Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

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.

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


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

Sorry about that. Autocorrect again. Was meant to be jagged.

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 see no suggestion that such would be held back, Llewellyn had already issued a somewhat graphic press statement. To have attempted to withhold in those circumstances would be somewhat pointless would it not?

I find you explanation of your reasoning for the description of the wounds to relate to internal wounds interesting but totally unconvincing.
With all respect it reads as an attempt to whitewash his mistaken initial statement.

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.

Have to say so would I.


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;421245

Again this draws heavily from Spratling but appears to have been updated as it says

That is an important statement I think.

Why?

Because the source indicates that not only was there a variance in statements about left-right handedness between physicians about the victims (including MacKenzie) - but there was also variation in the statements about the same victim given from the same physician.

The past was certainly complex.

And the sources are so interesting.

Cheers, Pierre

And also, was Lechmere a left handed "psychopath"? Or was he a right handed "psychopath"?

Or is the historically well established fact that there is a variation in the sources about handedness a reason for dismissing all the statements?

Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;421245

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.

That is an important statement I think.

Why?

Because the source indicates that not only was there a variance in statements about left-right handedness between physicians about the victims (including MacKenzie) - but there was also variation in the statements about the same victim given from the same physician.

The past was certainly complex.

And the sources are so interesting.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.