Lechmere The Psychopath

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

But of course your idea of objectivity is to simply dismiss, or at least question/qualify, those parts of Dr Llewellyn's reported testimony that fail to support your particular theory.

And just for completeness, I didn't say that the reports should be dismissed, only that they can't be substantiated, which was actually your own argument-and one that you now no doubt widh you hadn't have made!

No, John, I have no such wish. I know quite well what can be substantiated and what cannot. And I live by it.

Nor is "my idea of objectivity" to dismiss the parts of Llewellyns testimony that fail to support my theory.

To begin with, no parts of LLewellyns testimony act against my theory - it is the interpretations of them made by people like Steve and you that do not support my theory.

To go on, I am not dismissing things that cannot be dismissed. I may well say that I think that they are no useful or viable solutions, but as such, I cannot dismiss them. And I am very aware of that.

Are there any more matters I can help to sort out for you?

[Elamarna]

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

Elamarna: Not at all. He says in your quote, "just above". The sternum is not JUST above. It is at the top of the abdomen. I love how you search for a report that you think fits and it does not.

So tell me in inches, Steve: How far above is "just above"? You should try to temper yourself about how you love things about me, though -. it sounds decidedly unhealthy.

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

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

Has I said before. Beware of what you speculate on.

"Has I said before"? Me non comprendre, hombre. You need to try again.

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.

Now that is a very silly idea, given that the Neck wounds are given in detail Before he talks of the abdomenial wounds.

Is it a silly idea? Really? He clearly says that "there were no injuries to the body until just above the lower abdomen". That seems to rule the neck out. It is very clearly above the lower abdomen and there was an injury there.
I thought you would pounce on that, Steve? It gives you a splendid opportunity to tell us that Llewellyn was wrong.

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.

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

No one is saying he did not know. Why not read what I really post.

You are saying that he was wrong, Steve. To be wrong, you must have gotten something wrong.
Maybe you just wanted to say that he possibly expressed himself inexactly? Is that it?

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

He obviously knew where the cuts were as he described them. However he also made a mistake in his testimony, which no amount of denial can correct.

Ah good - you have understood that LLewellyn did know where the wounds were. Thank God for that.
But you sadly maintain that he made a mistake in his testimony. Itīs just that you cannot substantiate that, since all you have is the papers transcriptions, and we have no idea if LLewellyn somehow qualified himself.

Let me get this correct, newspaper reports of the inquest do not count?
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.
The comments about the "vital areas" are not so, at least to you.
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

Now you have spent a whole day or three arguing that LLewellyn was a bad doctor who repeatedly got things wrong.

How do you think you are doing so far?

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


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Reasonably, yes - but I think it was said that each of these wounds were individually lethal, and some of them were not very big.

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.

It was also said that the wounds to the abdomen would mean immediate death, and regardless of how the accumulation of wounds may well have been lethal, one must assume that it would take quite some time for them to get the work done.

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".

[John G]

If you want to think that the collected weight of the inquest reports in the papers can be dismissed, then that is your choice. But you need to find another hobby if that is the case, or you will be left in total darkness.

Then again...

But of course your idea of objectivity is to simply dismiss, or at least question/qualify, those parts of Dr Llewellyn's reported testimony that fail to support your particular theory.

And just for completeness, I didn't say that the reports should be dismissed, only that they can't be substantiated, which was actually your own argument-and one that you now no doubt widh you hadn't have made!

[Fisherman]

Ah good, you have acknowledged that because we only have the papers' transcription of Dr Llewellyn's evidence/ testimony then nothing he says, or supposedly said, can be substantiated. Of course, we can speculate until the cows come home as to whether the papers made errors or not, but I'm afraid that's not going to get us very far.

If you want to think that the collected weight of the inquest reports in the papers can be dismissed, then that is your choice. But you need to find another hobby if that is the case, or you will be left in total darkness.

Then again...

[Fisherman]

We need to ask Tom Wescott where he found this information, that he published in his dissertation "Old wounds" on these very boards:

"By the time Llewellyn stepped into the jury box the next day, he'd been asked to keep his remarks to a minimum, and did as he was told. As Dr. Phillips would soon warn Coroner Baxter at the Chapman inquest, "In giving these details to the public, I believe you are thwarting the ends of justice." "

I find it quite credible that Llewellyn was asked not to go into details, but I would love to see the source.

[John G]

Elamarna: Not at all. He says in your quote, "just above". The sternum is not JUST above. It is at the top of the abdomen. I love how you search for a report that you think fits and it does not.

So tell me in inches, Steve: How far above is "just above"? You should try to temper yourself about how you love things about me, though -. it sounds decidedly unhealthy.

Has I said before. Beware of what you speculate on.

"Has I said before"? Me non comprendre, hombre. You need to try again.

Now that is a very silly idea, given that the Neck wounds are given in detail Before he talks of the abdomenial wounds.

Is it a silly idea? Really? He clearly says that "there were no injuries to the body until just above the lower abdomen". That seems to rule the neck out. It is very clearly above the lower abdomen and there was an injury there.
I thought you would pounce on that, Steve? It gives you a splendid opportunity to tell us that Llewellyn was wrong.

No one is saying he did not know. Why not read what I really post.

You are saying that he was wrong, Steve. To be wrong, you must have gotten something wrong.
Maybe you just wanted to say that he possibly expressed himself inexactly? Is that it?

He obviously knew where the cuts were as he described them. However he also made a mistake in his testimony, which no amount of denial can correct.

Ah good - you have understood that LLewellyn did know where the wounds were. Thank God for that.
But you sadly maintain that he made a mistake in his testimony. Itīs just that you cannot substantiate that, since all you have is the papers transcriptions, and we have no idea if LLewellyn somehow qualified himself.
And at the end of the day, just as I said, he may well be on the money anyway.

Now you have spent a whole day or three arguing that LLewellyn was a bad doctor who repeatedly got things wrong.

How do you think you are doing so far?

Ah good, you have acknowledged that because we only have the papers' transcription of Dr Llewellyn's evidence/ testimony then nothing he says, or supposedly said, can be substantiated. And who knows how many time he he might have "qualified himself." Of course, we can speculate until the cows come home as to whether the papers made errors or not, but I'm afraid that's not going to get us very far.

[Fisherman]

It seems to me that when reports say that "the wounds" would have proved fatal, they are not referring to each individual stab or cut, but to the chains of stabs and cuts which laid the abdomen open. Nearly all reports describe the wounds as jagged or zig-zag, so almost certainly they were comprised of several incisions linked together.
Whether or not the individual cuts to the omentum went any deeper, the cumulative effect of an opening in the abdominal wall from crotch to sternum through which the intestines protruded would be very hard to survive.

Reasonably, yes - but I think it was said that each of these wounds were individually lethal, and some of them were not very big.
It was also said that the wounds to the abdomen would mean immediate death, and regardless of how the accumulation of wounds may well have been lethal, one must assume that it would take quite some time for them to get the work done.

[Joshua Rogan]

It seems to me that when reports say that "the wounds" would have proved fatal, they are not referring to each individual stab or cut, but to the chains of stabs and cuts which laid the abdomen open. Nearly all reports describe the wounds as jagged or zig-zag, so almost certainly they were comprised of several incisions linked together.
Whether or not the individual cuts to the omentum went any deeper, the cumulative effect of an opening in the abdominal wall from crotch to sternum through which the intestines protruded would be very hard to survive.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;421115]My pleasure
Post 1518
"Yes, that is correct. That was apparently what he specialized in. But his working premises are described as a surgery, and since he was a member of the Royal college of surgeons I think it makes sense to suggest that he had surgical training."


How does that describe his level of skill, and how does it lay down the amount of experience he had had? Which was the issue at hand?

You really need to try and understand what you are told, Steve. Really, really.

Again taking out of context to the original post.
The inaccurate relates not to his award, but to how relevant it was and your reply that all that mattered was the award.

No, I never said anything remotely like it. You asked what it proved that he had won a prize in minor surgery, and I replied that it proved that he had won a prize in minor surgery.

You cannot get the simplest of things right, can you? Or should I say that you prefer to get it wrong?

Iīll leave the rest to mercyful oblivion.