Lechmere The Psychopath

[Pierre]

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

Hi,

is that Kopka et al., 2007?

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

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

Sorry, but where does "very deep" come from?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;420183

And we have the post-mortem doctor saying that the abdominal wounds came first.

NO. We have journalists saying that the throat wounds came first and we have journalists saying that the abdominal wounds came first.

By the way, you are one of them!

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Another sea of formatted and unformatted type. Do you design eye-charts in your spare time, Fish?

There really is no need to respond to every single point line by line, and it would help enormously if you trimmed your posts and - as I've asked you before - actually used the QUOTE facility.

With posts as lengthy and interwoven as these, it really becomes impossible to tell who's saying what, and the words and sentences blur into one. It's like reading an early Greek codex.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, but where does "very deep" come from?

Llewellyns inquest testimony, Gareth:

"Five of the teeth were missing, and there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb. There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about 1in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8in. in length. The cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence.
No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes. There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards. The injuries were from left to right and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the same instrument."

[Sam Flynn]

Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through.

Fair enough, Fish - many thanks.

So, that's just one wound described as "very deep", and that was two or three inches from the left side. Precious little chance of cutting the aorta or vena cava, then.

[Fisherman]

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.

Llewellyn said that the killer "had attacked" all the vital parts. Does that seem like he says that the brain was attacked? I think you will find that it was left quite intact, as were the lungs and the heart.

I really think that Llewellyn was pointing to how the vital parts IN THE KNIFED AREAS were all attacked. Meaning liver, spleen, aorta, kidneys etc.

A stab or a cut can miss these parts, but that seemingly was not the case here.

[Pierre]

Llewellyn said that the killer "had attacked" all the vital parts. Does that seem like he says that the brain was attacked? I think you will find that it was left quite intact, as were the lungs and the heart.

I really think that Llewellyn was pointing to how the vital parts IN THE KNIFED AREAS were all attacked. Meaning liver, spleen, aorta, kidneys etc.

A stab or a cut can miss these parts, but that seemingly was not the case here.

"Meaning"

"seemingly"

[Fisherman]

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

Let´s see here - you say that I cannot use Llewellyns report since it is not in existence.

... but you may conclude that Spratling did not know the term omentum, but it "surely" came from Llewellyn or his assistant and it is therefore proven that Spratling got the term at the post mortem (I doubt that he assisted there) or thereafter?

I really, really, really don´t think that is going to work, Steve. And even if it DID, it would not mean that since he used one term (that described how the belly wall was cut through), he was obliged to name all the rest that may or may not have been mentioned.

You need to drop this idea of yours. It has less traction than greased seals on ice.

[Fisherman]

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

They are coldblooded beasts, Gareth. Maybe that´s what gives you that impression?

[Fisherman]

Another sea of formatted and unformatted type. Do you design eye-charts in your spare time, Fish?

There really is no need to respond to every single point line by line, and it would help enormously if you trimmed your posts and - as I've asked you before - actually used the QUOTE facility.

With posts as lengthy and interwoven as these, it really becomes impossible to tell who's saying what, and the words and sentences blur into one. It's like reading an early Greek codex.

Here is the key:

Steve´s words are not in bold.

Mine are.

[Sam Flynn]

I really think that Llewellyn was pointing to how the vital parts IN THE KNIFED AREAS were all attacked. Meaning liver, spleen, aorta, kidneys etc.

He doesn't say "all the vital parts in the knifed areas" though, and there is absolutely no evidence that so much as suggests that this is what he meant.

On the contrary, it wasn't even apparent until the body was taken to the mortuary that Nichols' bowel was protruding. If the damage had been so extensive as to have impacted ALL the abdominal organs, it would almost certainly have been noticed in Buck's Row.

[Pierre]

Let´s see here - you say that I cannot use Llewellyns report since it is not in existence.

... but you may conclude that Spratling did not know the term omentum, but it "surely" came from Llewellyn or his assistant and it is therefore proven that Spratling got the term at the post mortem (I doubt that he assisted there) or thereafter?

I really, really, really don´t think that is going to work, Steve. And even if it DID, it would not mean that since he used one term (that described how the belly wall was cut through), he was obliged to name all the rest that may or may not have been mentioned.

You need to drop this idea of yours. It has less traction than greased seals on ice.

How silly of you Fisherman. Surely you must be able to understand the difference between talk about a source we do not have, i.e. a source by Llewellyn, and talk about a source we do have, i.e. the report by Spratling?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Fair enough, Fish - many thanks.

So, that's just one wound described as "very deep", and that was two or three inches from the left side. Precious little chance of cutting the aorta or vena cava, then.

"Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards."

Similar. Meaning very deep too, if they WERE similar.

And it has been long since established that the largest wound on Nichols ran from breastbone to pubes. Lots of places to hit the aorta, therefore. Whether it DID happen or not, we don´t know. But it is a fact that Llewellyn said that the abdominal wounds would secure a swift death, and therefore the speculation that the aorta and/or the vena cava were damaged or severed is a very useful one.

[Sam Flynn]

Here is the key:

Steve´s words are not in bold.

Mine are.

Don't be so saracstic.

I told you, I find it very, very difficult to read your posts when you do that, and I can't be the only one. At least the QUOTE facility keeps things nicely separated.

So much for the QUOTE bit. Any chance you can trim your posts, and resist the temptation to respond exhaustively/exhaustingly to every single line? I know this is an age of technological wonder, but the sheer number of atoms in your posts are making my laptop heavier and more difficult to carry.