Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

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!

I donīt think this tells us that he was uncertain whether the uterus was there or not! I find it a lot more likely that Llewellyn, in light of the added kmowledge about Chapman, was directed to make a further check in order to see if there were any signs of the killer having made any effort to excise any part of the viscera. It would reasonably not have been done on his own initiative, and I donīt think it would have been grounded on him having felt that he may have missed something.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: 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.

Llewellyn would not have to say that the killer "seemed" to atack all the vital parts in the neck, though - it went without saying, since he cut all the tissue and vessels down to the bone. To say that this involved a seeming attack on the vital parts would be disingenuous.
And when you say that he said this, "period", you are wrong - he ALSO said that it involved anatomical knowledge. Once again, that remark would be disingeuous if he spoke of the neck.

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?

Ooopla, Gareth - you donīt know how the wounds looked, do you? So how can you say that it was an abstract mess?
No matter at all how it looked, if the cutting involved damaging all the vital parts in the abdomen, the apparition of the wounds would be very secondary to the fact that Llewellyn was right about hitting the vital parts. End of.

You seem disinclined to pursue your former line of claiming that I think LLewellyn was infallible. Thatīs always something. It would be better if you admitted that it was a wrongful thing to say, but I guess one can only wish for so much.

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, that is correct. That was apparently what he specialized in. But his working premises are described as a surgery, and since he was a member of the Royal college of surgeons I think it makes sense to suggest that he had surgical training.

I also think that the fact that Llewellyn became Medical Officer to E and EC Divisions, and City Mission tells us that he had other qualifications than the obstetrician part up his sleeve. Your clipping seems to tell us that he was a house surgeon at the London Hospital from 1875.

But I think that his speciality tells us that he would probably have checked Nicholsī body for the uterus.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: I'm sorry Fish but there you go again. 'Much as he contributed to the flushing out of `Lechmere.' How many times?

As many as it takes, obviously.

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.

He stayed put. If he was the killer, he could not anticipate that Paul would tell the story in the papers. Once he did, that flushed Lechmere out.
Thatīs how it works, Sherlock.

You are basically saying that no criminal will ever stay put, they will always and categorically flee the scene, regardless if they feel that it involves great risk to get caught.
Thatīs not how it works, Sherlock.

The absolute majority of criminals wil flee or try to flee. Some will not. There is no established ratio, but it is there.

'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.

Robert Paul gave an interview, remember? That is how we would have heard of him.

If he had fled, we donīt know what would have happened. If he had succeded in fleeing, we would probably not have heard of him. If he had gotten caught, we would have heard of him.
We will never know what applies, but we can certainly not work from any certainty that he would have succeeded in fleeing, because that would equal the misconception that all criminals flee.

If they KNEW they would get away uncaught every time, you would have a point. Since this does not apply, your point becomes a very wobbly one.

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

No it does not. But you may want to ponder how a killer who has decided to bluff it out as is suggested for Lechmere, may have been quite unlikely to show Paul his knife, to rub his own face in Nicholsī blood, to tell Mizen "the bitch got what she begged for" or something like that. Beleive it or not, but a killer bluffing it ut will do all he can to give the impression of an innocent witness. But there may be details where this does not work. Like how he disagreed with Mizen about what was said between the two men - if he lied to Mizen, the best he could do in retrospect would be not to acknowledge it. For example.

[Fisherman]

One for Kattrup, mainly - but also for anybody who questions whether LLewellyn opted for the abdominal wounds coming first:

This is from Morning Advertiserīs inquest report on Chapman:
The Coroner: There is a distinct variance in the medical evidence in this case from that given in the case of the woman Nichols. The doctor in that case was strongly of opinion that the wounds in the abdomen were inflicted before the throat was cut. In this case Dr. Phillips says the throat was cut first.

In Abberline's report of 19th September it says Llewellyn expressed an opinion that they were inflicted before the throat was cut."

And here is another quote from the Chapman inquest, telling us what aplies:

The Foreman: Is there anything to indicate that the crime in the case of the woman Nicholls was perpetrated with the same object as this?
The Coroner: There is a difference in this respect, at all events, that the medical expert is of opinion that, in the case of Nicholls, the mutilations were made first.

This should put that particular question to bed, I hope.

[Kattrup]

One for Kattrup, mainly - but also for anybody who questions whether LLewellyn opted for the abdominal wounds coming first:

Thank you, very interesting.

[Fisherman]

Thank you, very interesting.

My excuses for the delay - I knew I had supplied the material before, but could not remember where and when. I only just found it on JTRforums.

[Elamarna]

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...?

I have no problem with any answer Paul gives particularly as you now reduce it to what is possible as opposed to what is probably. You see I have fully realised the change.
It is indeed very transparent.

And you again ignore and I do mean ignore the issue that it is your intreptation of Llewellyn that is the major issue NOT Llewellyn.

You do not respond when it is pointed out that the suggestion you made that people are saying the cuts including the one which reach the omentum are only "flesh wounds:" is false.


Have a good day


Steve

[Elamarna]

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

Thanks Paul

Very clear answers.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

Of course, I was referring to Lynn Cates' theory. Dr Phillips' said this about Chapman:

"There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other and separated by about half an inch."

Of course, the spine extends to the neck.

That suggests that Nichols, Chapman and Mackenzie all had double neck wounds.

Thanks John.

Yes, there were two clean cuts on Chapman`s vertebrae, but the doesn`t mean there were two cuts to her throat.
Dr Phillips said the wound reached right around the neck

If you look at the Doctors reports you will see the differences, especially with McKenzie`s wound.

[Elamarna]

Yes, that is correct. That was apparently what he specialized in. But his working premises are described as a surgery, and since he was a member of the Royal college of surgeons I think it makes sense to suggest that he had surgical training.

I think you will find most Doctors refer to the home base as a surgery Fish. It does not denote actual surgery takes place.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I have no problem with any answer Paul gives particularly as you now reduce it to what is possible as opposed to what is probably. You see I have fully realised the change.
It is indeed very transparent.

Paul is much welcome to answer both things, possible AND probable. In fact, it would be helpful if he did, and I would welcome it.
It couldnīt get much more transparent that that, Iīd say.

And you again ignore and I do mean ignore the issue that it is your intreptation of Llewellyn that is the major issue NOT Llewellyn.

The issue at hand is what LLewellyn said, what he could have meant by it, what possible interpretations there are and how likely to be true they are. The whole matter is the issue, not chosen parts of it.

You do not respond when it is pointed out that the suggestion you made that people are saying the cuts including the one which reach the omentum are only "flesh wounds:" is false.

How should I respond? By saying "I didnīt realize that, since I thought fat was flesh"? The salient matter is whether these kinds of wounds would be lethal or not, and they would not be so other than due to ensuing complications, as far as I understand.
Therefore, LLewellyn would not have described them as lethal.
Therefore your suggestion that Llewellyn simply was underqualified to understand this falls flat to the ground in my book.

[Fisherman]

I think you will find most Doctors refer to the home base as a surgery Fish. It does not denote actual surgery takes place.


Steve

Do they also serve as house surgeons in London hospital and do they win prizes for surgery and do they join the Royal College of Surgeons - without having surgical experience and insights?

Why do you fight a lost cause like this,Steve? Just because? Is that it?

By the bye, have you ever been to Tower Hamlets cemetery, where Llewellyn lies buried? If not, you should; it is interesting and and thought-evoking to stand by his grave. If you have any problems finding it, it is the large, monument-like gravestone where it says "Rees Ralph LLewellyn. Physician and surgeon."

Presumably, the stonecarver was wrong, but I will leave it to you to decide that since it is more of your area of expertise than mine. Maybe he could simply not spell obstetrician, and went for a simpler solution?

[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.

Fisherman,

I am using your above post to Paul as it allows me to try and make points that are important.

1. Any serious wounds to the abdomenial area are very probably likely to be fatal in the long term (particularly in 1888). However it is the timescale where there is a problem.

The historical sources Do not give any indication to what internal damage was done.

2. The suggestion that major damage was caused is based on two arguments:

a. That Llewellyn believed this to be the case, however his view appears to be mainly based on the apparent lack of blood, and not on any damage to internal areas, certainly he does not report any specific damage.

b. The use of the term "all the vital areas" which you interpret as being in relation to the abdomen wounds, however there is nothing to back this view up when one reads the actually statements.

He can just as easily and more probably be interpreted as refering to All the major vessels in the neck which were indeed cut.

3. No one is suggesting a cut to the omentum would lead to death and to suggest such is somewhat unrealistic.
Indeed the cut was only mentioned to give an indication of the depth of any Recorded cuts. Of course we had a two day debate over if this was something that Spratling just wrote on his own or if he was told so by LLEWELLYN .
Once it became clear that Llewellyn did indeed pass the information to Spratling, the argument as somehow changed to attempting to suggest that the omentum could not be the vital areas and so there must have been far more extensive damage in the abdomenial cavity.
The issue there is that because you will only accept the vital areas as being in the abdomen, if the wounds to the omentum are as deep as they go, then it follows people must be saying these are the vital areas. However as the omentum is not vtal and the "vital areas" can only refer to the abdomen then there must be damage we do not know about. It's circular.

Of course this is not the case.

The majority of those who disagree with you will say the "vital areas" means the Neck, and therefore the cut to the omentum is unrelated to the issue of vital areas.
Let's just for a moment try and look at the facts.

We have two sets of wounds:

One to the Neck, two cuts, four major vessels completely severed, death in under 5 minutes. These are historical established facts.

The second set are to the abdomen.
The exact nature of the cuts is unclear. Indeed we still debate where the cuts were and how they looked. A point clearly demonstrated by Jason Payne-James in the Lechmere documentary. And that is only for the surface appearance.
There is almost no source data relating to the nature of the internal damage.
All we have is Spratling's report and it mention of the omentum. That is it.

So could the abdomenial wounds have been deeper and more serious?

Of course they could, but we have no evidence to support such a position and so it's just speculation.


So one set could and would have definitely killed.
The second set could potentially have done the same, but potentially is the key word.

It comes down to personal choice do we accept established historical fact or do we say no I reject that in favour of my gut feeling.


Steve

[Elamarna]

You do not respond when it is pointed out that the suggestion you made that people are saying the cuts including the one which reach the omentum are only "flesh wounds:" is false.

How should I respond? By saying "I didnīt realize that, since I thought fat was flesh"? The salient matter is whether these kinds of wounds would be lethal or not, and they would not be so other than due to ensuing complications, as far as I understand.
Therefore, LLewellyn would not have described them as lethal.
Therefore your suggestion that Llewellyn simply was underqualified to understand this falls flat to the ground in my book.

No that is not the salient issue. No one is suggesting that a cut to the omentum would be fatal. You are the only person who has discussed that.

And what does fat and flesh have to do with the omentum? Its inside the abdomenial cavity and thus if cut it cannot be a flesh wound!

The response which should have been made is that of course no one is suggesting the cut to the omentum was just a flesh wound. End of.


Many have given arguments for the Neck has the cause of death to you. Which you reject.

I am now going to use your approach.

You prove the Neck was not first, go on prove it conclusively.( btw Llewellyn's view is not conclusive, that's the whole argument)


Steve