Lechmere The Psychopath

[Harry D]

I don't know how to separate

It's

individual parts of a quote into shaded areas then an unshaded reply Harry.

this

I really am useless at stuff like this!

simple

[Herlock Sholmes]

Harry, I'm confused. That's genuinely what I did.

First, clicked 'quote'

Then I typed in the gaps. It still came up with my replies in the shaded area.

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

And LLewellyn spoke of immediate death, so we know that it does not fit the bill. So the more likely thing is that there was further damage, unspecified by Llewellyn, just as Phillips tried to avoid to specify Chapmans damage.

Why speculate when we already have a cause of death which fits the statement of Llewellyn.
The press reports say that the details were given. I see that you now speculate such was not the case, to explain away the missing data.

Nor do they in any way deny that any such damage was done, but given that LLewellyn said that the damage done to the area was enough to ensure death and double quick too, the more probable thing is that organs and vessels were severely damaged. That would be to expect with very deep abdomonal wounds inflicted with violence and a longbladed knife directed downwards.[/B]

Do you think that in any way illogical, Steve?

Yes because it is YOUR interpretation that he refers to the abdomenial wounds when saying this.

So you are saying that LLewellyn felt that lethal damage was caused to the abdomen on account of the lack of blood? You are proposing that when he saw that there was blood lacking, he simply predisposed that internal organs and or vessels had been struck, but he did not check before offering his view? Or am I wrong on this, do you mean something entirely different?

Not that simple. He had it seems clear an issue with what he perceive as a lack of blood.
He changed the cause of death to allow for that problem.

No, I really donīt think so, because he qualified his words by saying that aanatomical knowledge was evinced by the damage. And when you cut all the tissue and all the vessels in the neck, that does not tell anybody that anatomical insight has been applied. It less everybody that the killer took no risks at all, that he may have been happily unaware about the placement of all the vessels and so he cut it all.

Actually to cut both sides of the Neck does show knowledge.
However we are back to an opinion that cannot be measured or quantified

The one place where LLewellyns words make sense is the abdomen, where you can deliver a hundred stabs without hitting a single vital part, and where you can aslo deliver a hundred stabs that ALL hit vital parts. That is where anatomy comes into play, not when somebody cuts a neck to the bone.

Your opinion. I disagree.
To kill immediately with a cut in the dark to the abdomen is truly remarkable given that the Aorta and Vena Cava cannot be seen before the first cut and are to a large part protected, lying behind other organs and tissues. To be performed intentionally in the conditions requires a leap of logic I am not prepared to make.

Itīs like saying that the Black Dahlia killer must have had anatomical knowledge because he knew how to cut to kill - he cut the body in two parts at the waist...

No it is not. To cut both sides of the Neck shows knowledge that there are blood vessels on both sides of the Neck and cutting of both is needed to ensure a fast death.

Indeed the cut was only mentioned to give an indication of the depth of any Recorded cuts.

Or to explain that the abdomina cavity was opened up and that the stabds and cuts did NOT reach the omentum only.

No I raised it initially and I know why I did. You may have tried to use it to support your case; unfortunately logic says it cannot be used to say deeper parts were hit.

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 .

We still donīt know, Iīm afraid.

Spratling says in his report he was given the information by LLEWELLYN; or do you dispute that?
If so I would love to hear the argument and see the supporting data for such.

Yes, indeed. Enough to kill swiftly according to the medico who did the post mortem. But you think that is wrong.

That depends on the interpretation of "vital areas". We disagree on what is meant.

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.

And it is nevertheless the by far likeliest interpretation.

No it is not. It is based on presumed wounds and rejection of known fatal wounds.
That makes it the least likely.

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.

And they will in all probability be wrong.

In your humble opinion.

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

Agreed.

The second set are to the abdomen.

Agreed.


The exact nature of the cuts is unclear.

Not if you ask Gareth. He seems to know exactly what they looked like and so he can rule out that the vital parts were in there.
But you and I seem to agree - none of us think that the abdominal wounds can be described in any great detail at all.


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.

Yes, indeed. We have at least been able to establish that the misleading phrase "there was no damage until the lower abdomen" is a mistake.

Yes such a pharse seems to have come from Llewellyn himself, it shows he could and did make mistakes in his testimony.

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.

It mentions that the omentum had been cut open, does it not? That means that the skin had also been cut open. All that tells us is that the abdominal cavity had been opened up, allowing for access into it.

It does not say the the omentum had been "cut open" just cut.
And as the omentum is within the abdomenial cavity I do not see why such needs to be stated. It is obvious.
And your actual point is?
Spratling's report is all that gives any detail of the internal injuries. Do you suggest we ignore 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.

It is true that we do not have it detailed, but we have LLewellyns assertion that the wounds were enough to kill swiftly, and that would not be the case if the wouns did not damage organs and/or vessels, preferably the aorta. We also have LLewellyns statement that the killer seemed versed in anatomy since he was able to hit all the vital parts, and I think he is talking about the abdominal wounds there too.

Again only if we accept YOUR interpretation of Llewellyn.

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

But LLewellyn was not uncertain at all - he stated that the abdominal wounds would ALSO kill swiftly, and so they do not differ from the neck wounds in that respect. Maybe there is a tie difference involved, but swift is swift.

No he did not. It's how you interpret what he said, not what he actually said, nor what he supported with evidence.

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.

But it is a historical fact that Llewllyn said that the abdominal wounds would kill quickly! It has nthibg at all to do with any gut feeling, and I am not saying that the neck wounds would not kill - of course they would. But the fact of the matter is that we have a medico who states unequivocally that each of the abdominal wounds would kill on their own, and that death would come quickly.
Why on earth would we rule THAT out on a gut feeling? Because this is where the gut feeling reasoning TRULY applies:

No that again is YOUR intpretation. It is not an historically established fact.
Each of the abdomen wounds would kill? Again YOUR interpretation.
Because it is just that a gut feeling. Such cannot take precedence over facts and reality

YOU say that your gut feeling is that LLewellyn was wrong, you admit that this is so and that you have no evidence at all proving that the abdominal wounds were not sufficient to kill quickly.

No it's not Gut feeling, it is a lack of evidence to support his view I base my view on.
And again it's the "you can't prove they didn't " chant.

I do NOT say that my gut feeling is that the abdominal wounds came first and were lethal - I am instead leaning against the medcio who had the case in hand, and who very clearly said that the abdominal wounds came first and were sufficient to kill quickly.

You are basing your view on wounds that are not described, on a opinion not backed by evidence. Therefore without such it is a gut feeling.

How did these facts pass comfortably into a verdict of ME being the one going for my gut feeling and YOU going for the facts?

It is the other way around, Steve!

No not at all.

You still seem to think that quoting Llewellyn is enough.
However in this post you have already highlighted one major mistake he made at the inquest. Such suggests he cannot be read as being accurate.



Steve

[Harry D]

Harry, I'm confused. That's genuinely what I did.

First, clicked 'quote'

Then I typed in the gaps. It still came up with my replies in the shaded area.

Regards
Herlock

You've got to remember to separate each quote and close each one with the [*/QUOTE] tag (minus the asterisk).

[Jon Guy]

Duplicate post .........

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: The suggestion it is a lost cause just because You say so is truly remarkable.

Of course your argument was that has his premise was called a surgery that implied he performed surgery and had lots of experience of such. which as was pointed out is not the case.
However rather than admit such, you go off and ignore the issue.

It has been pointed out that he had NOT extensive experience of surgery? Really? And which were the sources?

We were discussing the use of the word surgery for his place of work. It wad pointed out to you that use of this word had no implications on his skill or experience. Do youI really not understand such?
Do you never read posts in context of previous posts?

Do you for one second think that a man who is awarded a prize for minor surgery is not an accomplished surgeon?

It depends on the actual award. Surgery is a vast area. Being good in one area does not mean the same in another.

Do you for one second think that a man who was appointed House surgeon in London Hospital in 1875 was not an accomplished surgeon?

do you for one second think that a man who is elected as a memeber of the Royal College of surgeons is not an accomplished surgeon?


Just how does that work? Please explain!

It again depends, however it is a bit of a red herring as his ability as a surgeon has no bearing on his experience or ability at PM.

What a truly worthless post. What does such prove, does it show us his experience or how good a surgeon he was?

Of course not. It does however show how you perceive the man, and the medical profession in general.

What does it prove that it was enscribed into his gravestone that he was a pshysician and a surgeon? Presumably that he was a physician and a surgeon. What do you yourself think it proves? That he was a car mechanic or a fruit salesman?

It does not say, nor could it say how good he was and as such it is of no use.

I will let your statement that it is "worthless" to point out what a man is described as on his gravestone stand for itself. In neon.

It tells a lot of what everybody who wants to evaluate your contributions correctly needs to know.

Worthless indeed!

It tells us he was a surgeon. No more no less.
Not how good he was, and has no bearing on his experience or ability at post mortem.
That response just about sums up the approach.
He is a professional; all such must be respected and it is wrong to question them.
How truly sad.


Steve

[Elamarna]

He examined the woman and found that the blood had seeped into the abdominal cavity, explaining things and making him opt for the abdomen having come first. Thatīs how "magic" it is.

If it were the major injuries it would not seep.
And he claimed to find most of the blood in the loose tissue, not free in the abdomenial cavity. And such is unrealistic if major vessels had been hit.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes:

How do we know that he had a watch to check the time that Neil was due even if he knew Neil's due arrival time in the first place? If he had a watch how could he have read the time in the darkness of `Bucks Row?

These things I cannot answer. You asked how he could know that no PC would arrive, and that is what I answered: By timing Neil. How and if he did it is a separate matter.

And then Paul would have said 'I never touched him.' Also, 'wiping' doesn't create the same Mark as a spot or a speck. And let's remember, all these risk were easily avoidable by CL simply walking away.

...and then Lechmere could have said: "But donīt you remember that you DID touch me?", and much as wiping makes other marks, he could always say that a droplet could have been set off by a sudden movement by either man, or something such. Touching the body would provide greal alibis at any rate, I think you must accept that.
He could have walked away? Yes, he could have. But I am working from the presumption that he chose not to, something that is not unheard of.

[Fisherman]

Why speculate when we already have a cause of death which fits the statement of Llewellyn.
The press reports say that the details were given. I see that you now speculate such was not the case, to explain away the missing data.



Yes because it is YOUR interpretation that he refers to the abdomenial wounds when saying this.



Not that simple. He had it seems clear an issue with what he perceive as a lack of blood.
He changed the cause of death to allow for that problem.





Actually to cut both sides of the Neck does show knowledge.
However we are back to an opinion that cannot be measured or quantified



Your opinion. I disagree.
To kill immediately with a cut in the dark to the abdomen is truly remarkable given that the Aorta and Vena Cava cannot be seen before the first cut and are to a large part protected, lying behind other organs and tissues. To be performed intentionally in the conditions requires a leap of logic I am not prepared to make.



No it is not. To cut both sides of the Neck shows knowledge that there are blood vessels on both sides of the Neck and cutting of both is needed to ensure a fast death.



No I raised it initially and I know why I did. You may have tried to use it to support your case; unfortunately logic says it cannot be used to say deeper parts were hit.



Spratling says in his report he was given the information by LLEWELLYN; or do you dispute that?
If so I would love to hear the argument and see the supporting data for such.



That depends on the interpretation of "vital areas". We disagree on what is meant.



No it is not. It is based on presumed wounds and rejection of known fatal wounds.
That makes it the least likely.



In your humble opinion.



Yes such a pharse seems to have come from Llewellyn himself, it shows he could and did make mistakes in his testimony.




It does not say the the omentum had been "cut open" just cut.
And as the omentum is within the abdomenial cavity I do not see why such needs to be stated. It is obvious.
And your actual point is?
Spratling's report is all that gives any detail of the internal injuries. Do you suggest we ignore it?



Again only if we accept YOUR interpretation of Llewellyn.



No he did not. It's how you interpret what he said, not what he actually said, nor what he supported with evidence.




No that again is YOUR intpretation. It is not an historically established fact.
Each of the abdomen wounds would kill? Again YOUR interpretation.
Because it is just that a gut feeling. Such cannot take precedence over facts and reality




No it's not Gut feeling, it is a lack of evidence to support his view I base my view on.
And again it's the "you can't prove they didn't " chant.





You are basing your view on wounds that are not described, on a opinion not backed by evidence. Therefore without such it is a gut feeling.



No not at all.

You still seem to think that quoting Llewellyn is enough.
However in this post you have already highlighted one major mistake he made at the inquest. Such suggests he cannot be read as being accurate.



Steve

Too long, too repetitious and unneccesary.

Iīll lift out two things:

Actually to cut both sides of the Neck does show knowledge.

So are you saying that cutting the large vessels on one side only would not kill Nichols? Because it WOULD do just that. The only "knowledge" it shows if you cut both sides is the knowledge that the victim will die marginally quicker.

No not at all.

Yes, Steve - you ARE speculating that the neck wounds came first and you are doing so in conflict with LLewellyns take on the matter.

I am not speculating at all, I am going with LLewellyn, the best suited man in the empire to know what he was talking about.

So YOUR suggestion is guesswork, and MY suggestion goes along with the evidence given by the medico in charge.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: We were discussing the use of the word surgery for his place of work. It wad pointed out to you that use of this word had no implications on his skill or experience. Do youI really not understand such?
Do you never read posts in context of previous posts?

It is unfortunately totally uninteresting when we have established that he was a trained surgeon.

It depends on the actual award. Surgery is a vast area. Being good in one area does not mean the same in another.

No, it only tells us that he was an awardwinning surgeon, nothing else.

It again depends, however it is a bit of a red herring as his ability as a surgeon has no bearing on his experience or ability at PM.

"A bit of a red herring"! The man was an accomplished surgeon by all signs, and it was suggested that he was an obstetrician and nothing else. Whether he was experienced in post mortems - which for all we know he may quite well have been, not least since he was a serving police medico (!) to three divisions - he would at any rate be able to see if a vital part was damaged or not, and he would be able to tell that a wiund to the omentum was not lethal.

It does not say, nor could it say how good he was and as such it is of no use.

He worked as a surgeon for decades apparently. How good was Phillips? Can you tell us that? Do you have a grading to offer?
You are making very remarkable statements now, Steve.


It tells us he was a surgeon. No more no less.
Not how good he was, and has no bearing on his experience or ability at post mortem.
That response just about sums up the approach.
He is a professional; all such must be respected and it is wrong to question them.
How truly sad.


No. YOU are the truly sad person here. A professional surgeon MUST be respected unless we have anything at all that tells us that he should not be. Thatīs how it goes.

It is not wrong to question a professional surgeon - if there is a viable reason to do so. No such reason has been or can be produced against LLewellyn. An "interpretation" has been made that casts him in a very unflattering light, but there is ALSO an interpretation that puts him in the clear. SInce we cannot tell for certain what applies, we should accept that he was professional enough for the London Hospital, the Royal College of Surgeons and three police divisions.

If anybody is to be called into question here, Iīm afraid it is you. It seems your efforts to make LLewellyn look rather the spectacle has backfired, Steve.

[Elamarna]

Too long, too repetitious and unneccesary.

Iīll lift out two things:

Actually to cut both sides of the Neck does show knowledge.

So are you saying that cutting the large vessels on one side only would not kill Nichols? Because it WOULD do just that. The only "knowledge" it shows if you cut both sides is the knowledge that the victim will die marginally quicker.

First my reply is not as long as your post if one ignores the quoted text.

The point was which you so conveniently avoid is the attack killed immediately and this was due to possible anatomic knowledge.
Yes cutting one side would kill, however it would be significantly slower and may not result in unconscious as quickly.

No not at all.

Yes, Steve - you ARE speculating that the neck wounds came first and you are doing so in conflict with LLewellyns take on the matter.

I am not speculating at all, I am going with LLewellyn, the best suited man in the empire to know what he was talking about.

So YOUR suggestion is guesswork, and MY suggestion goes along with the evidence given by the medico in charge.

No it is not guesswork.
The abdomenial cause of death is rejected because there is no evidence to back Llewellyn's comments up. In addition his explanation for the blood going inti the loose tissue from major vessels is not realistic.
One must also consider how he changed his mind, once it became clear the body had not been moved after death.

Therefore the Neck wounds which are fatal come into play.

Of course related to this is the point you ignored in the reply.
Could Llewellyn have been wrong and made mistakes in his inquest testimony

The answer is a resounding YES.

Not only could he make mistakes and be wrong, he was indeed mistaken and wrong

He did so when he claimed there were no wounds until the lower part of the abdomen, which you posted yourself earlier today.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: We were discussing the use of the word surgery for his place of work. It wad pointed out to you that use of this word had no implications on his skill or experience. Do youI really not understand such?
Do you never read posts in context of previous posts?

It is unfortunately totally uninteresting when we have established that he was a trained surgeon.

No you do not get away with it that easy. You claimed the use of the term surgery had implications with regards to Llewellyn and his skill and experience. Such was untrue.

It depends on the actual award. Surgery is a vast area. Being good in one area does not mean the same in another.

No, it only tells us that he was an awardwinning surgeon, nothing else.

Inaccurate you need to know what it was for before you can compare and evaluate it.

It again depends, however it is a bit of a red herring as his ability as a surgeon has no bearing on his experience or ability at PM.

"A bit of a red herring"! The man was an accomplished surgeon by all signs, and it was suggested that he was an obstetrician and nothing else. Whether he was experienced in post mortems - which for all we know he may quite well have been, not least since he was a serving police medico (!) to three divisions - he would at any rate be able to see if a vital part was damaged or not, and he would be able to tell that a wiund to the omentum was not lethal.

Again no one has suggested a wound to the omentum was lethal, where does this come from?

If he could make a mistake about the position of the external wounds he could make mistakes about other things.

It does not say, nor could it say how good he was and as such it is of no use.

He worked as a surgeon for decades apparently. How good was Phillips? Can you tell us that? Do you have a grading to offer?
You are making very remarkable statements now, Steve.

How is it remarkable to say it does not tell us how good he was. That is just a statement of fact, which you appear to struggle to accept.

It tells us he was a surgeon. No more no less.
Not how good he was, and has no bearing on his experience or ability at post mortem.
That response just about sums up the approach.
He is a professional; all such must be respected and it is wrong to question them.
How truly sad.


No. YOU are the truly sad person here. A professional surgeon MUST be respected unless we have anything at all that tells us that he should not be. Thatīs how it goes.

Really?
Why?

It is not wrong to question a professional surgeon - if there is a viable reason to do so. No such reason has been or can be produced against LLewellyn. An "interpretation" has been made that casts him in a very unflattering light, but there is ALSO an interpretation that puts him in the clear. SInce we cannot tell for certain what applies, we should accept that he was professional enough for the London Hospital, the Royal College of Surgeons and three police divisions.

And by that definition he cannot be considered to be wrong.

It amounts to nothing more than hero worship of professionals just because they are.

If anybody is to be called into question here, Iīm afraid it is you. It seems your efforts to make LLewellyn look rather the spectacle has backfired, Steve.

Again just because you say something, it is not nesseciraly so.
It's actually very funny!


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: First my reply is not as long as your post if one ignores the quoted text.

The point was which you so conveniently avoid is the attack killed immediately and this was due to possible anatomic knowledge.
Yes cutting one side would kill, however it would be significantly slower and may not result in unconscious as quickly.

I would appreciate if you stopped claimimg that I "conveniently avoid" your points. If there is something you need an answer to, tell me and I will answer - but I will not help producing posts longer that the Hundred Years war.

A severed artery and vein on one side of the neck would produce a quick unconsciousness. Cutting both sides MAY result in quicker unconsciousness, but the difference will be marginal as I understand it. There is a more or less immediate drop in pressure in both cases.

As I said, cutting all you can see is not indicative of anatomical insights, but instead of then lack of such insights: when you canīt tell what works, you cut it all.

The abdomen offered a smorgasbord of organs and vessels, where skill could really be evinced if the right cuts and stabs were chosen. Like it or not.

No it is not guesswork.

Yes, it is guesswork. You GUESS that the neck came first, although Llewellyn said that the abdomen came first. Guess. Guesswork. See?

The abdomenial cause of death is rejected because there is no evidence to back Llewellyn's comments up.

Rejected? REJECTED? You cannot reject it. It stands, since the examining medico, who did the post mortem, said that this was so.

In addition his explanation for the blood going inti the loose tissue from major vessels is not realistic.

You have no idea what he meant, Iīm afraid. He knew, but he did not hand it down to us. Sad, yes, but it does not detract from how he laid down that the abdomen came first.

One must also consider how he changed his mind, once it became clear the body had not been moved after death.

Yes, indeed - once he fpund the blood, he knew what to opt for. In spite of how people around him doubted it, like Baxter, he stood by his view. And huess whi was best suited to decide? Guess who was most likely to know?
But of course, this is just my "same tired old answers", while your suggestions are of course eternally fresh!

Therefore the Neck wounds which are fatal come into play.

Not as having come first, unless LLewellyn was wrong. And there is no reason to think he was.

Of course related to this is the point you ignored in the reply.
Could Llewellyn have been wrong and made mistakes in his inquest testimony

The answer is a resounding YES.

Not only could he make mistakes and be wrong, he was indeed mistaken and wrong

He did so when he claimed there were no wounds until the lower part of the abdomen, which you posted yourself earlier today.

Nice try -but LLewellyn was not wrong about this. It is completely unrealistic to suggest that he may have missed that the abdomen was opened up from the breastbone down. He was not blind, was he? Or do you think he forgot where the large wound was placed?

The mere idea is ridiculous.

What applies is that this press excerpt is misguiding. Llewellyn may have said that there was no damage to the underlying structures until the lower part of the abdomen or something such, or the reporter may have misquoted him or something such.

What cannot be viable in a million years is to suggest that LLewellyn did not know the extent of the wounds on the surface of Nichols. You donīt believe that yourself, Iīm certain of that!

Llewellyn could certainly have been wrong at times, but not on matters like these! Letīs not waste space out here, Steve.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: No you do not get away with it that easy. You claimed the use of the term surgery had implications with regards to Llewellyn and his skill and experience. Such was untrue.

Quote it, please.

Inaccurate you need to know what it was for before you can compare and evaluate it.

Inaccurate? So he was NOT an awardwinning surgeon? Which was EXACTLY what I said, nothing more, nothing less. How does that work?

Again no one has suggested a wound to the omentum was lethal, where does this come from?

It comes from how LLewellyn said that the wounds to the abdomen were lethal, each on their own, whereas you say that there is no reason to speculate that any cut went beyond the omentum. And if they did not go beyond the omentum, LLewellyn must have thought that omentum cuts are lethal.

See how it works now?

If he could make a mistake about the position of the external wounds he could make mistakes about other things.

But he didnīt. And no, the second thing does not follow from the first anyway. If he could mistake Sean Connery for Dame Edna, he could mistake a Ford Mustang for a baby tram?

How is it remarkable to say it does not tell us how good he was. That is just a statement of fact, which you appear to struggle to accept.

Itīs remarkable to question the knowledge and experience of a man who was a house surgeon in London Hospital, who served as a medico for three police divisions, who was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons and who had won a prize for minor surgery, and it becomes even more remarkable when you compare him to Phillips - who you cannot grade as a post-mortem man anyway.
BOTH men were highly educated and trained, BOTH men had extensive experience and BOTH men must be ranked alongside each other until you have any evidence at all that he was a worthless post-mortem man in any shape or form. And you have not a scintilla of evidence to that end. Is that not correct?

Really?
Why?

Because he represented a small portion of men who were highly educated and who made a living out of knowing the matters he dealt with, because we know that he worked in the field of surgery and because that taken together must earn him a recognition as a professional in his field. And professionals in their fields are people we should trust. They are not infallible (the mere suggestion is ridiculous and unworthy of any debate at all), but they are the best people we can find.
Once we can find evidence that any of these persons is not doing a proper job, has lied about his qualifications, has slept throughout anatomy class or something such, we can begin a campaing of tarnishing him or her that may have something going for it, but until that kind of evidence can be produced: No.


And by that definition he cannot be considered to be wrong.

You are doing it AGAIN!!! I have said three times now that I do NOT consider the man infallible, can I please have that respected? Do NOT misrepresent what I am saying, PLEASE!!

It amounts to nothing more than hero worship of professionals just because they are.

No, it has nothing to do with heroism at all. It has to do with recognizing an impressive list of feats, undoubtedly gained from cinsiderable professional knowledge and experience. Llewellyn could have been a swine of a man, he could have been a compulsive liar or a paranoid person - but as I keep saying: prove it! Before you dom so, we must regard him as a skilled professional, who in all probability knew what he was talking about. It is all very easy and very basic, and it has been a given rule for as long as mankind has existed: proof first, conviction after that. No proof, no conviction.

Again just because you say something, it is not nesseciraly so.
It's actually very funny!

Glad to amuse you, Steve. Prepare for more!

[Elamarna]

I would appreciate if you stopped claimimg that I "conveniently avoid" your points. If there is something you need an answer to, tell me and I will answer - but I will not help producing posts longer that the Hundred Years war.

A severed artery and vein on one side of the neck would produce a quick unconsciousness. Cutting both sides MAY result in quicker unconsciousness, but the difference will be marginal as I understand it. There is a more or less immediate drop in pressure in both cases.

When we are measuring in seconds a few is more than marginal.

As I said, cutting all you can see is not indicative of anatomical insights, but instead of then lack of such insights: when you canīt tell what works, you cut it all.

No that is your opinion. It is not fact.

The abdomen offered a smorgasbord of organs and vessels, where skill could really be evinced if the right cuts and stabs were chosen. Like it or not.

Of which only two would kill immediately, both are well hidden and protected by other organs and tissue. And there is no evidence they were hit.
Vital areas fits the Neck just as well if not somewhat better than the abdomen.

No it is not guesswork.

Yes, it is guesswork. You GUESS that the neck came first, although Llewellyn said that the abdomen came first. Guess. Guesswork. See?

No, I conclude looking at the available evidence. And taking medical opinion into account.

It's not a guess.

The abdomenial cause of death is rejected because there is no evidence to back Llewellyn's comments up.

Rejected? REJECTED? You cannot reject it. It stands, since the examining medico, who did the post mortem, said that this was so.

Of course it can be rejected if it is not backed by evidence. How strange to say it cannot be.

In addition his explanation for the blood going inti the loose tissue from major vessels is not realistic.

You have no idea what he meant, Iīm afraid. He knew, but he did not hand it down to us. Sad, yes, but it does not detract from how he laid down that the abdomen came first.

Sorry has I have said before you cannot say if I understand what he meant or not. Such would require you to read my mind.
His description is clear, and if from the deeper major vessels is unrealistic.

One must also consider how he changed his mind, once it became clear the body had not been moved after death.

Yes, indeed - once he fpund the blood, he knew what to opt for. In spite of how people around him doubted it, like Baxter, he stood by his view. And huess whi was best suited to decide? Guess who was most likely to know?
But of course, this is just my "same tired old answers", while your suggestions are of course eternally fresh!

However it seems clear he failed to find the blood he required in the abdomenial cavity as well. One can speculate why this was maybe Green washing the blood away, or Llewellyn not realising how much blood was in the clothing. Who can say!

Therefore the Neck wounds which are fatal come into play.

Not as having come first, unless LLewellyn was wrong. And there is no reason to think he was.

Yes there is.

Of course related to this is the point you ignored in the reply.
Could Llewellyn have been wrong and made mistakes in his inquest testimony

The answer is a resounding YES.

Not only could he make mistakes and be wrong, he was indeed mistaken and wrong

He did so when he claimed there were no wounds until the lower part of the abdomen, which you posted yourself earlier today.

Nice try -but LLewellyn was not wrong about this. It is completely unrealistic to suggest that he may have missed that the abdomen was opened up from the breastbone down. He was not blind, was he? Or do you think he forgot where the large wound was placed?

The mere idea is ridiculous.

Sorry he was not wrong?

Is his description accurate?

One assumes he was knew where the wounds were, it would be very strange if not; however that is not what he said in his testimony is it?

So his testimony was wrong.

Why is it ridiculous to say he made a mistake. He clearly did.

What applies is that this press excerpt is misguiding. Llewellyn may have said that there was no damage to the underlying structures until the lower part of the abdomen or something such, or the reporter may have misquoted him or something such.

Speculation. No evidence what so ever, not even linguistic has Gareth suggested last week.
And I would be careful on what you did just speculate! It weakens your already wobbly case.

What cannot be viable in a million years is to suggest that LLewellyn did not know the extent of the wounds on the surface of Nichols. You donīt believe that yourself, Iīm certain of that!

No he just got the details wrong at the inquest. Maybe nerves or just poor presentation skills. However he got it wrong.

Llewellyn could certainly have been wrong at times, but not on matters like these! Letīs not waste space out here, Steve.

Come on Fish, he was wrong.
If you say the press were wrong, and not him, then you must consider that they may have been wrong on reporting other parts of his testimony.

You really can't have it both ways.


Steve