Lechmere The Psychopath

[kjab3112]

Hi Henry

Compression over the carotid sinus can cause a vagal response which would drop the heart rate and blood pressure (think about fainting soldiers on parade with tight collars). In this case, during the immediate recovery period, the opening pressure would potentially be lower and a swift opening might well reduce the arterial spray.

I'm not convinced the airway would have that much blood around it from where the cuts were made. The only bleeding at the front of the neck would be from skin and fat blood vessels and the massive bleeding from the carotid arteries would be draining away from the severed trachea. The lack of blood on the victims front is why the doctors felt the cuts were whilst lying down.

Paul

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry

Compression over the carotid sinus can cause a vagal response which would drop the heart rate and blood pressure (think about fainting soldiers on parade with tight collars). In this case, during the immediate recovery period, the opening pressure would potentially be lower and a swift opening might well reduce the arterial spray.

I'm not convinced the airway would have that much blood around it from where the cuts were made. The only bleeding at the front of the neck would be from skin and fat blood vessels and the massive bleeding from the carotid arteries would be draining away from the severed trachea. The lack of blood on the victims front is why the doctors felt the cuts were whilst lying down.

Paul

Thank you Paul, indebted to you. That clears a lot up for me.

[Elamarna]

Hi Henry

Compression over the carotid sinus can cause a vagal response which would drop the heart rate and blood pressure (think about fainting soldiers on parade with tight collars). In this case, during the immediate recovery period, the opening pressure would potentially be lower and a swift opening might well reduce the arterial spray.

I'm not convinced the airway would have that much blood around it from where the cuts were made. The only bleeding at the front of the neck would be from skin and fat blood vessels and the massive bleeding from the carotid arteries would be draining away from the severed trachea. The lack of blood on the victims front is why the doctors felt the cuts were whilst lying down.

Paul

Just again Paul very many thanks.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Agree with you on what Paul probably felt, and that even if earlier he may not have detected much.

Of course we will not agree on the order of the cuts, but such is the nature of things.

An interesting observation Fish, and not meant to start more debate. If the Neck was first then the cuts to the abdomen would bleed less and the chance of getting blood on the hands or anywhere would be reduced. But who knows; certainly not either of us.


Steve

Well, one of us (not telling who, though) is pretty convinced the neck didnīt come first.

[Elamarna]

Well, one of us (not telling who, though) is pretty convinced the neck didnīt come first.

You may be convinced; and you may be right.

However there is no way of proving which was first from the evidence. We either believe Llewellyn(you) or we don't(me).


Steve

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;419863]

Your comments about Griffiths are - of course - nonsense. I don't know the man's character and I'm not inferring that he's a less than honest fellow.

I am sorry, but you cannot first say that Andy Griffiths was paid to say what the film crew wanted him to say, and then call him honest. That is not compatible with honesty on any level. It is prostituting yourself, view-wise.

What I am saying is that I wonder how much he knows of the opposing viewpoint, the issues that have been presented here and elsewhere that may suggest "the carman" was exactly what we've always thought him to be.

No, that is not what you are saying at all. It is perhaps what you SHOULD be saying, but you instead opted for saying that Andy Griffiths was paid to say what the film crew wanted him to say. Meaning that everything he said counts for absolutely nothing, since he was a marionette only, through which the film crew chanelled their message.

Once you have made such a remarkable accusation, the obvious continuation would be for you to call me hysterical for pointing it out - which you have done. Strategically, all that lacks now is you saying that I may be a tad naive and that I donīt seem to understand how the film industry and Ripper ditto work, how it is sweet that somebody can be as hopeful about human nature as I am but alas ...

Still waiting for that one, Patrick?

Of course, I am not the slightest hysterical or naive. I am very calm and very versed in all of these strategies, and I simply put it to you that you have overstepped not only a line of decency but also the line where your own credibility starts to smoulder away.

Itīs all very undramatic to me, Iīm afraid. I hope I am quite clear on what I am saying.

Oh, it's quite clear. I'd like to mention - very briefly - that if I'd have posted anything akin to this post directed at you, Christer, ...the wailing and demands of contrition would be deafening. It's insulting, completely overstated, misleading, and something you'd demand an immediate apology for. Alas, I couldn't care less, insult me all you like (and you have, repeatedly - I don't take issue).

I'm aware that reactions like this, from you, are intended to divert the conversation away from the fact that your theory doesn't stand up. It seems only you and special few can accept that "the carman's" behavior can be explained by an assumption that he was A: A psychopath and B: that he killed Nichols, was Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al. Further, one cannot begin from a place that demands we view events "with an eye on ("the carman") being guilty". You seem a bright guy....so I find your subscription to this idea puzzling.

The last thing I'll say about this Griffith's fellow. Of course, your strategy is - as ever - to seize upon something you can use to feign outrage while you run to a moral high ground of your own device. I've always played along, so I'll do it again. I don't know the man. So, I'm not going to pretend he's a paragon of virtue, or a "prostitute", to use your term. I can say that I am CERTAIN he's not been presented with information regarding Cross that's been posted here by myself and many others. I'm also certain that - based on the information you furnished - he felt - at that time - that "you may well have the right man". I'm also certain that he wasn't searching for points of contention and matters of concern that may negatively impact your theory, and the program. Because - and put your big boy pants on for this, Christer - that's not what he was PAID to do. That doesn't make him a "prostitute" It makes him a man who understands the business arrangement. Now....enough on this.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

In traumatic death, death results in a predictable order. Airway obstruction kills first, then problems with breathing such as massive haemothorax, then circulation e.g. haemorrhage, cardiac tamponade, then cerebral issues (which would often cause an airway obstruction first). Although the neck laceration involved the airway, it would ironically likely act to keep the airway open. There is nothing to suggest a significant thoracic injury in any of the cases with the exception of MJK so the heart-lung circulation is maintained and blood is oxygenated. As the circulating volume drops, the effective circulation becomes restricted to heart-lung-brain due to physiological vasoconstriction, so as long as the heart has sufficient oxygenated blood to keep pumping then the lungs would too. The severance of both carotid arteries would result in loss of most of the cerebral circulation and hence unconsciousness, but the hind brain which contains the respiratory centres has a separate circulation through the vertebral arteries which we have no evidence could have been cut (note the notching of the vertebral body). Thus she would likely have continued to breathe until cardiac arrest occurred - more likely due to the lack of blood than lack of oxygen within the blood. As per my previous calculations this would be in the region of a few minutes from the first cut rather than the implication of immediate.

Hope answers your questions

Paul

An initial thank you, Paul - I will need to decipher this as best as I can. The first thing that springs to mind is how you write:
"The severance of both carotid arteries would result in loss of most of the cerebral circulation and hence unconsciousness, but the hind brain which contains the respiratory centres has a separate circulation through the vertebral arteries which we have no evidence could have been cut (note the notching of the vertebral body)."

As far as I know, it takes around a minute for the total volume of blood to make itīs journey from the heart, through the body and back again, meaning that if we open up the aorta and have the heart keep pumping, all the blood will be pumped out of the body in around a minutes time.

Therefore, with the kind of damage done to Nichols, and where we may have a severing of multiple large vessels in the abdomen BEFORE the neck was cut, severing all the large vessels down to the bone - is it not possible, or even credible, that the vertebral arteries could have been totally deprived of blood in a very short period of time after the neck was cut? Meaning that we are perhaps speaking about as small a period of time after the neck cut as a minute or two?

Plus, of course, if the vertebral arteries were supplied with oxygenated blood after the cutting, that would mean that the heart was still beating, I take it. And with a beating heart, surely the body would be drained of blood very quickly?

Hope I am making sense here ...

Purely theoretically, Paul - if I may - if you were a consultant to the police back in 1888, and if we allow for the idea that you had todays medical knowledge back then, and was asked by the police just how large an interest they should take in Lechmere; any idea how you would answer that question? Does he fit the bill timewise? Or is there anything that speaks against him when it comes to the medical implications over time?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;419913]

Oh, it's quite clear. I'd like to mention - very briefly - that if I'd have posted anything akin to this post directed at you, Christer, ...the wailing and demands of contrition would be deafening. It's insulting, completely overstated, misleading, and something you'd demand an immediate apology for. Alas, I couldn't care less, insult me all you like (and you have, repeatedly - I don't take issue).

I'm aware that reactions like this, from you, are intended to divert the conversation away from the fact that your theory doesn't stand up. It seems only you and special few can accept that "the carman's" behavior can be explained by an assumption that he was A: A psychopath and B: that he killed Nichols, was Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al. Further, one cannot begin from a place that demands we view events "with an eye on ("the carman") being guilty". You seem a bright guy....so I find your subscription to this idea puzzling.

The last thing I'll say about this Griffith's fellow. Of course, your strategy is - as ever - to seize upon something you can use to feign outrage while you run to a moral high ground of your own device. I've always played along, so I'll do it again. I don't know the man. So, I'm not going to pretend he's a paragon of virtue, or a "prostitute", to use your term. I can say that I am CERTAIN he's not been presented with information regarding Cross that's been posted here by myself and many others. I'm also certain that - based on the information you furnished - he felt - at that time - that "you may well have the right man". I'm also certain that he wasn't searching for points of contention and matters of concern that may negatively impact your theory, and the program. Because - and put your big boy pants on for this, Christer - that's not what he was PAID to do. That doesn't make him a "prostitute" It makes him a man who understands the business arrangement. Now....enough on this.

I am not going to grace that with an answer, Patrick. Sorry.

[Elamarna]

An initial thank you, Paul - I will need to decipher this as best as I can. The first thing that springs to mind is how you write:
"The severance of both carotid arteries would result in loss of most of the cerebral circulation and hence unconsciousness, but the hind brain which contains the respiratory centres has a separate circulation through the vertebral arteries which we have no evidence could have been cut (note the notching of the vertebral body)."

As far as I know, it takes around a minute for the total volume of blood to make itīs journey from the heart, through the body and back again, meaning that if we open up the aorta and have the heart keep pumping, all the blood will be pumped out of the body in around a minutes time.

Therefore, with the kind of damage done to Nichols, and where we may have a severing of multiple large vessels in the abdomen BEFORE the neck was cut, severing all the large vessels down to the bone - is it not possible, or even credible, that the vertebral arteries could have been totally deprived of blood in a very short period of time after the neck was cut? Meaning that we are perhaps speaking about as small a period of time after the neck cut as a minute or two?

Plus, of course, if the vertebral arteries were supplied with oxygenated blood after the cutting, that would mean that the heart was still beating, I take it. And with a beating heart, surely the body would be drained of blood very quickly?

Hope I am making sense here ...

Fish

I know you are asking Paul a question, but we have nothing to say if any vessels were cut in the abdomen,Llewellyn's report is telling it what it does not say!

The flow rates which Paul gave a few weeks ago, are very clear.

I do note the attempt to push to 2 minutes. Naughty.

Anyway let's see what he says.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Fish

I know you are asking Paul a question, but we have nothing to say if any vessels were cut in the abdomen,Llewellyn's report is telling it what it does not say!

The flow rates which Paul gave a few weeks ago, are very clear.

I do note the attempt to push to 2 minutes. Naughty.

Anyway let's see what he says.


Steve

I am not pushing anything, Steve. I think it is very clear from what Payne-James said that we are dealing with short time perspectives, and I feel that Paul is quite competent enough to make his own calls no matter how I ask a question of him.
As for the abdominal vessels, you may wish to look at how I wrote "we may have a severing of multiple large vessels in the abdomen". Please note the small word "may". Given what Llewellyn said, I think the suggestion of cut vessels is very realistic, though.
I have added a second set of questions now, that I would very much want to have answered. Letīs see what Paul comes up with, yes.

[Jon Guy]

Therefore, with the kind of damage done to Nichols, and where we may have a severing of multiple large vessels in the abdomen BEFORE the neck was cut,

Hi Christer

Dr Bond thought the throat was cut first:

All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut.

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;419916]

I am not going to grace that with an answer, Patrick. Sorry.

I didn't desire one.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;419924]

I didn't desire one.

I think you are capable of producing a lot better posts, and I will save my comments in hope for that.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Dr Bond thought the throat was cut first:

All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut.

Bond didnīt come within a country mile from Nicholsī body, as you will know, Jon. I feel that Llewellyn is by far the better source, actually having performed the post-mortem.

Bond didnīt think Mylett was murdered either. The fewest put any stock in that today.

[Elamarna]

I am not pushing anything, Steve. I think it is very clear from what Payne-James said that we are dealing with short time perspectives, and I feel that Paul is quite competent enough to make his own calls no matter how I ask a question of him.
As for the abdominal vessels, you may wish to look at how I wrote "we may have a severing of multiple large vessels in the abdomen". Please note the small word "may". Given what Llewellyn said, I think the suggestion of cut vessels is very realistic, though.
I have added a second set of questions now, that I would very much want to have answered. Letīs see what Paul comes up with, yes.

It's the same old approach, can we rule him out, very hard as anything not impossible is possible.
None of the medical evidence will rule him out, it's not pricise enough.
The question should be does anything actual point to just him.


We had Paul post, was asked a question he clarified, then reasked. He clarified again. Now asked again with a slightly differ question. It seems this will go on until one gets an answer one can use.

Still lets see what he says.


Steve

And we will disagree with regards to pushing times.