Lechmere The Psychopath

[kjab3112]

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.

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

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421008]

He would become the man who stood close to the victim only to disappear afterwards. And that would not look good at all.

Who "would have" seen the killer standing close to the victim only to disappear?

[Fisherman]

A strange reply.

If CL had found the body and gone straight to the police, without Paul arriving on the scene, I don't think that we would be discussing him now. It's because Paul arrived on the scene which allowed you to say the he disturbed CL. You've even said the same in your reply! 'Paul's role seems to have been that he made Lechmere come forward."

He didn't. As has been stated numerous times CL had ample time to walk away but he didn't. He chose to wait for Paul to arrive.

The difference is important.

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.

[Fisherman]

No the real issue is your intpretation.




If he did what does it matter. Non existent presumed data cannot be used to support a view point.




Of course you would not, as the various arguments are questioned and shown to be lacking in substance, anything which cannot be disproved is bound to be championed.

However in the last 48 hrs you have supplied testimony stating that details were given of the wounds, which have not survived; and now we see a a suggestion of a possible alternative to this.

It's desperate stuff Fisherman.

Steve

Here we go again! When I suggest something that cannot be proven, it is "desperate".

But when you suggest that Llewellyn was wrong on some very basic stuff, and do so on no proof at all, it is apparently "reasoned" arguing.

Iīll be damned if I can see the difference? If anything, I at least have a good case, whereas you have a really bad one.

Why does that not count?

[Fisherman]

You have a touching, if somewhat misplaced, belief in the infallibility of authority figures, Fish.

Maybe you have not read the former posts on the thread, Gareth? I have pointed out before that it is not a question of finding anybody infallible. Making that mistake is something some people easily and VERY willingly do, it seems.

In this case, a small addition of subtlety is called for. As I clearly have stated, I do not think that Llewellyn or anybody else is infallible.

But I DO think that LLewellyn is a lot more likely to be right than wrong, not least when he is dealing with very basic things.

I think, for example, that he is very unlikely to mistake a cut to the omentum for a deadly wound.

I also think that when he says that the vital parts have been hit, they probably HAVE been hit.

Maybe you disagree with these points, I donīt know.

I also believe that when somebody says that something a person does shows anatomical knowledge, there will have been more options than just the one. Cutting a neck down to the bone does not mean that anatomical knowledge has been shown - when ALL the tissue and vessels are cut, the killer has made no choice, and has not made it evident that he chose to cut A because it would kill, but omitted to cut B because it wold not serve that purpose.

I am therefore convinced that LLewellyn was not speaking of the neck cuts when he spoke of anatomical knowledge, but instead of the abdomen.

If you give it some afterthought you may also realize that he said that the abdomonal cuts were, taken on their own, enough to kill, each and every one of them. Can you see how that fits the bill of the killer having hit the vital parts, whereas he could well have missed them if not anatomically versed?
That does not apply for the neck wound, where cutting one artery and the windpipe would have sufficed and moreover, THAT would have evinced anatomical insights. Like in the Stride case.

Anyway, if you could desist from claiming that I think that somebody is infallible, it would be great. It is not true, you see, and we do not wish to spread false information about somebody, do we?

Thanks in advance!

[Fisherman]

And it goes on.

Paul gives his view, you don't like it. Therefore you keep asking the same questions over and over using different wordings in an attempt to get an answe you can use.

Now what is funny is that only yesterday you suggested Paul was almost agreeing with you.



Steve

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...?

[Fisherman]

If you actually check you will see my contribution is less than the quotes from your post.

And you ignore the major point. It is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Llewellyn that is the major issue NOT Llewellyn himself.

However Paul's Post puts his experience into perspective.

And I have to say one more post that says nothing, no fact based rebuttal, just personal opinion which is not supported by any data. How sad, but also how very predictable.

Steve

You really should not find it sad and predictable, since you do the exact same thing: You push your personal opinion that Llewellyn was wrong and you cannot support it with any data.

Maybe itīs a good thing when you do it and a bad thing when I do it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But this is your main hypothesis for the whole case: Lechmere was "found with the body", "found with a freshly slain victim" - by Paul.

So Paulīs "role" for your narrative is essential. It is to "reveal" Lechmere as "the killer".

Pierre

Thank you Pierre.

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no idea where you got that from, ad it is of course a total no-starter. Pauls role in it all seems to have been that he made Lechmere come forward, but that does not men that the case against the carman is based on Paul. It is based on a large variety of things. And Paul had not very much to do with it.

A strange reply.

If CL had found the body and gone straight to the police, without Paul arriving on the scene, I don't think that we would be discussing him now. It's because Paul arrived on the scene which allowed you to say the he disturbed CL. You've even said the same in your reply! 'Paul's role seems to have been that he made Lechmere come forward."

He didn't. As has been stated numerous times CL had ample time to walk away but he didn't. He chose to wait for Paul to arrive.

The difference is important.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;420941]

The one and only thing that is of real interest in all of this is the question whether Llewellyn was even remotely likely to make the kind of errors that is suggested.

I donīt think the suggestion is a valid one at all; far from it, in fact.

Researchers: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...=.ce39f842d150

From the wrong diagnosis to the wrong prescription, medical errors kill as many as 100,000 people a year in this country—and injure thousands more.

http://www.oprah.com/health/what-hap...#ixzz4mF2kr1WV

Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/...ird_leading_ca use_of_death_in_the_us

So of course Steve is right. Doctors make mistakes. And they make a lot of mistakes.

And this is in our time!

Pierre

[Pierre]

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.

Researchers: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...=.ce39f842d150

From the wrong diagnosis to the wrong prescription, medical errors kill as many as 100,000 people a year in this country—and injure thousands more.

http://www.oprah.com/health/what-hap...#ixzz4mF2kr1WV

Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/...ird_leading_ca use_of_death_in_the_us

So of course Steve is right. Doctors make mistakes. And they make a lot of mistakes.

You, Fisherman, have no idea of what you are saying, and your invented figures are WRONG.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

The one and only thing that is of real interest in all of this is the question whether Llewellyn was even remotely likely to make the kind of errors that is suggested.

No the real issue is your intpretation.

I donīt think the suggestion is a valid one at all; far from it, in fact.

Paul says that Llewellyn was replaced by Phillips and Bond, but I do not think that should be in any way put forward as stregthening Steveīs case - I think that ANY medico would be replaced by Phillips and Bond, because those were the senior men available.

One thing that has not been said before, but needs saying, is that we know that Phillips was very reluctant to divulge the details of the damage done to Chapman, and had to be hard pressed by the coroner to do so. Could it be that Llwellyn did the exact same thing - suppressed the gory details on account of a wish to not to "thwart justice" as Phillips put it?

If he did what does it matter. Non existent presumed data cannot be used to support a view point.

I would not rule such a thing out myself.

Of course you would not, as the various arguments are questioned and shown to be lacking in substance, anything which cannot be disproved is bound to be championed.

However in the last 48 hrs you have supplied testimony stating that details were given of the wounds, which have not survived; and now we see a a suggestion of a possible alternative to this.

It's desperate stuff Fisherman.

Steve

[Pierre]

I have no idea where you got that from, ad it is of course a total no-starter. Pauls role in it all seems to have been that he made Lechmere come forward, but that does not men that the case against the carman is based on Paul. It is based on a large variety of things. And Paul had not very much to do with it.

But this is your main hypothesis for the whole case: Lechmere was "found with the body", "found with a freshly slain victim" - by Paul.

So Paulīs "role" for your narrative is essential. It is to "reveal" Lechmere as "the killer".

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

The one and only thing that is of real interest in all of this is the question whether Llewellyn was even remotely likely to make the kind of errors that is suggested.

I donīt think the suggestion is a valid one at all; far from it, in fact.

You have a touching, if somewhat misplaced, belief in the infallibility of authority figures, Fish.

[Fisherman]

The one and only thing that is of real interest in all of this is the question whether Llewellyn was even remotely likely to make the kind of errors that is suggested.

I donīt think the suggestion is a valid one at all; far from it, in fact.

Paul says that Llewellyn was replaced by Phillips and Bond, but I do not think that should be in any way put forward as stregthening Steveīs case - I think that ANY medico would be replaced by Phillips and Bond, because those were the senior men available.

One thing that has not been said before, but needs saying, is that we know that Phillips was very reluctant to divulge the details of the damage done to Chapman, and had to be hard pressed by the coroner to do so. Could it be that Llwellyn did the exact same thing - suppressed the gory details on account of a wish to not to "thwart justice" as Phillips put it?

I would not rule such a thing out myself.