Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

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.

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

The blood on the ground would have been covered by Nichols clothes to begin with, and it was not visible until she was wheeled away. By that stage, Llewellyn had left. He ordered the transport and left, as far as we know.
And as I said, if a woman is found dead with no blood visible at all, is it in such a case unprofessional not to turn the body over and undress it to look for any wounds?
Bear in mind that any such case could be a case of sharp violence where the blood was hidden under the body.
Was it the duty of the medico in such a case to check all the body for puncture wounds? Was he unprofessional if not doing that, opting instead for what he wa supposed to do - establish death?

The unprofessionalism in Llewellyns case is your invention and it is not in line with the truth. He was never reprimanded, as you may have noticed. Why was that, if he was such a complete and utter failure?

Your opinion which you are entitled too.

You can bet your sweet behind on that, Steve! It is also the only reasonable and fully logical opinion. But you are entitled to your out-of-space opinion too, of course.

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

No! I very clearly promised to answer if you can get permission from Gareth. I have denied nothing at all, and I assure you I have anseers to give.
But no matter what I do out here, it´s either "You answer too many questions" or "You are fleeing, and cannot answer". Now, I am putting and end to that, and leaving it up to you two gentlemen to sort it out between yourselves. Just go ahead and ask Gareth if it´s okey for me to answer, and I WILL do so.

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

Yes, they are. I have a base, you have none. Voilá.

[Fisherman]

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

You did not have to say that he was an idiot. It goes without saying, when you suggest that he may have thought a cut to the omentum immediately lethal.

Only an idiot doctor would believe that.

You cannot hide behind the "I never said it in those words" and the "it does not say so explicitely". I will smoke you out, Steve, rest assured.

[Fisherman]

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

Steve

True. The correctness was there the first time I said it, and repeating it did not make it any more correct. It was always correct. From the beginning.

That´s because historical truths are eternal.

Believe me, Pierre is going to comment on that one!

[Fisherman]

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

Steve

Goof? Tell me that came out very wrong, Steve...! Please?

[Elamarna]

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 it´s 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!

While it is reasonable to accept he could pick up some terms, these would probably be far more commonly used works, such as the names or organs and vessels, to say he somehow knew this term is not probably,

Additionally he obviously came by such information either by verbal or written report, not out of his own head.

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

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

I see that we again have the idea that those not supporting one theory, do not want to accept the full picture.

Such an idea is preposterous

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?

Actually it was what I was discussing, it started by discussing the Spratling report and it relevance to the debate. When it was written and what information it contained and from what source are intrinsic to that debate, to suggest they are not is very strange.

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. That´s 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. That´s 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.

sorry this idea is nonsense.

How can Spratling write a report saying the Omentum as been cut in several places unless he is provided with this information?

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 don´t 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 discussion began as a look at Spratling's report, how deep the cuts were, it then moved onto what deep meant and would Spratling know the term omentum, intrinsic to answering this and thus a genuine part of the same debate is where he would get the information from to put into his report?

That you do not wish to debate those points is your choice, it is not me moving the goal posts.

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. That´s 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 didn´t even exist, Steve? Maybe the word omentum was not in it? You cannot use it as evidence if you cannot produce it, don´t ya´ know? I have that from a VERY reliable source. With connections all the way to Kuala Lumpur.

I am not using any medical report, i am suggesting he was probably told the information verbally, and only if not that it was in a written report.

Spratlings report exists, it is fairly detailed, and contains information about the wounds.

It really is simply, did he write this with no reference to the Doctors or did they provide him with information.

Which is the more probably?

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. It´s a sad, sad thing that he cannot defend himself in your eyes, In my eyes, he can and he did.

I was talking about Spratling's report, it follows on from the section before. Not LLewellyn, you seem to have got confused..

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

I´ll 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 can´t. 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.

my comment about pointless was specifically referring to your point about depth of cut based on the term "very deep", not in general, so that won't work.

Why seek to hide, the argument made is very strong.
No there is not enough information, and i note you use information, not medical evidence, its your interpretation, of a view given by the Doctor which he did not support with medical evidence.

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.

Either? there were more than two?
Some of which are certainly not deep at all.



Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

In your opinion.

But almost accepting the point.


steve

[Elamarna]

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?

Not at all,

I believe, based on the evidence, that his comments about the cuts being fatal are wrong, just as in the Eddowes case it was said cutting the windpipe would be fatal is wrong, Doctors make mistakes like all people do.

steve

[Elamarna]

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

The blood on the ground would have been covered by Nichols clothes to begin with, and it was not visible until she was wheeled away. By that stage, Llewellyn had left. He ordered the transport and left, as far as we know.

The clothing was not fully pulled down, the carmen said they had difficulty in doing it. but the point is good.

However this just accentuates the point that it was no more than a cursory look made by Leewellyn.

And as I said, if a woman is found dead with no blood visible at all, is it in such a case unprofessional not to turn the body over and undress it to look for any wounds?

Bear in mind that any such case could be a case of sharp violence where the blood was hidden under the body.
Was it the duty of the medico in such a case to check all the body for puncture wounds? Was he unprofessional if not doing that, opting instead for what he wa supposed to do - establish death?

To move yes, to undress certainly not. If there is no visible blood on the ground or on the clothing it is extremely unlikely that undressing would reveal shall we say a phantom wound.

The dress was not fully pulled down according to the evidence, therefore a check of such areas which could have been assaulted by such movement of the dress should be conducted.

The unprofessionalism in Llewellyns case is your invention and it is not in line with the truth. He was never reprimanded, as you may have noticed. Why was that, if he was such a complete and utter failure?

Not being reprimanded is not really an indication of guilt, it was after all a relatively minor matter, not being one of life or death or care to a patient.
a formal reprimand in such a case was unlikely.

You can bet your sweet behind on that, Steve! It is also the only reasonable and fully logical opinion. But you are entitled to your out-of-space opinion too, of course.

Again you cannot resist personalization in debate.

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

No! I very clearly promised to answer if you can get permission from Gareth. I have denied nothing at all, and I assure you I have anseers to give.


But no matter what I do out here, it´s either "You answer too many questions" or "You are fleeing, and cannot answer". Now, I am putting and end to that, and leaving it up to you two gentlemen to sort it out between yourselves. Just go ahead and ask Gareth if it´s okey for me to answer, and I WILL do so.

I am really speechless, the idea or asking one poster if another can reply is so silly.



steve

[Elamarna]

You did not have to say that he was an idiot. It goes without saying, when you suggest that he may have thought a cut to the omentum immediately lethal.

Only an idiot doctor would believe that.

You cannot hide behind the "I never said it in those words" and the "it does not say so explicitely". I will smoke you out, Steve, rest assured.

I have never suggested that!
my view is clear and has been always, he had no evidence for the abdominal wounds but struggled with what he perceived was a lack of blood from the neck.
therefore he produced the abdomen theory, even although this also apparently had problems over blood.


steve

[Elamarna]

Goof? Tell me that came out very wrong, Steve...! Please?

It certainly did, obviously was meant to be "good", did not notice, apologies to Payne-James
Hopefully the context suggested "goof" was not what was intended.

steve

ps.

PS be perfectly honest about this, i have to use my phone for many of the postings, as i do not have internet access where i am staying, only using the laptop from the coffee shop or pub.
Its normally easy for others to tell when i am using the phone, expect to see silly typos like the above.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;420264]

Hi Steve,

you write to Fisherman:

Spratlings report exists, it is fairly detailed, and contains information about the wounds.

It really is simply, did he write this with no reference to the Doctors or did they provide him with information.

Which is the more probably?

"The most probable" (my e) is that "they" (my quotation) provided him with information.

But Steve, it is very easy to - instead of discussing probability, which can not be used here since it is (as you well know) a mathematical measuring tool - establish an historical fact on the source you and Fisherman are discussing.

Let´s do this.

Spratling was provided with the information from Llewellyn.

We know this since he writes in his report that the doctor arrived and:

"on further examination stated that..." X (my symbol).

X gives all the information from Llewellyn including the information about the "omentium".

We have now established an historical fact.

Can Fisherman please move on to the next problem in his idea about the carman?

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;420272]

Hi Steve,

you write to Fisherman:



"The most probable" (my e) is that "they" (my quotation) provided him with information.

But Steve, it is very easy to - instead of discussing probability, which can not be used here since it is (as you well know) a mathematical measuring tool - establish an historical fact on the source you and Fisherman are discussing.

Let´s do this.

Spratling was provided with the information from Llewellyn.

We know this since he writes in his report that the doctor arrived and:

"on further examination stated that..." X (my symbol).

X gives all the information from Llewellyn including the information about the "omentium".

We have now established an historical fact.

Can Fisherman please move on to the next problem in his idea about the carman?

Cheers, Pierre

Pierre

Thank you for that.

Of course not all posters like the use of established historical facts, and it becomes easy given the volume of posts on this subject, to full into the mistake oneself.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Pierre is right here,

A quick look at the report, available in "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Skinner and Evans, makes it clear that Spratling got all the information directly from Llewellyn, either during or directly after the postmortem.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Steve doesn't need my approval, so please feel free to answer.

Besides, what I suggested was that it might be a good idea to focus your responses on the most salient points, Fish

rather

than

writing

line

after

line

of

alternating

blocks

of

bold

and

unformatted

text

in

response

to

each

and

every

point

raised

in

every

post

See how difficult it is to follow?

[Sam Flynn]

It certainly did, obviously was meant to be "good", did not notice, apologies to Payne-James
Hopefully the context suggested "goof" was not what was intended.

As typos go, that's a bit of a gem