Lechmere The Psychopath

[Abby Normal]

There is that, too, Abby

But, you gotta admit, the false syllogism that "all serial killers are risk-takers, therefore there's no risk that they wouldn't take", itself based on some flaky assertions, is pretty useful in a tight corner.

agree-theyre all risk takers, the sane ones at least, to some extant but they balance it with trying not to get caught.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Back to my old way. I see whenever I press you on anything, its back to my old ways. You claimed you boxed once. I did as well. Try and take a punch. You have problem delivering them.

Try this on for size then: Your suggestion is unethical, immoral, childish and stupid. Surely thereīs a little punching power in that one?

It is fine to say that the film company would not want a hostile attitude. It is okay to say that Andy Grifiths was payed for his role - I speculate that without knowing, but it would be correct to my mind. It is fine to say that the cutting work will favour the idea that Lechmere was the killer.

But is it not okay to say that Griffiths was payed to say things, because that implies that he did not express his own thinking and ideas, but instead was a marionette who would say anything at all as long as he was payed for it.

I find the suggestion unsavoury and untenable, not least since I have told you that Griffiths himself in private told me that he thought that we could well have the right man. It is therefore clear that he was positive to the idea after having given it consideration.

I have seen far too much of this crap, Patrick, from Trevor Marriott and from a few other masterminds, all of them linked together by a very poor understanding of the case and a willingness to sell out morally in order to try and make what they thought was a good point. It was n ot and it will never be.
I would have had you down as a man of much higher standards and knowledge, but you are now pressing me to reconsider that.

The only thing worth asking with respect to above post: What does the number of PCs teeming in the streets have to do with psychopathy and my knowledge of it?

It offers an explanation to why a practically reasoning and calm psychopath would not take the risk running into them, instead opting for a bluff. Thatīs as clear as I can be. And it is the umpteenth time I am telling you this. Do you not listen or du you simply refuse to accept it, Patrick?

Clearly SOMEONE killed Nichols in Bucks Row without any PC (or watchman) seeing it happen. No PC (or watchman) saw Cross or Paul or Nichols or the killer (if it were not "the carman) enter Bucks Row......Now, a man walking into the darkness is going to raise the proverbial alarm? And the only reasonable alternative to walking away is.......the Mizen Scam?

Or any other scam that works, yes. Is that not totally obvious? That if you are the killer and choose to stay, then you MUST come up with a ruse? What else would he do in that predicament? What other "reasonable alternative" is there? Pray tell me!

As for there not being a PC or watchman in Bucks Row - I think that if there had been, Lechmere (or the phantom killer) would hardly have set about killing and eviscerating Nichols.

Does that make as much sense to you as it does to me?

Afterwards, however, I believe the killer would not be able to bank on all other streets being as empty on PC:s or watchmen - they WOULD be around to some degree and the killer would reasonably know this.

Does that also make sense to you? Or do you reason that the killer would have worked from the presumption that the policemen and watchmen were collectively having tea and bisquits in Toynbee Hall at this hour?

Really, Patrick!

[Elamarna]

Wait a second! When I have said that the damage to the abdomen supposedly was deathly and therefore probably connected to severing large vessels, you have gone out of your way to tell me that this is NOT in evidence.
And yet, now you are proposing that we are "suspecting" far more extensive damage...?
I donīt know, Steve, but to me that comes across as bordering on politics.

Rest assured that Payne-James had read up well on the abdominal damage done to Nichols, including how Llewellyn suggested that it was enough to kill.

The wounds he talks about in the documentary are different to what we all now accept was the case, nothing to do with suggestions of severing large vessels. However of course does come into the argument.
The cuts we discussed here in April are far more extensive than the diagram he used.

And if you are correct about the abdomen being the cause if death, which I see no evidence for, then the Aorta needs to have been cut and that will be messy and he can't control the flow as he may with the Neck.
It's not politics, just simply facts. Not disagreeing with Payne-James at all.

Has it? So explain to me what "we" think today, please. I would not want to miss out.

We discussed the injuries for several days at great length back in April I think. We discussed if a flap had been opened, while I accepted that such was prepared I was not convinced he had been completed. Have you forgotten?

The wounds we mutually accepted are far greater than Payne-James used in his section of
the documentary


Okay. Here goes, from LinkedIn:

"I am a clinician, researcher, designer and author. I am a Specialist in Forensic & Legal Medicine and a Consultant Forensic Physician.

Particular areas of interest and research include deaths and care in custody, sexual assault (adult and child), drug and alcohol use, inter-personal violence, Use of Force, restraint, Taser, incapacitant spray, wound and scar interpretation, torture, non-accidental injury (adult and child), sexual assault, elder abuse, custodial medicine, driving and Road Traffic Act offences. Some of my work may be seen at http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Payne-James. I was President of the World Police Medical Officers from 2012-2014 and President of the Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine from 2015-2017.

I am a consultant and an adviser to a number of government and non-government agencies in the UK and elsewhere. I am an expert witness and an accredited mediator.

And here is what he did this spring, from a blog he keeps:

http://www.payne-james.co.uk/uncateg...s-in-the-life/


Which shows what my Dear Fish? That he is an highly qualified expert,. We know that already.
However experts can be wrong when it is opinion and not fact, and if the details alter after they have spoken.
This is his professional opinion, and recent debate as suggested that the wounds were far more extensive than he refered to.

If you wish to return to the case he presented in the documentary no problem. Using the diagram in the documentary we can of course argue his hands may have been free of blood; but that does not portray what we, you and I, discussed only a few months back.

And of course I am not saying he is wrong, I have no issue with the comments about blood on Lechmere from the Neck, it's the abdomen where the wounds he is talking about are:

1. Less than both you and I have publically posted we think was the case.

2. Less than would be needed if your idea that the Abdominal and not the Neck wounds were the cause of death.

Therefore I am not saying he is not wrong, the evidence for his conclusion has changed and thus so must the conclusion, it must at least be reviewed..

Of course I was not talking about him, as you I hope realise.


I have no idea, of course, how he relates to you in terms of professional experience and knowledge, and frankly I hope that you outweigh him - it would provide the boards with a top notch specialist in all things medico.

Maybe in bodyweight!

But do you?

On the issue of cutting the vessels in the neck, I think there is a high chance I have more practical experience; it's not something surgeons tend to do I think you will find.


On the rest I am not on the same sports field as him I would guess.


Steve

[Elamarna]

ok I don't have your experience so defer to your gory expertise!

Abby glad you don't, not particularly pleasent that part of the job.


Steve

[Fisherman]

well yeah-agree with that. Its my main beef with him as a suspect. I could possibly see him bluffing it out with paul if he felt he was too close to try and skidaddle, but not walking with him straight into the arms of a cop.especially since hes got the knife still on him! he could have said OK well go our separate ways and notify a cop when we see one.

That would take his initiative away, though. I think he wanted to stay on top of things, to select who was told what and to be able to milk Paul on as much as he could.

And as far as he could tell, it could end up in a situation where Paul found a copper, was brought back to Bucks Row where the murder was discovered, and the PC would go: This man you found stading where the body was, what did he look like? Could you identify him?

Once again, he would risk becoming the prime suspect, and it would be wise to avoid that.

[Fisherman]

There is that, too, Abby

But, you gotta admit, the false syllogism that "all serial killers are risk-takers, therefore there's no risk that they wouldn't take", itself based on some flaky assertions, is pretty useful in a tight corner.

But what I said was not that they will take every risk that comes along. They will instead avoid risk as much as they can, since it is practical (with the possible exception of those who invite risk in, just for jolly - there are such psychopaths too, who love to play games).

I am saying that serialists will HANDLE risk in a very unmiffed manner, and that Lechmere may have found it a less risky thing to do to bluff Paul than to run.
That would have been decision number one.
After that, Paul suddenly suggested finding a PC. That was something Lechmere could not have foreseen, and he would have to play along unless he wanted to become a suspect afterwards.

Staying in company with Paul offered the advantage of seemingly beeing in company with another carman. The police would not look for two carmen walking together to work, whereas walking off alone was a risker proposal in that context. And we donīt like risks, do we?

Plus the story Mizen was served was one that more or less guaranteed that they would be allowed to pass by him unsearched. To my mind, it is no coincidence that this exact story was the one that was presented. It represents some pretty useful thinking in a very limited time space and a very cool execution, followed up by a masterpiece of cheekyness at the inquest, if I am correct.

And now, the eternal question: I know you really, really, really, really, really donīt want it to have been Lechmere.

But what is there to exonerate him?

And how many other, better, suspects do we have in place in Bucks Row?

What is so totally disgusting about using logic and accepting that he is the prime suspect in the Nichols murder?

[Fisherman]

What I've picked up, after reading a fair bit about the subject is that psychology, abnormal or otherwise, is not like cookery. Behaviours do not follow prescriptive recipes.

Of course not - not always, at least.

Did I say they do?

What I say is that psychopaths are very, very often risktakers and unafraid. They are normally very accomplished liars and they tend to look at other people as inferior and dumb compared to themselves.

If you are trying to say that there are exceptions, I wonder why we would work from exceptions instead of rules.

Because it makes the Lechmere theory easier to tackle?

[Fisherman]

agree-theyre all risk takers, the sane ones at least, to some extant but they balance it with trying not to get caught.

I fail to see that anybody at all here would disagree with that. There is an ongoing effort to try and make out as if I am doing that, but I am instead saying that I think Lechmere ruled staying with the victim the LESS risky option, as compared to running.
He was left in control of the events, not least, and if there is one thing a psychopath likes, it is being in control.

[Fisherman]

On the issue of cutting the vessels in the neck, I think there is a high chance I have more practical experience; it's not something surgeons tend to do I think you will find.


On the rest I am not on the same sports field as him I would guess.


Steve

I would guess that too. And I am an accopmlished enough guesser.

As for the difference in perception about the abdominal wounds, Payne.James knew that there was a very deep wound in the abdomen, and depth is what primarily produces the risk of blood on the cutter.

[Fisherman]

I think I may start charging the administrators for my participation. There is very little I can say that does not produce a torrent of posts. Must heighten the traffic out here ...

But now is a good time to call it a day. See all you reformed Lechmerians tomorrow.

[Elamarna]

I would guess that too. And I am an accopmlished enough guesser.

As for the difference in perception about the abdominal wounds, Payne.James knew that there was a very deep wound in the abdomen, and depth is what primarily produces the risk of blood on the cutter.

Yes; But we were disscusing far more than that in April my dear Fish.

Just rewatched the section In the documentary.

The diagram shows no major vertical cut, Payne-James refers to the wounds as minor compared to the other victims. There is no mention that the abdomenial wounds may have killed her.

Depth is the primary risk of blood on the cutter?
Is it really?
Sorry that really is utter rot.
What dictates the risks to the cutter are:
Which vessels are cut, arteries may spray.
How the blood flows from the wounds, and that includes the cuts to the skin and muscle.
And of course if the hands are likely to come in contact with any blood or tissue.


With the Neck, can cut away from himself, you can't do that so easily that if cutting vertical and horizontal strokes into the abdomen, without moving, which you would need to do to avoid reaching across other wounds, and thus increasing the risk of getting blood stained. And you certainly cannot see which vessels you may hit And try to avoid those which may mark you.

To be honest I am not even sure why you are arguing this. It's clear in the documentary what Payne-James said. Anyone can watch it if they want, and see what he does actual say; not what you or I claim he says and knew.


Steve

[kjab3112]

Hi Everyone

Steve asked me to comment on his questions about the sustained breathing after a significant neck injury:

a) Would the cutting of the windpipe stop the victim from breathing?

Not necessarily, in fact by opening the larynx at the level of the cricoid cartilage, as in the Ripper killings, the airway could in effect be protected and so ensure breathing could even continue for longer.

b) If not how long could it continue for?

Theoretically until the brain stem dies (in fact lack of respiration despite the trigger of rising CO2 levels is one of the tests of brain stem death).

c) What effect would the blood loss have on her breathing?

As blood loss occurs, initially the respiratory rate will increase as a physiological reflex. At the terminal point (approximately 40-50% blood volume loss) the respiratory rate starts to fall and enters the agonal stage immediately prior to death where respiration is insufficient and inadequate to clear CO2 or maintain oxygenation. At this stage respiration rate, regularity and depth falls off, which might be represented by the occasional gasp.

d) And what effect would blood from the Neck wound getting into the windpipe have?

If the hole in the neck is large enough, the volume of blood getting in would be of little effect other than causing an aerosol effect. At the level of the cuts though, the front of the neck has very few blood vessels so pre-airway blood loss (which would potentially enter or block the airway) would be less than expected


Hope of help

Paul

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;419817

But what is there to exonerate him?

1. No sources giving the personal motive.
2. No sources giving an explanation for why he started.
3. No sources explaining why he started in August 1888.
4. No sources explaining why he killed on 8th September.
5. No sources explaning why he killed two women on the same night on 30th
September.
6. No sources explaning why he chose the date 30th September.
7. No sources explaning why he chose the date 9th November.
8. No sources showing that he had a false alibi.
9. No sources giving a confession indicating it was Lechmere.
10. No sources explanining why he stopped after Kelly.
11. No sources explaining why he started again in 1889.
12. No sources explaning why he stopped in 1889.
13. No sources showing us that he was on the other murder sites.
14. No sources explaning the choice of murder sites.
15. No sources explaining Stride.
16. No sources explaining the signature in itīs details.
17. No sources explaining the MO(of which many sources above are aspects).
18. No sources giving answers to many of the old known questions in the case.
19. No sources showing he had the ability.
20. No sources showing why he was not a suspect.

And probably there are a lot more sources missing for Lechmere.

Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=kjab3112;419825

b) If not how long could it continue for?

Theoretically until the brain stem dies (in fact lack of respiration despite the trigger of rising CO2 levels is one of the tests of brain stem death).

Hi Paul,

and for how long is that?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Everyone

Steve asked me to comment on his questions about the sustained breathing after a significant neck injury:

a) Would the cutting of the windpipe stop the victim from breathing?

Not necessarily, in fact by opening the larynx at the level of the cricoid cartilage, as in the Ripper killings, the airway could in effect be protected and so ensure breathing could even continue for longer.

b) If not how long could it continue for?

Theoretically until the brain stem dies (in fact lack of respiration despite the trigger of rising CO2 levels is one of the tests of brain stem death).

c) What effect would the blood loss have on her breathing?

As blood loss occurs, initially the respiratory rate will increase as a physiological reflex. At the terminal point (approximately 40-50% blood volume loss) the respiratory rate starts to fall and enters the agonal stage immediately prior to death where respiration is insufficient and inadequate to clear CO2 or maintain oxygenation. At this stage respiration rate, regularity and depth falls off, which might be represented by the occasional gasp.

d) And what effect would blood from the Neck wound getting into the windpipe have?

If the hole in the neck is large enough, the volume of blood getting in would be of little effect other than causing an aerosol effect. At the level of the cuts though, the front of the neck has very few blood vessels so pre-airway blood loss (which would potentially enter or block the airway) would be less than expected


Hope of help

Paul

Thanks Paul

The other question was how longer after all blood supply to brain was cut off is breathing likely to continue for?

It's quoted in several places that brain electrical activity stops in 20- 30 seconds, would breath stop then or is it more difficult to put a figure in minutes to it? Is it another of those variable things


Steve