Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: The suggestion it is a lost cause just because You say so is truly remarkable.

Of course your argument was that has his premise was called a surgery that implied he performed surgery and had lots of experience of such. which as was pointed out is not the case.
However rather than admit such, you go off and ignore the issue.

It has been pointed out that he had NOT extensive experience of surgery? Really? And which were the sources?

Do you for one second think that a man who is awarded a prize for minor surgery is not an accomplished surgeon?

Do you for one second think that a man who was appointed House surgeon in London Hospital in 1875 was not an accomplished surgeon?

do you for one second think that a man who is elected as a memeber of the Royal College of surgeons is not an accomplished surgeon?

Just how does that work? Please explain!


What a truly worthless post. What does such prove, does it show us his experience or how good a surgeon he was?

Of course not. It does however show how you perceive the man, and the medical profession in general.

What does it prove that it was enscribed into his gravestone that he was a pshysician and a surgeon? Presumably that he was a physician and a surgeon. What do you yourself think it proves? That he was a car mechanic or a fruit salesman?

I will let your statement that it is "worthless" to point out what a man is described as on his gravestone stand for itself. In neon.

It tells a lot of what everybody who wants to evaluate your contributions correctly needs to know.

Worthless indeed!

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

I am using your above post to Paul as it allows me to try and make points that are important.

1. Any serious wounds to the abdomenial area are very probably likely to be fatal in the long term (particularly in 1888). However it is the timescale where there is a problem.

And LLewellyn spoke of immediate death, so we know that it does not fit the bill. So the more likely thing is that there was further damage, unspecified by Llewellyn, just as Phillips tried to avoid to specify Chapmans damage.

The historical sources Do not give any indication to what internal damage was done.

Nor do they in any way deny that any such damage was done, but given that LLewellyn said that the damage done to the area was enough to ensure death and double quick too, the more probable thing is that organs and vessels were severely damaged. That would be to expect with very deep abdomonal wounds inflicted with violence and a longbladed knife directed downwards.

Do you think that in any way illogical, Steve?

2. The suggestion that major damage was caused is based on two arguments:

a. That Llewellyn believed this to be the case, however his view appears to be mainly based on the apparent lack of blood, and not on any damage to internal areas, certainly he does not report any specific damage.

So you are saying that LLewellyn felt that lethal damage was caused to the abdomen on account of the lack of blood? You are proposing that when he saw that there was blood lacking, he simply predisposed that internal organs and or vessels had been struck, but he did not check before offering his view? Or am I wrong on this, do you mean something entirely different?

b. The use of the term "all the vital areas" which you interpret as being in relation to the abdomen wounds, however there is nothing to back this view up when one reads the actually statements.

He can just as easily and more probably be interpreted as refering to All the major vessels in the neck which were indeed cut.

No, I really donīt think so, because he qualified his words by saying that aanatomical knowledge was evinced by the damage. And when you cut all the tissue and all the vessels in the neck, that does not tell anybody that anatomical insight has been applied. It less everybody that the killer took no risks at all, that he may have been happily unaware about the placement of all the vessels and so he cut it all.
The one place where LLewellyns words make sense is the abdomen, where you can deliver a hundred stabs without hitting a single vital part, and where you can aslo deliver a hundred stabs that ALL hit vital parts. That is where anatomy comes into play, not when somebody cuts a neck to the bone.

Itīs like saying that the Black Dahlia killer must have had anatomical knowledge because he knew how to cut to kill - he cut the body in two parts at the waist...

3. No one is suggesting a cut to the omentum would lead to death and to suggest such is somewhat unrealistic.

I keep saying that, yes.

Indeed the cut was only mentioned to give an indication of the depth of any Recorded cuts.

Or to explain that the abdomina cavity was opened up and that the stabds and cuts did NOT reach the omentum only.

Of course we had a two day debate over if this was something that Spratling just wrote on his own or if he was told so by LLEWELLYN .

We still donīt know, Iīm afraid.

Once it became clear that Llewellyn did indeed pass the information to Spratling, the argument as somehow changed to attempting to suggest that the omentum could not be the vital areas and so there must have been far more extensive damage in the abdomenial cavity.

Yes, indeed. Enough to kill swiftly according to the medico who did the post mortem. But you think that is wrong.

The issue there is that because you will only accept the vital areas as being in the abdomen, if the wounds to the omentum are as deep as they go, then it follows people must be saying these are the vital areas. However as the omentum is not vtal and the "vital areas" can only refer to the abdomen then there must be damage we do not know about. It's circular.

And it is nevertheless the by far likeliest interpretation.

Of course this is not the case.

There is no "of course" involved here at all.

The majority of those who disagree with you will say the "vital areas" means the Neck, and therefore the cut to the omentum is unrelated to the issue of vital areas.

And they will in all probability be wrong.

Let's just for a moment try and look at the facts.

I always do. If you donīt, you may be in for a useful change.

We have two sets of wounds:

Whopeee! Yes! We agree!

One to the Neck, two cuts, four major vessels completely severed, death in under 5 minutes. These are historical established facts.

Agreed.

The second set are to the abdomen.

Agreed.

The exact nature of the cuts is unclear.

Not if you ask Gareth. He seems to know exactly what they looked like and so he can rule out that the vital parts were in there.
But you and I seem to agree - none of us think that the abdominal wounds can be described in any great detail at all.

Indeed we still debate where the cuts were and how they looked. A point clearly demonstrated by Jason Payne-James in the Lechmere documentary. And that is only for the surface appearance.

Yes, indeed. We have at least been able to establish that the misleading phrase "there was no damage until the lower abdomen" is a mistake.

There is almost no source data relating to the nature of the internal damage.
All we have is Spratling's report and it mention of the omentum. That is it.

It mentions that the omentum had been cut open, does it not? That means that the skin had also been cut open. All that tells us is that the abdominal cavity had been opened up, allowing for access into it.

So could the abdomenial wounds have been deeper and more serious?

Of course they could, but we have no evidence to support such a position and so it's just speculation.

It is true that we do not have it detailed, but we have LLewellyns assertion that the wounds were enough to kill swiftly, and that would not be the case if the wouns did not damage organs and/or vessels, preferably the aorta. We also have LLewellyns statement that the killer seemed versed in anatomy since he was able to hit all the vital parts, and I think he is talking about the abdominal wounds there too.

So one set could and would have definitely killed.
The second set could potentially have done the same, but potentially is the key word.

But LLewellyn was not uncertain at all - he stated that the abdominal wounds would ALSO kill swiftly, and so they do not differ from the neck wounds in that respect. Maybe there is a tie difference involved, but swift is swift.

It comes down to personal choice do we accept established historical fact or do we say no I reject that in favour of my gut feeling.

But it is a historical fact that Llewllyn said that the abdominal wounds would kill quickly! It has nthibg at all to do with any gut feeling, and I am not saying that the neck wounds would not kill - of course they would. But the fact of the matter is that we have a medico who states unequivocally that each of the abdominal wounds would kill on their own, and that death would come quickly.
Why on earth would we rule THAT out on a gut feeling? Because this is where the gut feeling reasoning TRULY applies:

YOU say that your gut feeling is that LLewellyn was wrong, you admit that this is so and that you have no evidence at all proving that the abdominal wounds were not sufficient to kill quickly.

I do NOT say that my gut feeling is that the abdominal wounds came first and were lethal - I am instead leaning against the medcio who had the case in hand, and who very clearly said that the abdominal wounds came first and were sufficient to kill quickly.

How did these facts pass comfortably into a verdict of ME being the one going for my gut feeling and YOU going for the facts?

It is the other way around, Steve!

[Elamarna]

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept;

Dr Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae."

Hi Joshua

It seems clear that his first opinion was the Neck which he later changed.

Let us remember that on the 31st he was still of the opinion that the murder may have taken place elsewhere, the reason for this was the apparent lack of blood.
It seems the overriding issue for Llewellyn was this lack of blood and when it became apparent the body had not been moved he changed his mind on the cause of death. In an attempt to explain this away.

Sounds a bit like the "magic Bulliet" to me.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Do they also serve as house surgeons in London hospital and do they win prizes for surgery and do they join the Royal College of Surgeons - without having surgical experience and insights?

Why do you fight a lost cause like this,Steve? Just because? Is that it?

The suggestion it is a lost cause just because You say so is truly remarkable.

Of course your argument was that has his premise was called a surgery that implied he performed surgery and had lots of experience of such. which as was pointed out is not the case.
However rather than admit such, you go off and ignore the issue.

By the bye, have you ever been to Tower Hamlets cemetery, where Llewellyn lies buried? If not, you should; it is interesting and and thought-evoking to stand by his grave. If you have any problems finding it, it is the large, monument-like gravestone where it says "Rees Ralph LLewellyn. Physician and surgeon."

Presumably, the stonecarver was wrong, but I will leave it to you to decide that since it is more of your area of expertise than mine. Maybe he could simply not spell obstetrician, and went for a simpler solution?

What a truly worthless post. What does such prove, does it show us his experience or how good a surgeon he was?

Of course not. It does however show how you perceive the man, and the medical profession in general.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept;

Dr Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae."

[Elamarna]

You do not respond when it is pointed out that the suggestion you made that people are saying the cuts including the one which reach the omentum are only "flesh wounds:" is false.

How should I respond? By saying "I didnīt realize that, since I thought fat was flesh"? The salient matter is whether these kinds of wounds would be lethal or not, and they would not be so other than due to ensuing complications, as far as I understand.
Therefore, LLewellyn would not have described them as lethal.
Therefore your suggestion that Llewellyn simply was underqualified to understand this falls flat to the ground in my book.

No that is not the salient issue. No one is suggesting that a cut to the omentum would be fatal. You are the only person who has discussed that.

And what does fat and flesh have to do with the omentum? Its inside the abdomenial cavity and thus if cut it cannot be a flesh wound!

The response which should have been made is that of course no one is suggesting the cut to the omentum was just a flesh wound. End of.


Many have given arguments for the Neck has the cause of death to you. Which you reject.

I am now going to use your approach.

You prove the Neck was not first, go on prove it conclusively.( btw Llewellyn's view is not conclusive, that's the whole argument)


Steve

[Elamarna]

Questions:

Since Llewellyn said that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill taken each on their own, do you think it is reasonable to suggest that he was probably wrong on that score?

Since Llewellyn said that all the vital parts were hit, pointing to some anatomical knowledge, is it reasonable to suggest, that he was wrong on this count too?

If the abdominal wounds were only omentum deep, is it reasonable to suggest that Llewellyn would have believed this was enough to kill outright?

These are the questions looking for an answer or two, Paul.

Fisherman,

I am using your above post to Paul as it allows me to try and make points that are important.

1. Any serious wounds to the abdomenial area are very probably likely to be fatal in the long term (particularly in 1888). However it is the timescale where there is a problem.

The historical sources Do not give any indication to what internal damage was done.

2. The suggestion that major damage was caused is based on two arguments:

a. That Llewellyn believed this to be the case, however his view appears to be mainly based on the apparent lack of blood, and not on any damage to internal areas, certainly he does not report any specific damage.

b. The use of the term "all the vital areas" which you interpret as being in relation to the abdomen wounds, however there is nothing to back this view up when one reads the actually statements.

He can just as easily and more probably be interpreted as refering to All the major vessels in the neck which were indeed cut.

3. No one is suggesting a cut to the omentum would lead to death and to suggest such is somewhat unrealistic.
Indeed the cut was only mentioned to give an indication of the depth of any Recorded cuts. Of course we had a two day debate over if this was something that Spratling just wrote on his own or if he was told so by LLEWELLYN .
Once it became clear that Llewellyn did indeed pass the information to Spratling, the argument as somehow changed to attempting to suggest that the omentum could not be the vital areas and so there must have been far more extensive damage in the abdomenial cavity.
The issue there is that because you will only accept the vital areas as being in the abdomen, if the wounds to the omentum are as deep as they go, then it follows people must be saying these are the vital areas. However as the omentum is not vtal and the "vital areas" can only refer to the abdomen then there must be damage we do not know about. It's circular.

Of course this is not the case.

The majority of those who disagree with you will say the "vital areas" means the Neck, and therefore the cut to the omentum is unrelated to the issue of vital areas.
Let's just for a moment try and look at the facts.

We have two sets of wounds:

One to the Neck, two cuts, four major vessels completely severed, death in under 5 minutes. These are historical established facts.

The second set are to the abdomen.
The exact nature of the cuts is unclear. Indeed we still debate where the cuts were and how they looked. A point clearly demonstrated by Jason Payne-James in the Lechmere documentary. And that is only for the surface appearance.
There is almost no source data relating to the nature of the internal damage.
All we have is Spratling's report and it mention of the omentum. That is it.

So could the abdomenial wounds have been deeper and more serious?

Of course they could, but we have no evidence to support such a position and so it's just speculation.


So one set could and would have definitely killed.
The second set could potentially have done the same, but potentially is the key word.

It comes down to personal choice do we accept established historical fact or do we say no I reject that in favour of my gut feeling.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I think you will find most Doctors refer to the home base as a surgery Fish. It does not denote actual surgery takes place.


Steve

Do they also serve as house surgeons in London hospital and do they win prizes for surgery and do they join the Royal College of Surgeons - without having surgical experience and insights?

Why do you fight a lost cause like this,Steve? Just because? Is that it?

By the bye, have you ever been to Tower Hamlets cemetery, where Llewellyn lies buried? If not, you should; it is interesting and and thought-evoking to stand by his grave. If you have any problems finding it, it is the large, monument-like gravestone where it says "Rees Ralph LLewellyn. Physician and surgeon."

Presumably, the stonecarver was wrong, but I will leave it to you to decide that since it is more of your area of expertise than mine. Maybe he could simply not spell obstetrician, and went for a simpler solution?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I have no problem with any answer Paul gives particularly as you now reduce it to what is possible as opposed to what is probably. You see I have fully realised the change.
It is indeed very transparent.

Paul is much welcome to answer both things, possible AND probable. In fact, it would be helpful if he did, and I would welcome it.
It couldnīt get much more transparent that that, Iīd say.

And you again ignore and I do mean ignore the issue that it is your intreptation of Llewellyn that is the major issue NOT Llewellyn.

The issue at hand is what LLewellyn said, what he could have meant by it, what possible interpretations there are and how likely to be true they are. The whole matter is the issue, not chosen parts of it.

You do not respond when it is pointed out that the suggestion you made that people are saying the cuts including the one which reach the omentum are only "flesh wounds:" is false.

How should I respond? By saying "I didnīt realize that, since I thought fat was flesh"? The salient matter is whether these kinds of wounds would be lethal or not, and they would not be so other than due to ensuing complications, as far as I understand.
Therefore, LLewellyn would not have described them as lethal.
Therefore your suggestion that Llewellyn simply was underqualified to understand this falls flat to the ground in my book.

[Elamarna]

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.

I think you will find most Doctors refer to the home base as a surgery Fish. It does not denote actual surgery takes place.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

Of course, I was referring to Lynn Cates' theory. Dr Phillips' said this about Chapman:

"There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other and separated by about half an inch."

Of course, the spine extends to the neck.

That suggests that Nichols, Chapman and Mackenzie all had double neck wounds.

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.

[Elamarna]

Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck

All the vital parts hit? Considering he wasn't even certain the uterus was present, I would question how reliable his autopsy was. ALL the vital parts would also suggest injuries to the heart and lungs which would be the only time in the canonical five prior to MJK

Omentum deep only sufficient to kill? No, at least not immediately

I am not questioning Llewellyn's competence, simply his dearth of experience.

Paul

Thanks Paul

Very clear answers.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Itīs a good thing you are around to keep track of who is allowed to ask what, Steve. This time over, though, you have failed to realize that the questions I ask are pertinent to find out what applies in the core issue.

Or maybe it is just a case of you not wanting the questions answered...?

I have no problem with any answer Paul gives particularly as you now reduce it to what is possible as opposed to what is probably. You see I have fully realised the change.
It is indeed very transparent.

And you again ignore and I do mean ignore the issue that it is your intreptation of Llewellyn that is the major issue NOT Llewellyn.

You do not respond when it is pointed out that the suggestion you made that people are saying the cuts including the one which reach the omentum are only "flesh wounds:" is false.


Have a good day


Steve

[Fisherman]

Thank you, very interesting.

My excuses for the delay - I knew I had supplied the material before, but could not remember where and when. I only just found it on JTRforums.

[Kattrup]

One for Kattrup, mainly - but also for anybody who questions whether LLewellyn opted for the abdominal wounds coming first:

Thank you, very interesting.