Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

You ended post 1288 (a response to my post) with :

'A partly open mind is better than a closed one, but....'

Not an invention; a quote. Do you say things and then immediately forget them?

No. Do you?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;420834]

The question here is: Was he 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 - from this hypothesis - was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

I have to agree.


Steve

[Elamarna]

In short but in toto:

Yes, I repeat the same arguments. That is because you repeat the same arguments.

You claim that Llewellyn was wrong, and I am saying that such a thing takes proof before it can even be considered, at least as long as there is nothing strange about what Llewellyn said.

So much for that.

You now say that nobody is suggesting that Llewellyn lied. Good. That´s one misconception gone.

It was only ever an idea of yours. Only your misconception.

What remains is that he was mistaken. You propose that we do not have any idea at all about his knowledge.

That is dead wrong, of course. We know that he was highly educated and a member of the Royal college this and that. That means that we are perfectly aware that he was a trained medico with extensive knowledge.

That is mid nineteenth century knowledge (when he achieved is qualifications) we have no idea if he had kept up to date on advances. To just recite A CV again proves nothing.

Furthermore, you are not suggesting that he was mistaking the Eastern Dutch flue for the Western Dutch flue, are you? No, you are suggesting that he was not able to tell a potentially lethal wound from an ordinary flesh wound, and you are suggesting that his stating that the killer had anatomical knowledge since he had hit all the vital parts in his attack on the abdominal area was wrong, and that it may in fact be that not an organ or abdominal vessel was hit at all.

That is poppycock, to put it mildly. It is insulting, unhistorical, unworthy blabbering and it firmly fixes you and your insights about these matters where they belong - on history´s scrap heap, with no sea view.

Firstly there is no evidence that any major abdomenial vessels were hit.
Secondly the idea that they were is based on YOUR interpretation that "vital areas" refers to the abdomen.
There is nothing in Llewellyn's testimony which indicates that.

It is not insulting to question if a medically professional is wrong, they are not immune from mistakes, why you see it as such I have no idea.

It is not unhistoric, it is taken from what the historical sources say
However so much of the theory you propose is very reliaent on YOUR interpretation of Llewellyn; not on established historical fact.

Unworthy blabbering, yes the term you use for any who disagree.

That little Rant including all of the above accusations really does highly how poor the arguments it is used to support are.

Protest all you will, but PLEASE find some evidence first.

We have all given evidence based on the sources, that you refuse to see that is your choice and ultimately your loss.

It's so strange when much of your argument is not based on fact but rather on lack of fact.
And once again it reminds me of Lee J Cobb character in "12 angry men"
When he continual shouts : " but you can't prove he didn't "

A case built on negatives.


Steve

[Kattrup]

Llewellyn changed his mind when he performed the post mortem, apparently.

If you take the time to read the articles, you will find they say the doctor made his statement after the postmortem.

[Mark Adam]

Quote Pierre: If someone could analyze the discourse about the cuts from the sources available and compare to the cuts on Chapman and Eddowes, we can perhaps see if he had planned to take out intestines and/or organs from Nichols too.

Hi Pierre

Actually that sounds like a good idea to me.....I wonder if a deep learning network trained on serial killers would clasiify them as being from the same hand....

..and wouldn´t this be a hint that CL disturbed JtR?
or am I wrong going in this direction...?
Mark

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question here is: Was he 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 - from this hypothesis - was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

Hi Pierre

The question of 'interruption' is a vital one for me. The whole case against CL, for me, originates with Robert Paul. The impression has been created that he 'interrupted' CL. Which he obviously didn't.

A comparison that I've tried to make involves John Davis when he found Annie Chapman. If at that moment someone had come into the passage and seen Davis standing above a horribly mutilated corpse he might have felt that he'd caught the killer in the act. He might have panicked and ran for the police. Davis would immediately have become a suspect. By the time that the police arrived, after being told that a man had been 'caught' with a mutilated corpse, it might have been said that Davis had had time to get rid of the knife.
As Davis wasn't 'disturbed' but went for the police, he's not a suspect.
He found the body at 6.00. We have Cadosch at 5.25. We don't need complicated medical arguments to show that time-wise Davis could have killed her. The fact that he lived there makes this unlikely in the extreme.

Yet CL is a suspect and Davis isn't. Davis definately 'could' have killed. We can't say that for CL.

Regards
Herlock

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;420832]

Nichols gives suggestion that she was prepared by killer to suffer same fate, however he did not do so, presumably because he was disturbed.

The question here is: Was he 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 - from this hypothesis - was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;420831

You do not answer my questions to you. And I do not want your answers either, since I do not trust them. But here is something for you to spend the weekend with:

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

Pierre

[Elamarna]

...which would mean based on the severity of the wounds hints of which came first can be deduced......makes sense

sorry to ask this one: were eddows and chapman abdominal regions much more damaged than Nichols? I tought them all to be at the same level so to say...
Mark

Hi Mark

There are big differences.

In Nichols while the abdomen is opened; the intestines are still in place, if protrudeing.
No body parts are removed from the body.
No organs are removed from the site.

Chapman and Eddowes, abdomenial cavity full opened (especially in the case of Chapman). Intestines removed from the body and left around it.
Uterus removed in both cases and taken from site, in Eddowes case one kidney also removed and taken by killer.

Nichols gives suggestion that she was prepared by killer to suffer same fate, however he did not do so, presumably because he was disturbed.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Of course as normal no attempt to actually answer the points you claim to be responding to by the quoted posted used.

Repeating the same statements over and over again, with no attempt to debate or rebutt the counter arguments made fully exposes the problems in your theory.

Your response claiming that this means that either Llewellyn did not know what he was talking about or he lied, can be seen as an attempt to suggest those arguing against are on morally questionable ground by suggesting such and is truly disingenuous.

Let us look at those options plus the one you do not mention.

1. He did not know what he was talking about?

We actually have no idea about his knowledge at all and such a debate is pointless. However his argument for the blood going into the loose tissue is unconvincing and debatable from a medical point of view. However that must be qualified by saying if he is talking about blood from vessels in the body wall, rather than the deep vessels you suggests, the idea is much more reasonable.
And of course Doctors can be wrong.

2. He lied?

This is a very emotive term and as far as I am aware No One has suggest that he deliberately made a statement he knew was untrue. It was his opinion, however it's how one interprets that opinion that is important.

And finally the point you do not include:

3. His testimony and how you interpret it.

It is your intpretation that vital areas means the abdomenial wounds; however there is nothing in the testimony which specifically points in that direction.

It is your opinion that we should accept wounds that are only postulated, that is theorized, as the cause of death; Over wounds that we know are fatal cuts to the Neck.
Such theorizing is pointless without evidence that the wounds actually existed.

To put it basically you see what you wish to see.


Steve

In short but in toto:

Yes, I repeat the same arguments. That is because you repeat the same arguments.

You claim that Llewellyn was wrong, and I am saying that such a thing takes proof before it can even be considered, at least as long as there is nothing strange about what Llewellyn said.

So much for that.

You now say that nobody is suggesting that Llewellyn lied. Good. That´s one misconception gone.

What remains is that he was mistaken. You propose that we do not have any idea at all about his knowledge.

That is dead wrong, of course. We know that he was highly educated and a member of the Royal college this and that. That means that we are perfectly aware that he was a trained medico with extensive knowledge.

Furthermore, you are not suggesting that he was mistaking the Eastern Dutch flue for the Western Dutch flue, are you? No, you are suggesting that he was not able to tell a potentially lethal wound from an ordinary flesh wound, and you are suggesting that his stating that the killer had anatomical knowledge since he had hit all the vital parts in his attack on the abdominal area was wrong, and that it may in fact be that not an organ or abdominal vessel was hit at all.

That is poppycock, to put it mildly. It is insulting, unhistorical, unworthy blabbering and it firmly fixes you and your insights about these matters where they belong - on history´s scrap heap, with no sea view.

Protest all you will, but PLEASE find some evidence first.

[Pierre]

...which would mean based on the severity of the wounds hints of which came first can be deduced......makes sense

sorry to ask this one: were eddows and chapman abdominal regions much more damaged than Nichols? I tought them all to be at the same level so to say...
Mark

Hi Mark,

he took organs from Chapman and Eddowes and he took out intestines and placed them on the shoulder.

This did not happen with Nichols. There were cuts and maybe only some protruding of intestines but no taking out and placing, and no taking of organs.

That is why we can hypothesize that he was about to do the same on Nichols as on the other two after her.

If someone could analyze the discourse about the cuts from the sources available and compare to the cuts on Chapman and Eddowes, we can perhaps see if he had planned to take out intestines and/or organs from Nichols too.

Llewellyn could not make these comparisons when he did the PM on Nichols, since Chapman and Eddowes were not murdered yet.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

So, was dr. Llewellyn of the opinion that Nicholl's abdomen was cut first?

No.



Lloyd's Weekly, September 2nd
Pall Mall Gazette
Daily News
Evening Standard
September 3rd:

Echo, September 1st


Does the good doctor ever change this stance? Not to my knowledge.

Wynne Baxter in his summation argues that Llewellyn may be understood as claiming that the abdominal wounds came first. But note the careful phrasing: "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion" - seems to, meaning he (Llewellyn) has not actually stated this; incline to, meaning even if he were of that opinion, he would not consider it certain.

At any rate, we have Fisherman's oft-repeated point that Baxter was not a medical man. When Baxter and Llewellyn disagree, we should therefore go with Llewellyn, who explicitly stated the throat was cut first.

Llewellyn changed his mind when he performed the post mortem, apparently. Baxter was very clear on how the doctor opted for the adminil wounds coming first. The reasonable conclusion is that he had by then seen the exact extent of the blood in the abdominal cavity.
As you may remember, initially, Llewellyn opted for the body having been carried where it was found on account of the dearth of blood visible.

If you take the time to check the death certificate of Nichols, you will find that it says that deat was due to syncope of blood owing to damage to the neck and abdomen.

The reason Baxter said that Llewellyn "seemed to incline" to the abdomen coming first is probably because he differed himself, nothing else. If Llewellyn had been saying throughout that the neck came first, we can be absilutely certain that Baxter would never have made his comment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do think this is the solution from an historical perspective, i.e. I think that the throat was cut first.

It would be very interesting to analyze the similarities and differences between the wounds on Nichols and the ones on Chapman and Eddowes.

The intestines and organs on Chapman and Eddowes were taken out. What indications is there that the killer was about to do the same on Nichols? What do the sources including narratives about the wounds indicate?

I think Steve is the right researcher for these questions.

Cheers, Pierre

Thanks for that Pierre.

Yes I think that I'd leave that task for Steve!

Regards
Herlock

[Pierre]

The question here is: Was he 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 - from this hypothesis - was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

I do think this is the solution from an historical perspective, i.e. I think that the throat was cut first.

It would be very interesting to analyze the similarities and differences between the wounds on Nichols and the ones on Chapman and Eddowes.

The intestines and organs on Chapman and Eddowes were taken out. What indications is there that the killer was about to do the same on Nichols? What do the sources including narratives about the wounds indicate?

I think Steve is the right researcher for these questions.

Cheers, Pierre

[Mark Adam]

The question here is: Was he 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 - from this hypothesis - was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

...which would mean based on the severity of the wounds hints of which came first can be deduced......makes sense

sorry to ask this one: were eddows and chapman abdominal regions much more damaged than Nichols? I tought them all to be at the same level so to say...
Mark