Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

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

This is from Morning Advertiserīs inquest report on Chapman:
The Coroner: There is a distinct variance in the medical evidence in this case from that given in the case of the woman Nichols. The doctor in that case was strongly of opinion that the wounds in the abdomen were inflicted before the throat was cut. In this case Dr. Phillips says the throat was cut first.

In Abberline's report of 19th September it says Llewellyn expressed an opinion that they were inflicted before the throat was cut."

And here is another quote from the Chapman inquest, telling us what aplies:

The Foreman: Is there anything to indicate that the crime in the case of the woman Nicholls was perpetrated with the same object as this?
The Coroner: There is a difference in this respect, at all events, that the medical expert is of opinion that, in the case of Nicholls, the mutilations were made first.

This should put that particular question to bed, I hope.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: I'm sorry Fish but there you go again. 'Much as he contributed to the flushing out of `Lechmere.' How many times?

As many as it takes, obviously.

He didn't 'flush' CL out. CL had, as I've said numerous time, ample time to walk, or even run away to freedom. Absolute, definate, categorical freedom. But he didn't. He waited for Paul to arrive. He called him over. He showed him the body. Why? Because he had absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. This is about as obvious as it gets I'm afraid.

He stayed put. If he was the killer, he could not anticipate that Paul would tell the story in the papers. Once he did, that flushed Lechmere out.
Thatīs how it works, Sherlock.

You are basically saying that no criminal will ever stay put, they will always and categorically flee the scene, regardless if they feel that it involves great risk to get caught.
Thatīs not how it works, Sherlock.

The absolute majority of criminals wil flee or try to flee. Some will not. There is no established ratio, but it is there.

'But if he had not come forward....' what can you possibly mean 'he would not become uninteresting...' He would not have been 'interesting' at all because if he had not come forward no one would have ever heard of him! The only reason that we have heard of him is that he did come forward. I'm utterly baffled (or am I?) how you can find this suspicious.

Robert Paul gave an interview, remember? That is how we would have heard of him.

If he had fled, we donīt know what would have happened. If he had succeded in fleeing, we would probably not have heard of him. If he had gotten caught, we would have heard of him.
We will never know what applies, but we can certainly not work from any certainty that he would have succeeded in fleeing, because that would equal the misconception that all criminals flee.

If they KNEW they would get away uncaught every time, you would have a point. Since this does not apply, your point becomes a very wobbly one.

Everything about CL's actions that night scream 'innocent witness.

No it does not. But you may want to ponder how a killer who has decided to bluff it out as is suggested for Lechmere, may have been quite unlikely to show Paul his knife, to rub his own face in Nicholsī blood, to tell Mizen "the bitch got what she begged for" or something like that. Beleive it or not, but a killer bluffing it ut will do all he can to give the impression of an innocent witness. But there may be details where this does not work. Like how he disagreed with Mizen about what was said between the two men - if he lied to Mizen, the best he could do in retrospect would be not to acknowledge it. For example.

[Fisherman]

I've attached (hopefully) Llewellyn's entry in the 1890 medical directory. He took over the Whitechapel Road practice from his father and worked there with his brother. Although a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, his entry clearly demonstrates he was an obstetrician.

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 also think that the fact that Llewellyn became Medical Officer to E and EC Divisions, and City Mission tells us that he had other qualifications than the obstetrician part up his sleeve. Your clipping seems to tell us that he was a house surgeon at the London Hospital from 1875.

But I think that his speciality tells us that he would probably have checked Nicholsī body for the uterus.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: It does not follow that Llewellyn meant "all the vital parts (in the area attacked)" - he simply says that the killer seemed to attack all the vital parts, period. That being the case, it does not follow that he meant "all the vital parts in the abdomen" - because, frankly, the "parts" in the abdomen aren't quite as vital as the "parts" in the head and thorax, especially if you want to kill someone quickly.

Llewellyn would not have to say that the killer "seemed" to atack all the vital parts in the neck, though - it went without saying, since he cut all the tissue and vessels down to the bone. To say that this involved a seeming attack on the vital parts would be disingenuous.
And when you say that he said this, "period", you are wrong - he ALSO said that it involved anatomical knowledge. Once again, that remark would be disingeuous if he spoke of the neck.

Besides if, as Llewellyn says, the killer's attacking of "all the vital parts" was somehow indicative of his knowledge of anatomy, how does Nichols' abdomen end up with such apparently random wounds? What on earth would prompt Llewellyn, or anybody else, to draw conclusions about the killer's anatomical knowledge on the basis of the abstract mess he made of Nichols' belly?

Ooopla, Gareth - you donīt know how the wounds looked, do you? So how can you say that it was an abstract mess?
No matter at all how it looked, if the cutting involved damaging all the vital parts in the abdomen, the apparition of the wounds would be very secondary to the fact that Llewellyn was right about hitting the vital parts. End of.

You seem disinclined to pursue your former line of claiming that I think LLewellyn was infallible. Thatīs always something. It would be better if you admitted that it was a wrongful thing to say, but I guess one can only wish for so much.

[Fisherman]

In response to inquest question where was asked if any organs were missing after the discovery of Chapman's missing uterus

"Mr. Llewellyn, surgeon, recalled, said that since the last inquiry he had been to the mortuary and again examined deceased. She had an old scar on the forehead. No part of the viscera was missing. He had nothing to add to his previous evidence." Times Sept 18th 1888

If he had performed a competent forensic autopsy initially, surely he would not have needed to recheck if organs were missing!

I donīt think this tells us that he was uncertain whether the uterus was there or not! I find it a lot more likely that Llewellyn, in light of the added kmowledge about Chapman, was directed to make a further check in order to see if there were any signs of the killer having made any effort to excise any part of the viscera. It would reasonably not have been done on his own initiative, and I donīt think it would have been grounded on him having felt that he may have missed something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Strange? The only strange thing is to suggest that Paul is the only reason Lechmere is under suspicion.

Much as he contributed to flushing Lechmere out, the reasons for suspicion against Lechmere are a large collection of matters, most of them not tied to Paul in any shape or form.

The point you seem to be wanting to make is that Paulīs role in the drama was important to bring Lechmere to light, and yes, that is true to a significant degree.

But if Lechmere had NOT come forward, he would not become uninteresting as a suspect anyway. He would become the man who stood close to the victim only to disappear afterwards. And that would not look good at all.

I'm sorry Fish but there you go again. 'Much as he contributed to the flushing out of `Lechmere.' How many times? He didn't 'flush' CL out. CL had, as I've said numerous time, ample time to walk, or even run away to freedom. Absolute, definate, categorical freedom. But he didn't. He waited for Paul to arrive. He called him over. He showed him the body. Why? Because he had absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. This is about as obvious as it gets I'm afraid.

'But if he had not come forward....' what can you possibly mean 'he would not become uninteresting...' He would not have been 'interesting' at all because if he had not come forward no one would have ever heard of him! The only reason that we have heard of him is that he did come forward. I'm utterly baffled (or am I?) how you can find this suspicious.

Everything about CL's actions that night scream 'innocent witness.'

[Sam Flynn]

But do we even know how far his experience stretched?

Perhaps "dilated" would be a more apposite word than "stretched", in Llewellyn's case.

[kjab3112]

Although Phillips register entry is uninfomative, here's his 1897 obituary

[kjab3112]

And Brown

[kjab3112]

Also compare and contrast the entries for Bond and Brown. Phillips seems a more reserved and less self advertising type of person listing only his name and address

[ChrisGeorge]

I've attached (hopefully) Llewellyn's entry in the 1890 medical directory. He took over the Whitechapel Road practice from his father and worked there with his brother. Although a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, his entry clearly demonstrates he was an obstetrician.

Thanks, kjab!

Chris

[kjab3112]

But do we even know how far his experience stretched? Do we know wich cases he had handled previously and what they had involved? Would we not need to have that information before we can say to what lenghts his experience went?
At the time of the Whitechapel murders, he had around 15-20 years experience of matters medical, surgery included. That is no small thing.

I've attached (hopefully) Llewellyn's entry in the 1890 medical directory. He took over the Whitechapel Road practice from his father and worked there with his brother. Although a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, his entry clearly demonstrates he was an obstetrician.

[kjab3112]

What evidence are you using to suggest that LLwellyn could not say if the uterus was present.[/B]

In response to inquest question where was asked if any organs were missing after the discovery of Chapman's missing uterus

"Mr. Llewellyn, surgeon, recalled, said that since the last inquiry he had been to the mortuary and again examined deceased. She had an old scar on the forehead. No part of the viscera was missing. He had nothing to add to his previous evidence." Times Sept 18th 1888

If he had performed a competent forensic autopsy initially, surely he would not have needed to recheck if organs were missing!

[Sam Flynn]

I think the reasonable suggestion is that Llewellyn meant that all the vital parts in the area attacked were hit, and to me, that means that he spoke of the vital parts of the abdomen.

It does not follow that Llewellyn meant "all the vital parts (in the area attacked)" - he simply says that the killer seemed to attack all the vital parts, period. That being the case, it does not follow that he meant "all the vital parts in the abdomen" - because, frankly, the "parts" in the abdomen aren't quite as vital as the "parts" in the head and thorax, especially if you want to kill someone quickly.

Besides if, as Llewellyn says, the killer's attacking of "all the vital parts" was somehow indicative of his knowledge of anatomy, how does Nichols' abdomen end up with such apparently random wounds? What on earth would prompt Llewellyn, or anybody else, to draw conclusions about the killer's anatomical knowledge on the basis of the abstract mess he made of Nichols' belly?

[Fisherman]

kjab3112: Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck

Agreed, unless the aorta was severed. But to me, the more vital question is whether the abdominal wounds were only wounds to the omentum. If so, would they be deadly? Not very likely, is it?

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

I think the reasonable suggestion is that Llewellyn meant that all the vital parts in the area attacked were hit, and to me, that means that he spoke of the vital parts of the abdomen.
What evidence are you using to suggest that LLwellyn could not say if the uterus was present...?

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

And if it would kill over time, what would be the cause of death? And would Llewellyn not be aware of these matters? Plus when you say that the abdominal wounds would probably be enough to kill, whereas you say that the omentum wounds would not do that - what kind of damage do you envisage was done to the abdomen that would kill...?

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

But do we even know how far his experience stretched? Do we know wich cases he had handled previously and what they had involved? Would we not need to have that information before we can say to what lenghts his experience went?
At the time of the Whitechapel murders, he had around 15-20 years experience of matters medical, surgery included. That is no small thing.