Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

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!

That is not only an an attempt to mislead, it is a failed one as Well.

I have been consistent that I do not accept that Llewellyn's comments that All the vital parts were attacked applies to the abdomen.
I do not see he has any evidence to back such a view up.

If I do not accept any major vessels or vessels were damaged in the abdomen how can it possibly been seen that I see the omentum as a major Organ?

A truly bizarre statement.

There is no evidence that the cut went any deeper than the omentum.
As such is not a vital organ, there is no medical evidence that the cut hit any vital areas in the abdomen.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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?

Unfortunately not what was meant.

It was you almost agreeing with me (in general) but unable to do so on the specific case.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Don´t 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?

I have not avoided anything. My views have been very consistent for a very long time.

See post #1231 for a fully reply. I see no need to repeat in the space of 3 posts.

However you view of my reasoning is incorrect.

I believe as you state that Llewellyn was wrong about death caused by wounds to the abdomen full stop.

If such is my view, right or wrong, why would I believe Llewellyn saw cuts to the omentum as fatal. That is just not logical.


Steve

[Elamarna]

...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.

It was never two different matters, the two separate ideas as you portray them are intrinsicly linked. One cannot discuss one without touching on the other.

However like normal there is an attempt to reduce the debate to one debating ideas that cannot be proved conclusively either way, rather than face up to the sources.

The point is now very clear Spratling produced a report after Llewellyn arrived to do the PM, the results of which Llewellyn reported to Spratling, providing him with the information on the totality of the wounds.

Do you accept Spratling's report?


Steve

[Elamarna]

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!

It not that one cannot answer, there appears to be not wish to answer.
As amply demonstrated by the reply above.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Don´t 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?

I note I did not actually say the following in the reply and missed the edit deadline by seconds.

I assume Llewellyn did not think stabs to the omentum were fatal.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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..

The clothing being displaced should be enough to involve looking to see if there are any injuries or potential evidence in that area before the body is moved.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

Dear Fish I think a word count of who says what may surprise you.

Steve

I

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;420346 QUOTE

Pierre here, this was written by you Fisherman to Steve:

You will not accept that Llewellyn meant the abdominal organs when he said that all the vital parts were damaged,

You have this idea from newspapers, Fisherman. Steve uses the report.

Sam referred to these newspapers in my thread "Blood oozing":

#432
"Originally Posted by Sam Flynn
"I should think by someone who knew something of [anatomy], for whoever did it has attacked all the vital parts" - Lloyd's Weekly 2nd Sept; thereafter summarised in the Daily News and Woodford Times. Judging by the content, all three papers might well have used the same (press agency?) release as the basis for their articles."

And then you write to Steve:

and you refuse to agree that the wound that was described as very deep MUST have past beyond the omentum!

Now you construct a conceptual overlap with the concept of the omentum cut(s) and the abdomen cut(s) to accuse Steve of something he has not said. This will not generate knowledge.

Here is your source Fisherman, the one you two are discussing:

Metropolitan Police J Division 31 August 1888:

"“the Dr.”… "stated that her throat had been cut from left to right, two disti[nct] cuts being on left side. The windp[ipe] gullet and spinal cord being cut through, a bruise appearantly, of a th[umb] being on right lower jaw, also one o[n] left cheek, the abdomen had been [cut] open from center of bottom of ribs a[long] right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jag[ged], the omentium [sic], or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places, and tw[o] small stabs on private parts, appearantly done with a strong bladed knife, supposed to have been done by some le[ft] handed person, death being almost instantaneous."

J. Spratling Inspr., J. Keating Supt."

Use it and if you use other sources Fisherman, give references.

Steve is spending far too much time here I think on questions which are not possible to answer from the sources you like to discuss:

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?

Have you got the answers to them? If so, please write them down and give the proper references.

Pierre

[Mark Adam]

Hope you had a nice day and hello

Hi All!

I'm quite new here on the site and and the board, but do have a strong interest in JTR abut due to the fact that i have to care for my youngest son (sufferes from ASD), i do not have the time to dig into this topic as deep as i would.....

I do not have a favorite suspect but i do have found out that some of you do (...nd that som pretend to do but are to childish to reveal who...... ) and that this is a source of permanent lets call it disagreement.........

After following some of the threads i stumbled over the Lechmere threads and there is a little remark from my side.

First i must admit that i do not know the case or the sources as well as some of you obviously do, but..........why are the Anti Lechmereians so damned arrogant?

From what i get out of the discussions none of you can prove anything like if Lechmere was using the name Cross in private or in work, you simply can´t, but still the Anti Lechmere fraction is sating things like:
"CLEARLY he used Cross in his daily life............."
"It is OBVIOUS that he was nothing more that a nce family father......"
"it quite CLEAR that Mizen covered his failing...." and so on, but while you are allowed to do that, you burn the Lechmerians at the stake when they do quite the same...(to be honest the Lechmere grup seems more calm and open to criticism than the other group..... )
Example:
"We do know that he used Lechmere with authorities and not Cross as a name..."
"He was standing in the street near a murdered woman...."
..and the response from the Anti group is like:

"Define how many inches are meant by the term "near", and please provide the evidence and if you have got none, you are not allowed to have this opinion......" or at least this is the impression one gets reading all the 124 pages of this thread and there are many more threads like these.....

....and every now and then we do get the mental outpouring from some pseudo scientist, about how his way is the only way and that ONLY he can interpret historic sources correctly and how sound his line of evidence against his suspect is and bla bla bla...... some of his nitpickings are the source of immense laughter at our historic institute.....but he can not tell who it is or what his evidence is.....so boy please deliver or be quiet!!
Sorry for this not very nice and optimistic first post but i had to get rid of this otherwise i would have burst....

Now for the question I do have:
Why is the Lechmre theory so absurd and why are all other "better"?...
And who the hell do you favour Elarmana? I really would like to know that, that it is NOT Lechmere i can deduce from your posts, but who is yours?

greetings
Mark (please forgive the typos, but i have to have one eye on my son.....)

[Observer]

The clothing being displaced should be enough to involve looking to see if there are any injuries or potential evidence in that area before the body is moved.

Steve

Not if the witnesses who discovered the body were of an opinion that Polly Nichols had been violated. I think this was the case.

[Elamarna]

Hi All!


Now for the question I do have:
Why is the Lechmre theory so absurd and why are all other "better"?...
And who the hell do you favour Elarmana? I really would like to know that, that it is NOT Lechmere i can deduce from your posts, but who is yours?

greetings
Mark (please forgive the typos, but i have to have one eye on my son.....)

Hi Mark
You seem to have singled me out , so let me reply.

I do not argue that others are better and do not discount Lechmere as a possible suspect, the important word of course being possible.
My view is the theory is no more of less absurd than any other.

I consider local candidates such as Bury and Lechmere more viable than those who are not local; however such is only a personal opinion and may well be wrong.

However many of the arguments put forward as support are either conjecture without sources to support them, or arguably wrong.

I am really not sure what my favoured suspect as to do with Lechmere, but it is no secret, it's on my profile and in various posts here. Someone like Kosminski, Levy or Hyams.
My reasoning is based on the 1888 demographics of Whitechapel and the belief the killer was local.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Not if the witnesses who discovered the body were of an opinion that Polly Nichols had been violated. I think this was the case.

Yes Observer I agree.

However Llewellyn was not aware of the views of Lechmere or Paul at that stage was he?

Steve

[Mark Adam]

Hi Thanx for reply

Sorry to pick you out, but you are the easiest to remember due to the number of posts and you´re "playing" with Fisherman......

I just wanted to know what the Anti group would bring up as suspects, maybe i was expecting someone like D'Onston......

...to topic
Could some one explain to me what a cut from the sternum to the pubes would have as a consequence if it was
a.) most superficial but with a few deeper areas (beyond abdominal wall)
b) deep but not opening the abdominl cavity
c.) opening the abdominal cavity completely

another one:
Can be assume that the cuts done to Nichols are not regular but unregular cuts that differ in depth along their "route" or was the guy so skilled with the knife that he managed to produce cuts with consistant depth?
Is is really probable that such irregular cuts (if they were...) could exactly perforating the aorta?
and last
Where did the blood go?

[Harry D]

You don't need to provide a more credible alternative to discredit Lechmere as a suspect. Nonetheless, there are better bets out there.