apposite word than "stretched", in Llewellyn's case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Strange? The only strange thing is to suggest that Paul is the only reason Lechmere is under suspicion.

Much as he contributed to flushing Lechmere out, the reasons for suspicion against Lechmere are a large collection of matters, most of them not tied to Paul in any shape or form.

The point you seem to be wanting to make is that Paul´s role in the drama was important to bring Lechmere to light, and yes, that is true to a significant degree.

But if Lechmere had NOT come forward, he would not become uninteresting as a suspect anyway. He would become the man who stood close to the victim only to disappear afterwards. And that would not look good at all.

I'm sorry Fish but there you go again. 'Much as he contributed to the flushing out of `Lechmere.' How many times? He didn't 'flush' CL out. CL had, as I've said numerous time, ample time to walk, or even run away to freedom. Absolute, definate, categorical freedom. But he didn't. He waited for Paul to arrive. He called him over. He showed him the body. Why? Because he had absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. This is about as obvious as it gets I'm afraid.

'But if he had not come forward....' what can you possibly mean 'he would not become uninteresting...' He would not have been 'interesting' at all because if he had not come forward no one would have ever heard of him! The only reason that we have heard of him is that he did come forward. I'm utterly baffled (or am I?) how you can find this suspicious.

Everything about CL's actions that night scream 'innocent witness.'