Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Joshua Rogan: That's what I'm trying to say...the reports which say that describe the major wounds - the one up the centre, one along the groin and over the left hip - which are themselves composed of individual knife-cuts.

Okay. What I am pointing to is how the smaller wounds would perhaps not have been lethal if they only extended to the omentum layer, as supposed by Steve. I think that for them to have been recognized as lethal by LLewellyn, there will have been further damage done. And that is where I feel the "all the vital parts were hit"-thing comes in.

I think only Baxter said the wounds would be immediately fatal. Most press reports I can find say they would "ultimately have proved fatal" or they were "sufficient to cause death".

I really canīt say what the exact extent of that thesis was, but I have a feeling it stretched further than to Baxter. Whether I can muster the power to make the search is another matter, though...

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Finished curry.
So decided to see if any more odd statements made. Glad to see Fish as not let me down

Maybe it wsa the curry that did. Hallucinations, anybody?

Sorry under no circumstances can the sternum be called the lower part of the abdomen.

But the cut did not go into the sternum - it went in that direction, but we do not know exactly how far it went, do we?
Plus what you need to do is to quantify what "just above" alloes for in centimeters and millimeters.
You can do that as you ponder how LLewellyn may well have spoken of the lower abdomen as the true focus of the damage.

To think you can somehow ask for a measurement in some attempt to get utterly pointless and meaningless figure which you can argue over is just beyond reasoning

I was expecting that answer. So we have now established that you cannot establish how far the wound was allowed to stretch and still be said to be placed just above the lower abdomen. Many thanks for that.

Just shows you do not actually read the posts you reply to.
Your suggestion of the lower cut being responsible for major damage is shall we say questionable.

Oh, I read it alright. Letter by letter. Which is how I found that you had expressed yourself unintelligible, and needed to clarify.
You really could not ask for any keener interest in your posts.

If he comments on the damage to the Neck first, which he did and then he goes on to the abdomen, it is clear that the comments about the wounds to the abdomen , and how high they went do not apply to his previous comments on the Neck wounds.

He said that there were no injuries on the BODY until just above the lower abdomen. If he had wanted to speak of the abdomen only, he could have used the word torso instead, but he did not. It was clearly factually incorrect to express himself the way he did, so why donīt you criticize him for it? Come on, Steve - you can do it!

Sorry that the language confuses you. It really is simple.

Llewellyns language does not confuse me at all. Yours, however, leaves a lot to be asked for.

Nope it is not about expressing himself poorly, he made a basic mistake it happens.

Well, you would know. What you DON`T know is how the wording surfaced, whether it owed to LLewellyn or something else. And you have just agreed that he would NOT make a mistake about the appearance of the wounds, so thatīs off. If he made a mistake it MUST have been one of expressing himself poorly. It is the only alternative existing if we accept that he did know the appearance of the wounds, see.


Let me get this correct, newspaper reports of the inquest do not count?

Yes, get that coorect please: that is wrong.

These are the same reports you have for the "vital areas" with one major exception. When describing the abdomenial wounds he makes a mistake. That is clear.

No, he is either misquoted or he expresses himself poorly. Like you do, most of the time.

The comments about the "vital areas" are not so, at least to you.

I donīt think it has been ever questioned that he said this. Are you doing it now?

While there maybe debate about the reliability of the inquest press reports
if we dismiss them we are left with nothing but speculation. Anything goes.

Like suggesting that LLewellyn was wrong, you mean?

Look, Steve, we both support our separate arguments on interpretations that may or may not be correct. We are replicas of each other in that respect. The only difference is that I make a very much better suggestion than your very poor one. Otherwise, we are like two peas in a pod.

Most of the debate has focused on your intreptation of Llewellyn, not the man himself.

And just as much has focused on YOUR interpretation of Llewellyn, n ot the man himself.

Only in the last 7 hours has the debate moved to a recorded mistake by the Doctor.
And even with it being there in black and white and in more than one source you deny it happened.
Self deception I feel.

I donīt deny that the text is there, thatīs just another of your ever failing attempts to put words in my mouth. What I deny is that it owes to how LLewellyn did not know the extent of the wounds, and you have agreed that I am correct on that score - he must have known it.

Ergo, the wording is either a misinterpretation of what he said (because knowing that the wounds stretched up towards the sternum, he would not want to make another impression), or he genuinely felt that there was no need to speak much of what may have been a shallow cut in the upper abdomen that became deep and dangerous only in the lower abdomen. Or he expressed himself poorly.

No matter what applies, it DOES apply that you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill - and that, once again, you have been found out and disclosed.

If you donīt mind, I think Iīll leave you to hang and dry while I tend to other business.

Goodnight.

[Joshua Rogan]

Okay. What I am pointing to is how the smaller wounds would perhaps not have been lethal if they only extended to the omentum layer, as supposed by Steve. I think that for them to have been recognized as lethal by LLewellyn, there will have been further damage done. And that is where I feel the "all the vital parts were hit"-thing comes in.

And I'm suggesting that the stabs which cut the omentum were part of a series of thrusts which formed a larger wound - "there the wound was jagged" - which would ultimately have proved fatal.

[Elamarna]

And I'm suggesting that the stabs which cut the omentum were part of a series of thrusts which formed a larger wound - "there the wound was jagged" - which would ultimately have proved fatal.

I have no issues with that at all. It makes sense as the cuts to the omentum are not continuous suggesting either baring depth of cut or as you suggest Joshua more than a single cut/rip.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

And I'm suggesting that the stabs which cut the omentum were part of a series of thrusts which formed a larger wound - "there the wound was jagged" - which would ultimately have proved fatal.

Not necessarily stabs, Josh, when a long(ish), jagged cut of sufficient depth could have done the trick just as well. Indeed, given that this particular wound was jagged, then it's naturally likely to have varied in depth along its length, with the "omentium" [sic.] sustaining cuts as a mere by-product.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I could murder a curry

Herlock

[Elamarna]

Sorry under no circumstances can the sternum be called the lower part of the abdomen.

But the cut did not go into the sternum - it went in that direction, but we do not know exactly how far it went, do we?

An interesting point Fisherman and one needs to look carefully at all the sources. And the answer depemds on what one reads.
None of the press reports of the inquest give any idication of the actual length of the wound.
However Llewellyn gave a statement to the press about the injuries which was published on the first.
This is carried to varying degress in the press however the Evening Standard, Evening News and the Pall Mall Gazette of the first carry the following:
"One cut extends from the base of the abdomen to the breast bone"
The breastbone is of course the sternum.
This is from a statement Llewellyn gave himself

Steve

[Elamarna]

Plus what you need to do is to quantify what "just above" alloes for in centimeters and millimeters.

Again a read of the sources suggest such may not be nessicary

A check of five papers which carry this detail about where the wounds start gives an interesting twist.

The Morning Advertiser, Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard and the Illustrated Police News report the wording as:

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen."


Actually the Morning Advertiser appears to say "will" instead of "till". Just showing how this occurs.

The Times appears to be the odd man out presenting the second "about" as "above".

So is it possible that about has been transposed into above in the Times?


BTW Just above the lower part would be around the middle of the abdomen, not up by the strenum.

Again the sources seem clear.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Not necessarily stabs, Josh, when a long(ish), jagged cut of sufficient depth could have done the trick just as well. Indeed, given that this particular wound was jagged, then it's naturally likely to have varied in depth along its length, with the "omentium" [sic.] sustaining cuts as a mere by-product.

Hi Sam (and Steve),
I said stabs because that's how Llewellyn described them. But you're right, it could have been a continuous (if wobbly) cut using a sawing motion.

[John G]

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.

Hi Jon,

Yes, of course I accept this. However, we are still left, at the very least, with three cases where double wounds were inflicted on the neck, but not necessarily extending to the throat.

[Elamarna]

I was expecting that answer. So we have now established that you cannot establish how far the wound was allowed to stretch and still be said to be placed just above the lower abdomen. Many thanks for that.

No need to celebrate just yet; I think you will find there are issues with The Times quote you used. Of course not conclusive but it does call the use of the word "Above" into considerable doubt

Steve

[Fisherman]

Steve: An interesting point Fisherman and one needs to look carefully at all the sources. And the answer depemds on what one reads.
None of the press reports of the inquest give any idication of the actual length of the wound.
However Llewellyn gave a statement to the press about the injuries which was published on the first.
This is carried to varying degress in the press however the Evening Standard, Evening News and the Pall Mall Gazette of the first carry the following:
"One cut extends from the base of the abdomen to the breast bone"
The breastbone is of course the sternum.
This is from a statement Llewellyn gave himself

Yes, I know. And it effectively proves that LLewellyn knew the extent ot the large cut. So he would not be of the meaning that the lower abdomen only, including the area "just above" it was injured. So he was not wrong on that point, but instead either was misunderstood or worded himself poorly at the inquest.

I tend to think that he meant inner damage when speaking about injuries at the inquest.

[Fisherman]

Again a read of the sources suggest such may not be nessicary

A check of five papers which carry this detail about where the wounds start gives an interesting twist.

The Morning Advertiser, Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard and the Illustrated Police News report the wording as:

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen."


Actually the Morning Advertiser appears to say "will" instead of "till". Just showing how this occurs.

The Times appears to be the odd man out presenting the second "about" as "above".

So is it possible that about has been transposed into above in the Times?


BTW Just above the lower part would be around the middle of the abdomen, not up by the strenum.

Again the sources seem clear.

Steve

Would be. Seems. Could it be? Is it possible. May not be necessary.

See what I mean? Some degree of uncertainty remains.

Of course, I do not myself think that Llewellyn meant the sternum area when he said just above the lower abdomen. But there is no certainy exactly what he meant or to what exact etent the wound stretched. Other reports say that it was some was below the sternum or something such.

At any rate, as I said, I think that LLewellyn spoke of the extent of the inner damage area.

[Fisherman]

Joshua!

Since we spoke about it yesterday, I found that it is said in the Abberline/Swanson report of the 19:th of September that the cuts to Nicholsī abdomen would kill instantly.

That of course precedes the coroners summing up, where he shares the same message.

All we need to do now is to find out WHY they would kill instantly.

[Fisherman]

No need to celebrate just yet; I think you will find there are issues with The Times quote you used. Of course not conclusive but it does call the use of the word "Above" into considerable doubt

Steve

Or the word "about".

There is never any real certainty in this case, is there?