Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

Elamarna:You protest too much.

How indecent of me.

No attempted to even look at possibilities, which is just what you expect everyone else to do all the time.

Which possibilities is it you want me to look at? That Lechmere may have not been the killer? Or? Just tell me, and I will look ever so diligently.

There is a logical region why he did not mention the possibility of the abdomenial wounds being that he did not accept them. It is certainly a possibility.

Is "abdomenial" an accepted term? You keep using it, and you are the medically versed people, so Iīd like to know.

A typo, it should be abdominal, cheap, and portraying no real argument.

Otherwise, you need to tell me who "he" is - Payne-James? And what was it he did not accept? That there were abdominal wounds? Thatīs how it reads to me.

The whole discussion between us on this has been about Payne-james., indeed he is mentioned just after where you decided to break, obviously to again attempt to score cheap point.

It has been spelt out many times, the views of Llewellyn. this approach is not worthy of you. Pure semantics, is your argument really that poor?

Now you accuse me of accusing you of falsary, that is a falsified of evidence, a forger. That is untrue. I have said no such thing. I am talking of what is not said by Payne-James, not anything you have said.
Once again you insult those who do not accept your ideas..
Continue on the hole gets deeper all the time.

Yes, there is a LARGE hole, but it seems to be inside your head, Steve. You need to be a lot more succinct and to the point. As it is, I cannot make heads or tails of your posts.

Insults again, so be it.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: A typo, it should be abdominal, cheap, and portraying no real argument.

It seems a typo you do all the time, but I have no problems with that - whenever I try to type "Finland" it normally comes out "Finaland".
I was just thinking it could have been the more correct term - not my language or profession and all that...

The whole discussion between us on this has been about Payne-james., indeed he is mentioned just after where you decided to break, obviously to again attempt to score cheap point.

But I do not score cheap points, I score good ones. And what is that about ne breaking something? Plus my own discussion has certainly been about the whole problem complex and not solely about J P-J!

It has been spelt out many times, the views of Llewellyn. this approach is not worthy of you. Pure semantics, is your argument really that poor?

The lacking semantics are on your side, Steve. If you manage to ask questions intelligibly and clearly, I have no beef with it.

Insults again, so be it.

Well, I get a bit annoyed by you claiming that I am digging myself into a hole. I think that is quite insulting too, so maybe we need to look ourselves in the mirror before we start throwing accusations around us?

I note there are a good many questions you have avoided. Will they have some answers? If so, I may take some time coming back to you, since I am off on some errands now.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: The only way it will have an effect on The breathing is if the Aorta is cut.

In the abdomen, I suppose? That is what you are talking about here, yes? Then what about if a large collection of the other big vessels in the abdomen are severed? You go on breathing, no problems?

The bleed out rates are much slower as Kjab3112 posted, the effect will be minimal if the Aorta is not cut, when compared to the severing of the vessels in the neck.

However there is no proof any major vessels, let alone the Aotra were cut in the abdomen.

However if such were the case it would not point towards Lechmere as the time involved would be so short that it is highly probably to preclude Paul from detecting any breathing.

"Highly probable"? I see. And can we imagine a PARTIAL severing of the aorta, Steve? No?
Just asking away here, since it seems you are not exactly intent on looking at how Lechmere could fit the bill.
Then again, I am the one avoiding looking at all possibilities. Or so Iīm told. By you.
Naughty, naughty, Steve.

Actually I have looked at all possibilities, and accepted them, you will look for anything which cannot be disproved(which is alot given the lack of evidence) and attempt to use it to support you ideas, it comes cross as desperation.

Itīs easy:
COULD Nichols have been killed very quickly by the wounds to her abdomen? Yes.

Only if the Aorta was cut, which there is no evidence to support.

COULD it have taken many a minute to have her dying from her abdominal wounds? Yes.

As Kjab3112 showed, a considerable time.13-25 minutes unless the Aorta was hit.

COULD she have died at any stage between "very quickly" and "after many a minute" from the wounds in her abdomen? Yes.

Only if the Aorta was hit, which there is no evidence for. To ignore the wounds we know existed in preference to ones which are only postulated is not going to prove anything, again desperation.

Try and contradict that, and we shall see. It will be interesting to see you establish a zone between minute one and minute, say, ten, when she could not have died.
Go on, Steve - give it a shot!

I have done, using science.
What are you using may one ask? logic? it does not appear to be data based.
Again, rather than you proving your point, you try and place the onus on others to disprove your points which are not based on evidence, only the opinion of Doctor Llewellyn, who provided no evidence to back his view.

It was however that discussion which got me thinking about this point.
Actually by suggesting the Aorta was not cut , for which there is no evidence it was, I am strengthening the case for Paul to detect breathing, not weakening it!


Why do you keep using the phrase "for which there is no evidence" when you know quite well that no evidence is not an indication either way? Explain it to me, please. Is it not true that there is no evidence that it was NOT cut either? And is it not true that since Llewellyn said that the damage to the abdomen would kill, there is a very reasonable chance that it WAS cut?

Because he gave no evidence that any major vessels had been cut, his idea that all the blood somehow leaked into the loose tissue is unrealistic.
his view seemed to change often from the reports and statements he gave, the issue appeared to be that he struggled to account for the apparent lack of blood.

Why cannot we do it the logical eay? Why must it be done in the veiled and fallacious "there is no evidence for it" way?

You cannot do things like these, and then tell me that I am diffing myself into a hole, Steve. Fair is fair.

Because logic does not work on science, last week one poster said it was logical that if the windpipe was cut you would stop breathing, wrong and confirmed as so by a medic.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hereīs a little help from the web. The question "How long does it take for a stab to the abdomen to kill you?"
Silly, I know, but the answers were a lot better:

Noah Tal Kaufman, MD, worked at Emergency Medicine

"That's like saying what's the worst sound a car can make when there's something wrong. It depends on so many factors. The knife can penetrate deeply or barely at all. 1/3 of abdominal stab wounds never even make it into the deep abdominal cavity. ...but you could die of infection 2 weeks later, or not at all. A knife hitting your abdominal aorta could kill you in seconds... So really it's either about refining the question or adding a few "ifs" as in "if the blade lacerated the such and such." I haven't read the other answers yet, but this is the answer I can tell you from years of experience with many of these traumas in the ER."

This is the MD Will Anderson:

"There is a difference between the time until death and the time until you lose consciousness.
A stab wound to the chest, if it involves the heart, will be fatal pretty quickly. You will lose consciousness in seconds, as the heart is unable to pump blood to your brain at a pressure necessary to maintain cerebral blood flow enough to keep you conscious. Brain death will follow in several minutes. If the stab wound involves major vessels of the lungs, massive haemorrhage will occur and you can quite easily bleed your entire circulating volume into your chest cavity. This could take up to a minute depending on how fit and healthy you were.
A stab wound to the belly is more difficult to say. If it involves the abdominal aorta or inferior vena cava you will bleed to death fairly quickly, within a minute or two. Smaller vessels will take longer to kill you by bleeding to death. If you avoid all major vessels then death will take days to weeks from infection if no medical attention is received."

Which confirms what I have said, and is inline with what Kjab3112 posted Do not see it adds anything.

Do you note the use of abdominal by the way.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Of course, given these data, we can conclude that regardless if Lechmere was the killer or not, he was definitely in place at a time that is perfectly consistent with the option.

We really need a phantom killer to exonerate him. And there is n ot much time to squeeze such a man in.

But since we must, because Lechmere would never have been the killer - I got that right, didnīt I? - we need to accept that Mr Phantom was there.

And covered the wounds before he fled.

Yeah, right.

Not at all.

Does the medical evidence, such as it is place him at the scene when the wounds were inflicted, actually no, the evidence we have is not capable of being used to reach such a conclusion.

Does the evidence preclude a killer before Lechmere, again it cannot do this.

Is it impossible that a killer could have struck before Lechmere, of course not.

Can it be proved Lechmere was the killer, again of course not.



steve

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: A typo, it should be abdominal, cheap, and portraying no real argument.

It seems a typo you do all the time, but I have no problems with that - whenever I try to type "Finland" it normally comes out "Finaland".
I was just thinking it could have been the more correct term - not my language or profession and all that...

You can see from your post 1094, it is used by medics.

The whole discussion between us on this has been about Payne-james., indeed he is mentioned just after where you decided to break, obviously to again attempt to score cheap point.

But I do not score cheap points, I score good ones. And what is that about ne breaking something? Plus my own discussion has certainly been about the whole problem complex and not solely about J P-J!

We disagree, most profoundly on the first issue,

On the second, since yesterday PM I have been Discussing P-J and your replies have too..

It has been spelt out many times, the views of Llewellyn. this approach is not worthy of you. Pure semantics, is your argument really that poor?

The lacking semantics are on your side, Steve. If you manage to ask questions intelligibly and clearly, I have no beef with it.

And again, insults, do you know no other way.



Steve

ps what questions am i avoiding, i am several posts behind.i

[Elamarna]

You tell that to somebody who has the aorta in the abdomen severed, Gareth, and you may find you are very wrong. There is also the possibility that a large number of the major vessels were cut and together that would ensure quick death.

Anything which is not impossible is possible, so to say there is a possibility several large vessels were cut, really says nothing.

Is there any medical evidence, other than Llewellyn's opinion which he did not support with any evidence at the inquest, which he should have done and which it was his duty to do, that any major vessels were hit?

Of course there is not!



steve

[kjab3112]

I've not completed the calculations for the aorta, but the raw data are:

Mean flow in women at rest at the infra renal aorta (slightly above the level of the umbilicus) is approximately 0.8 l/min in women (Cheng et al https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2002.107)

Abdominal aorta flow rate is proportional to fall cardiac output in pig models of hypovolaemia

A 5mm laceration of the aorta of a pig results in bleeding ceasing after three minutes with approximately 20% blood loss (sorry forgot to copy the reference)

Hypovolaemia in humans with 500ml blood loss (I.e. with no change in heart rate or blood pressure) results in an approximately 20% drop in cardiac output.

An American series of penetrating abdominal trauma in the US of 766 episodes had only four involving the aorta due to stabbing.

So technically, if all of the aorta blood flow was to leak due to complete severance of the vessel, this is fatal (and rapidly - I'd guess at three to four minutes but haven't calculated the change in flow rates). But I still feel unlikely to involve the aorta to a sufficient degree given the description of the cuts seeming to go under the clothing and thus be angled given, the likely depth of the aorta from Polly's apparent body habitus.

Paul

[Elamarna]

I've not completed the calculations for the aorta, but the raw data are:

Mean flow in women at rest at the infra renal aorta (slightly above the level of the umbilicus) is approximately 0.8 l/min in women (Cheng et al https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2002.107)

Abdominal aorta flow rate is proportional to fall cardiac output in pig models of hypovolaemia

A 5mm laceration of the aorta of a pig results in bleeding ceasing after three minutes with approximately 20% blood loss (sorry forgot to copy the reference)

Hypovolaemia in humans with 500ml blood loss (I.e. with no change in heart rate or blood pressure) results in an approximately 20% drop in cardiac output.

An American series of penetrating abdominal trauma in the US of 766 episodes had only four involving the aorta due to stabbing.

So technically, if all of the aorta blood flow was to leak due to complete severance of the vessel, this is fatal (and rapidly - I'd guess at three to four minutes but haven't calculated the change in flow rates). But I still feel unlikely to involve the aorta to a sufficient degree given the description of the cuts seeming to go under the clothing and thus be angled given, the likely depth of the aorta from Polly's apparent body habitus.

Paul

Hi Paul
When you say in the pig bleeding ceased after 3 minutes with 20% blood loss can I just clarify is this the bleeding from the Aorta ceasing and the heart continuing to beat and circulate blood or is it bleeding stops because the heart stops?

Many thanks in advance.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;420042]

Yes, there is a LARGE hole, but it seems to be inside your head, Steve.

How very rude of you Fisherman.

It is your theory that is full of holes. It is like a swiss cheese.

And research recently found the reason for that: "Swiss cheese hole mystery solved: It's all down to dirt".

(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32920200)

Like the Lechmere theory: Garbage in, garbage out.

This is not any insult but a well known concept within sociology. It means that you take into account some meaningless variables when you build your model in regression and the result gets twisted = WRONG.

Please tell me your sources for "Lechmere must have been a psychopath". What are they? Where are they?

Are they just dirt in a theory full of holes?

Pierre

[Pierre]

Of course, given these data, we can conclude that regardless if Lechmere was the killer or not, he was definitely in place at a time that is perfectly consistent with the option.

We really need a phantom killer to exonerate him. And there is n ot much time to squeeze such a man in.

But since we must, because Lechmere would never have been the killer - I got that right, didnīt I? - we need to accept that Mr Phantom was there.

And covered the wounds before he fled.

Yeah, right.

From the perspective of rational choice theory it is easy to understand the murder of Nichols postulating that, as you say, the killer "covered the wounds before he fled", since there were things to actually gain from such a behaviour: 1) People would not see that it was a murder directly when they passed by, 2) He would get away and 3) He would win time to distance himself from the murder site.

If we apply this to Lechmere: 1) By staying at the site and getting the attention of Paul, there was a direct possibility that Paul would see that it was a murered woman, 2) He could not get away after that and 3) could not distance himself from the murder site but would be questioned by police and perhaps called to an inquest. In 3, you have the options which both Lechmere and Paul faced when they talked to the police.

From the perspective of the motive explanation also, you get that the killer "covered the wounds before he fled", since 1) his motive (always directed forward) was to escape, 2) his motive was to hide the wounds from direct detection so that 3) he could distance himself from the murder site.

If we apply this to Lechmere: 1) By staying at the site he had NO MOTIVE for escaping, 2) he had no motive to hide the wounds from direct detection and 3) he had no motive to distance himself from the murder site or (in the future indeed) no motive to distance himself from the police and no motive to distance himself from the possibility of attending an inquest and no motive to distance himself from that very inquest.

You are not an historian and do not understand how historical explanations work. What you do is you take a causal explanation from no data and say: "He was found with the body and THEREFORE the killer". Then you try another causal explanation: he was a killer because he was a psychopath.

But you MUST CONNECT a motive for the murders to his ID, his person, to sources from his life. Instead you present a theoretical chain of "IF:s" or "could haves" on very poor explanations based on no sources!

You are NOT WRITING HISTORY. You write journalism. It is not adequate for the past. For the past you need history.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

To say one is digging a hole for oneself is not a personal insult.


It means to make the situation worse.

In this case it could be seen as the arguments made were not convincing or to the point. The continued use of such arguments is unlikely to produce better results and probably will weaken the position even more.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: The bleed out rates are much slower as Kjab3112 posted, the effect will be minimal if the Aorta is not cut, when compared to the severing of the vessels in the neck.

Yes, I know that - but the question is what happens if a large number of them (there are many) are cut? Then we will be looking at a much quicker demise, quite simply.
It seems we have also forgotten about the inferior Vena Cava, a large vein - severing that means a quick goodbye too.

However there is no proof any major vessels, let alone the Aotra were cut in the abdomen.

Can you please stop saying that? There is no proof either way, but Llewellyns wording certainly hints at this kind of damage being done - otherwise, it would not kill immediately.


Actually I have looked at all possibilities, and accepted them, you will look for anything which cannot be disproved(which is alot given the lack of evidence) and attempt to use it to support you ideas, it comes cross as desperation.

First you tell me that there is no evidence telling us the aorta was hit - then you say that I am looking for what cannot be disproved. That tells the whole story.

Only if the Aorta was cut, which there is no evidence to support.

And what about the vena cava? It seems another medico tells us that it could kill in 1-2 minutes? Plus, of course, the aorta may well have been cut - we donīt know, but we DO know that Llewellyn said that the damage was enough to kill immediately. After that, we need to ask ourselves whether Llewellyn knew anything about these matters. Hmmm, let see here...?

As Kjab3112 showed, a considerable time.13-25 minutes unless the Aorta was hit.

Which is not what other medicos say.

Only if the Aorta was hit, which there is no evidence for. To ignore the wounds we know existed in preference to ones which are only postulated is not going to prove anything, again desperation.

You are behaving like a complete moron now. I am not ignoring any of the wounds. It would be very hard to to, when they are on record. I AM, though, saying that the possibility that the abdominal wounds were first and could have killed her, resulting in a need to keep the door open for her having died a minute or two before the neck was cut, is a possibility that MUST be kept open. And it is in line with what the serving medico suggested, but he may have been as "desperate" as I am, who can say?


I have done, using science.

You HAVE? So you CAN exclude that she died within the period of 2-12 minutes after having had the neck cut? That is magic Steve! Congratulations!! You can actually pinpoint a period of time in which she could not have died. Wow! (This is sarcasm, of course - or insults as you like to call it. T emere idea is an insult to reality).

What are you using may one ask? logic? it does not appear to be data based.
Again, rather than you proving your point, you try and place the onus on others to disprove your points which are not based on evidence, only the opinion of Doctor Llewellyn, who provided no evidence to back his view.

Never mind what I am using - present YOUR "scientific" evidence that a period of time can be excluded as a possible TOD. It will be indefinitely more interesting than my pointing out the bloody obvious.

Because he gave no evidence that any major vessels had been cut, his idea that all the blood somehow leaked into the loose tissue is unrealistic.
his view seemed to change often from the reports and statements he gave, the issue appeared to be that he struggled to account for the apparent lack of blood.

So since he did not say that any major vessel had been cut, the idea that the blood ended up in the abdomen is off limits? I see.
Interestingly, he DID say that nearly all the blood had leaked out of the arteries and veins, but of course, if he did not specify because that was of sharp damage having been done, who can tell what he imagined? Maybe that Nichols got a nose-bleed and the blood was lost that way - in the end, a nose-bleed ALSO comes from the arteries and veins.

It is intersting how you say that I make semantic points. Coming from a man who twist words beyond recognition, it is a bit rich, though.

Because logic does not work on science, last week one poster said it was logical that if the windpipe was cut you would stop breathing, wrong and confirmed as so by a medic.

Aha - so THAT is why we should use veiled and fallacious reasoning instead. Because people may make logical guesses that are wrong.

Okay.

[Fisherman]

Which confirms what I have said, and is inline with what Kjab3112 posted Do not see it adds anything.

Do you note the use of abdominal by the way.



Steve

It was in response to Gareth, who claimed that knife damage to the abdomen cannot kill swiftly.

It can.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Not at all.

Does the medical evidence, such as it is place him at the scene when the wounds were inflicted, actually no, the evidence we have is not capable of being used to reach such a conclusion.

It places him at a murder scene many a minute before the blood stopped running from an extremely damaged body with no hinder for the blood exiting as far as we know. The blood underneath the body was also partly coagulated around half a dozen minutes after Lechmere left the body. He had an undefined amount of time alone with the body - the only source we have for it being the fewest of seconds comes from himself, and is otherwise uncorroborated. No other logical perpetrator was ever seen on the spot at the relevant time.
He is therefore TOTALLY in the bullīs eye for the Nichols murder.

That is bad enough. And it is before hestarts juggling his names and disagreeing with the police about what was said. It is an indefinitely more solid accusation act than can be levelled at any other suspect. You are welcome to exemplify if you disagree. My money is on you abstaining from it.

Does the evidence preclude a killer before Lechmere, again it cannot do this.

Correct. There may have been a phantom killer. But before such a man is identified, Lechmere is the prime suspect in the NIchols murder, and with no casebased competition.

Is it impossible that a killer could have struck before Lechmere, of course not.

See the above.

Can it be proved Lechmere was the killer, again of course not.

See the above.

The identification of Charles Lechmere is the one and only identification of a suspect really relating to the Nichols case evidence. He managed to stay safe for a hundred years plus, but that does not work any longer.

He is not the proven killer, but he IS the proven best suspect there ever was, looking at the factual hard case evidence.

You see, Steve, I am not saying that he IS the killer. I am saying that it would be extremely odd if he was not.