Lechmere The Psychopath

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hold on a minute, Fish. Surely the prime suspect for Jack the Ripper is much more likely to be someone whose priority was to get away from one of his earliest crime scenes, if not the earliest, unseen and unidentified, so he could go on to kill again and again, with no risk of being stopped, searched and taken down the cop shop for questioning on any of these subsequent occasions and the police going: "Hold on a minute, fella. Charles Cross of Doveton Street, and carman at Pickfords, you say?? Are you having a hat and scarf? Being found with one freshly killed corpse is bad luck; being found in the immediate vicinity of another one is seriously bad judgement, my old son. You're nicked." Unless of course, by a stroke of good fortune, it was good old cuddly old PC Mizen who stopped him, in which case he'd just say: "All right, so sorry I mistook you for someone else" and carry on knocking up.

Do you not think a serial killer, just beginning to act out his murderous urges, would do anything in his power to keep well out of the spotlight at this early stage of the game, to pave the way for a long career in bloody encounters? Has there ever been a case of one deliberately and needlessly involving himself in the inquest of one of his earliest victims, knowing that he could never again afford to be seen with or near a future victim? And did the ripper take every precaution in this regard? Apparently not, if he was seen either talking to Chapman, manhandling Stride, canoodling with Eddowes or sharing a joke or a pot of ale with Kelly. None of them could realistically have been Cross, could they?

Now to another question I've been meaning to ask. Given that the killer knew the extent of the damage he had just inflicted on Nichols [but presumably couldn't see much of it himself in the darkness], and given that he was unlikely to have been an expert on breathing and bleedin' times, how many precious seconds would Cross have needed to spend at the scene after making his final cut, to try and assess in the darkness how much of that damage would be immediately apparent to the first witness to come past and be escorted over to the woman to take a closer look at her? The damage would either not be readily apparent at all, and she could have appeared drunk rather than dead [to a fellow carman such as Robert Paul], in which case Cross the psychopath could have walked calmly away immediately after the last cut and disposed of his knife before anyone realised a violent crime had been committed and the alarm could be raised; or it would be obvious [to a PC with a lantern such as PC Neil] that she had been horribly butchered, in which case even the most daring psychopath would have had his work cut out, trying to bluff his way out of that one, bloody knife still on his person.

So what I don't get is why any killer with two brain cells to rub together would have hung around for two seconds after that final cut, whether it was to assess how 'murdered' she looked or, leaving that to chance, to relish the whole prospect of being there when the first witness arrived, whoever that person happened to be and whatever they might find.

Is the explanation that Cross simply didn't have those vital few seconds to assess the visibility of his handiwork, before becoming aware of someone's approach [Robert Paul as it turned out, not the beat copper - phew!], and having to conceal the weapon and move to the middle of the road without delay? Did he have to trust his powers of manipulation to press Paul to help him examine the woman, while trusting to luck that this stranger wouldn't actually be able to see any of the horrific injuries he had only just finished inflicting?

How does this theory even have legs, never mind make Cross the prime suspect?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I've emboldened 2 parts of your post.

Fish's reasoning, apparently supported by Andy Griffiths, is that, mystically they know exactly how CL would be thinking. That he was a psychopath and would have wanted to 'brazen it out.' Walk away to absolute freedom or remain and call someone over (potentially with blood on him; definitely with a large, bloodstained knife on him!) then walk off to find a Constable. Then turn up at the Inquest to say that he'd found the body. Is this remotely believable? Of course it isn't. But nothing about this theory is.

Caz, you ask how this theory has legs? You know the answer to that one...it doesn't.

I think that we should award it The Sir Douglas Bader Award for Ripperology.

Regards
Herlock

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

Thanks Fish. I was beginning to doubt that the report existed, but I've finally found it (in the Chapman section of the Ultimate JTR Companion).
Must admit, I'm struggling to understand what sort of wound to the abdomen could be instantly fatal....everyone knows that if you want an instant kill you go for the neck or heart; a belly wound is a slow kill, and a slow kill may have enough left in him to kill you before he dies....

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Interesting you used the term "great shame". That's precisely what Robert Paul said about Mizen's action once he'd been told that Nichols "was dead". Freudian slip, I suppose.

Suppose away. As far as Iīm concerned, itīs a common enough expression, and Freud will not play a role whenever it is used.

There are no falsehoods in my post, Christer, outright or otherwise. It's simple reality. I don't say that you impose rules. That's hyperbole and you know it. We both know you're not in a position to impose anything. So, let's deal with what's real.

You DO say, though, that people MUST be trusted, that Paul MUST have been a liar, etcetera, and I am calmly telling you that this is not so. Think what you will.

Your theory, however, does REQUIRE one to believe certain things, certain people.

All theories do, as I gather you will be aware.

When presented with options - who/what to believe - you choose to present as likely (far different from "imposing") the option that most serves your theory. And that's fine. Almost all of those with theories to sell do likewise.

Itīs fine? Wow. Thatīs progress. I would like to add that if the only option that "serves my theory" is a weak one, I would not "choose to believe it", provided that there was another option that was much more likely.

As always, there is a fair amount of indignation and silliness in your response - some idea that I feel "bullied" and am thus acting out. That's fine too. One day we'll meet, have a chat, and you can tell me if you think I'm the kind of man who's bullied. Until then.....Hopefully readers can discern a red herring from a valid point.

I harbour the exact same hope, because I feel that I am wading in the stuff up to my knees by now.
I would like to say that there is to my mind no sillyness at all involved in what I say - you were the one presenting a post full of indignation about how I do my ripperology, and so whatever silliness I can find is not on my behalf.

In the end, readers of this thread can decided if they think I'm right, or if I'm wrong.

In the end? It has already happened, Patrick.

And if they think I'm wrong and that you weigh all of the sources equally based upon their merits and still arrive at Lechmere the Ripper.....then...well.....then the world keeps on spinning and you have a new recruit. And you win and I lose and....... It's not the end of the world for anyone.

Indeed it isnīt. Which is why I do not cherish the idea of having people telling me that I do not allow for any other thinking than the type that "serves my theory". Never have, never will.

So in the end, what was your aim with your former post? To tell me that either way, it is not the end of the world?

My aim? Oh, I've achieved my aim. Thank you.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Interesting you used the term "great shame". That's precisely what Robert Paul said about Mizen's action once he'd been told that Nichols "was dead". Freudian slip, I suppose.

Suppose away. As far as Iīm concerned, itīs a common enough expression, and Freud will not play a role whenever it is used.

There are no falsehoods in my post, Christer, outright or otherwise. It's simple reality. I don't say that you impose rules. That's hyperbole and you know it. We both know you're not in a position to impose anything. So, let's deal with what's real.

You DO say, though, that people MUST be trusted, that Paul MUST have been a liar, etcetera, and I am calmly telling you that this is not so. Think what you will.

Your theory, however, does REQUIRE one to believe certain things, certain people.

All theories do, as I gather you will be aware.

When presented with options - who/what to believe - you choose to present as likely (far different from "imposing") the option that most serves your theory. And that's fine. Almost all of those with theories to sell do likewise.

Itīs fine? Wow. Thatīs progress. I would like to add that if the only option that "serves my theory" is a weak one, I would not "choose to believe it", provided that there was another option that was much more likely.

As always, there is a fair amount of indignation and silliness in your response - some idea that I feel "bullied" and am thus acting out. That's fine too. One day we'll meet, have a chat, and you can tell me if you think I'm the kind of man who's bullied. Until then.....Hopefully readers can discern a red herring from a valid point.

I harbour the exact same hope, because I feel that I am wading in the stuff up to my knees by now.
I would like to say that there is to my mind no sillyness at all involved in what I say - you were the one presenting a post full of indignation about how I do my ripperology, and so whatever silliness I can find is not on my behalf.

In the end, readers of this thread can decided if they think I'm right, or if I'm wrong.

In the end? It has already happened, Patrick.

And if they think I'm wrong and that you weigh all of the sources equally based upon their merits and still arrive at Lechmere the Ripper.....then...well.....then the world keeps on spinning and you have a new recruit. And you win and I lose and....... It's not the end of the world for anyone.

Indeed it isnīt. Which is why I do not cherish the idea of having people telling me that I do not allow for any other thinking than the type that "serves my theory". Never have, never will.

So in the end, what was your aim with your former post? To tell me that either way, it is not the end of the world?

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: So, the overarching point here, Christer, is that Llewellyn was not incorrect, wrong, mistaken, confused, or slightly off-base. Thus, he joins Mizen among the competent, good, and honest people who must be trusted at all times because they would never tell a lie and performed their work marvelously.

No, Patrick. It is up to each and every one to make their own calls. There are no "musts" here.
I base my own choices on how I find it more likely that a medico is right than wrong, especially when commenting on basic matters.
If somebody finds it more likely that a qualified medico will get basic matters wrong, then they are free to do so, you included.

As for Mizen, I am inclined to think that a PC with a good service record is likely to be trustworthy, not least since we can see that his ensuing actions are in line with having been lied to.
But of course, if somebody wants to think that he is more likely to be a liar, then there is precious little I can do about it.

To me, the overriding issue is that I want it to be recognized that I am not saying that somebody is infallible or cannot lie or make mistakes. That is something that others ascribe to me, and I consider it a great shame.
I happen to think that LLewellyn is more likely to be correct than wrong - much more likely, in fact - and I consider that is my prerogative to think this was so.
Similarly, I think that Mizen must have felt that he had been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row, and to me, a lie on behalf of Lechmere is more likely than a mishearing or misunderstanding on Mizens behalf. Once again, I feel it is my prerogative to make that call.

On the other hand, we must view poor Robert Paul as either a liar or a dupe, a grandstander, or a police hater. Perhaps he was all of those things. You've intimated he was each over the years. Just as we must dismiss Harriet Lilley as a liar, a crackpot....probably both.

Once more, you "must" do nothing at all. I donīt and canīt demand such a thing, I can only give my opinion. As for Lilley, I have never called her a crackpot, as far as I can tell, and I certainly donīt think she was one. But IF I had thought so, then I would add that notion to the formerly mentioned prerogatives.

So what are all these "musts" about, Patrick? Are you feeling bullied? Are you afraid to speak your mind? Have you misunderstood what I am saying altogether? Or is it about something else?

You also, instruct us as to which newspaper accounts are accurate, which witnesses knew the exact time and which didn't, ensuring we get the proper picture (the one you were so intimidated by near the end of your "docu").

No, that is just as untrue. I may very well say that I think that an article is accurate, but I never instruct you to think the same. I may obviously disagree with you if you think the same article is inaccurate, but that only amounts to both of us disagreeing. And I certainly donīt go around yelling that you are instructing me to think something I disagree with, do I? So why do you do just that?

And when it still doesn't add up, when there are still too many twists and turns, too many dependencies, too many things that cannot be explained rationally...you move onto the next bit of minutia that you claim is another coincidence that points to "the carman", yet another point that fails to "rule him out"....and you tell us we're one step closer to hanging your "suspect". Of course, you discard anything that points away from Cross. Any report, time, witness, or statement is assailed, dismissed, judged incorrect.

Once more, I am in no position to judge for others. I give my view, and I criticise others when I think they have gotten it wrong. Then again, what are you doing right now if not criticizing me?
What IS your problem, Patrick? Am I too confident? Should I concede one point for every point I win? Or what? What is this about?

Anyway, I think it's clear for everyone to see. I just felt compelled to pop in here and point it out for those who may have been distracted, thinking you were advocating for Llewellyn for some non-"Lechmere" related reasons.

And you end in the same vein as usual - by implying that I am n ever considering the facts and that I have no honest intentions whatsoever with my research. Instead, I am only about twisting each and every fact into part of my theory.
That is a sad and deplorable things you are engaging in.

I always look at whether the facts of the case may work together with my theory or if they speak against it. So far, I have not found one single obstacle that tells me that I am probably wrong.

Of course, you may use that to say that this is because I am so marinated in my own thinking that I cannot see clearly. That is YOUR prerogative. Use if if you feel it is a fair and recommendable approach.

But please stop telling me that I impose any form of rules about what people may or may not think. That is a outrigh falsehood. You are just as guilty of disagreeing with me as I am of disagreeing with you. Donīt you see that? The only difference is that you misrepresent me as a result of your frustration over it.

Sorry, but it had to be said, Patrick.

Interesting you used the term "great shame". That's precisely what Robert Paul said about Mizen's action once he'd been told that Nichols "was dead". Freudian slip, I suppose.

There are no falsehoods in my post, Christer, outright or otherwise. It's simple reality. I don't say that you impose rules. That's hyperbole and you know it. We both know you're not in a position to impose anything. So, let's deal with what's real.

Your theory, however, does REQUIRE one to believe certain things, certain people. When presented with options - who/what to believe - you choose to present as likely (far different from "imposing") the option that most serves your theory. And that's fine. Almost all of those with theories to sell do likewise.

As always, there is a fair amount of indignation and silliness in your response - some idea that I feel "bullied" and am thus acting out. That's fine too. One day we'll meet, have a chat, and you can tell me if you think I'm the kind of man who's bullied. Until then.....Hopefully readers can discern a red herring from a valid point.

In the end, readers of this thread can decided if they think I'm right, or if I'm wrong. And if they think I'm wrong and that you weigh all of the sources equally based upon their merits and still arrive at Lechmere the Ripper.....then...well.....then the world keeps on spinning and you have a new recruit. And you win and I lose and....... It's not the end of the world for anyone.

[Elamarna]

On the whole, Steve, in my world it is what LLewellyn said that sinks your ship.

If he had only said that the onslaught "seemed to have attacked all the vital parts", I could see my way through to investing a little something in your take on things, although Iīd say that I would not have expected LLewellyn to spak of parts when he referred to the vessels of the neck. To me, "parts" sound a lot more like organs, not vessels.

But that is a point that I could live with - maybe LLewellyn would speak of vessels as parts, it cannot be excluded.

Sorry and meaning no disrespect but that sounds a lot like " having your cake and eating it"
If he did just mean organs that of course excludes the Aorta or Vena Cava as you are obviously aware.
Which organs would you suggest would result in immediate death if attacked?

.But once LLewellyn says that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill instantly, I become a lot less inclined to think that he was speaking about the neck when he referred to the "vital parts" - because in order for the abdominal wounds to be instantly lethal, it would take that inner organs/vessels were severely damaged.
Surely that is a logic that is hard to deny, at the very least?

However we don't ACTUALLY have him saying that do we.
Abberline in the report of 19th September says Llewellyn said such to Spratling, or so it reads. However Spratling did not include such in his report.
I cannot find any report from Llewellyn himself which makes this claim, the "vital areas" comment does not specifically tie into the abdomen, it is an assumption.

But what really makes your scenario go overboard is the fact that LLewellyn qualified his take that "all the vital parts were attacked" with how he assured us that this attack per se tells us that the killer had anatomical insights!
Another way of putting this is to say that the attack showed us that the killer was aware of where inner, vital parts of the body were situated.

We are back to intpretation again.He did not assure,rather he suspected, he lent towards the view of possible knowledge . It's not the same.

And yes, a killer can have knowledge about where the large vessels of the neck are situated - but in order for him to display that knowledge, it would take that he cut SPECIFICALLY CHOSEN parts ot these vessels. Once you cut all of the neck, leaving only the spine unsevered, no anatomical insights have been displayed.

That depends how one views it. We see it differently.

If he had made a two inch cut that opened up the artery on one side only, there would have been a case, but as it stands, there is no such case. And indeed, I think you will find it impossible to search out any case at all where a medico has said "Anatomical insights!" when a neck has been cut in toto, as happened with Nichols.

The suggestion that a single side being cut could be viewed as showing anatomical insight is very bizarre. Just the opposite is actually portrayed by such.

So this is where your case falls down, Steve. This is where there is no logic around. Whether the killer knew that cutting all the vessels would make for a quicker exsanguination and unconsciousness is something quite unrelated, since the cutting of the whole neck, all of it, will never give away that he had such insights.

To you that is. Which I understand. It's a layman's approach and superficially it seems logical.
To me both sides demonstrates knowledge of what is required to dispatch quickly and silently.
A cut to one side shows no specific knowledge.
This is something I was taught for a procedure I performed far too many times.
A cut to a single carotid was not judged sufficient to ensure a lack of suffering and distress.

As I have said before, the abdmen offers a much more likely field of exploration in this respect. There, you can show anatomical insights by adding a number of cuts and stabs that all result in vital parts getting hit, whilst leaving large areas untouched, and therefore it is much more likely that this was what LLewellyn spoke of.

There are actually few vital parts there which would result in a near instant death.

There is also another thing to consider:

For your scenario to work, we must not only accept that a medico thought that a neck cut to the bone would somehow speak of anatomical insights, but we must also accept that LLewellyn got things wrong when he said that the abdominal wounds would kill instantly.

So we have an illogical suggestion coupled with a demand for Llewellyn to have been wrong on a very basic matter to ponder before we can put trust in your suggestion.

Illogical to you.

In my case, we have no such illogical suggestion: the abdomen offers a totally viable bid when it comes to how LLewellyn said that the vital parts were hit, and considerable anatomical insights would have been required to find all these organs in the lower abdomen, liver, kidneys, spleen etcetera, quite possibly coupled with the large vessels in there.
Furthermore, if this was the case, then LLewellyns words suddenly makes a world of sense - such an attack, damaging all of these organs and vessels, would kill in a very short time.

Which of those organs will cause a near instant death?
And of course we are back to there is no evidence of any serious wounds to organs of deep vessels.

So in the choice between an illogical suggestion coupled with the need for LLewellyn to have been wrong, and a logical suggestion coupled with an acceptance that LLewellyn knew what he was talking about, I will always opt for the latter alternative. It is by far the best and most uncomplicated bid, I find.

Dress things up as logical and illogical however there is a lack of anatomical knowledge to make such a call. It's s really about "vital areas" and what he meant and the truth is there is nothing in the sources which supplies any evidence of wounds to back that up.
You posted earlier how Phillips missed details of wounds to Kelly but specifical gave her cause of death as was required. That did not happen here.


Steve

[caz]

There, now we can all see that you cannot get this right for the life of you.

Of course he is the prime suspect in the Nichols case. Someone has to be, and there is virtually no competition. And of course he is in the bulls eye, timewise.

Resisting those two things is like denying the sun in the sky. And I do know that numerous people do just that nevertheless.

But this is a question of factualities, not of forming brotherhoods.

Hold on a minute, Fish. Surely the prime suspect for Jack the Ripper is much more likely to be someone whose priority was to get away from one of his earliest crime scenes, if not the earliest, unseen and unidentified, so he could go on to kill again and again, with no risk of being stopped, searched and taken down the cop shop for questioning on any of these subsequent occasions and the police going: "Hold on a minute, fella. Charles Cross of Doveton Street, and carman at Pickfords, you say?? Are you having a hat and scarf? Being found with one freshly killed corpse is bad luck; being found in the immediate vicinity of another one is seriously bad judgement, my old son. You're nicked." Unless of course, by a stroke of good fortune, it was good old cuddly old PC Mizen who stopped him, in which case he'd just say: "All right, so sorry I mistook you for someone else" and carry on knocking up.

Do you not think a serial killer, just beginning to act out his murderous urges, would do anything in his power to keep well out of the spotlight at this early stage of the game, to pave the way for a long career in bloody encounters? Has there ever been a case of one deliberately and needlessly involving himself in the inquest of one of his earliest victims, knowing that he could never again afford to be seen with or near a future victim? And did the ripper take every precaution in this regard? Apparently not, if he was seen either talking to Chapman, manhandling Stride, canoodling with Eddowes or sharing a joke or a pot of ale with Kelly. None of them could realistically have been Cross, could they?

Now to another question I've been meaning to ask. Given that the killer knew the extent of the damage he had just inflicted on Nichols [but presumably couldn't see much of it himself in the darkness], and given that he was unlikely to have been an expert on breathing and bleedin' times, how many precious seconds would Cross have needed to spend at the scene after making his final cut, to try and assess in the darkness how much of that damage would be immediately apparent to the first witness to come past and be escorted over to the woman to take a closer look at her? The damage would either not be readily apparent at all, and she could have appeared drunk rather than dead [to a fellow carman such as Robert Paul], in which case Cross the psychopath could have walked calmly away immediately after the last cut and disposed of his knife before anyone realised a violent crime had been committed and the alarm could be raised; or it would be obvious [to a PC with a lantern such as PC Neil] that she had been horribly butchered, in which case even the most daring psychopath would have had his work cut out, trying to bluff his way out of that one, bloody knife still on his person.

So what I don't get is why any killer with two brain cells to rub together would have hung around for two seconds after that final cut, whether it was to assess how 'murdered' she looked or, leaving that to chance, to relish the whole prospect of being there when the first witness arrived, whoever that person happened to be and whatever they might find.

Is the explanation that Cross simply didn't have those vital few seconds to assess the visibility of his handiwork, before becoming aware of someone's approach [Robert Paul as it turned out, not the beat copper - phew!], and having to conceal the weapon and move to the middle of the road without delay? Did he have to trust his powers of manipulation to press Paul to help him examine the woman, while trusting to luck that this stranger wouldn't actually be able to see any of the horrific injuries he had only just finished inflicting?

How does this theory even have legs, never mind make Cross the prime suspect?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: So, the overarching point here, Christer, is that Llewellyn was not incorrect, wrong, mistaken, confused, or slightly off-base. Thus, he joins Mizen among the competent, good, and honest people who must be trusted at all times because they would never tell a lie and performed their work marvelously.

No, Patrick. It is up to each and every one to make their own calls. There are no "musts" here.
I base my own choices on how I find it more likely that a medico is right than wrong, especially when commenting on basic matters.
If somebody finds it more likely that a qualified medico will get basic matters wrong, then they are free to do so, you included.

As for Mizen, I am inclined to think that a PC with a good service record is likely to be trustworthy, not least since we can see that his ensuing actions are in line with having been lied to.
But of course, if somebody wants to think that he is more likely to be a liar, then there is precious little I can do about it.

To me, the overriding issue is that I want it to be recognized that I am not saying that somebody is infallible or cannot lie or make mistakes. That is something that others ascribe to me, and I consider it a great shame.
I happen to think that LLewellyn is more likely to be correct than wrong - much more likely, in fact - and I consider that is my prerogative to think this was so.
Similarly, I think that Mizen must have felt that he had been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row, and to me, a lie on behalf of Lechmere is more likely than a mishearing or misunderstanding on Mizens behalf. Once again, I feel it is my prerogative to make that call.

On the other hand, we must view poor Robert Paul as either a liar or a dupe, a grandstander, or a police hater. Perhaps he was all of those things. You've intimated he was each over the years. Just as we must dismiss Harriet Lilley as a liar, a crackpot....probably both.

Once more, you "must" do nothing at all. I donīt and canīt demand such a thing, I can only give my opinion. As for Lilley, I have never called her a crackpot, as far as I can tell, and I certainly donīt think she was one. But IF I had thought so, then I would add that notion to the formerly mentioned prerogatives.

So what are all these "musts" about, Patrick? Are you feeling bullied? Are you afraid to speak your mind? Have you misunderstood what I am saying altogether? Or is it about something else?

You also, instruct us as to which newspaper accounts are accurate, which witnesses knew the exact time and which didn't, ensuring we get the proper picture (the one you were so intimidated by near the end of your "docu").

No, that is just as untrue. I may very well say that I think that an article is accurate, but I never instruct you to think the same. I may obviously disagree with you if you think the same article is inaccurate, but that only amounts to both of us disagreeing. And I certainly donīt go around yelling that you are instructing me to think something I disagree with, do I? So why do you do just that?

And when it still doesn't add up, when there are still too many twists and turns, too many dependencies, too many things that cannot be explained rationally...you move onto the next bit of minutia that you claim is another coincidence that points to "the carman", yet another point that fails to "rule him out"....and you tell us we're one step closer to hanging your "suspect". Of course, you discard anything that points away from Cross. Any report, time, witness, or statement is assailed, dismissed, judged incorrect.

Once more, I am in no position to judge for others. I give my view, and I criticise others when I think they have gotten it wrong. Then again, what are you doing right now if not criticizing me?
What IS your problem, Patrick? Am I too confident? Should I concede one point for every point I win? Or what? What is this about?

Anyway, I think it's clear for everyone to see. I just felt compelled to pop in here and point it out for those who may have been distracted, thinking you were advocating for Llewellyn for some non-"Lechmere" related reasons.

And you end in the same vein as usual - by implying that I am never considering the facts and that I have no honest intentions whatsoever with my research. Instead, I am only about twisting each and every fact into part of my theory.
That is a sad and deplorable thing you are engaging in.

I always look at whether the facts of the case may work together with my theory or if they speak against it. I think that goes for anybody who has a suspect. So far, I have not found one single obstacle that tells me that I am probably wrong.

Of course, you may use that to say that this is because I am so marinated in my own thinking that I cannot see clearly. That is YOUR prerogative. Use it if you feel it is a fair and recommendable approach.

But please stop telling me that I impose any form of rules about what people may or may not think. That is a outrigh falsehood. You are just as guilty of disagreeing with me as I am of disagreeing with you. Donīt you see that? The only difference is that you misrepresent me as a result of your frustration over it.

Sorry, but it had to be said, Patrick.

[Pierre]

So, the overarching point here, Christer, is that Llewellyn was not incorrect, wrong, mistaken, confused, or slightly off-base. Thus, he joins Mizen among the competent, good, and honest people who must be trusted at all times because they would never tell a lie and performed their work marvelously.

On the other hand, we must view poor Robert Paul as either a liar or a dupe, a grandstander, or a police hater. Perhaps he was all of those things. You've intimated he was each over the years. Just as we must dismiss Harriet Lilley as a liar, a crackpot....probably both.

You also, instruct us as to which newspaper accounts are accurate, which witnesses knew the exact time and which didn't, ensuring we get the proper picture (the one you were so intimidated by near the end of your "docu").

And when it still doesn't add up, when there are still too many twists and turns, too many dependencies, too many things that cannot be explained rationally...you move onto the next bit of minutia that you claim is another coincidence that points to "the carman", yet another point that fails to "rule him out"....and you tell us we're one step closer to hanging your "suspect". Of course, you discard anything that points away from Cross. Any report, time, witness, or statement is assailed, dismissed, judged incorrect.

Anyway, I think it's clear for everyone to see. I just felt compelled to pop in here and point it out for those who may have been distracted, thinking you were advocating for Llewellyn for some non-"Lechmere" related reasons.

Carry on.

Fisherman is desperate, since there is so little in the historical sources that can be connected to Lechmere in any way.

Actually, there is so little that Fisherman has to twist the meaning of the sources to have any use for them at all.

And even when they have become twisted, they do not indicate that Lechmere was the serial killer in 1888-1889.

There is need for so much more if Fisherman wants to convince us that Lechmere was the serial killer. He must have:

Sources showing us he came to London before Tabram/Nichols.

Sources showing us he left after Kelly.

Sources showing us he came back before MacKenzie.

Sources showing us he left after Pinchin Street.

Sources showing us he had a clear motive connected to the murders.

Sources showing us he was at the murder sites.

Sources explaining many, or all, of the much discussed problems within ripperology.

Where is all this, Fisherman?

Sometimes the past is generous.

Most of the time it is not.

It is only when the past is very generous that Fisherman will have the possibility to show us that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

Cheers, Pierre

[Patrick S]

So, the overarching point here, Christer, is that Llewellyn was not incorrect, wrong, mistaken, confused, or slightly off-base. Thus, he joins Mizen among the competent, good, and honest people who must be trusted at all times because they would never tell a lie and performed their work marvelously.

On the other hand, we must view poor Robert Paul as either a liar or a dupe, a grandstander, or a police hater. Perhaps he was all of those things. You've intimated he was each over the years. Just as we must dismiss Harriet Lilley as a liar, a crackpot....probably both.

You also, instruct us as to which newspaper accounts are accurate, which witnesses knew the exact time and which didn't, ensuring we get the proper picture (the one you were so intimidated by near the end of your "docu").

And when it still doesn't add up, when there are still too many twists and turns, too many dependencies, too many things that cannot be explained rationally...you move onto the next bit of minutia that you claim is another coincidence that points to "the carman", yet another point that fails to "rule him out"....and you tell us we're one step closer to hanging your "suspect". Of course, you discard anything that points away from Cross. Any report, time, witness, or statement is assailed, dismissed, judged incorrect.

Anyway, I think it's clear for everyone to see. I just felt compelled to pop in here and point it out for those who may have been distracted, thinking you were advocating for Llewellyn for some non-"Lechmere" related reasons.

Carry on.

[Fisherman]

On the whole, Steve, in my world it is what LLewellyn said that sinks your ship.

If he had only said that the onslaught "seemed to have attacked all the vital parts", I could see my way through to investing a little something in your take on things, although Iīd say that I would not have expected LLewellyn to spak of parts when he referred to the vessels of the neck. To me, "parts" sound a lot more like organs, not vessels.

But that is a point that I could live with - maybe LLewellyn would speak of vessels as parts, it cannot be excluded.

But once LLewellyn says that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill instantly, I become a lot less inclined to think that he was speaking about the neck when he referred to the "vital parts" - because in order for the abdominal wounds to be instantly lethal, it would take that inner organs/vessels were severely damaged.
Surely that is a logic that is hard to deny, at the very least?

But what really makes your scenario go overboard is the fact that LLewellyn qualified his take that "all the vital parts were attacked" with how he assured us that this attack per se tells us that the killer had anatomical insights!

Another way of putting this is to say that the attack showed us that the killer was aware of where inner, vital parts of the body were situated.

And yes, a killer can have knowledge about where the large vessels of the neck are situated - but in order for him to display that knowledge, it would take that he cut SPECIFICALLY CHOSEN parts ot these vessels. Once you cut all of the neck, leaving only the spine unsevered, no anatomical insights have been displayed.

If he had made a two inch cut that opened up the artery on one side only, there would have been a case, but as it stands, there is no such case. And indeed, I think you will find it impossible to search out any case at all where a medico has said "Anatomical insights!" when a neck has been cut in toto, as happened with Nichols.

So this is where your case falls down, Steve. This is where there is no logic around. Whether the killer knew that cutting all the vessels would make for a quicker exsanguination and unconsciousness is something quite unrelated, since the cutting of the whole neck, all of it, will never give away that he had such insights.

As I have said before, the abdmen offers a much more likely field of exploration in this respect. There, you can show anatomical insights by adding a number of cuts and stabs that all result in vital parts getting hit, whilst leaving large areas untouched, and therefore it is much more likely that this was what LLewellyn spoke of.

There is also another thing to consider:

For your scenario to work, we must not only accept that a medico thought that a neck cut to the bone would somehow speak of anatomical insights, but we must also accept that LLewellyn got things wrong when he said that the abdominal wounds would kill instantly.

So we have an illogical suggestion coupled with a demand for Llewellyn to have been wrong on a very basic matter to ponder before we can put trust in your suggestion.

In my case, we have no such illogical suggestion: the abdomen offers a totally viable bid when it comes to how LLewellyn said that the vital parts were hit, and considerable anatomical insights would have been required to find all these organs in the lower abdomen, liver, kidneys, spleen etcetera, quite possibly coupled with the large vessels in there.
Furthermore, if this was the case, then LLewellyns words suddenly makes a world of sense - such an attack, damaging all of these organs and vessels, would kill in a very short time.

So in the choice between an illogical suggestion coupled with the need for LLewellyn to have been wrong, and a logical suggestion coupled with an acceptance that LLewellyn knew what he was talking about, I will always opt for the latter alternative. It is by far the best and most uncomplicated bid, I find.

[Fisherman]

Its not about what he knew, it's what he said.

Was the description he gave an accurate representation of the evidence ?

Obviously it was not. Therefore it is wrong, a mistake.

Why can you not just admit that rather than convoluted twisting of phrases to avoid saying so.?
Its funny and painful at the same time.

Steve

Because I donīt think it was wrong, per se, Steve. Of course, on the surface of things, one can easily interpret it as being wrong, not least if we add the neck - it is very obvious that there were injuries above the lower abdomen.

I donīt know why you are opposed to recognizing this, because that if anything is conclusive in proving that LLewellyn was not wording himself in accordance with the practical realities of the case.

However, as I have pointed out numerous times by now, I think that Llewellyn was speaking about how the deep damage was all done to the lower abdomen, whereas the upper part of the large wound was perhaps just a shallow cut into the outer layers, never penetrating into the thoracic or abdominal cavity.

I think his wording may well offer a very useful lead in that respect.

[Fisherman]

You might like to know that I do not consider Kelly a one off either, but nothing to do with flaps.


Steve

But instead...?

[Fisherman]

However Fish he does give cause of death including the injury involved.

That is missing in the Nichols case.



Steve

It is! And I think that perhaps owes to how there was never any real agreement over it.
Once again, I would dearly love to know what Tom Wescott was speaking about when he said that Llewellyn was asked not to expand on matters.

[Elamarna]

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?

However Fish he does give cause of death including the injury involved.

That is missing in the Nichols case.



Steve