Lechmere The Psychopath

[John G]

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.

Well good luck with that one! Isn't it just earlier to conclude that Dr Llewellyn, who was clearly no forensic specialist-and who wasn't utilised subsequently in the investigation-simply made a mistake?

[Fisherman]

Well good luck with that one! Isn't it just earlier to conclude that Dr Llewellyn, who was clearly no forensic specialist-and who wasn't utilised subsequently in the investigation-simply made a mistake?

This is pure gold, since this clearly shows how you work. "who wasnīt utilized subsequently in the investigation".

Which doctors were? Phillips was chosen to be the overseer, and no other doctor was therefore "utilized subsequently" in the investigation. But you try to paint a picture where it was decided that Llewellyn was not good enough to be employed as some sort of advisor, and that really is not going to work.

Itīs a bit shameful when posters go to such lenghts, I find, and I am happy to be able to offer the completer picture.

The same of course goes for "clearly no forensic specialist": A/ We donīt know to which degree he was forensically interested/versed and B/ why would he need to be? He had certainly seen sharp violence before - unless you object to that? - and he had trained as a surgeon and worked as one. That should suffice to make his word a valid one.

You begin by writing "Isnīt it earlier to conclude...", and that makes me think that you may not be any specialist in the field of writing. Did you mean "isnīt it likelier", perhaps?

The answer to that question is of course no, it is not likelier to conclude that LLewellyn made a mistake. It is highly unlikely, but not impossible. The character of the question is of a kind where a mistake of the magnitude suggested - that LLewellyn may not have known that a cut to the omentum would not kill immediately - is nigh on impossible.

He was a surgeon. He would have cut through the omentum of many a patient, to reach the underlying organs. I donīt think he was amazed every time his patients survived that cut, instead of perishing instantly.

Do you?

[Jon Guy]

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.

Well, if you look at the doctors reports only two throat cuts were vaguely similar, and they were Kelly and Chapman.

[Fisherman]

Well, if you look at the doctors reports only two throat cuts were vaguely similar, and they were Kelly and Chapman.

Who also had their abdominal walls removed in large panes, putting it well beyond any doubt that it was the same killer. The idea that Kelly was a one-off does not sit at all well with the evidence. I know that you donīt entertain the idea, Jon, but some certainly do.

[Fisherman]

One more for Gareth, who claims that if there had been any damage to the inner organs, LLewellyn would have said so. This is from the Kelly in quest, Phillips testifying:

Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police, said: I was called by the police on Friday morning at eleven o'clock, and on proceeding to Miller's-court, which I entered at 11.15, I found a room, the door of which led out of the passage at the side of 26, Dorset-street, photographs of which I produce. It had two windows in the court. Two panes in the lesser window were broken, and as the door was locked I looked through the lower of the broken panes and satisfied myself that the mutilated corpse lying on the bed was not in need of any immediate attention from me, and I also came to the conclusion that there was nobody else upon the bed, or within view, to whom I could render any professional assistance. Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time, I remained until about 1.30p.m., when the door was broken open by McCarthy, under the direction of Superintendent Arnold. On the door being opened it knocked against a table which was close to the left-hand side of the bedstead, and the bedstead was close against the wooden partition. The mutilated remains of a woman were lying two- thirds over, towards the edge of the bedstead, nearest the door. Deceased had only an under- linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner.

One (1) damage is mentioned, the severance of the right carotid artery; the cause of death, as it were. But Phillips said not a iot about any of the organs taken out and distributed on the bed and table.

Why did he not do that, if it was a given thing that the medicos always stated all the damages as per your thinking about Llewellyn and Nichols?

[Jon Guy]

Who also had their abdominal walls removed in large panes, putting it well beyond any doubt that it was the same killer. The idea that Kelly was a one-off does not sit at all well with the evidence. I know that you donīt entertain the idea, Jon, but some certainly do.

Hi Christer

Yes, the removal of the abdominal walls seals it for me, too.
In fact, I`m at a loss to see what there is that sets Kelly apart as a one off.

[Elamarna]

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.

Sorry I find it totally incomprehensible that you just cannot say he made a mistake.
No one has argued or suggested that he did not know what the wounds were, such a suggestion is itself incomprehensible. Yet you go on and on about that point, which has never been suggested and just refuse to accept he made as mistake.

You suggest he was misunderstood by all the press. I consider that unlikely.
He expressed himself poorly? That suggested he was not clear.
No he simply said something he did not intend to a mistake.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

I only asked if it were possible that The Times made a mistake. Which of course it certainly is.

So now when he describes the wounds he is describing the internal wounds?
So he does not describe the external wounds then?
The internal long wound is hugged is that what he is say?

What makes you come to the conclusion he is describing internal injuries?


Steve

[Elamarna]

Or the word "about".

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

Well given that only The Times appears to say "above" and the other reports say "about" the probability must be that "about" is the correct word.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Yes, the removal of the abdominal walls seals it for me, too.
In fact, I`m at a loss to see what there is that sets Kelly apart as a one off.

I think those who are enthusiastic about the suggestion mainly look at the theatrical manner in which the stage was set, and the extensive damage done to the face, coupled with the deviating age of the victim as compared to the rest in the series.

But she no doubt belongs to the Ripperīs tally, yes.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Sorry I find it totally incomprehensible that you just cannot say he made a mistake.
No one has argued or suggested that he did not know what the wounds were, such a suggestion is itself incomprehensible. Yet you go on and on about that point, which has never been suggested and just refuse to accept he made as mistake.

He seemingly worded himself in a manner that did not fully develop what the wounds looked like, most likely. That is no mistake, it is a less than full wording.
If I had thought that he must have made a mistake, I would certainly have said so.

You suggest he was misunderstood by all the press. I consider that unlikely.
He expressed himself poorly? That suggested he was not clear.
No he simply said something he did not intend to a mistake.

In my world, he was aware that all the deep damage was done to the lower abdomen, and that was mirrored in how he worded himself. It is not a very interesting matter as such, I find. You seem to be much more willing to put it under a VERY thick magnifying glass, though.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I only asked if it were possible that The Times made a mistake. Which of course it certainly is.

Yes, it is. It is even more likely that this was so, since a number of other papers have "about" instead of "above". But it is not a givenm that is what I am saying.

So now when he describes the wounds he is describing the internal wounds?
So he does not describe the external wounds then?
The internal long wound is hugged is that what he is say?

I donīt know what "hugged" means, actually, so I cannot offer an answer. But I can say that the external and the internal damage are interconnected.

What makes you come to the conclusion he is describing internal injuries?

The fact that he says that there were no injuries until about/just above the lower abdomen. He KNEW that the main cut extended beyond the lower abdomen, and so what he spoke of would likely be the deep damage done. I think that was done only to the lower area of the abdomen. I also think that was where the vital parts spoken of were situated.
Nota bene how Phillips leaves out all of the cuts performed and the organs excised in the Kelly case at the inquest, and how he more or less begs Baxter not to have to go into the excision part in the Chapman case inquest. Apparently, there was always gonna be a good chance that these things were held back at the inquests.

I for one would be very interested to see what source Tom Wescott used when he said that LLewellyn was asked not to go into too much detail at the Nichols inquest. It could well help to clear the whole matter up.

[Fisherman]

Well given that only The Times appears to say "above" and the other reports say "about" the probability must be that "about" is the correct word.

Steve

Yes - it is a probability and the largest and best one at that, that is correct.

Just like it seems that Lechmere never gave his name before the inquest - only one paper had it, and the overwhelming probability is therefore that it was not given openly.

That is how these things work.

[Pierre]

In my world, he was aware that all the deep damage was done to the lower abdomen, and that was mirrored in how he worded himself. It is not a very interesting matter as such, I find.

You seem to be much more willing to put it under a VERY thick magnifying glass, though.

The last sentence (written by you to Steve) is journalistic language for "giving something too high substantial significance".

Fisherman, donīt you agree that you often put sources containing statements about Charles Allen Cross under a VERY thick magnifying glass, i.e. that you give them too high substantial significance?

The result being a magnifying effect to a level where there is no solid evidence, like:

"found WITH the body (and therefore a serial killer)"
"found WITH a freshly slain victim (and therefore a serial killer)"
"the Mizen Scam (and therefore a serial killer)"
"lied (LIED) about his name (and therefore a serial killer)"
"killed on his way to work"
"killed when visiting his mother"
"killed because (attempt of giving motive explanation) his mother was domineering"
"killed torso victims and Ripper victims"

All this is the result of a VERY thick magnifying glass, donīt you agree?

And of course, the man is dead so he can not speak.

Such a great advantage!

Try to use a THINNER magnifying glass and see what happens. Others do.

But I am afraid the thinner glass they use, the thicker your glass gets.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

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.

Actually it is quite interesting for several reasons.

The 19th September report appears to draw on Spratling's earlier report, which however does not say death was caused by injuries to the abdomen just that it was "almost instantaneous "
Does this mean that Spratling confirmed this verbally at a later date or is it an assumption made by Abberline and Swanson, as this report is made after Llewellyn has given his evidence.

Has you rightly point out the issue is not having an explanation for the said cause of death and therefore we are still relying on one man's opinion.

I decided to see if there was any further mention in Swansons report of 19th October and all references to cause of death have gone from this later report.
However it does give details of the injuries: the longest goes from the base of the ribs, right side, so not directly from the sternum but equally not inline with the major vessels.
The only internal injury listed is the stomach coating being cut in several places.
Again this draws heavily from Spratling but appears to have been updated as it says Llewellyn is now doubtful about the killer being left handed.


So I fear it takes the debate no further As it stands.


Steve