Lechmere The Psychopath

[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.

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

[Elamarna]

That is a VERY long post, considering it adds just about nothing new at all. I think saying that it is still a weird suggestion that Llewellyn was wrong and that you are right covers just about all that needs to be covered.

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

[Fisherman]

>Lechmere strangles Nichols ...<<

Where does Llewellyn state Mrs Nichols was strangled?
Are you saying Llewellyn was not very good?

Wrong again. Tock, tick.

[Fisherman]

>>I am sorry, Dusty, but you are not going to get any answer. <<

... and yet, here you are answering!?!

>>The paper reports are all we have, and if we were to totally discard every report that involves some material that seems at odds with the real picture, we would be left with no material at all, more or less.<<

The specific reports in question, as I pointed out, were all made pre-post mortem. At the time those reports were written, Llewellyn had only made a cursory 10 minute inspection of the abdominal wounds. Why would any serious researcher regard them as more reliable than the comments made by Llewellyn after the post mortem?

>>Anyway, once you imply that I leave things out of quotations, it brings a rye smile to my face... Itīs not like throwing stomes in a glass house, itīs like dropping mount Everest on a schnaps glass.<<

It's been, what, a year so far, since I've asked you to back up any such claim?
Tick, tock.


>>Youīve got nerve, Iīll give you that. But there my interest ends.<<

Not nerve, just the knowledge that I can back up my comments and you can't.
Tick, tock.

Wrong again. Tock, tick.

[Fisherman]

To be fair to those who question Llewellyn's competence and findings, he was a relative amateur in forensic medicine (which was very much in its infancy at the time). In 1888, of the four physicians involved, he was the only one without a significant forensic practice, with Bond and Phillips both having near (or more than) twenty years experience as police surgeons. It is thus no surprise that the local obstetrician was quickly dropped for the veterans: both local (Phillips) and central (Bond) and why did Brown invite his colleague Phillips? Because he was giving away 15-16 years experience to the older man. Yes, medicine then was far more generalist than today and the police surgeon role was mostly that of in house GP and occupational health doctor, but a man with little apparent forensic experience would likely flounder in a coroners court. Only one man saw the reports of all the autopsies (Bond) and a second performed/was present at the majority (Phillips). I would thus trust Bond or Phillips over Llewellyn.

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]

No change.
Better that your intreptation of him. That's all.
If you cannot see the difference I am sorry.


Steve

No, no, no - itīs me who is sorry. And have a bloody good reason to be.

[Fisherman]

The suggestion that others believed Llewellyn had lied was what I responded to. Not that you believed such.
And as far as I know the idea that others believe Llewellyn lied has only been raised by you.
Thus it is your misconception that others believed he lied.

The responses are now very poor Fish it must be said.



That depends on how one defines early, mid and late.
I agree that is subjective, But I note he gained most of his qualification by 1876, that means the majority of the training occurred in the third quarter of the century. 2nd and 3rd quarters can be termed mid.



If you mean the point that we do not know how upto date his knowledge was it is a major consideration.



And again there appears to be a willfull misunderstanding of the arguments made.

The suggestion is that the vital parts mentioned were not in the abdomen, that Llewellyn was referring to the Neck. Why do you give a false impression on what others suggest?

No one has said Llewellyn confused flesh wounds with deeper wounds. I really do hate to tell you but cutting the omentum is not the result of a flesh wound.

Did Paul really say that?
I recall he did not rule such out, but suggested such was unlikely in his opinion.
In his last post on the subject #1368 in this thread, he still says he considers it unlikely.
That is somewhat different from you seem to be suggesting.



No. It was not. You read it to say that others do not. The Neck makes far more sense.



That is not what is being said. You are well aware of that, and these attempts to divert are getting truly desperate.

No one has said he confused a flesh wound with a deeper cut!
The deepest recorded cut is to the omentum, that is not a flesh cut!!
Why not read what is posted rather than what you wish other believe to have been said it will be far more productive for you.

The debate is over where the "vital areas" were.

You believe in the abdomen for which there is no historical support, others the Neck, the fatal wounds there are an established historical fact.




Such is a personal insult under the rules of this forum. Please do not expect me to take anymore. Even my patience has it limits.



One is not applying such to Llewellyn. And even if one were it is not unhistoric , maybe itt would be better to use the correct terms?



I correct it to many who disagree with you.



No it's based on you misinterpreting source after source.
And using the line of argument which amounts to :"you can't prove its not"



Read all the posts, the main argument is you are wrong, it how you interpret Llewellyn.

He does not say all the vital parts are in the abdomen, you do.

He is not convinced himself that the abdomen is first, it appears to be because of the apparent lack of blood. Indeed his argument that the blood as gone into the loose tissue is only unrealistic if view from your perspective that the major vessels are cut . It is you who claims that he is conclusive about the abdomen being first.

This is now a sucssesion of post with no facts presented to rebutt the points put to you.
The cupboard must be getting bare.



Steve

That is a VERY long post, considering it adds just about nothing new at all. I think saying that it is still a weird suggestion that Llewellyn was wrong and that you are right covers just about all that needs to be covered.

[Fisherman]

I have nothing to add to the discourse other than to point out to Christer that if someone posted something like this directed at him we'd see a deluge of "Fisherman" posts demanding respect, decrying a lack of civility, demands for an apology, and threats to stop posting deference is paid and admiration given. So...if someone responds in kind, be sure you're prepared.

Yes, Patrick, I will jump up and down and tear at my hair while frothing at the mouth if somebody even DARES to criticize me. Promise!

[Fisherman]

I think that anyone could tell that I'm not proposing Davis as the ripper. The point that I'm making is this: the whole of the case against CL is based on Paul.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was the killer interrupted?

In a case where the wounds were hypothetically less extensive than expected compared to the cases of Chapman and Eddowes (outdoors) the example of "less extensive" is historically established only for the abdomen and not for the throat.

Therefore, the throat was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

Makes sense to me

Regards
Herlock

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;420491

I can guarantee you that I find it a lot more tiresome when people do not recognize this simple truth: Doctors know what they are talking about, and when they say that an organ or vessel is damaged, it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged.

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/...eath_in_the_us

Researchers: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...=.ce39f842d150


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

[Pierre]

That will depend a whole lot on who you ask, Mark!

As for the logic of the neck cut coming first, try this:

Lechmere strangles Nichols, lowers her to the ground, and does what he very much desires to do - goes to work on her abdomen. Suddenly he hears approaching steps, realizes that whoever it is will hear him if he moves, so he decides to stay put and bluff it out. But before he does so, he realizes that he may need to ensure that the woman is dead, so that she cannot utter anything at all. In order to secure that, he cuts her neck last. That is why there is no arterial spray and why there is not much blood at all under her neck - the bulk of it has already left the arteries and veins in her abdomen and sunk into the abdominal cavity.

Another logic. It works for me.

Was the killer interrupted?

In a case where the wounds were hypothetically less extensive than expected compared to the cases of Chapman and Eddowes (outdoors) the example of "less extensive" is historically established only for the abdomen and not for the throat.

Therefore, the throat was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Herlock Sholmes:
Part of the medical debate, I believe, is about whether the abdominal wounds came before the throats wounds (as per Llewelyn) or visa versa?

I really can't comment from a viewpoint of any medical knowledge but I'll comment from one of ignorance.
Which is the more likely of the two variants? My lack of medical knowledge gives me something in common with CL.

That must be a guess only, since none of us know to what extent Lechmere was medically versed.

Therefore if you have your victim, you've put your hand over her mouth to prevent her crying out, she's still making a noise though and you need to stop it. Is it likely that a killer would attack the abdomen first? He would have no idea which organ would cause death quickest or where that organ was located. He would also have no idea how long it would take. And so, to stop the noise and stop her breathing surely it's obvious that a killer would go for the throat first ?

If it went down that way, yes. But what if he strangled her, then lowered her body to the ground and started cutting only after that. You see, that changes the game plan.
You could say the exact same about Tabram - surely the killer FIRST pierced her heart to ensure death, and only then turned to stabbing her about the abdomen. Why deal a deadly blow if you donīt deal it first?

Itīs the exact same thinking. But Killeen was very clear on how that deadly blow through the sternum came LAST.

Why canīt things be simple, eh?

I'm quite prepared to be 'shot down' here Steve but I've never understood why someone would believe that a killer would go abdomen first.

Well, Llewellyn believed so because the medical evidence made a case for it. And I believe it because Llewellyn said that he thought the abdomen came first.
What others think and why, I cannot say, but for Steve, who thinks he is better informed about the matter than Llewellyn was. Itīs just a guess n his behalf, since he has nothing at all to prove it by, just a feeling. But there you go.

From the point of a medical non starter (myself and CL) it appears to make no sense at all.

As I said, letīs not try and fix Lechmereīs level of medical understanding, since we will not be able to do that. What we may need to weigh in is the preferences of the killer - what was his aim with what he did, which cuts were of importance to him, which cuts answered to his urges, the ones to the neck or the ones to the abdomen. And if you have a real urge, what do you cut first. That simple question may not be irrelevant in all of this.

Was the killer interrupted?

In a case where the wounds were hypothetically less extensive than expected compared to the cases of Chapman and Eddowes (outdoors) the example of "less extensive" is historically established only for the abdomen and not for the throat.

Therefore, the throat was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

[drstrange169]

>Lechmere strangles Nichols ...<<

Where does Llewellyn state Mrs Nichols was strangled?
Are you saying Llewellyn was not very good?

[drstrange169]

>>I am sorry, Dusty, but you are not going to get any answer. <<

... and yet, here you are answering!?!

>>The paper reports are all we have, and if we were to totally discard every report that involves some material that seems at odds with the real picture, we would be left with no material at all, more or less.<<

The specific reports in question, as I pointed out, were all made pre-post mortem. At the time those reports were written, Llewellyn had only made a cursory 10 minute inspection of the abdominal wounds. Why would any serious researcher regard them as more reliable than the comments made by Llewellyn after the post mortem?

>>Anyway, once you imply that I leave things out of quotations, it brings a rye smile to my face... Itīs not like throwing stomes in a glass house, itīs like dropping mount Everest on a schnaps glass.<<

It's been, what, a year so far, since I've asked you to back up any such claim?
Tick, tock.


>>Youīve got nerve, Iīll give you that. But there my interest ends.<<

Not nerve, just the knowledge that I can back up my comments and you can't.
Tick, tock.