Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

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

Very odd! But I was upset not by how somebody said I was wrong, but instead by how you said I was digging a hole for myself. Not quite the same thing, is it? And not correct either.

Suggestion: This is too dumb to quibble over. Letīs leave it, shall we?

[Fisherman]

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.

Llewellyn said that it was likely that the killer had some anatomical knowledge, because he had managed to hit all the vital organs in the abdomen, Gareth. And he also said that the largest wound was very deep.

Were you unaware of this? Does that change things for you?

Nota bene that Llewellyn does NOT list the damaged organs at the inquest, although he had said that the vital ones all were hit.
To me, that means that you are wrong in saying that there would have been evidence. Clearly, there would not. Not from the inquest, that is.

As I have painstakingly pointed out to Steve, there was a medical report signed Llewellyn at the policeīs and coroners disposal, and in it, the details would have been mentioned. All of them.

[Elamarna]

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?


Bleed out from the vena cava is no where near as quick as the Aorta.
And my friend you may continue to believe you have the better bid, it does not mean you do.


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.


Was not and is not one of the roles of the inquest to determine the cause of death, if details are not given how can such be established?


... 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.

We do not, he provides no evidence, opinion without evidence to support it is worthless.

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!


There is no need or desire to tarnish you Fisherman.

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

He claims both the Vena Cava and Aorta will bleed at same rate, such is not true, he is generalizing I assume.

However I can understand why you would therefore quote such.


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

I have said it is a matter of opinion, so that is not making a categorical statement.

He missed the very obvious wounds to her abdomen, which he should have noticed.

He claims the blood as mainly gone into the loose tissue, this is not realistic.

That is something to start with.


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


Unfortunately it does not exist and we cannot guess what it may or may not have said and so it is useless to quote it as evidence.


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

Sorry that is not good enough, we need actual reference if you are going to challenge opinions which are themselves back by references.
The net is full of nonsense as we both know.



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.

Avoiding the wounds?
Which wounds in particular?
The only comment i recall was that you were ignoring the neck wounds in favour of postulated abdominal wounds, that is not misrepresenting you, it is how your argument comes across, and is debating the argument not you. And that compares to personal insults, really?


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?

How long for the attack in total?


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?

No problem


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?

Thank you, no problem, but it is high improbable he was there at 8 minutes after the death cut, and that time certainly does not appear to relate to his report.


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.

Think you will find I said something along the lines of the blood evidence cannot place Lechmere at the scene for the cut, or words to that effect, mainly because it does not work as an hypothesis


Just did. Go back and read.

better still here it is:


"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."

i see nothing inconsistent there with what you are replying to.



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.

I disagre

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.[/B]

Sorry you cannot use as support a document that does not exist.

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.

Let me assure you I do not, i cannot know how you will see what is posted.

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

steve

[Elamarna]

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.

There does not need to be a prime suspect, and i see none.

[Fisherman]

There does not need to be a prime suspect, and i see none.

If there is a suspect and no other suspects, that suspect will be the prime suspect. If there are two suspects, the better one wioll be the prime suspect.

Lechmere does really not have to do much to be the prime suspect, on account of the lack of competition. But thatīs not something that lowers his admissibility in the role.

Itīs that old fear of touching again. People will not admit the obvious, because it hurts too much. So much has been invested in pooh-poohing the carman, and so much prestige has crept into it. Today, it makes many people look a tad silly.

[Fisherman]

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?


Bleed out from the vena cava is no where near as quick as the Aorta.
And my friend you may continue to believe you have the better bid, it does not mean you do.

Itīs quick enough, a matter of the fewest of minutes, or so Iīm told. You said that they are placed into each other. Cut both and start counting.


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 have gone down in detail in his medical report and it will no doubt have done so.


Was not and is not one of the roles of the inquest to determine the cause of death, if details are not given how can such be established?

And did he not say that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill? And did not Baxter admit that he opted for abdomen first? So whereīs the problem?


... 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.

We do not, he provides no evidence, opinion without evidence to support it is worthless.

No, it is not. A medico testifying in a professional role wil not be worthless. That does not work, Steve.

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!


There is no need or desire to tarnish you Fisherman.

Need? No. Desire? Have you read the boards?

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

He claims both the Vena Cava and Aorta will bleed at same rate, such is not true, he is generalizing I assume.

He actually says that it will be a case of one or two minutes. Perhaps one in the one case and two in the other?


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

I have said it is a matter of opinion, so that is not making a categorical statement.

Good. Very good. For you, not least...

He missed the very obvious wounds to her abdomen, which he should have noticed.

Not on the spot, no. He was there to establish whether there was something to do, and he was NOT required to make a full examination there. This becomes extremely clear when he tells the police to roll her away, because ...? Yes?

He claims the blood as mainly gone into the loose tissue, this is not realistic.

You donīt know what he means.

That is something to start with.

No. But proceed, by all means!

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

Unfortunately it does not exist and we cannot guess what it may or may not have said and so it is useless to quote it as evidence.

I am certain that it was a lot more detailed. Do you disagree? Was there ever a medical report from a murder that was NOT detailed?
This, Steve, is what TRUE desperation looks like, and you should try to elevate yourself above it.


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

Sorry that is not good enough, we need actual reference if you are going to challenge opinions which are themselves back by references.
The net is full of nonsense as we both know.

Yes - I DO know that!!

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.

Avoiding the wounds?
Which wounds in particular?
The only comment i recall was that you were ignoring the neck wounds in favour of postulated abdominal wounds, that is not misrepresenting you, it is how your argument comes across, and is debating the argument not you. And that compares to personal insults, really?

Yes, it IS an insult to say that I ignore a neck severed to the bone. Of course I donīt! It would be ridiculous. And saying that it may have come second is NOT in any way ignoring it!

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?

How long for the attack in total?

Impossible to say. Can you pin it, Steve? Or will you go "Well, if..."?

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?

No problem

What...? One post ago, you were outraged by the suggestion...???


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?

Thank you, no problem, but it is high improbable he was there at 8 minutes after the death cut, and that time certainly does not appear to relate to his report.

But thatīs another matter. Your problem was that you thought it extremely odd that I suggested an attack length of one to two minutes before the neck was cut. And now, itīs no problem at all.
Whatīs happening, Steve?

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.

But whay if the aorta/vena cava were cut open two minutes before he cut the neck? Where does that clear possibility fit into your research? And what does Paul mean by 3-4 minutes? Is that before she was dead? Or is it the bleeding out time? Or both?

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.

Think you will find I said something along the lines of the blood evidence cannot place Lechmere at the scene for the cut, or words to that effect, mainly because it does not work as an hypothesis


Just did. Go back and read.

better still here it is:


"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."

i see nothing inconsistent there with what you are replying to.

No, that was not the passage I spoke of.

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.

I disagre

So empirical research will not provide guide,lines, is thatg what you are saying?

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.[/B]

Sorry you cannot use as support a document that does not exist.

No, but I can repeat that you donīt know what Llewellyn meant.

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.

Let me assure you I do not, i cannot know how you will see what is posted.

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

As I have already said, they will have done so already.

[Fisherman]

I feel I am loosing the will to live a little right now, so itīs timeout for me today.

Sleep well.

[kjab3112]

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

The pigs are alive, the cut (not a vet but pigs are used for these experiments because they're so similar to humans in size so I'd estimate similar sized aorta) despite being around a sixth of the aortic circumference stopped bleeding due to various haemostatic means such as muscular wall contraction and clot formation

Paul

[harry]

The police of that time stated there were no suspects,in any of the Ripper killings.They were in possession of the evidence,medical and otherwise.
Cross was treated as a witness,nothing else.Today it might be said a person of interest.
No one is saying it was impossible for Cross to have been the killer,but that would entail proving his(Cross)statements to be false.
You have written Fisherman,that Cross would not be found gulty had he faced a trial.Why not?

[Sam Flynn]

Llewellyn said that it was likely that the killer had some anatomical knowledge, because he had managed to hit all the vital organs in the abdomen, Gareth.

I thought he simply said "attacked all the vital parts" - he didn't specify "in the abdomen" at all, nor did he say "vital ORGANS" for that matter.

To me, that means that you are wrong in saying that there would have been evidence.

There is no surviving evidence that any abdominal organs, "vital" or otherwise, were cut.

[Elamarna]

The pigs are alive, the cut (not a vet but pigs are used for these experiments because they're so similar to humans in size so I'd estimate similar sized aorta) despite being around a sixth of the aortic circumference stopped bleeding due to various haemostatic means such as muscular wall contraction and clot formation

Paul

Hi Paul,

Thanks for that. Having a medical research background I can conclude that pigs are often used for comparative research purposes.

Steve

[Elamarna]

yet another long one.

]Itīs quick enough, a matter of the fewest of minutes, or so Iīm told. You said that they are placed into each other. Cut both and start counting.

I see no actual estimate of time and may one ask is this from what you have been told? or read on the internet? there is a considerable difference

More importantly No one is claiming that if either or indeed both vessels were cut it would not lead to quick death; just that there is no evidence at all, and no matter how much one does not want to accept it, which says they were cut or damaged.

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 have gone down in detail in his medical report and it will no doubt have done so.

Please explain why he should not have stated it at the inquest?
Please explain why he gave a far fuller account of the neck wounds, and of the actual surface cuts to the abdomen if he did not need to report wounds.
Was not the reporting of wounds a requirement?
And one cannot use a non existent reports, of which there is no record of its contents, as supporting evidence, such an idea is truly unacceptable

Was not and is not one of the roles of the inquest to determine the cause of death, if details are not given how can such be established?

And did he not say that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill? And did not Baxter admit that he opted for abdomen first? So whereīs the problem?

Because he needed to give details of the wounds to support his view, if not one could say anything, give any cause of death.

Baxter openly disagreed with him, and gave reasons for such, and while he was not a medic, his reasoning is sound.
Of course if Llewellyn had said he had found damage to the Aorta and or Vena Cava, the situation would have been very different, and Baxter may have taken a different view.

... 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.

We do not, he provides no evidence, opinion without evidence to support it is worthless.

No, it is not. A medico testifying in a professional role wil not be worthless. That does not work, Steve.

Sorry in that case a medic could have and could say, anything as an opinion for the cause of death. Opinions need to be supported by medical evidence, a view expressed without any is worthless.

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!


There is no need or desire to tarnish you Fisherman.

Need? No. Desire? Have you read the boards?

Which has nothing to do with my posts.

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

He claims both the Vena Cava and Aorta will bleed at same rate, such is not true, he is generalizing I assume.

He actually says that it will be a case of one or two minutes. Perhaps one in the one case and two in the other?

Perhaps?
It appears that you are not sure what is meant from that reply.

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

I have said it is a matter of opinion, so that is not making a categorical statement.

Good. Very good. For you, not least...


He missed the very obvious wounds to her abdomen, which he should have noticed.

Not on the spot, no. He was there to establish whether there was something to do, and he was NOT required to make a full examination there. This becomes extremely clear when he tells the police to roll her away, because ...? Yes?

He was a professional was he not, and one expects professional standards; even a quick initial examination should have revealed the damage, it would have taken but a few minutes, but it seems he did not bother.

He claims the blood as mainly gone into the loose tissue, this is not realistic.

You donīt know what he means.

How can someone possible make such a claim, when they have no idea of another's understanding?

I have been very clear about my comments on this part of Llewellyn’s testimony, I have also sort and received second opinions on such.
Of course the reply, does not attempt to address the issue, just says I do not understand what was meant- truly incredible.

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

Unfortunately it does not exist and we cannot guess what it may or may not have said and so it is useless to quote it as evidence.

I am certain that it was a lot more detailed. Do you disagree? Was there ever a medical report from a murder that was NOT detailed?

We have no idea what the said report may or may not contained, the idea we can somehow say we do is unreal.
One simply cannot use a source which no longer exists and of which there are no copies or knowledge of it contents to support an argument

This, Steve, is what TRUE desperation looks like, and you should try to elevate yourself above it.

Please Fisherman, the only desperation i see is an idea that one can use non existent documents to somehow support a lack of evidence.

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

Sorry that is not good enough, we need actual reference if you are going to challenge opinions which are themselves back by references.
The net is full of nonsense as we both know.

Yes - I DO know that!!

To say any expert is wrong, ones needs to quote references, for example when Discussing bleeding and Payne-James, Dr Biggs is often quoted and his comments in the books by Trevor.
To say there are alternatives on the net is simply not good enough.

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.

Avoiding the wounds?
Which wounds in particular?
The only comment i recall was that you were ignoring the neck wounds in favour of postulated abdominal wounds, that is not misrepresenting you, it is how your argument comes across, and is debating the argument not you. And that compares to personal insults, really?

Yes, it IS an insult to say that I ignore a neck severed to the bone. Of course I donīt! It would be ridiculous. And saying that it may have come second is NOT in any way ignoring it!

We have what are fatal wounds to the neck.
We know those wounds exist.

To suggested that wounds to the abdomen which are only postulated ( cuts to the major vessels) and not proven can be used as a cause of death means that one is in effect ignoring the consequences of the known facts in preference to unsupported ideas.
To point that out is not an insult by most peoples standards.
However if you feel insulted I am most sorry.

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?

How long for the attack in total?

Impossible to say. Can you pin it, Steve? Or will you go "Well, if..."?
no I am asking you, the time taken is intrinsic to much of the Lechmere theory.
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?

No problem

What...? One post ago, you were outraged by the suggestion...???

Not at all, it was just that such a view I believe dose not fit the Lechmere theory and so was surprised you were suggesting such.

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?

Thank you, no problem, but it is high improbable he was there at 8 minutes after the death cut, and that time certainly does not appear to relate to his report.

But thatīs another matter. Your problem was that you thought it extremely odd that I suggested an attack length of one to two minutes before the neck was cut. And now, itīs no problem at all.
Whatīs happening, Steve?

See above,

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.

Think you will find I said something along the lines of the blood evidence cannot place Lechmere at the scene for the cut, or words to that effect, mainly because it does not work as an hypothesis


Just did. Go back and read.

better still here it is:


"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."

i see nothing inconsistent there with what you are replying to.

No, that was not the passage I spoke of.

Really? Your response to "go back and read" was in reply to post # 1116 and in particular to my quoting what I said in post # 1100,

There is no other passage in post #1100.
The only other words apart from those quoted above were “not at all“.

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.

I disagre

So empirical research will not provide guide,lines, is thatg what you are saying?

Much of what is suggested is not empirical research at all.

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.[/B]

Sorry you cannot use as support a document that does not exist.

No, but I can repeat that you donīt know what Llewellyn meant.

Has I said above, such a statement is unsustainable, there being no knowledge of my understanding.
Can one ask, do you know what Llewellyn meant? And if so why do you suppose I do not?.

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.

Let me assure you I do not, i cannot know how you will see what is posted.

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

As I have already said, they will have done so already.

Yes of that I am sure, and do you know what it does not upset me at all.



steve

[Elamarna]

We are repeatedly told the wounds to Nichols were deep.

However what does that mean?

Is it a defined medical term?

Does it tell us anything useful?


All we do know, and this is from Spratling not Llewellyn is that the Omentum was cut in several places.

Given that Spratling included this in his report, it would be a little remiss of him if deeper organs or vessels had been hit, not to mention them.


steve

[Pierre]

We are repeatedly told the wounds to Nichols were deep.

However what does that mean?

Is it a defined medical term?

Does it tell us anything useful?

All we do know, and this is from Spratling not Llewellyn is that the Omentum was cut in several places.

Given that Spratling included this in his report, it would be a little remiss of him if deeper organs or vessels had been hit, not to mention them.

steve

Hi Steve,

actually, this is not really "all" we know from the reference of Spratling to Llewellyn.

You write that all we know is that " the Omentum was cut in several places"

But in the report we have the small word "also".

Look at this from the transcription of the original document (in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook) again Steve:

"...the abdomen had been [cut] open from centre of bottom of ribs a[long] right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jag[ged], the omentium, or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places..."

So "all" we know is not that the coating of the stomach or omentum was "cut in several places" but we also know that the abdomen also (!) "was cut open from centre of bottom of ribs..." etc.

Of course this says nothing about the depth of the wounds, nothing about the aorta and nothing about the order of cutting.

And I think you have already noticed the "also". One gets tired when discussing the same thing with Fisherman over and over again.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

actually, this is not really "all" we know from the reference of Spratling to Llewellyn.

You write that all we know is that " the Omentum was cut in several places"

But in the report we have the small word "also".

Look at this from the transcription of the original document (in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook) again Steve:

"...the abdomen had been [cut] open from centre of bottom of ribs a[long] right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jag[ged], the omentium, or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places..."

So "all" we know is not that the coating of the stomach or omentum was "cut in several places" but we also know that "the abdomen was cut open from centre of bottom of ribs..." etc.

Of course this says nothing about the depth of the wounds, nothing about the aorta and nothing about the order of cutting.

Cheers, Pierre

Forgive me Pierre. I was only talking about the depth of the cuts, and the mention of the cutting of the omentun is the only reference to that issue.

The points you make are of course correct.


Steve