Lechmere The Psychopath

[Mike J. G.]

The truth about what?

Pierre

When it comes to Lechmere, the truth is as how Mark "Chopper" Read saw it:

The whole truth, the half truth, and nothing like the truth.

[Mike J. G.]

I LOVE THIS MAN!!!

At last I can be sure I am not the only soul in this green earth!

"Is this real life?"

[Sam Flynn]

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.

And the omentum lies just beneath the abdominal wall, with the abdominal viscera lying behind it. The abdominal aorta/inferior vena cava are comparatively deeper still.

[John G]

John G: Well where do I even start with this!

My advice would be NOT to start at all.

I'm sorry but your view on this is getting more and more blinkered.

... and that is why. You are not speaking the truth.

As I'm short on time ill just address a few points. To start with the ritual was not the same as the Torso perpetrator was a dismememberer and JtR wasn't: http://jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.long

WAIT!!! So the dismemberment was now a ritual? That is interesting - you have fervently claimed that it was simply a means to transport the body and to hide the ID of the victim. When did it pass into being a ritual?
The ritual was the exact same in both series, and it had a lot to do with dismemberment - but not in the way you are suggesting. You can find it in the 1873 victim, for example - if you know where to look. Once more, the joints that were easy to cut open and disjoint were sawed through, while the joints that were difficult to cut open and disjoint were not.
Can you see the anomaly here? The killer is well versed in how to disjoint and does it with superior skill. But he CHOOSES not to disjoint at the shoulders and hips, where he saws through the bone instead.

Once you can see what this is about, you will see the ritual involved and you will begin to understand why I keep telling you that the Kelly deed and the 1873 torso deed are twin cases.
My guess is that the penny won´t drop anytime soon.

The reason didn't fling any victim over his shoulder was because he was a completely different type of killer to Torso, who had no reason to do this as he must have taken his victim 's to a disposal site.

No, the reason Jack did not fling the victims over his shoulder was that he had already dumped them where he killed them. And the sites did not leave any clue to where he lived and worked. When he killed indoors, as the torso killer, he could not leave the bodies in his premises, because that would alert the police to him. In THOSE cases, he needed to dispose of the bodies.
Can you see how that works, even if you don´t ascribe to the suggestion yourself?

Eddowes' face wasn't cut away to prevent identification! If you believe that then you must be getting desperate. As for Kelly, was she decapitated?

The cuts to Eddowes face may have been added to make an ID harder, it is at least a possibility. And why do you move the goalposts for Kelly? I said that her face was so badly messed up and cut away that it could well be a question of making an ID harder - which was what we discussed. Do you or do you not agree that this was so? Do you remember that it was said that even Barnett had a very hard time ID:ing her? Or do you want to change subject instead, now that you have been revealed as worn on this point? Which is it?
As an aside, I am perfectly convinced that neither Eddowes´ nor Kellys facial cuts ahd anything at all to do with the killer trying to hide the identitites of his victims. But that is another matter altogether.

And Jackson's uterus wasn't missing-the doctors actually examined it! The foetus may have been missing, although one was subsequently found in the river which may have been Jackson's. In events if the perpetrator did retain the foetus, but not the uterus, that suggests a very different motive to any of the C5 cases.

Dear, oh dear! The uterus was "not missing"? It was taken out and floated down the Thames, inside the two abdominal flaps and together with cord and placenta. "Missing" in the context we are talking about means "taken out of the body". That is why we can see that Jackson, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly all had their abdomens cut open and their uteruses cut out.
The foetus found in the Thames was not Jacksons. And the removal of the foetus suggest no other motive at all than the one present in all C5 cases - one of a ritualistic behavior.

By the bye, there seems to be something missing in this debate too. And it is not because you are cut out to understand it. Excuse the pun.

Okay, let me introduce you to some of the basics. Firstly, I do believe that, in the Torso cases, dismemberment was undertaken for purposes of disposal of the body and to prevent identification, hence no head was ever recovered from any of the victims. However, I was referring to "ritual" in the sense of repetitive behaviour, which is a definition that you will find in any reputable English dictionary or thesaurus you might wish to consult.

Nonetheless, as I'm prepared to be objective, I accept the possibility that, assuming the 1887-1889 Torso victims had a single perpetrator, this repetitive behaviour might have been fantasy driven: http://jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.long

You seem to be getting yourself hopelessly confused when referring to the way in which the Torso victims were dismembered; I will therefore attempt to educate you on this matter. Thus, it has been argued that disarticulation around the joints, which occurred in the Torso cases, is uncommon and suggests a degree of butchery or anatomical knowledge: see for example, Kahana et al., 2010; Reddy, 1973; Reichs, 1998; Rutty and Hainsworth, 2014. Nonetheless, this is not New York case experience: Passalacqua et al, 2014. Moreover, Konpka et al., 2007 considered 23 dismemberment cases from Poland. However, only one out of four disarticulation cases related even loosely to anatomical knowledge, where the perpetrators profession was a cook.

And why are you unwilling to accept simple explanations instead of resorting to convoluted conclusions? The obvious reason why JtR killed women in the street is that he had no desire to spend time with the victims-unlike Torso-or to dismember their bodies for either ritualistic purposes or for the purpose of disposing of the body to prevent identification.

I have no idea why anyone would argue that the minor cuts inflicted on Eddowes face were intended prevent identification. If this were the case, the perpetrator must have been an absolute moron.

Nor do I believe that Kelly's murderer was trying to prevent identification, especially as she was killed in her own home. In fact, the frenzied assault on the body suggests a killer who was full of rage and determined to administer as much destruction as possible. In fact, the frenzied nature of the attack, by a perpetrator demonstrating no skill whatsoever, is a world away from the significant degree of skill apparent in the Torso cases.

You now argue that Jackson's uterus was missing in the sense that it was removed from the body. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. If you're now getting that desperate it may be better if you passed me on to Ed, who is probably the brains of the outfit.

I mean, you fail to mention that Jackson's lungs were actually missing, meaning that if your theory is correct then they were more important to the perpetrator than the uterus! Perhaps you now subscribe to Batman's theory that he was trying to assemble a monster and that the lungs were body parts that he still required: Lechmere-Ripperstein!

Finally, I note that you haven't even referred to Kattrup's excellent argument: that the reason that strips of the abdominal wall were removed was to aid with the disposal of the uterus: see http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8849&page=30

[Fisherman]

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

So let me see how you argue here, Gareth! We KNOW hat Llewellyn said that the killer to his mind had anatomical knowledge on account of how he attacked "all the vital parts".

So which oarts could he have been talking about?

You seem to be suggesting that there is an alternative to how I claim that Llewellyn was speaking of the abdominal organs. But whay could it be?

Ah! The neck! You think that Llewellyn spaks of how the killer was probably versed in anatomy because he knew that the neck was a vital part! Brilliant!

But wait...? That is just ONE part, and Llewellyn spoke of "parts". So he must have meant that besides the neck, the skin of the abdomen is a vital part, right?

Yes, that must be it. Since Llewellyn acknowledged that the killer was anatomically versed and know how to find the vital parts of the body with his blade, the neck and the skin of the abdmen will have been what he spoke of.

You just disqualified yourself from any intelligible discussion about the case.

[Fisherman]

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?

On account of how the judicial system demands more for a conviction when it comes to a capital crime like murder. If you have followed the discussion, you will be aware that there is no decisive proof to tell us that Lechmere was the Ripper - there is only circumstantial evidence. Of course, circumstantial evidence is sometimes enough for a conviction even in cases of murder, so it cannot be excluded that he would have gone down as guilty. It would hinge on the questions asked and the answers given. But on the whole, if Lechmere denied guilt and did not get his knickers in a twist, I would advice against convicting him. Not on account of my feeling that he was innocent - as you know, I feel no such thing - but on account of how a judicial system must sometimes drop potentially and probably guilty persons in order to keep a consistent profile of high demands for convictions in cases like these.

The people´s respect for the judicial system is more important than specific convictions in that respect.

[Fisherman]

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

Are you saying that Spratling should examine the innards of Nichols in order to get his report as cpmplete as possible? Or are you saying that Spratling should not report anything until after the post-mortem, and that he should include Llwewellyns finding in his report?

If the former, you may need to give that some afterthought. If the latter, who do you think would search Spratlings report for the medical facts? Don´t you think he would run a risk of getting things wrong, given his profession? He was a policeman, not a medico?

I struggle to take in what you mean here, Steve. Please explain!

[Sam Flynn]

So let me see how you argue here, Gareth! We KNOW hat Llewellyn said that the killer to his mind had anatomical knowledge on account of how he attacked "all the vital parts".

So which parts could he have been talking about?

I don't know, Fish. The heart... the lungs... the brain? They seem like pretty "vital parts to me" (more "vital" than the stomach and intestines, in the scheme of things) so, if we are to take literally Llewellyn's statement that "ALL the vital parts" were attacked, we must include those organs also. Which patently didn't happen.

[Scott Nelson]

Fish don't have hearts, lungs or brains.

[Elamarna]

Are you saying that Spratling should examine the innards of Nichols in order to get his report as cpmplete as possible? Or are you saying that Spratling should not report anything until after the post-mortem, and that he should include Llwewellyns finding in his report?

What an odd response, given that his report appears to be based on what Llewellyn reported to him at the time of the post motrem, I was merely suggesting that if major organs or vessels had been hit why did he not include these.

If the former, you may need to give that some afterthought. If the latter, who do you think would search Spratlings report for the medical facts? Don´t you think he would run a risk of getting things wrong, given his profession? He was a policeman, not a medico?

I struggle to take in what you mean here, Steve. Please explain!

I have above.
Given has you rightly point out Spratling was not medically trained the use of omentun surely came from Llewellyn or his assistant.
The report is thus written either during the post mortem or after it.


Steve

[Elamarna]

So let me see how you argue here, Gareth! We KNOW hat Llewellyn said that the killer to his mind had anatomical knowledge on account of how he attacked "all the vital parts".

So which oarts could he have been talking about?

You seem to be suggesting that there is an alternative to how I claim that Llewellyn was speaking of the abdominal organs. But whay could it be?

Ah! The neck! You think that Llewellyn spaks of how the killer was probably versed in anatomy because he knew that the neck was a vital part! Brilliant!

But wait...? That is just ONE part, and Llewellyn spoke of "parts". So he must have meant that besides the neck, the skin of the abdomen is a vital part, right?

Yes, that must be it. Since Llewellyn acknowledged that the killer was anatomically versed and know how to find the vital parts of the body with his blade, the neck and the skin of the abdmen will have been what he spoke of.

You just disqualified yourself from any intelligible discussion about the case.

Parts more than one. Two carotid, two jugular.
Many would not know this was the case. So a case could be made for such.
And of course we are back to accepting Llewellyn at his word, minus any evidence just because he is a medic.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: yet another long one.

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.

They seem to have been, going by what Llewellyn said, though.

Please explain why he should not have stated it at the inquest?

Because there was a medical report going into the details. And because he was to find the reason for the death, and he had done so and named it.

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.

He did not name all the vessels that were cut - he said that all the major vessels were cut down to the spine. He was no more exact than that. Similarly, he said that all the vital organs had been hit, without naming them specifically. Can you see how that works?

Was not the reporting of wounds a requirement?

Yes, and he reported the wounds to a degree that explained why the woman was dead.

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

The reason I mentioned the report from the outset was bacause you claimed that Llewellyn would be required to mention each and every organ that was damaged, each and every nich to each and every vessel and so on. That was never so - Llewellyn was required to outline what had killed the woman, and he supplemented his testimony with a report where the responsible parties could take part of every matter medico in explicit detail. That was common practice and remains so to this day.

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

When a woman has had all the vessels in her neck severed, the examining medico may work from the suggestion that she was kind of unlikely to survive it. Llewellyn was reporting a case of deadly knife violence, and he added that the abdominal wounds to his mind came first and were deadly per se.
So, yu see, what Llewellyn was effectively supposed to do - and what he indeed did - was to report that Polly Nichols had been subjected to sharp violence inflicted by some person or persons, and that this sharp violence had ended her life. Whether it ended as a result of the liver being cut, the neck being cut, the aorta being cut, the intestined being shredded or anything else would in all probability be hard to determine with any certainty. This is mirrored by how the coroner felt at ease to actually question Llewellyns idea that the abdomen came first. Realistically, the exact cut that killed her could not be determined with any real certainty - but it COULD be determined that sharp violence was the reason, and Llewellyn DID offer his view that the abdominal wounds came first and were lethal per se.
If the coroner had felt that Llewellyn was too inexact, I have the distinct feeling that he would press the doctor for moer information, but he never did - presumably because he felt that he would not get the answer he was looking for.
If you want your idea that Llewellyn should have detailed all the wounds sunk again, feel free - but I would be very happy of you desisted from it. It is becoming dreary and spaceconsuming to a degree that cannot be defended.

Baxter openly disagreed with him, and gave reasons for such, and while he was not a medic, his reasoning is sound.

Let´s settle for the only important info: he was not a medic.

Whether his reasoning was sound or not is written in the stars, as you may understand by giving it some afterhought.

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.

"May" being the instructive word here. "May not" is another such word. Or two.

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.

Professional standards included establishing death and getting the body out of there, nothing else.
If her foot was cut inside her shoe, should he have noticed that at the scene?
If her armpit was pierced, but under the clothing, was it his duty to look for that wound before she was wheeled away?
What you are demanding, Steve, involves how Llewellyn should have had the body undressed and laid on the ground, and examined closely from every angle, turned over and lighted by a number of lanterns. Otherwise there may always be a hidden damage. And it was his duty to see ALL hidden damage as a professional, right?
Or was it just the abdomen he should have checked? Should he have lifted the clothing there, professionally sensing that it must have been cut?

You need to stop tarnishing Llewellyn and claiming that he "did not care". It´s deeply insulting and totally unrealistic. Llewellyn did all he was supposed to do, and he probably did it exactly as he should do it, since nobody back then questioned him.
You do, though. And you do it in a totally weird way.

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

And we know that very large wounds to the abdomen existed. And we know that Llewellyn said that they were enough to kill.

So we have TWO conglomerates of wounds, BOTH supposedly lethal. And we have the post-mortem doctor saying that the abdominal wounds came first.

Why on earth would this combined information make us go "It was probably the neck wounds that killed her"? Can you explain that to me?

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.

What known facts? That the neck was cut? Who the hell is "ignoring" that? Not me. Not Llewellyn,

Would you tell Llewellyn that HE was ignoring the facts as he opted for the abdomen being cut first and lethally? Would you dismiss him? Throw him out of court? I believe you would, if you could.

As luck will have it, you can´t.

I left out a number of things, since I thought your post was too long. And with too long, I mean that you should definitely not have written some of the stuff you wrote.

[Fisherman]

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

Not deep. VERY deep. It seems to be forgotten, that distinction.

But Llewellyn probably thought that cutting the omentum was cutting very deep.

Yeah, that must be it.

[Fisherman]

Okay, let me introduce you to some of the basics.

!!!!!

[Sam Flynn]

Fish don't have hearts... or brains.

Fish do have hearts and brains - sometimes it's hard to tell, though, I'll grant you that.