Lechmere The Psychopath

[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?

[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 don´t entertain the idea, Jon, but some certainly do.

[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 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 wasn´t 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.

It´s 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 don´t 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 "Isn´t it earlier to conclude...", and that makes me think that you may not be any specialist in the field of writing. Did you mean "isn´t 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 don´t think he was amazed every time his patients survived that cut, instead of perishing instantly.

Do you?

[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 Nichols´ 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]

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?

[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 Nichols´ 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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I could murder a curry

Herlock