Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

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

Yes just a trifle embarrassed.

It's a good job I did put it in context. I can imagine what would have been said if not..

[Elamarna]

Dear Fisherman in light of post # 1214 from poster Sam Flynn, can I now respectfully ask that you fulfil your statement in post #1189.

There are several points which you decided not to respond to and which I assume are covered by your comment in post # 1152 responding to post #1137

And with too long, I mean that you should definitely not have written some of the stuff you wrote.

I am still confused by why I should definitely have not written some of this?

However I have decided to only ask for a response on two issues

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

Fisherman:You donīt know what he means.

Elamarna: 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.

And only the same issue.

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

Elamarna: 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?.

And then the following seperate issue

Fisherman: Just did. Go back and read.

Elamarna: 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.

Fisherman: No, that was not the passage I spoke of.

Elamarna: 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“.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello all.

I'm back.

Lots of complex medical stuff going on here. Might take me a year or two to catch up!

Regards

Herlock

[Pcdunn]

Hello, Herlock, I'm glad to see you back! I missed your posts.

[Pierre]

Hello all.

I'm back.

Lots of complex medical stuff going on here. Might take me a year or two to catch up!

Regards

Herlock

Hi Herlock,

welcome.

The discussion is actually quite easy to catch up with and it doesnīt have to take more than two minutes:

There are no valid or reliable sources useable to answer the following questions:

A) How deep were the abdominal wounds on Nichols?

B) Which wounds were inflicted first: those on the neck or abdomen?

C) At what time was Nichols killed?

D) Who was the murderer?

Cheers, Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the welcome back guys.

Very succinctly put Pierre. It was the general impression that I was getting

Regards

Herlock

[Fisherman]

Some of which are certainly not deep at all.

Steve

I will not answer matters I have already answered, but I will pick up on matters like this.

How do you know that some of the wounds in the abdomen were certainly not deep at all?

You say that a doctor may describe a wound that does not pass by the omentum as being very deep. And then you say - without haveing any measurement at all - that some of the abdominal wounds were CERTAINLY (meaning with certainty) not deep at all.

How do you acccomplish these things, Steve?

Has it entered your mind that if you mean that they only cut the skin and the omentum, you have already stated that such a cut can easily be described as very deep.

A complete shambles, Steve. Knickers in quite a twist. How do you suppose to get out of this one...?

[Fisherman]

In your opinion.

But almost accepting the point.


steve

What the devil are you saying? That this is my opinion only - but you "almost" accept it...? Or?
And if you only "almost" accept it - what holds you back?

[Fisherman]

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

Donīt avoid the core issue, Steve. I know that you believe that he was wrong about the fatality of the abdominal wounds. But whay I want a yes or no to is the question "Would Llewellyn think that wounds that only reached the omentum and that did not enter the abdominal cavity and damage any of the organs could be fatal?"

Because that is the question that arises with you reasoning.

I am 100 per cent sure that the only correct answer to that particular question is NO!

Do you disagree? Do we have a doctor who believed that a comparatively shallow flesh wound would kill immediately? Yes or no?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: 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 that was exactly what he was supposed to do at the murder scene! I even believe that there is a report where it says that the doctor arrived and made a cursory examination!
He was NOT required to do any more than that - find out if she is dead, and give her a quick look to see what there was to see. The one thing that there was to see was that the neck was cut, and that was duly noted. A visual examination of the rest offered no further lead to any ore damage. In order to see that, he would need to tamper with the clothing, and there was no evidence at all telling him that there would be more damage, no indication at all.

He did what he was supposed to, he acted 100 per cent professionally and the time has come to acknowledge that.

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

You may realize that I am asking this with my tongue dug firmly into my cheek, Steve? But the fact of the matter is that YOU demand answers to all your points, and when you donīt get them, you claim I cannot answer. Gareth instead claims that I must avoid answering each and every point.

So there you are - I am caught between a rock and a hard place. This is my solution, and I will stand by it until you two stop making the kind of comments you do. Because you know quite well that I CAN answer your points and Gareth knows quite well, that it is YOU, not I, who is the person making posts longer than Christs suffering on the cross.

So what is REALLY ridiculous is not my answer to this - it is instead the situation you try to put me in.

[Fisherman]

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

Oh YES, you have suggested that!! You will not accept that Llewellyn meant the abdominal organs when he said that all the vital parts were damaged, and you refuse to agree that the wound that was described as very deep MUST have past beyond the omentum!

So you HAVE suggested that, and very clearly so.

If you are now retracting that madness, instead agreeing that the wound went past the omentum and if you now accept that Llewellyn saw damage to the internal organs of the abdomen, so much the better. And it would be about time!

[Fisherman]

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

...and STILL, that is not what we were discussing. We were discussing whether Apratling could have been enough familiar with the word omentum or not to use it in a report of his, without him having had to have learnt it from Llewellyn.

It was two different matters when we first discussed it, and it is STILL two different matters.

[Fisherman]

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?

I fid it quite easy to follow. But I use it in another way than you do. I do not write every othe word in an exchange thin and the rest bod. It would be a very odd thing to do.

What I do is to write what ONE person says in thin letters, and the anser from the other person in bold letters.

Let me show you what happens! In example A, I will do it my way, and in example B, I will do it your way. Hopefully, you will be able to see where it differs, and so you may be able to read my posts better in the future.

A:

I think that Gareth must have gotten this all wrong.

Yes, the poor bugger. I can see now where his problems come from.

B:

I think that Gareth must have gotten this all wrong.

Yes, poor bugger. I can see now where his problems come from.

Hope that helps.

As for Steve and the approval, yes I do believe he DOES need your approval. Yo dislike me answering all questions, remember, and I did answer all the rest in that post of his, leaving out a few to accomodate you. So that is why I am now asking your approval in retrospect.

[Fisherman]

Dear Fisherman in light of post # 1214 from poster Sam Flynn, can I now respectfully ask that you fulfil your statement in post #1189.

There are several points which you decided not to respond to and which I assume are covered by your comment in post # 1152 responding to post #1137



I am still confused by why I should definitely have not written some of this?

However I have decided to only ask for a response on two issues



And only the same issue.


And then the following seperate issue




Steve

Ah, but Gareth just said that you did not need his approval. Being of the old, courteous kind, I think he is being far too kind there, and I would not impose on such a thing. So I asked for him to give his approval. When he does (I think he will, because I think he shares the misconception about me not being able to answer), I will ask you NOT to make such a long post about it. Just list the questions as shortly as possible.

Thank you!

[Fisherman]

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

Wait - I just noticed that you got this wrong altogether. It is not Steve who needs your approval, it is me.

It is not as if you have ever imposed any embargo on anybody when it comes to which questions they may ask me, is it?

Your embargo has instead been imposed on ME, and my right to answer whatever questions I feel like answering.

So the salient question is whether you can consider lifting that embargo, on the whole or at least partly, so I may answer the questions Steve claim I cannot answer.