Lechmere The Psychopath

[Henry Flower]

Thanks Henry.

I was wondering the other day while I was 'away' what would have happened if, just as John Richardson discovered the body of Annie Chapman, someone had come into the passageway and saw him standing above a mutilated corpse? What if the 'other guy' had panicked and run for a Constable? Richardson would have been instantly 'in the frame.'

It's interesting to note that neither the police or Paul had any suspicions about a man who was, even for a short time, alone with the body. We can't just assume that the Victorian Police were utterly incompetent just because they didn't have today's knowledge or technology. As the murders progressed and the pressure on the police intensified why did no one, when reviewing the case for missed clues, ever say: 'hold on, we had that Lechmere bloke who we know was alone with the murdered Nichols. We have his address let's call him in and question him again.' You really don't need to be Morse to consider that option. Yet no one did. Why not? Because they were confident of his innocence.

Regards
Herlock

Herlock, I'm not quite as sanguine (no pun intended, as half this thread seems to have concerned a detailed analysis of exsanguination!) as you appear to be concerning the police - and not merely because they lacked our technologies. Anyone who has read Michael Bilton's "Wicked Beyond Belief" about the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper will understand something of the effect huge public and political pressure can have on even basic police work, despite our greater technology and understanding. And also how a perpetrator can be interviewed multiple times during the investigation, can satisfy detectives, and on the one occasion when the detective thinks he is NOT satisfied and the suspect needs to be looked at more closely because his alibi is weak and he ticks a number of suspect boxes, that detective's memo detailing his suspicions to a superior officer can be read, filed away, forgotten, buried, never acted on.

The one thing I emphatically don't think is that because the police interacted with Lechmere and he was never arrested, therefore he was fully checked out and satisfied the very thorough constabulary of his complete innocence. Doesn't work like that. In fact, given the limited area of the crimes, and the size of the investigation, I'd put money on the perpetrator definitely having been spoken to by the police in the course of the investigation, perhaps without having aroused any suspicions whatsoever.

[Fisherman]

Where did the blood go?

Very little leaked out through the neck.

Some was found in the clothing, up around the neck and the upper part of the dress.

There was a patch of blood between Nicholsī legs.

The rest leaked out into the abdominal cavity. And it probably did so on account of a major leakage caused by the knife, meaning that the abdominal cuts came first - just as LLewellyn said. He also said that the blood leaked out of the arteries and veins and colleced to a large degree in the loose tissues, which in my universe means that it was soaked into the heap of intestines and rested there.

I tend to think that medicos know their way around these things, and I normally trust a medico who has made a post mortem to be correct in what he says, unless I can find a definitive reason to mistrust him.

[Harry D]

I was wondering the other day while I was 'away' what would have happened if, just as John Richardson discovered the body of Annie Chapman, someone had come into the passageway and saw him standing above a mutilated corpse? What if the 'other guy' had panicked and run for a Constable? Richardson would have been instantly 'in the frame.'

Richardson didn't find Chapman's body, although it's impossible to fathom how he missed it if she was dead when he was sitting on the doorstep.

[Sam Flynn]

Very little leaked out through the neck.
He also said that the blood leaked out of the arteries and veins and colleced to a large degree in the loose tissues, which in my universe means that it was soaked into the heap of intestines and rested there.

In your universe, maybe, but not most people's. The intestines do not constitute "loose tissues" and no doctor would describe them as such, because they're organs or viscera, and to describe them as mere "tissues" would be doing them a great disservice. Furthermore, although wobbly, they're very much attached, not "loose". If the blood had pooled in the intestines, or the abdominal cavity, Llewellyn would have said precisely that.

[Sam Flynn]

Very little leaked out through the neck.

Source?

[c.d.]

Hello Henry,

I don't disagree with what you are saying but would it be safe to say that someone who was questioned and investigated is less likely to have been the Ripper? I think that is the best conclusion (albeit a poor one) we can come up with.

c.d.

[Pierre]

Very little leaked out through the neck.

Some was found in the clothing, up around the neck and the upper part of the dress.

There was a patch of blood between Nicholsī legs.

The rest leaked out into the abdominal cavity. And it probably did so on account of a major leakage caused by the knife, meaning that the abdominal cuts came first - just as LLewellyn said. He also said that the blood leaked out of the arteries and veins and colleced to a large degree in the loose tissues, which in my universe means that it was soaked into the heap of intestines and rested there.

I tend to think that medicos know their way around these things, and I normally trust a medico who has made a post mortem to be correct in what he says, unless I can find a definitive reason to mistrust him.

The problem is you do not have the medico there but what you have is sources written by authorities or journalists referring to the medico, so you must trust what they say that the medico said. And what they say are often interpretations.

[Elamarna]

You have repeatedly laid down that there is absolutely nothing that tells us that the cuts in the abdomen went any further. You have stated that a cut only damaging the omentum and going no further, could well be described as a very deep wound.
I know what you have posted, since I have waded through it with a rising sense of incredulity.

The depth of cut is relative to other cuts as is the term "very deep".

The omentum being cut has nothing to do with the view of Llewellyn on vital areas. We can both agree on that.

Then we can also degree that the cuts went deeper than the omentum, which is what I have suggested all the time, but which has been totally rejected. By you.

Of course we cannot agree on such.

Can we also agree that the cuts that went further than the omentum did cause damage to "vital parts" of the abdominal cavity, meaning either organs or vessels?

Again of course not.

Mentioning it allows for a known depth of cut to be established.

Hmmm? What?

It gives the deepest recorded wound, what is so hard to understand.

And as such it suggests no vital vessels or organs were hit.

Ehhh .. was that why Llewellyn said that all the vital parts had been hit?

He was wrong, I have presented my reasoning many times. You don't agree such is life.

This attempt to suggest i have been saying that this was a vital area is not backed by anything I have posted. To say so is highly disingenuous!

You cannot write like that, Steve - WHAT area are you talking about? You seem to leave out half of the thought process as it is transferred into writing.

Yes I can.
You have attempted to suggest that I have said Llewellyn would regard the omentum as a vital area. Such is not so.

I have only talked of the omentum as an indicator of depth of cut. Nothing else.

Just for the record:

The cutting of the omentum is the only recorded data we have of the depth of any of the abdomenial cuts.

There is nothing at all telling us that ONLY the omentum depth was reached. It is in all probability only a manner to say that the abdominal cavity was opened up, which it was. The depth was described as "very deep" and you have yourself claimed that there were shallow cuts - that seem to have gone into the omentum only.

There is nothing which backs that viewpoint. I have never claimed shallow cuts reach the omentum. Such is disingenuous.

It was never suggested it was anything other than this, if you believe it was quote away.

"All the vital parts were hit"

"Very deep"

Well done I left out "by me" after "suggested" as we were discussing my views not those of others.

Cheap point scoring.

My view is that Llewellyn came up with the abdominalwounds as fatal because he struggled to account for blood loss, and of course he had the same problem with the abdominal wounds.

But you yourself admit that he must have known that cutting the omentum is not fatal in any universe. Therefore he would have been lying as he said that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill, if the cuts only damaged the omentum.
Is that what you are saying?

No my view is consistent, Llewellyn's views on this matter are wrong.
There is no evidence supplied by him to back his view.
Lying is a very strong term, I prefer mistaken.

My view was and remains that Llewellyn's conclusion is wrong.

Someone is VERY wrong here, I will give you that. All that remains to clarify is whether it is the professional man who made the post mortem who missed out and either goofed up totally or decided to lie - or the modern day commentator who thinks he knows better.

He was simply wrong.

You may not like it Fisherman, but there it is.

I absolutely detest it as I find it a severe example of utter arrogance coupled to using the absense of evidence as evidence of absense. And the absense of sense is equally appaling.
But you are welcome to hang that trophy on your livingroom wall for everybody to marvel at.

Given that the majority of your "evidence" is of the "prove it is not" type rather than the "I can prove it" type I am not surprised by the comments.

People disagree, live with it!


Steve

[Elamarna]

Steve

Thanx for reply
My idea was, that IF they hurt/cut/perforated the aorta, the blood would have been in the abdominal cavity, so no guess at "blood gone into the tissue" would be needed, on the other side if the aorta had been cut would the pressure not be responsible for more blood on the outside of the body?
Given that there is a wound that is deep enough...

Mark.
Such thinking is indeed possible.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson didn't find Chapman's body, although it's impossible to fathom how he missed it if she was dead when he was sitting on the doorstep.

spot the deliberate error!

Davis not Richardson, of course.

Cheers
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I'm not quite as sanguine (no pun intended, as half this thread seems to have concerned a detailed analysis of exsanguination!) as you appear to be concerning the police - and not merely because they lacked our technologies. Anyone who has read Michael Bilton's "Wicked Beyond Belief" about the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper will understand something of the effect huge public and political pressure can have on even basic police work, despite our greater technology and understanding. And also how a perpetrator can be interviewed multiple times during the investigation, can satisfy detectives, and on the one occasion when the detective thinks he is NOT satisfied and the suspect needs to be looked at more closely because his alibi is weak and he ticks a number of suspect boxes, that detective's memo detailing his suspicions to a superior officer can be read, filed away, forgotten, buried, never acted on.

The one thing I emphatically don't think is that because the police interacted with Lechmere and he was never arrested, therefore he was fully checked out and satisfied the very thorough constabulary of his complete innocence. Doesn't work like that. In fact, given the limited area of the crimes, and the size of the investigation, I'd put money on the perpetrator definitely having been spoken to by the police in the course of the investigation, perhaps without having aroused any suspicions whatsoever.

Henry,
I take your points. I can't help feeling, however, that if anyone would have received a little bit more than the average amount of scrutiny it would have been CL. Of course you are correct that we don't have access to every document that existed at one time but surely they would have taken more than a passing interest? If they did, nothing appeared suspicious 130 years ago. I admit though that we can't be certain at this distance of time.

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

Very little leaked out through the neck.

Some was found in the clothing, up around the neck and the upper part of the dress.

That is one view.
It is based on little blood had been absorbed by the clothing, which is debatable given the reports.
And on all the blood being recorded. Which it may not have been given it was washed away by a member of the public.

The rest leaked out into the abdominal cavity. And it probably did so on account of a major leakage caused by the knife, meaning that the abdominal cuts came first - just as LLewellyn said. He also said that the blood leaked out of the arteries and veins and colleced to a large degree in the loose tissues, which in my universe means that it was soaked into the heap of intestines and rested there.

Just conjecture that the majority of the blood was in the abdominal cavity.
The intestines are not loose tissue. I specifical asked you your understand of the term earlier in the year, that was not your response..
If you like I will happily post the conversation.
Blood by the way does not get absorbed by the intestines which is what soaked implies.

I tend to think that medicos know their way around these things, and I normally trust a medico who has made a post mortem to be correct in what he says, unless I can find a definitive reason to mistrust him.

One cannot compare medical knowledge in 1888 to that of today.
Infection was not understood, nor were the causes or treatments of illnesses like cancer, heart disease. Epilepsy, diabetes or depression to name but a few.

TOD is also a classic example of what was considered in 1888 to be certain now not being so.

There are therefore many reasons why medical opinion from over a century ago needs to be assed at more than face value.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes:

I was wondering the other day while I was 'away' what would have happened if, just as John Richardson discovered the body of Annie Chapman, someone had come into the passageway and saw him standing above a mutilated corpse? What if the 'other guy' had panicked and run for a Constable? Richardson would have been instantly 'in the frame.'

And indeed he should have been so - going in that implication only.

But once it was established that the body was cold, he would immediately be let free, unless there was something else to implicate him.

That is how these things work: If you are found alone, standing over the body of a murder victim, you need to be cleared.

It's interesting to note that neither the police or Paul had any suspicions about a man who was, even for a short time, alone with the body.

Well, all we can say is that we know nothing of any such suspicion. It is not impossible that Paul suspected Lechmere, but was afraid of him and did not want to risk anything. Did you think of that? We actually do not know what Paul thought of Lechmere at all.
As for the police, it seems obvious that they entertained no suspicion - but to my mind, that will owe to some degree to how Lechmere sought out the police not once, but twice. Plus at the time, criminal anthropology played a large role in how criminals were looked upon, and Lechmere did not fit that scheme at all.

We can't just assume that the Victorian Police were utterly incompetent just because they didn't have today's knowledge or technology.

Can we instead assume that they were utterly competent, Herlock? Is that somehow a given thing? If so, why dod the coroner have to reprimand them for not speaking to all the people in Bucks Row?
I think they were a bit lazy in the Nichols case, and I think they were hampered by lacking technical equipment and the prevailing criminal anthropology ideas. Otherwise, I think they equalled todays force - some good, some bad, some success, some mistakes, some brilliance, some real bad debacles.

As the murders progressed and the pressure on the police intensified why did no one, when reviewing the case for missed clues, ever say: 'hold on, we had that Lechmere bloke who we know was alone with the murdered Nichols. We have his address let's call him in and question him again.' You really don't need to be Morse to consider that option. Yet no one did. Why not? Because they were confident of his innocence.

Why did not generations of ripperologists see the potential guilt for a hundred years? Why not ask that question?
Because they were confident that he was innocent? Or because he had hidden his tracks?

Two.

Two sides of the coin.

Two angles to look from.

It always comes down to that.

Hello Fisherman

First, thanks to HarryD for pointing out my silly error. It was Davis not Richardson who found Chapmans body.

The point that I was making in the first part of my post was about the importance of Paul arriving after CL. If he hadn't, and CL had gone alone to find a Constable there would have been no suspicion against him (CL) My point is that the presence of Paul has been used to imply that CL was somehow compelled to make his presence known and to follow a path that led him to the police i.e. that he was reacting to being almost 'caught in the act.' We know that this isn't the case however because he had ample time to walk away undiscovered. I know that you will cite Andy Griffiths suggestion about CL deciding to 'brazen it out,' and I will reply that I disagree (as is permitted I'm sure you will agree). Placed under pressure he 'might' have decided that brazening it out was a slightly better option but he was under no such pressure. Paul was 40 yards away in a badly lit back street. For all CL knew the footsteps could have belonged to a Constable.

You are correct of course that we do not know if Paul had any suspicions of CL. All we know is that he did not act on them if he had them. But surely if we try and weigh up every aspect of events (as you, Steve and others are currently doing on the medical evidence) you would have to place the fact that no one appeared to suspect CL at the time as a tick (however faint) in the 'case against' box.

I agree that we cannot simply say either that the police were useless or that they were blameless.

Finally, on the 'or had he hidden his tracks,' comment. I'm sorry Fish but I wouldn't call drawing someone's attention to the body you were standing near (when there was absolutely no need to) as 'hiding his tracks.' Or going to find a Constable. Or turning up for the Inquest. Or working at the same place for 20 years.

Absolutely there are 2 sides of every coin. And once 'named' a suspect cannot be 'un-named!' I do look at both sides and try to weigh up the likely and the unlikely.

I'll say again. We cannot categorically exonerate CL. I just feel that he's an unlikely Ripper.

Regards
Herlock

[Fisherman]

In your universe, maybe, but not most people's. The intestines do not constitute "loose tissues" and no doctor would describe them as such, because they're organs or viscera, and to describe them as mere "tissues" would be doing them a great disservice. Furthermore, although wobbly, they're very much attached, not "loose". If the blood had pooled in the intestines, or the abdominal cavity, Llewellyn would have said precisely that.

I donīt think that you have the prerogative to decide for other people what they think, Gareth. In fact, Iīm sure of that.

There is only one place the blood from the extensive damage to the vital parts can have gone, and that is into the abdominal cavity.

To deny that, it takes some serious semantic acrobatics. I know, I see them every day.

[Fisherman]

Source?

It came from within Nichols.