Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Steve and Gareth, you DO realize that you are not only introducing the possibility, but actually proposing that Llewellyn believed that a cut to the omentum would definitely result in swift death? A man who had in 1888 been a member of the Royal College of Surgeons for 14 years and who had been a member of the Royal College of Physicians for 12 years at the same stage? Who was the medical officer of the E and EC divisions and the City Mission?

How did it come to this, gentlemen?

[Elamarna]

Your tendency to avoid addmitting simple facts runs very deep.

Your criticism of Llewellyn runs very deep, and unfairly so.

A violent stab downwards into the abdomen of a woman on her back, that only travles the depth of the omentum is not very deep, and would never be so described by a medico.

Does that clarify things?

Not at all .

A cut which penetrates the body wall is deep and to suggest it would not be called such is truly remarkable.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Gareth thinks I am giving you too long answers, and he wants me to cut down on the issues I choose to reply to.

He has no problems at all with YOUR posts,I believe he thinks they are commendable enough.

So I will accomodate him and look at just one of your ansers, this one:

"Completely over the top. No other comment is needed."

Iīm afraid a comment IS needed, and Iīm afraid I was not over the top at all. You were, when saying that Llewellyn should have checked for and found the abdominal wounds at the murder site.

I asked you if he was to order the undressing of the body there, since that would be the only way to find any hidden damage. Are you saying that he should have?

It is a fair enough question, and it is asked to save Llewellyn from what I find an unsavoury and totally uncalled for criticism, so I am going to demand an answer here. If you do not produce it, I will work from the presumption that you simply cannot do so without giving away that you should never had made the accusation in the first place.

The rest of your post was simply repetition from beginning to end, so I feel it merits no answer repetition. But the issue of Llewellyns duties and his competence certainly does!

To suggest that undressing on the spot was completely over the top.
There would be no need to undress the body to see the wounds. A quick, professional examination is all that was required. Especially as there are reports talking of a small amount of blood on the ground in the area between her legs.

There you are

I note that the points you did not respond to in the previous post were ones that did require an answer:

The issue around what was said in post 1100
The issue of giving medical opinion and when asked for references saying to just use the net.
The issue regarding what people's understanding is of Llewellyn comment about bleeding into the loose tissue.

Finally it is astounding that you appear to feel Llewellyn should not be challenged as it is unfair; yet there is nothing wrong with the accusations against Lechmere.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: To suggest that undressing on the spot was completely over the top.
There would be no need to undress the body to see the wounds. A quick, professional examination is all that was required. Especially as there are reports talking of a small amount of blood on the ground in the area between her legs.

Any wounds hidden from sight by the clothing could have been placed anywhere. Any examination to establish the full array of wounds would need to take in every part of the body.

The small amount of blood between the legs could have come from the legs, the buttocks, the back, the knees, the abdomen - or from the neck, if the body had been moved.

It applies that Llewellyn had one thing and one thing only to establish at the crime scene, and that was whether Nichols was dear or alive. Once he had established that she was dead, there was no need at all for him to make any further examination at the spot, where people were gathering and where the light was very poor.
He clearly stated that he wanted the body taken to the mortuary to enable him to make a further examination there. Furthermore, the inmates who had undressed Nichols were criticised for it, on account of how the medico was supposed to do that, in order to be able to follow the course of development on the crime scene.
So very effectively, Llewellyn was never supposed to tamper with the clothing at the crime scene. He did exactly what he was suppsoed to do - laid down that Nichols was dead, and then he discerningly and in keeping with the best course of action, he ordered the body taken away for further examination in better conditions than those offered by the dark street.

That ends this discussion, and tells the story about Llewellyn and his actions: they were entirely professional and entirely in keeping with what he was supposed to do. If the woman had not displayed any visible wounds at all, in the neck or otherwise, Llewellyn would certainly not be called upon to start undressing her to llok for such a thing. He was supposed to find out if there was any need for him to try and prolong life, or whether it was extinct, in which case looking for the reason was the next step, aimed to be undertaken at the mortuary.

I note that the points you did not respond to in the previous post were ones that did require an answer:

The issue around what was said in post 1100
The issue of giving medical opinion and when asked for references saying to just use the net.
The issue regarding what people's understanding is of Llewellyn comment about bleeding into the loose tissue.

They will remain unanswered on Gareths request to not answer each and every question asked of me. If you want me to answer, you should get his approval first. Then I will answer.

Finally it is astounding that you appear to feel Llewellyn should not be challenged as it is unfair; yet there is nothing wrong with the accusations against Lechmere.

Obviuosly baseless accusations are unfair by nature. Thatīs the problem here.

[Fisherman]

Not at all .

A cut which penetrates the body wall is deep and to suggest it would not be called such is truly remarkable.

Steve

It is not very deep, no, it is a question of an inch or so. Llewellyn explicitely said that the knife used was longbladed and used with a downward directed violence in each abdominal wound case.

That will not produce a one-inch stab, will it? And more pertinently, no medico would say that such a stab is a very deep one.

You may try and hide as best as you can behind the fact that "very deep" is not a measurement given in inches. But you need to explain why Llewellyn described the large wound, stretching from breastbone to pubes as "very deep" if it was not, and furthermore you must explain to us all why a versed medico like Llewellyn would claim that the wound, if it was only superficial and not dangerous at all per se, would kill swift.

Was the man a complete idiot? Had he forgotten all he learnt training as a doctor?

[Fisherman]

Not at all .

A cut which penetrates the body wall is deep and to suggest it would not be called such is truly remarkable.

Steve

Is it "truly remarkable" to claim that a wound made by a longbladed knife, used downwards with violence on a woman lying on firm ground on her back, but only travelling an inch or so into the body would not be described by the examining medico as "very deep" in a thousand years?

Is it not instead truly remarkable how you claim that this was so?

Can you see the difference?

[Elamarna]

Since you are suggesting that Spratling could not have, yes, I am saying that a police officer who would have sat through numerous inquests into violent crime, who would have read medical reports in many, many cases and who would have spoken to a large number of doctors about cases involving violence would certainly stand a very good chance of being accustomed to using the word omentum.

Really?
It would not be a term used that often to begin with.
If one really wants to continue with this approach there is little hope of any meaningful debate.

It is certainly not a commonly used word.
Doing murder inquiries and spending your days researching violent crime is certainly not all that common either. And do not for a second think that a person like you, who will not admit that the wounds to Nichols abdomen went beyond the omentum since "it was not stated outright", have the scintilla of a chance to make me say "Yes, although Spratling dealt with violent crime in a daily basis, and although there is absolutely nothing to prevent hom from being aquainted with the word omentum, yes, letīs state it as a fact that the Nichols case was the first time ever he herd it and that he would never have used it before Llewellyn made his post-mortem".

Get a grip, man, get a grip!

A person like me?
Such comments are not helpful if one wants honestly get a full picture of the murder.

Are you suggesting that this report was written without input from Llewellyn or an assistant of his?

We are not even discussing that issue. We are discussing whether Spratling could have known the existence of the word omentum or not. Wnich is an entirely different matter.

It is part of the issue, if there was no input then the words must have been Spratling's own.
He we have classic avoidance.

Are you suggesting the report was written in advance of the post mortem?
If so what leads you to this conclusion?

Once more, we are not discussing that at all. We are discussing your statment that the inclusion of the word omentum tells us that it must have come from Llewellyn or his assistant since Spratling could not have known the owrd himself, according to you.
We are furthermore discussing this on account of how you claim that since omentum must have been a word that Spratling picked up from Llewellyn or his assistant, it goes without saying that Spratling would also have named all the organs that were damaged if any organ at all had been damaged.
Your contention is that NO organ in the abdomen was damaged at all, and you base that contention on how you claim that we must have known if that had happened, becausee Spratling used the word omentum, and he would NEVER have been aquainted with it from his earlier carreer.

Again of course it is part of any debate about the wording used by Spratling.
This attempt to pigeon hole individual bits of a proposal, which was Spratling wrote his report as the result of the post mortem, is somewhat bizarre.

That, Steve, is the precise matter we are discussing. Trying to move the goalposts to Kuala Lumpur is not helpful at all, so you can give that a rest - it wonīt work anyway.

It is not moving the Goal posts at all. We are discussing Spratlings report and how it relates to the wounds, not a pigeon holed section of it
The issue is did Spratling produce a report using anatomical terms of his own accord or was it as the result of the post mortem and information he was supplied with.

It's actually that simple.

The salient point, however, is that regardless of what applies, he may well have wanted to state the fact that the blade did not only pick little holes in the outer layers of skin and fat of Nichols - it actually travelled into the abdominal cavity. "The tissues were cut through", is what Llewellyn said, plus the wound was a very deep one.

How many doctors would call a wound, inflicted violently with a long-bladed knife thrust downwards into the abdomen of a woman on her back, but that only got as far as the omentum, a "very deep wound", Steve?

If he wanted to imply depth, mentioning an actual organ or major vessel damage would be far better. And of course the report was for police use so a need to be specific, as Spratling is with the rest of the report is required.

What an individual Doctor may or may not say is pointless.
We do not know what was meant by very deep, it's not a scientific or measurable term.
And of course it needs to be read in comparison to the other wounds on the abdomen. So very deep may just be relative to those.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Is it "truly remarkable" to claim that a wound made by a longbladed knife, used downwards with violence on a woman lying on firm ground on her back, but only travelling an inch or so into the body would not be described by the examining medico as "very deep" in a thousand years?

Is it not instead truly remarkable how you claim that this was so?

Can you see the difference?

How truly pointless.
There is no way of defineing what is meant by "very deep"

And such a term could be used to convey its relative depth to the other abdomenial wounds. There is no way of know. Why can you not see this.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Steve and Gareth, you DO realize that you are not only introducing the possibility, but actually proposing that Llewellyn believed that a cut to the omentum would definitely result in swift death? A man who had in 1888 been a member of the Royal College of Surgeons for 14 years and who had been a member of the Royal College of Physicians for 12 years at the same stage? Who was the medical officer of the E and EC divisions and the City Mission?

How did it come to this, gentlemen?

Only if one comes at it from your point of view.

Once again we see this overriding belief in a CV
You use the very same argument for Mr Payne-James.

It is possible to have a brilliant CV and make mistakes and to actually not be outstanding.

Please note That is not so for Payne-James, his reputation is very goof to put it mildly.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: To suggest that undressing on the spot was completely over the top.
There would be no need to undress the body to see the wounds. A quick, professional examination is all that was required. Especially as there are reports talking of a small amount of blood on the ground in the area between her legs.

Any wounds hidden from sight by the clothing could have been placed anywhere. Any examination to establish the full array of wounds would need to take in every part of the body.

The small amount of blood between the legs could have come from the legs, the buttocks, the back, the knees, the abdomen - or from the neck, if the body had been moved.[/quote]

Yes and a rough examination should have been made to see where such had come from. It appears this was not done.

It applies that Llewellyn had one thing and one thing only to establish at the crime scene, and that was whether Nichols was dear or alive. Once he had established that she was dead, there was no need at all for him to make any further examination at the spot, where people were gathering and where the light was very poor.
He clearly stated that he wanted the body taken to the mortuary to enable him to make a further examination there. Furthermore, the inmates who had undressed Nichols were criticised for it, on account of how the medico was supposed to do that, in order to be able to follow the course of development on the crime scene.
So very effectively, Llewellyn was never supposed to tamper with the clothing at the crime scene. He did exactly what he was suppsoed to do - laid down that Nichols was dead, and then he discerningly and in keeping with the best course of action, he ordered the body taken away for further examination in better conditions than those offered by the dark street.

That ends this discussion, and tells the story about Llewellyn and his actions: they were entirely professional and entirely in keeping with what he was supposed to do. If the woman had not displayed any visible wounds at all, in the neck or otherwise, Llewellyn would certainly not be called upon to start undressing her to llok for such a thing. He was supposed to find out if there was any need for him to try and prolong life, or whether it was extinct, in which case looking for the reason was the next step, aimed to be undertaken at the mortuary.

Your opinion which you are entitled too.

I note that the points you did not respond to in the previous post were ones that did require an answer:

The issue around what was said in post 1100
The issue of giving medical opinion and when asked for references saying to just use the net.
The issue regarding what people's understanding is of Llewellyn comment about bleeding into the loose tissue.

They will remain unanswered on Gareths request to not answer each and every question asked of me. If you want me to answer, you should get his approval first. Then I will answer.

Such an idea is truly comical.
Just an excuse not to answer difficult points.

Your opinion which you are entitled too.
Finally it is astounding that you appear to feel Llewellyn should not be challenged as it is unfair; yet there is nothing wrong with the accusations against Lechmere.

Obviuosly baseless accusations are unfair by nature. Thatīs the problem here.

They are no more baseless than much which is suggested about Lechmere.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Really?
It would not be a term used that often to begin with.
If one really wants to continue with this approach there is little hope of any meaningful debate.

So itīs not "meaningful" to reason that Spratling may well have been aquainted with the term "omentum", in spite of how he was a policeman who you yourself claim was listening to doctors and the terms they used?
Then I suppose that the only meaningful take on things is that you are right? And any people veering off from that path must be wrong?

That IS a fresh new manner of debating!

A person like me?
Such comments are not helpful if one wants honestly get a full picture of the murder.

Donīt even try - I very specifically qualified what I meant by adding "who...", so donīt do the martyr thing, Steve. And I donīt think you WANT a full picture, I think you are doing your utmost not to accept the full picture.

It is part of the issue, if there was no input then the words must have been Spratling's own.
He we have classic avoidance.

Yes - of you discussing the issue at hand. I am not saying that tghe rest of the complex in uninteresting, but it was NOT what we were talking about, was it?

Again of course it is part of any debate about the wording used by Spratling.
This attempt to pigeon hole individual bits of a proposal, which was Spratling wrote his report as the result of the post mortem, is somewhat bizarre.

What is bizarre is how you say that unless I agree with you, no meaningful debate can be had. Thatīs where bizarre enters the issue. You are trying to claim how Spratling could not have been familiar with or used the word omentum in his report, unless he gor it from Llewelly or his assistant! That is truly bizzare, and totally untenable. Thatīs the issue we were discussing and nothing else. Whether Spratling had read the doctors report before compiling his own is interesting per se, but it has no bearing whatsoever on whether Spratling was familiar with the word omentum or not before the Nichols affair.

It is not moving the Goal posts at all.

That is not for you to decide. If we allow you to do that, them goalposts will surface in Antananarivo the next time. You changed the discussion of a single word and whether Spratling could have been familiar with it into a discussion abut whether he was informed about the doctors views before he read his report. That is moving the goalposts well out of the playing field whether you wih to admit it or not.

We are discussing Spratlings report and how it relates to the wounds, not a pigeon holed section of it.

We? No, YOU are conducting that discussion now, yes, but I was never. The last time I looked, we were both discussing if Sortling knew the word omentum or not, and now you are suddenly asking me if I donīt think Spratling had rea the medical report before compling his own.
Can you see that these are entirely different matters? No? Is it the exact same to you?

The issue is did Spratling produce a report using anatomical terms of his own accord or was it as the result of the post mortem and information he was supplied with.

It's actually that simple.

No, it is not that simple at all. Thatīs the Kuala Lumpur version. MY version is that I stand by how I think that Spratling could have been familiar with the word omentum, and that I have so far not discussed the issue of whether the Spratling report was grounded on the medical report.
Maybe the medical report didnīt even exist, Steve? Maybe the word omentum was not in it? You cannot use it as evidence if you cannot produce it, donīt yaī know? I have that from a VERY reliable source. With connections all the way to Kuala Lumpur.

If he wanted to imply depth, mentioning an actual organ or major vessel damage would be far better.

Yes, it would. And if he had foreseen your birth, he would certainly have provided it, in order not to be presented as a nincompoop medico. Itīs a sad, sad thing that he cannot defend himself in your eyes, In my eyes, he can and he did.

And of course the report was for police use so a need to be specific, as Spratling is with the rest of the report is required.

I cannot read this. Something is either semantically very wrong, or I am lacking in reading ability.

What an individual Doctor may or may not say is pointless.

Iīll remind you of that phrase in days to come. I find the mere suggestion horribly false.

We do not know what was meant by very deep, it's not a scientific or measurable term.

And so you think you can hide behind that fact, but you canīt. There is enough information at hand to conclude that the wounds to the abdomen went so far behind the omentum as to secure a swift death for the victim. That is not a specific measurement either, but it DOES securely include damage done to vital internal organs.

And of course it needs to be read in comparison to the other wounds on the abdomen. So very deep may just be relative to those.

There is nothing at all telling us that either wound was NOT very deep. There is instead an assertion that al of these wounds were inflicted with (great) violence and with a longbladed knife directed downwards. That will ensure a great depth of the wounds in each case, but I agree that there may have been marginal differences inbetween them. Much as some wound may have beeneight inches deep, another may have been just seven.
You are correct there.

Now I answered your every "point" again. What will Gareth say...?

[Fisherman]

How truly pointless.
There is no way of defineing what is meant by "very deep"

And such a term could be used to convey its relative depth to the other abdomenial wounds. There is no way of know. Why can you not see this.

Steve

I can see that this can be so in cases where we do NOT have it reported that a violently used, longbladed knife produced the damage, and where the doctor does not say that all the vital parts were targetted, pointing to anatomical knowledge.
You are generally correct but specifically cucoooish.

[Fisherman]

Only if one comes at it from your point of view.

Once again we see this overriding belief in a CV
You use the very same argument for Mr Payne-James.

It is possible to have a brilliant CV and make mistakes and to actually not be outstanding.

Please note That is not so for Payne-James, his reputation is very goof to put it mildly.

Steve

Answer the question, Steve: Are you saying that Llewellyn may have believed that a cut to the skin and omentum of the abdomen could kill swiftly? Could it be that he did not know that such wounds are benevolent flesh wounds that will heal easily, even with no treatment, if there is no infection?

Is that even remotely likely or is it not?

[Elamarna]

It is not very deep, no, it is a question of an inch or so. Llewellyn explicitely said that the knife used was longbladed and used with a downward directed violence in each abdominal wound case.

That will not produce a one-inch stab, will it? And more pertinently, no medico would say that such a stab is a very deep one.

You may try and hide as best as you can behind the fact that "very deep" is not a measurement given in inches. But you need to explain why Llewellyn described the large wound, stretching from breastbone to pubes as "very deep" if it was not, and furthermore you must explain to us all why a versed medico like Llewellyn would claim that the wound, if it was only superficial and not dangerous at all per se, would kill swift.

Was the man a complete idiot? Had he forgotten all he learnt training as a doctor?

I make not comment of if Llewellyn was an idiot.

Very deep as I have said before can be entirely relative to other wounds, most of which were apparently not deep..


Steve

[Elamarna]

Is it "truly remarkable" to claim that a wound made by a longbladed knife, used downwards with violence on a woman lying on firm ground on her back, but only travelling an inch or so into the body would not be described by the examining medico as "very deep" in a thousand years?

Is it not instead truly remarkable how you claim that this was so?

Can you see the difference?

Repeating something over and over again when there is no evidence, not just an unsupported opinion, does not make it correct.

Steve