Lechmere The Psychopath

[Jon Guy]

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.

No problem, I was just putting it out there, as he was sent notes on the murders by Anderson.

But, when did Llewellyn state that the abdominal injuries were before the throat cut ?

[Fisherman]

No problem, I was just putting it out there, as he was sent notes on the murders by Anderson.

But, when did Llewellyn state that the abdominal injuries were before the throat cut ?

Throughout, I should say. You can find it in Baxters summation: "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck."

[Fisherman]

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.

My experience is that one should always ask all the questions one can think of when speaking to a specialist. Otherwise, there will always be those who question your interpretations of the specialists answers.
If somebody had asked Llewellyn about the exact damage done to the belly of Nichols and an exact scheme of where he found the blood and how much he found, we would be much better off. Ignorance is never the better alternative.

I used to have quite a brawl with another poster out here. He denied that I was making the correct interpretation about what a signature specialist said, and so I asked the speicalist to clarify. When he did, the poster I was dealing with twisted things in another direction.
It took some time to shut down the posters all avenues of escape and when I did, he said: "The specialist only said that to fob you off, he has grown tired of you and so he says anything you want him to".

Nice, eh? That is why I ask all the questions I can think of, and I donīt care if you suggest that I do so only because I want to have "my" answer given.

I could just as well say that YOU donīt want any further clarification because you want it not to be known that Lechmere fits the bill.

Or we can play nice and let each other do as we see fit.

[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.

From watching the documentary it is clear, actually very clear that Payne-James is talking about far less severe abdomenial wounds than you are proposing.
I do not hear him claiming or suggesting the abdomen wounds may be the cause of death.

Steve

[Fisherman]

From watching the documentary it is clear, actually very clear that Payne-James is talking about far less severe abdomenial wounds than you are proposing.
I do not hear him claiming or suggesting the abdomen wounds may be the cause of death.

Steve

It is not me proposing that she was cut from sternum to pubes. It is a large number of sources.

I never said that Payne-James suggested anything along the line of her dying on account of the abdominal injuries, did I? So why are you calining that as some sort of fact? And what does it have to do with how he claimed short time perspectives? Which was what I said?

I do not know the exact information he had at hand, word by word but I would work from the assumption that he knew that one of the cuts was very deep and severe and that Llewellyn said that it was enough to cause death.

I suspect that old material, leaning against the faulty impression that there were no injuries until just about the lower abdomen was used for the sketch.

By the way, it seems now that I am the one proposing larger cuts. Only a few posts back, "we" all knew that this was so according to you.

[Elamarna]

My experience is that one should always ask all the questions one can think of when speaking to a specialist. Otherwise, there will always be those who question your interpretations of the specialists answers.
If somebody had asked Llewellyn about the exact damage done to the belly of Nichols and an exact scheme of where he found the blood and how much he found, we would be much better off. Ignorance is never the better alternative.

I used to have quite a brawl with another poster out here. He denied that I was making the correct interpretation about what a signature specialist said, and so I asked the speicalist to clarify. When he did, the poster I was dealing with twisted things in another direction.
It took some time to shut down the posters all avenues of escape and when I did, he said: "The specialist only said that to fob you off, he has grown tired of you and so he says anything you want him to".

Nice, eh? That is why I ask all the questions I can think of, and I donīt care if you suggest that I do so only because I want to have "my" answer given.

I could just as well say that YOU donīt want any further clarification because you want it not to be known that Lechmere fits the bill.

Or we can play nice and let each other do as we see fit.

However we have had the answer 3 or 4 times now.

And it is clear it's not what is wanted.

Carry on my dear friend. I am always nice.


Steve

[Elamarna]

It is not me proposing that she was cut from sternum to pubes. It is a large number of sources.

I never said that Payne-James suggested anything along the line of her dying on account of the abdominal injuries, did I? So why are you calining that as some sort of fact? And what does it have to do with how he claimed short time perspectives? Which was what I said?

Ah attempting to move the goal posts. Payne-James view was based on far less extensive wounds and thus a shorter time line.

And I agree with the extent of the wounds as being far greater, completely opening Nichols abdomen.

I do not know the exact information he had at hand, word by word but I would work from the assumption that he knew that one of the cuts was very deep and severe and that Llewellyn said that it was enough to cause death.

That is not shown on the diagram used.

I suspect that old material, leaning against the faulty impression that there were no injuries until just about the lower abdomen was used for the sketch.

Of course; however he spoke to and about the diagram used.
In which case his conclusions are based on incomplete data and need to be reassed.

By the way, it seems now that I am the one proposing larger cuts. Only a few posts back, "we" all knew that this was so according to you.

No of course not. The large wounds stand; it's just that Payne-James did not mention them that's the issue.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

I suspect that old material, leaning against the faulty impression that there were no injuries until just about the lower abdomen was used for the sketch.

Of course; however he spoke to and about the diagram used.
In which case his conclusions are based on incomplete data and need to be reassed.

If anything, he would have opted for a SHORTER time of bleeding out if the wounds were larger. Be careful what you wish for, Steve...





Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;419940]Elamarna:

I suspect that old material, leaning against the faulty impression that there were no injuries until just about the lower abdomen was used for the sketch.

Of course; however he spoke to and about the diagram used.
In which case his conclusions are based on incomplete data and need to be reassed.

If anything, he would have opted for a SHORTER time of bleeding out if the wounds were larger. Be careful what you wish for, Steve... [/quote ]


I agree to an extent, the proviso is that we do not know what was cut first, or exactly what was cut.
However in all probability he would have revised down. Of course I have no problem with a shorter bleeding time.

It's how one tries to apply the data that matters.
I hope we can both agree on that.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I never said that Payne-James suggested anything along the line of her dying on account of the abdominal injuries, did I? So why are you calining that as some sort of fact? And what does it have to do with how he claimed short time perspectives? Which was what I said?

.

Please just let me clarify, Payne-James had full documentation include the testimony of Dr Llewellyn.
And yet there is no reference to the suggestion that abdominal wounds may have been the cause of death. Surely the suggestion was in his notes?
Why then not at least mention it as a possible cause of death?
Could it be he just did not consider it viable?
Could it be that he did not consider Llewellyn' s comments on this issue specific or of the highest reliability?

Of course we cannot know the answers to those questions.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Please just let me clarify, Payne-James had full documentation include the testimony of Dr Llewellyn.
And yet there is no reference to the suggestion that abdominal wounds may have been the cause of death. Surely the suggestion was in his notes?
Why then not at least mention it as a possible cause of death?
Could it be he just did not consider it viable?
Could it be that he did not consider Llewellyn' s comments on this issue specific or of the highest reliability?

Of course we cannot know the answers to those questions.


Steve

We may be sure that he would not question Llewellyns words that the abdominal wounds were enough to ensure a swift death, simply because Payne-James never saw what it was Llewellyn referred to. There ARE wounds to the abdomen that will ensure a swift death, end of.

Whether this detail was in his papers or not, I do not know. It would take it that Baxter was quoted from the inquest summation - and the summation from the inquest was not what I would first and foremost want Payne-James to look at.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;419941]

Elamarna:

I suspect that old material, leaning against the faulty impression that there were no injuries until just about the lower abdomen was used for the sketch.

Of course; however he spoke to and about the diagram used.
In which case his conclusions are based on incomplete data and need to be reassed.

If anything, he would have opted for a SHORTER time of bleeding out if the wounds were larger. Be careful what you wish for, Steve... [/quote ]


I agree to an extent, the proviso is that we do not know what was cut first, or exactly what was cut.
However in all probability he would have revised down. Of course I have no problem with a shorter bleeding time.

It's how one tries to apply the data that matters.
I hope we can both agree on that.

Steve

You agree to an extent. Why is it that you never agree to the full?

I do that, at least sometimes. Like now - it IS how the data is applied that matters.

[Elamarna]

We may be sure that he would not question Llewellyns words that the abdominal wounds were enough to ensure a swift death, simply because Payne-James never saw what it was Llewellyn referred to. There ARE wounds to the abdomen that will ensure a swift death, end of.


Sorry that is simply not supported by ANY medical evidence, just one man's opinion, heavily question at the time.. It is no "end of" at all, however it is the end of "end of" on this point

Whether this detail was in his papers or not, I do not know. It would take it that Baxter was quoted from the inquest summation - and the summation from the inquest was not what I would first and foremost want Payne-James to look at.

Well he is seen reading her wounds out from a document, one assumes he has the full documentation to do this.
Indeed when questions have been asked about what information he had, we have been told he had all he needed; are you now saying this may not be so?
And if that is the case what is the value of his comment in those circumstances?


Steve

[Elamarna]

You agree to an extent. Why is it that you never agree to the full?

I do that, at least sometimes. Like now - it IS how the data is applied that matters.

Simply the data does not exist to make it a certainty.


STEVE

[Fisherman]

Simply the data does not exist to make it a certainty.


STEVE

Brrrr. Sometimes you sound like you-know-who...