Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

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

Abdomenial? Okay.

We disagree, most profoundly on the first issue,

My bet is on me being the much better judge of it, though.

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

Yes, but that does not mean that I lost track of the overall issues, Steve. You are welcome to say what YOU have discussed, but I will be the judge of what I discussed.

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

I know all ways. Which one I use depends on my counterpart.

[Fisherman]

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

Does that equal how saying that there is a possibility that they were NOT cut is equally uninformative?

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!

So you think that the opinion of the medico who did the examination and the post-mortem can be easily ruled out? "Is there any OTHER medical evidence than his", you ask.

No, there is not. But what he said stands. Where do we end up if we rule out the words of the responsible medicos in these cases? Why would we even dream of doing it?
What allows you to conclude that there really was not much blood in the abdomen at all, that it was just a desperate guess on Llewellyns behalf, led on by how he failed to find enough blood?
You cannot do that and tell me that I am insulting people.

[Fisherman]

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

If it is wrong, it IS an insult.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;420072]

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

I know all ways. Which one I use depends on my counterpart.

You blame Steve for your own insulting him. Ugly.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Seems I can prove that I make the better case, Steve - Pierre sides with you.

[Elamarna]

Another long reply, this see how much substance here.

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.

Not at all. they run next to each other, there is a good chance if one is damage so will the other be, so perhaps I should more correctly say if neither the Aorta or Vena Cava, however the same applies there is no mention of damage to either vessel.

However there is no proof any major vessels, let alone the Aorta 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.

I will continue to say it as there is no evidence to say there was damage to either the Aorta or Vena Cava.
At the inquest Llewellyn should have explained his reasoning and given details of which internal vessels were cut, such was done for the neck. He did not do this, even although he should have.

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.

Different issues, you see lack of evidence as supporting any idea you wish to put forward. Most will accept if there is no evidence which mentions a particular thing, it can not be viewed as being impossible; that is very different however from saying it is probably.

Ripperology is littered with such arguments: "you can't prove its not, so it is," and every time such arguments fail.

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...?

I have already addressed the issue of the Vena Cava
Which medic is this, you do not reference, and without such one cannot pass an opinion or indeed comment?
It is a matter of opinion over what llewellyn knew, or how competent he was.

The point remains that if he believed the Aorta or Vena Cava were cut and he believed this to be the cause of death, these injuries should have been reported at the inquest, they were not, nor does he mention then in his press statements.

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

Which is not what other medicos say.

References please?

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?

If you continue to indulge in personal insults, you will be reported.
I do not do the same to you, over the last two weeks you have referred to me as disabled, having a whole in my head, and now being a moron. if you cannot debate politely then don't bother.

So now she may have died a minute of two before the neck is cut? did you really just say that Fisherman, how long are you proposing for the attack?

If you really believe this how can it be claimed both Neil and Mizen described a flowing wound?

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).

Certainly not, and no one is making such a claim, all I see is distortion of what others say.
3-4 minutes is the figure I am working with for death by the neck wounds, this is the figure suggested by Kjab3112, and fits with my own research on this matter.

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.

I have not said that, my post #1100 says you cannot use the evidence to either pinpoint a TOD or exclude any period or person. it also says you cannot use it to place aperson at the scene at either TOD or time of attack.
Please highlight where I have said it can!

If we knew when the blood actually stopped pumping we may have something to work with, but we don't.

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.

Not at all, just his suggestion that it was mainly in the loose tissue is unrealistic.

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.

Not a worthy point at all!

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.

I do not, such is not needed unless the case is weak, such as the case Against Lechmere.

Why not let others judge who does and does not twist words, am happy with that.

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.

veiled=covered and concealed, no its all in the open

Fallacious= embodying a fallacy, I think not.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

We have no idea when it stopped running with regards to when Lechmere was on site, such is not record.

Sorry he is not in the bull's eye.
We have no time for the attack, other than possibly that by Harriet lilley, which is questionable itself.
We can assume it was not before 3.15-3.20 when Neil passed.
The blood coagulating on its own proves nothing since we do not know how coagulated it was, and the rate of coagulation varies significantly.

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.

The name issue has been done to death and you have not convinced many who actually know the case, rather than just those who see a documentary on TV or YOUTUBE.

He does not disagree with the POLICE, one police constable disagrees with him and Paul.

I do not believe in abstaining.

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.[/B]

No he is YOUR prime suspect, not The Prime Suspect.

See the above.[/B]

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.

No he is a person on interest, that is it. there has been no evidence present which is conclusive or even near to such of his guilt.

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

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.

No he is not the best suspect, we will disagree.

And it would not be odd if he were not, not to the majority of those studying the case.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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

Does that equal how saying that there is a possibility that they were NOT cut is equally uninformative?

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!

So you think that the opinion of the medico who did the examination and the post-mortem can be easily ruled out? "Is there any OTHER medical evidence than his", you ask.


The issue is that he did not present much in the way of evidence, he was very clear on the neck wounds and then gets very fuzzy and somewhat evasive over the abdominal wounds.

No, there is not. But what he said stands. Where do we end up if we rule out the words of the responsible medicos in these cases? Why would we even dream of doing it?
What allows you to conclude that there really was not much blood in the abdomen at all, that it was just a desperate guess on Llewellyns behalf, led on by how he failed to find enough blood?
You cannot do that and tell me that I am insulting people.

Actually it appears he did not find much, that can be concluded by by his comment about being mainly in the loose tissue.

Yes no insults.


steve

[Elamarna]

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

If it is wrong, it IS an insult.

No it is not my friend.

I see now why you get so upset, every time someone says you are wrong, its an insult!!! odd interpretation of "insult"



Steve

[Elamarna]

Seems I can prove that I make the better case, Steve - Pierre sides with you.

Maybe he is right!!

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I will continue to say it as there is no evidence to say there was damage to either the Aorta or Vena Cava.

And, boy, there would have been evidence if that were indeed the case. The wounds would need to have been rather significant in order to have damaged either vessel, and other abdominal organs (not just the abdominal flesh) would have been cut in the process of doing so. It's not as if the vena cava or aorta sit just under the skin.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Another long reply, this see how much substance here.

You see, this is why I find your wording odd every now and then. It has nothing to do witn any insult on my behalf, itīs just that you do word yourself in a very peculiar manner at times. I mean, I understand it - or I think I do - but I canīt always be certain.

Not at all. they run next to each other, there is a good chance if one is damage so will the other be, so perhaps I should more correctly say if neither the Aorta or Vena Cava, however the same applies there is no mention of damage to either vessel.

Yes, you should perhaps say that. Instead of inferring that the aorta is the ony vessel of this serious magnitude. Regardless of they run beside each other or not.


I will continue to say it as there is no evidence to say there was damage to either the Aorta or Vena Cava.

Fine. Then I will continue to say that there is no evidence that they were NOT cut. And we can have a really merry time wasting outr lives away on it. And all the while, I will have the better bid, since Llewellyn said that the cutting as immediately killing. And you have just yourself claimed that the only vessel that can cause immediate death when cut is the aorta (you forgot about the vena cava, of course, but...)
See how it works? No?

At the inquest Llewellyn should have explained his reasoning and given details of which internal vessels were cut, such was done for the neck. He did not do this, even although he should have.

No, he should not have stated it at the inquest at all. It shuld hkave gone dwon in detail in his medical report and it will no doubt have done so.

Different issues, you see lack of evidence as supporting any idea you wish to put forward.

Whereas you see it as supporting any idea YOU want to put forward. Yes, different issues indeed.

Most will accept if there is no evidence which mentions a particular thing, it can not be viewed as being impossible; that is very different however from saying it is probably.

... up until the point we see that Llewellyn said that the damage to the abdomen would kill immediately. Then we get a good indicator about what probably applies and what does probably not apply.

Ripperology is littered with such arguments: "you can't prove its not, so it is," and every time such arguments fail.


This is not one of them, though. I am perfectly aware that I cannot say that I know this was the case, and I never did it. It is only you that falsely and slyly infer it. Good going there, Steve- if you can tarnish your opponent, then do so, regardless if you have to stretch the truth. It all serves a good purpose!

I have already addressed the issue of the Vena Cava
Which medic is this, you do not reference, and without such one cannot pass an opinion or indeed comment?
It is a matter of opinion over what llewellyn knew, or how competent he was.

It is the MD I quote with name and everything in my earlier post.

If you can prove Llewellyn wrong on one single point, then do so. If you cannot, I advice a humbler attitude.

The point remains that if he believed the Aorta or Vena Cava were cut and he believed this to be the cause of death, these injuries should have been reported at the inquest, they were not, nor does he mention then in his press statements.

Medical-report. MEDICAL-REPORT. It was at the policeīs and the coronerīs disposal. It would be full and clear.

References please?

Try the net. They are around in numbers. Thatīs all I will say.

If you continue to indulge in personal insults, you will be reported.
I do not do the same to you, over the last two weeks you have referred to me as disabled, having a whole in my head, and now being a moron. if you cannot debate politely then don't bother.

Well, to be fair, I only said that you behaved like a moron, not that you are one. I believe - and hope - that you are above it, which was why I was taken aback by your falsely claiming that I was avoiding some of the wounds. If you keep misrepresenting me, you will be reported.

So now she may have died a minute of two before the neck is cut? did you really just say that Fisherman, how long are you proposing for the attack?

Yes, of course she may have been dead for a minute or two when the neck was cut. What is there to oppose such a suggestion? What law rules that a person who cuts the abdomen of a woman open must cut the neck within a minute afterwards or otherwise abstain from it?
There was a number of cuts to the abdomen, there was tampering with the clothing, there were stays that were probably hindersome, he may have cut slowly, enjoying the cutting.
It is perfectly obvious that she COULD have dies a minute or two before having her neck cut, Steve. What is your problem with that?

If you really believe this how can it be claimed both Neil and Mizen described a flowing wound?

Neither man did. One said oozing/running, the other said running. If it anything Iīve learnt from David Orsam, then it is to keep track of the wording when it comes to exiting blood!

Letīs say that Mizen was there seven minutes after the neck was cut. Obviously the blood could keep running for seven minutes, therefore. What is it that then makes it impossible to run for eight?


Certainly not, and no one is making such a claim, all I see is distortion of what others say.
3-4 minutes is the figure I am working with for death by the neck wounds, this is the figure suggested by Kjab3112, and fits with my own research on this matter.

No distortion there, Iīm afraid. I was asking whether you had a period of time excluded from dying, and you claimed to have establshed such a thing scientifically. Itīs either that or you got the wording wrong again. Or I got it wrong myself, owing to my being a Swede. But if yu go back and read again, I think you will see what I mean. If it is not true, so much the better, because then you agee that deat could have come at any time. Which is what I say.

I have not said that, my post #1100 says you cannot use the evidence to either pinpoint a TOD or exclude any period or person. it also says you cannot use it to place aperson at the scene at either TOD or time of attack.
Please highlight where I have said it can!

Just did. Go back and read.

If we knew when the blood actually stopped pumping we may have something to work with, but we don't.

There are probabilities and general observations to look at. They are no deciding factors but they do point a finger.

Not at all, just his suggestion that it was mainly in the loose tissue is unrealistic.

You donīt even know exactly what he meant by it. But rest assured that it was in his report. The moree trust you put in the man, and the less you suggest your own thinking trumps him, the better off we will be.

Not a worthy point at all!

Worthy? Iīve no idea. If the message comes across, Iīm fine with that.

I do not, such is not needed unless the case is weak, such as the case Against Lechmere.

But I find you DO twist words, Steve. And all the while, you camouflage it by levelling the exact same accusation against me. I donīt like it at all.

Why not let others judge who does and does not twist words, am happy with that.

Others already do. There is nothing we can do about it.

veiled=covered and concealed, no its all in the open

Fallacious= embodying a fallacy, I think not.

Youīd wish. And so would I. But much as we think ourselves geniuses of clarity and concise messages at times, this is not always so.

[Fisherman]

Maybe he is right!!

Steve

I wouldnīt put any money on it, Steve. Just saying.

[Fisherman]

We have no idea when it stopped running with regards to when Lechmere was on site, such is not record.



Sorry he is not in the bull's eye.
We have no time for the attack, other than possibly that by Harriet lilley, which is questionable itself.
We can assume it was not before 3.15-3.20 when Neil passed.
The blood coagulating on its own proves nothing since we do not know how coagulated it was, and the rate of coagulation varies significantly.



The name issue has been done to death and you have not convinced many who actually know the case, rather than just those who see a documentary on TV or YOUTUBE.

He does not disagree with the POLICE, one police constable disagrees with him and Paul.

I do not believe in abstaining.



No he is YOUR prime suspect, not The Prime Suspect.



No he is a person on interest, that is it. there has been no evidence present which is conclusive or even near to such of his guilt.



No he is not the best suspect, we will disagree.

And it would not be odd if he were not, not to the majority of those studying the case.


Steve

There, now we can all see that you cannot get this right for the life of you.

Of course he is the prime suspect in the Nichols case. Someone has to be, and there is virtually no competition. And of course he is in the bulls eye, timewise.

Resisting those two things is like denying the sun in the sky. And I do know that numerous people do just that nevertheless.

But this is a question of factualities, not of forming brotherhoods.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Actually it appears he did not find much, that can be concluded by by his comment about being mainly in the loose tissue.

It was not in the vessels. There was almost nothing on the ground. There were no large amounts in the clothing. She was killed where she was found. And the blood WAS found - in the abdominal cavity.

Yes no insults.

Ah! Great! Iīll give it my best shot. In a roundabout way, I like discussing the case with you. If you only had not had that strange picture of it...