Lechmere The Psychopath

[Rainbow]

I didn't put the words 'before' and 'sure' in the text.

SO as you said, arguing is pointless.

[Elamarna]

This is not a describtion of just a one single movement that can be confused with a twitch, he is talking about a slight breath , and I think we all know what does breathing look like.

Three points

1. Are those Paul's words or those of the journalist?

2. How do you know it is more than a single movement?
the description conveys a very weak movement that is all.

3. Paul talks of feeling movement , not of seeing it, so why say we all know what breathing looks like.

If we accept it was breathing and at present there is nothing to conclusively rule such out, it would be very slow and very shallow movements, such that he could only detect by touch.
Neither of us have the necessary expertise to make definitive statements so why not just sit back and wait rather than make continued statements which may be wrong just as the following was:

"Since the Endotracheal of the victim was recently severed, and still there was a trace of air movement because of the altered pressure in her chest. that means she couldn't have been killed more than a couple of minutes before!"


Steve

[Elamarna]

I didn't put the words 'before' and 'sure' in the text.

SO as you said, arguing is pointless.

No it's how one interprets, to suggest "before" is specific and "while" is general shows a strange view of English.

Yes completely pointless.


Steve

[Rainbow]

How it looks like , I mean how you feel it, when you put your two hands on the chest

I know how you feel Steve, it is diffecult for you now, I understand that, you were fighting against logic, and now you see where this did lead you to

or you can maybe explain how breathing does seem to be ?

Pulling clothes down while putting his hands on her chest at the same time huh ?! it is not clear is it ?!

[Rainbow]

May your great english help you explaining pulling clothes down 'while' putting his hand on her chest


I will pray for you

he he

[Elamarna]

May your great english help you explaining pulling clothes down 'while' putting his hand on her chest


I will pray for you

he he

What is the problem with that pull with one hand and secure the bodyTo provide resistance with the other.

Why is that so strange a concept to you?


Steve

[Elamarna]

How it looks like , I mean how you feel it, when you put your two hands on the chest

I know how you feel Steve, it is diffecult for you now, I understand that, you were fighting against logic, and now you see where this did lead you to

or you can maybe explain how breathing does seem to be ?

Pulling clothes down while putting his hands on her chest at the same time huh ?! it is not clear is it ?!

Again you are under the misapprehension that I am anti Lechmere. I am anti some of the arguments made to support the case, and do not accept a link to the torso murders but I have always said he is viable for the Nichols case.

Does that mean I think he did it? No

Does it mean I think he could have? Yes.

During this debate I have not said I do not believe Nichols was still breathing but I considered it unlikely.
That may change when we know how long she could have carried on breathing for.


Steve

[Rainbow]

SEE THE POINT ?!

You will continue fighting against logic till the end,

If I put one hand on the chest, and pull with the second, I will know directly, that my pulling of the clothes caused this movement in the chest, even a child of 2 or 3 months will notice this.

and with a report saying clearly 'before' that will give an end to this silly idea

but again, continue arguing Steve, that is the best you can

[Henry Flower]

May your great english help you explaining pulling clothes down 'while' putting his hand on her chest


I will pray for you

he he

Come now Rainbow, this was turning into an interesting thread, let's please not get snarky with each other

We all know what breathing looks like? Hmmm.

But it's not that simple. Do we all, for instance, know what agonal breathing looks like?

And which part of breathing did you mean? Did you mean the slight flaring of nostrils, or the rise and fall of the chest, or the slight movement of air from an exhaling mouth or nose? Yes, we may all know what those things 'look' like, but in terms of looking, Paul found none of them.

The things that 'look like' breathing were not present. He had to touch. He 'felt a slight breath' - but it's not possible to 'feel' a slight breath by touching the chest, one can only 'feel' a movement of the chest. If I put my hand on my ribs to try to feel the intercostal muscles contracting to expand the chest cavity while I breathe normally (and especially if I breathe very, very shallowly) it is a barely perceptible movement. Anyone who has fretted over a sleeping newborn infant in a darkened room will know how scarily difficult it can sometimes be to detect any sign of life at all, by any of the senses.

If you are going to insist on taking the journalist's words literally as Gospel, let's be clear: 'a slight breath' is singular, not plural, not ongoing. In other words, Paul felt a movement. Movement is not breath. He never detected breath. He interpreted a single movement.

Don't get me wrong: reading the reports I'm inclined to think he did indeed detect a slight trace of breathing. But I wouldn't put money on it, and I wouldn't convict a man based on that hunch. I agree absolutely with Steve: only an expert qualified in the field can tell us how long breathing could be expected to be detectable in those circumstances, given those injuries. And I also don't doubt that he's right too when he says that an expert's answer is likely to take the form of an envelope that has room in it for sceptics and for believers.

So I don't know why we feel the need to attack people or claim that they are fighting against logic when the simple fact of the matter is that the reports don't quite agree with each other and therefore *none of us KNOW* what exactly happened after Paul discovered Lech and Nichols.

[Elamarna]

SEE THE POINT ?!

You will continue fighting against logic till the end,

If I put one hand on the chest, and pull with the second, I will know directly, that my pulling of the clothes caused this movement in the chest, even a child of 2 or 3 months will notice this.

and with a report saying clearly 'before' that will give an end to this silly idea

but again, continue arguing Steve, that is the best you can

No one as suggested that the pulling of the clothing was what Paul felt, only you!

My suggestion was the attempt at pulling the dress may have caused a response from the body.

The issue was did he feel movement before he attempted to adjust the dress,

You produced one source which said before. I produced 1 saying while he was doing it.

Those are not the same.



Steve

[Rainbow]

Come now Rainbow, this was turning into an interesting thread, let's please not get snarky with each other

We all know what breathing looks like? Hmmm.

But it's not that simple. Do we all, for instance, know what agonal breathing looks like?

And which part of breathing did you mean? Did you mean the slight flaring of nostrils, or the rise and fall of the chest, or the slight movement of air from an exhaling mouth or nose? Yes, we may all know what those things 'look' like, but in terms of looking, Paul found none of them.

The things that 'look like' breathing were not present. He had to touch. He 'felt a slight breath' - but it's not possible to 'feel' a slight breath by touching the chest, one can only 'feel' a movement of the chest. If I put my hand on my ribs to try to feel the intercostal muscles contracting to expand the chest cavity while I breathe normally (and especially if I breathe very, very shallowly) it is a barely perceptible movement. Anyone who has fretted over a sleeping newborn infant in a darkened room will know how scarily difficult it can sometimes be to detect any sign of life at all, by any of the senses.

If you are going to insist on taking the journalist's words literally as Gospel, let's be clear: 'a slight breath' is singular, not plural, not ongoing. In other words, Paul felt a movement. Movement is not breath. He never detected breath. He interpreted a single movement.

Don't get me wrong: reading the reports I'm inclined to think he did indeed detect a slight trace of breathing. But I wouldn't put money on it, and I wouldn't convict a man based on that hunch.

Again Henry, I ment by how it looks like, how you feel it when you put your hands on the chest.

and 'breath' like that of a 2 or 3 months old child, doesn't mean a single movement, you cannot make such a likening with only one single isolated movement of the chest.

[Elamarna]

Come now Rainbow, this was turning into an interesting thread, let's please not get snarky with each other

We all know what breathing looks like? Hmmm.

But it's not that simple. Do we all, for instance, know what agonal breathing looks like?

And which part of breathing did you mean? Did you mean the slight flaring of nostrils, or the rise and fall of the chest, or the slight movement of air from an exhaling mouth or nose? Yes, we may all know what those things 'look' like, but in terms of looking, Paul found none of them.

The things that 'look like' breathing were not present. He had to touch. He 'felt a slight breath' - but it's not possible to 'feel' a slight breath by touching the chest, one can only 'feel' a movement of the chest. If I put my hand on my ribs to try to feel the intercostal muscles contracting to expand the chest cavity while I breathe normally (and especially if I breathe very, very shallowly) it is a barely perceptible movement. Anyone who has fretted over a sleeping newborn infant in a darkened room will know how scarily difficult it can sometimes be to detect any sign of life at all, by any of the senses.

If you are going to insist on taking the journalist's words literally as Gospel, let's be clear: 'a slight breath' is singular, not plural, not ongoing. In other words, Paul felt a movement. Movement is not breath. He never detected breath. He interpreted a single movement.

Don't get me wrong: reading the reports I'm inclined to think he did indeed detect a slight trace of breathing. But I wouldn't put money on it, and I wouldn't convict a man based on that hunch.

Nice post .

I was also thinking this had been going so much better.

Been checking both online and with old textbooks to see if I can make sense of this.
It looks as if the info Fish posted about electrical activity stopping in 20-30 seconds is correct . It is published in several places.

Logically if there is no signal telling the lungs to breath in breathing should stop around that period. And that would probably mean Paul could not have felt breath movements.

However this is medicine not logic and we need an expert to help is.

Hopefully next time Kjab3112 logs on he will help us on this.

Steve

[Rainbow]

No one as suggested that the pulling of the clothing was what Paul felt, only you!

My suggestion was the attempt at pulling the dress may have caused a response from the body.

The issue was did he feel movement before he attempted to adjust the dress,

You produced one source which said before. I produced 1 saying while he was doing it.

Those are not the same.



Steve

As I said, 'while' is a general word, those two activates cannot happen together at the exact same time.

'before' is the specific word.

[Henry Flower]

Again Henry, I ment by how it looks like, how you feel it when you put your hands on the chest.

and 'breath' like that of a 2 or 3 months old child, doesn't mean a single movement, you cannot make such a likening with only one single isolated movement of the chest.

This is why I raised the issue of a children. I have a three month old son. It is absolutely true that you can approach him in the darkened room, see no signs of life or movement or breath, hear no signs of life or movement or breath, and you can put your hand on his chest and STILL feel nothing, and then suddenly you'll feel an isolated movement, one deeper breath, and then stillness again, because his breathing is so little that it is not easily detected.

I frankly think you're being rather aggressive in pushing what is an interpretation that suits your case. You think, no doubt with absolute conviction, that you are just reading it straight and have no doubt what it all meant. As a neutral re Lechmere it comes across as lopsided and aggressive. I don't mean aggressive in a nasty way - (the way I talk to Pierre, for example) - just aggressive in the sense of over-assertive. Steve is being scrupulously honest about what the sources are saying, and you seem to be attacking him for not buying your interpretation hook line and sinker, because you don't think it IS an interpretation. But it is. It's not as clear-cut as you think. It could well be that Paul was very clear that he felt breath. The reports also allow for an interpretation that he felt a movement, a single slight movement, that he interpreted as breathing, perhaps wrongly.

[Fisherman]

Come now Rainbow, this was turning into an interesting thread, let's please not get snarky with each other

We all know what breathing looks like? Hmmm.

But it's not that simple. Do we all, for instance, know what agonal breathing looks like?

And which part of breathing did you mean? Did you mean the slight flaring of nostrils, or the rise and fall of the chest, or the slight movement of air from an exhaling mouth or nose? Yes, we may all know what those things 'look' like, but in terms of looking, Paul found none of them.

The things that 'look like' breathing were not present. He had to touch. He 'felt a slight breath' - but it's not possible to 'feel' a slight breath by touching the chest, one can only 'feel' a movement of the chest. If I put my hand on my ribs to try to feel the intercostal muscles contracting to expand the chest cavity while I breathe normally (and especially if I breathe very, very shallowly) it is a barely perceptible movement. Anyone who has fretted over a sleeping newborn infant in a darkened room will know how scarily difficult it can sometimes be to detect any sign of life at all, by any of the senses.

If you are going to insist on taking the journalist's words literally as Gospel, let's be clear: 'a slight breath' is singular, not plural, not ongoing. In other words, Paul felt a movement. Movement is not breath. He never detected breath. He interpreted a single movement.

Don't get me wrong: reading the reports I'm inclined to think he did indeed detect a slight trace of breathing. But I wouldn't put money on it, and I wouldn't convict a man based on that hunch. I agree absolutely with Steve: only an expert qualified in the field can tell us how long breathing could be expected to be detectable in those circumstances, given those injuries. And I also don't doubt that he's right too when he says that an expert's answer is likely to take the form of an envelope that has room in it for sceptics and for believers.

So I don't know why we feel the need to attack people or claim that they are fighting against logic when the simple fact of the matter is that the reports don't quite agree with each other and therefore *none of us KNOW* what exactly happened after Paul discovered Lech and Nichols.

Further to this, I would like to point to how it would be reasonable to interpret any movement at the chest as part of the respiration. The chest heaves when breathing, and so it is logical to think that any movement in it has to do with breathing.
Furthermore, when Paul felt her chest, he would not anticipate the kind of twitch that is tied to having been recently murdered by the infliction of sharp violence - he would presumably have thought that the woman was either drunk or dead on behalf of some natural cause. So he would not have expected whatever he felt at the chest to be anything but breathing, methinks.
A stirring movement, a sort of soft twitch or something like that would very probably go down as breathing in Pauls mind, if I am making a correct assessment of the situation.

Once more, we will never be able to decide WHAT Paul felt, but it is important to note that he seemingly felt SOMETHING, and that does not bode well for Lechmere in my book. Maybe a medico will allow for a significant time of twitching, thus keeping the door ajar for the "phantom killer" - most medicos are reluctant to rule anything at all out.

Weīll see.

I will say this: It is good to have this discussion opened up. Before the Lechmere case was put before the boards, there was no such discussion at all, and Nichols was a case the fewest took any primary interest in. If Lechmere was the killer, then we have had the info all along about how Nichols bled for many minutes and how she seemingly produced a movement in her chest as Paul felt her. To think that htis has been allowed to pass uncommented on more or less for so many years is mindboggling. I have even encountered a Ripper author of some repute and fame (no names mentioned) who claimed that as far as he knew, Stride was the only victim that was found while still bleeding! Another poster said, five years ago or so, that he didnīt think Lechmere would be discussed at all in ten years time.
There is still five years to go before we know if he was right or wrong. My money is firmly on the latter bid.

Dripping erodes stone. Thatīs a good thing. Time speaks for Lechmere, as far as I can see.