Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

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

Exactly what does comprises "the full documentation", Steve? I have often wondered.

He had all he needed as far as I´m concerned. But he certainly did not have "the full documentation", as in all the books and papers written, all speculation aired, all the bickering out here etc.

He was, however, extremely well read up on the errand, I noticed that much when speaking to him after the docu was aired.

I would not aspire to have everybody out here accept that he was correctly and fully informed, no matter what. That would be asking for having the moon taken down from the night sky.

[Elamarna]

Exactly what does comprises "the full documentation", Steve? I have often wondered.


Ah reduced to arguing semantics.
Let's play along, to discuss Nichols wounds and to draw conclusions he requires the testimony of Dr Llewellyn with regards to the wounds.



He had all he needed as far as I´m concerned. But he certainly did not have "the full documentation", as in all the books and papers written, all speculation aired, all the bickering out here etc.

If he did not have a transcript of Llewellyn's testimony with regards to her wounds he did not have all he needed. It really is very simple.

He was, however, extremely well read up on the errand, I noticed that much when speaking to him after the docu was aired.

It would appear not on the abdomenial wounds, either that or he ignored It.

I would not aspire to have everybody out here accept that he was correctly and fully informed, no matter what. That would be asking for having the moon taken down from the night sky.

You do, if we ever question his views, we get given a reminder of his CV, as was posted today.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Having witnessed many dying breaths (in a professional role), those last agonal gasps are not the Hollywood style, but rather an ineffectual silent breath which would be near silent

Thanks, Paul. I wasn't thinking of a "normal" dying breath, so much as wondering whether the presence of liquid (possibly still flowing) blood in the throat wound might have caused a more noticeable sound as long as breathing continued.

[Sam Flynn]

Long dead? Wasn't she just seen an hour or so before she was discovered?

I meant "long dead in the scheme of things" in the sense that she'd already been killed before Cross arrived on the scene.

[Fisherman]

Exactly what does comprises "the full documentation", Steve? I have often wondered.

Ah reduced to arguing semantics.

Okay, so now I am "reduced". And I am not going to get told what you consider the full documentation. Great work there.

Let's play along, to discuss Nichols wounds and to draw conclusions he requires the testimony of Dr Llewellyn with regards to the wounds.

He had all he needed as far as I´m concerned. But he certainly did not have "the full documentation", as in all the books and papers written, all speculation aired, all the bickering out here etc.

If he did not have a transcript of Llewellyn's testimony with regards to her wounds he did not have all he needed. It really is very simple.

I could say that of course he had a transcription of Llewellyns testimony, since that is the first thing that belonged to that bulky collection of material we can see in his hands.
But if I say that he did have it, I am fully aware that people out here will come creeping out from under their stones and say "But you don´t KNOW it, do you? You can´t PROVE it, can you?"
So I do it the safe way and say that if you want to believe that he did perhaps not get Llewellyns testimony, then please be my guest and feel free to do so. It´s anybodys choice to guess what was in the papers he DID get. It could be the last season of Donald Duck, who knows?

Oddly, though, he did know that there was a bruise on the lower right jaw, and as far as I understand, that was something that Llewellyn disclosed at the inquest. But maybe he just guessed that one and got lucky.

He was, however, extremely well read up on the errand, I noticed that much when speaking to him after the docu was aired.

It would appear not on the abdomenial wounds, either that or he ignored It.

Or any comment he made was cut away. I know for certain that the Scobie material covered a lot of time but was cut down to a short part for the docu. They cut away all the parts where he sneered at the theory.

I would not aspire to have everybody out here accept that he was correctly and fully informed, no matter what. That would be asking for having the moon taken down from the night sky.

You do, if we ever question his views, we get given a reminder of his CV, as was posted today.

In response to how you compared yourself to him, yes. I thought that a tad presumptious for a humble man like you. But is this remark of yours really a response to what I said? In what way, if so?

[Fisherman]

I meant "long dead in the scheme of things" in the sense that she'd already been killed before Cross arrived on the scene.

But we are told that the heart can beat for minutes after a cut like the one Nichols was dealt. If so, she could still be alive as Lechmere arrived. So are we speaking of "long dead" as in "long dead and alive" or as in "long dead and dead"?

For a man who heavily criticises the wording "freshly killed" you may be wording yourself just that little bit precariously here.

[Sam Flynn]

much as you and I both understand the viability of the point I am making, others, like Gareth, would want to disallow for the point to be made at all.

I'm not disallowing anything, Fish. I genuinely think that saying that "the Ripper was a psycho, psychos take big risks, so Lechmere [being a psycho] was happy to take big risks" is a false syllogism, or at best a weak argument. For one thing, it's circular; for another, it really is a Deus ex machina, of the type often wheeled out by suspect theorists when the need arises; and, even putting those objections aside, I don't really see that it's necessarily true anyway. As I said yesterday, human behaviour doesn't follow recipes, and psychological profiling has nowhere near the predictive reliability of an empirical physical law.

[Sam Flynn]

But we are told that the heart can beat for minutes after a cut like the one Nichols was dealt. If so, she could still be alive as Lechmere arrived. So are we speaking of "long dead" as in "long dead and alive" or as in "long dead and dead"?

The full phrase I used was "long dead in the scheme of things", and I explained to Abby precisely what I meant by that, namely "she'd already been killed before Cross arrived on the scene".

[Fisherman]

I'm not disallowing anything, Fish. I genuinely think that the "the Ripper was a psycho, psychos take big risks, so Lechmere [being a psycho] was happy to take big risks" is a false syllogism, or at best a weak argument. For one thing, it's circular; for another, it really is a Deus ex machina, of the type often wheeled out by suspect theorists when the need arises; and, even putting those objections aside, I don't really see that it's necessarily true anyway. As I said yesterday, human behaviour doesn't follow recipes, and psychological profiling has nowhere near the predictive reliability of an empirical physical law.

Truth be told, it is not as if you COULD disallow discussing Lechmere as a possible psychopath.
It´s interesting to see that you describe the Ripper as a "psycho" yourself. I take it to mean that you believe the killer was a psychopath?
If so, I am genuinely surprised at how you think it more or less impossible that the killer would approach another witness and a PC.
Ends don´t meet in those thoughts of yours.

As for human behaviour not following recipes, I´m sure that exceptions are always interesting, but when looking for the killer here I think it is more useful to look at rules than at exceptions. And generally, psychopaths are very cool customers, totally unafraid of putting themselves in the limelight if need be.

Edit: I note now that you did NOT say that you think that the killer was a psychopath - but do you?

[Fisherman]

The full phrase I used was "long dead in the scheme of things", and I explained to Abby precisely what I meant by that, namely "she'd already been killed before Cross arrived on the scene".

But how could she be killed if she was potentially still alive, Gareth? That is what I want to know. A person is not killed before heart death or brain death is established (different countries lean against different methods of establishing death).
So if Nichols was technically alive as Lechmere arrived - and she may well have been - then how could she be long dead at the same time?

It´s quite the mystery.

Maybe a changed wording would help up the situation?

[Sam Flynn]

It´s interesting to see that you describe the Ripper as a "psycho" yourself. I take it to mean that you believe the killer was a psychopath?

I'd have thought that it was obvious by my use of quotes and colloquialism that I was paraphrasing the basic argument: "the Ripper was a psycho, psychos take big risks, so Lechmere [being a psycho] was happy to take big risks"

It's not my argument, nor would it be my choice of words.

[Fisherman]

I'd have thought that it was obvious by my use of quotes and colloquialism that I was paraphrasing the basic argument: "the Ripper was a psycho, psychos take big risks, so Lechmere [being a psycho] was happy to take big risks"

It's not my argument, nor would it be my choice of words.

I edited that post of mine, but you may have missed it.

[Sam Flynn]

But how could she be killed if she was potentially still alive, Gareth?

Killed in the scheme of things, "as good as done for", or "it was all over bar the shouting". They're just turns of phrase. Compare Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch.

[Elamarna]

[B]
Okay, so now I am "reduced". And I am not going to get told what you consider the full documentation. Great work there.

Not for me to say what would be full, it was not my theory being broadcast.. However I did give in the next line what I consider to be essential. To suggest I have not said what is needed is not the case.

I could say that of course he had a transcription of Llewellyns testimony, since that is the first thing that belonged to that bulky collection of material we can see in his hands.

But if I say that he did have it, I am fully aware that people out here will come creeping out from under their stones and say "But you don´t KNOW it, do you? You can´t PROVE it, can you?"
So I do it the safe way and say that if you want to believe that he did perhaps not get Llewellyns testimony, then please be my guest and feel free to do so. It´s anybodys choice to guess what was in the papers he DID get. It could be the last season of Donald Duck, who knows?


That's not what I am saying at all. As you well know.
I am saying if he had it why did he ignore the part about the abdomenial wounds. Let's be clear:
I have no doubt he had the testimony, to not have it is inconceivable in the circumstances.

Oddly, though, he did know that there was a bruise on the lower right jaw, and as far as I understand, that was something that Llewellyn disclosed at the inquest. But maybe he just guessed that one and got lucky.

No he obviously had the transcript of the testimony, it's just that he ignored the abdomenial wounds as described by Llewellyn and the views he gave at the same time.

Or any comment he made was cut away. I know for certain that the Scobie material covered a lot of time but was cut down to a short part for the docu. They cut away all the parts where he sneered at the theory.

Why you have taken this line is clear, I said either he did not have the testimony or he did not accept it or ignored it. However you for the most part have taken the view here of saying of course he had the testimony (something I have never doubted), prove he didn't.
And have chosen to ignore why the abdomenial wounds have been ignored.
That is until now, and it's he may have made them but they may have been cut.
I am afraid that will not do. You claim they cut Scobie when he disagreed with parts of the theory, are we to assume that Payne-James comments are cut for the same reason?


In response to how you compared yourself to him, yes. I thought that a tad presumptious for a humble man like you. But is this remark of yours really a response to what I said? In what way, if so?

The comparison was regards a procedure I have carried out far more often than I care to think about.
Payne-James is a highly qualified doctor and I wondered on that procedure, not something surgeons tend to do, who had the most practical experience.

Of course it relates to your point.
If Payne-James views and opinions are every challenged we are informed how highly skilled and recognised he is. This can be seen to imply we should not make such challenges.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Edit: I note now that you did NOT say that you think that the killer was a psychopath - but do you?

Quite probably, but I honestly don't know. I'm not sure that these labels help much, anyway.