Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

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.

That would depend on how closely questioned and investigated these people were. There will be a large number of different levels involved. And the competence level of those sking and investigating will differ too.

Generally speaking, you are of course right - coming in contact with the police at any level, will mean some sort of risk that you are found out if you are a criminal. If the contact is never there, the risk is never there either in that sense.

The problem is that we know quite well that a large number of killers have been investigated to a smaller or lesser degree by the police, and neverthless they have not been originally found out.
And we may rest assured that there are killers, serialists included, who have been questioned by the police but never found out, and who are walking the streets out there as free men.

[Fisherman]

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



Of course we cannot agree on such.



Again of course not.



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

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



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



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.




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


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

Cheap point scoring.



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.



He was simply wrong.




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

Short answer:

Llewellyn said all the vital parts were struck.

You say that he was wrong.

He saw the body.

You did not.

He perfomed the post mortem.

You did not.

He was a trained doctor.

You are not.

There can be one choice only, opting for which man was better served to get it right.

[Fisherman]

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

And as long as we canīt be certain, plus taking into account how not a single source mentions any interrogation or checking out of Lechmere, plus considering how his real, registered name seemed unknown to the police, the possibility that he was never checked in any serious depth at all remains very open.

[Pierre]

Short answer:

Llewellyn said all the vital parts were struck.

You say that he was wrong.

He saw the body.

You did not.

He perfomed the post mortem.

You did not.

He was a trained doctor.

You are not.

There can be one choice only, opting for which man was better served to get it right.

I am an historian.

You are not.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

We may forget the rest, including the very, very odd question "Do you accept Spratlings report?"

Where DO you get such things from?

Let's not forget it at all.

We spend the best part of two days in a debate which centred around did Spratling come up with the word omentum or was it supplied to him.
And despite the fact that you somehow saw the issue of if he was told as a distinctly seperate question you did not wish to answer the debate continued to address the whole issue

Then Pierre reminds us all of the actual wording in the report which confirm that Llewellyn gave the information to Spratling.

Is there a "ok so he was told"; of course not. There was an attempt to sidestep the issue .
Following which I asked a simple question:
Do you accept the contents of the report by Spratling? Not an odd question at all in the circumstances; despite your claim to the contrary.
Not odd, just another you do not wish to answer.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fish, a non-adversarial question.

Do you have a date for the book yet?

Regards
Herlock

[Pierre]

It came from within Nichols.

The Lechmere idea comes from within you.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: 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 blood James Green washed away was quantified by Llewellyn.

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.

No, it does not. You can leave yourself to soak in bathwater without absorbing it. And I would say that you will have ubnderestood perfectly that I was not suggesting that the blood was absorbed by the intestines. But it seems you will opt for any stupid interpretation you can think up on y behalf, so thanks for that.

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.

... and they did not know what a deep cut was, they did not understand where to look for blood, instead accepting that it had been spirited away at times, plus they habitually mistook a shallow cut to the abdomen for cuts that damaged all the vital parts in it. Yes, I know - they were a pack of incompetent liars.

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

They did not think it certain, no. Nor do we do so today. It was always an estimation, but I will give you that they sometimes overinvested in their estimations.
Leading on that they would make very large errors as a rule is not correct, though.

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

Should that really be "assed"? Isnīt the term "arsed"?
But you are probably right. When a medico looked into the abdominal cavity and saw that the liver, the spleen, the pancreas, the aorta, the stomach and the kidneys had been shredded, stating that "many a vital part had been damaged", they were probaly taking things too much at face value.
Shame on them. Amateurs. What did they know that you donīt know much better?

[Fisherman]

The Lechmere idea comes from within you.

Derek Osborne, Michael Connor and Edward Stow.

[Elamarna]

Short answer:

Llewellyn said all the vital parts were struck.

You say that he was wrong.

He saw the body.

You did not.

He perfomed the post mortem.

You did not.

He was a trained doctor.

You are not.

There can be one choice only, opting for which man was better served to get it right.

Not addressing any of the points raised of course!
Just the same old tired lines.
The idea is just so closed to any possibility that Llewellyn may be wrong it is truly sad.

Steve

[Pierre]

Derek Osborne, Michael Connor and Edward Stow.

# 8 in the thread "Documentary: Jack The Ripper: Has Christer Holmgren discovered the killer's identity?":

You say:

Itīs simple - I was not the one finding the killerīs identity.

Instead Michael Connor and Derek Osborne were the pioneers.

The "killerīs" identity. Wow.

Edward Stow has been the most intrumental man in researching Lechmere, and I would suggest that he knows more about the Lechmeres than any living soul on this planet.

Lucky him.

I have made my own contributions, but I was not the first nor the most thorough researcher of the carman.

You have certainly made your own contributions. Drawing conclusions from non existing sources and making total generalizations from one murder to a whole set of murders of different kinds to mention a couple of those.

But the ID is sound enough, and there can be littel doubt - but much quibble - about Lechmere being the Ripper. The case cannot be proven concusively as it stands, but realistically, itīs game over.

Game over? Really? We will see about that.

Since the Ripper and the Thams Torso killer were also one and the same man, the only reasonable conclusion is that Charles Lechmere was also guilty of the torso murders, beginning killing at the very latest in 1873.

The total generalization - based on no evidence at all.

There you are Billiou - thanks for asking. Now itīs up to you to decide for yourself whether I am right or wrong.

Can I also do this?

You are WRONG.

Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

I believe Llewellyn was referring to the Loose Connective Tissues, which as the name implies are the loose, spongy tissues which connect, surround and cushion the organs and other tissues.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: 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)

No suspicion from whom? If he had disagreed with the police over what was said, I would be suspicious. If he gave the wrong name, I would be suspicious.
So who is it that would not be suspicious?

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.'

"Used to imply?" The implication is either true or false, end of.

We know that this isn't the case however because he had ample time to walk away undiscovered.

No, "we" certainly donīt know that.

I am sorry, but I am now predisposing that the rest of your post will be along the same fallacious lines, and so I will leave it here.

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.

Wait - itīs getting a bit better. Maybe I should stay on? Okay.

No, I donīt agree that it must tick the "case against box" if nobody expresses any suspicion. It can just as well tick the "skilful liar" box. Good to see that you are admitting what I am saying about Paul and his stance, though.

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

You can try. But it ainīt gonna work.

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.

Just to take one example: If he went to the police to hide that he had been in place for five minutes before Paul arrived, he WAS hiding his tracks. What seems like an anomoly will have helped him immensely if he was the killer, that is important to keep in mind!

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.

We do not differ in that respect. It may sound strange, but I do the exact same. People think that I spend my nights making voodoo effigies of Lechmere and sticking needles into them, but I really donīt.

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

Iīm perfectly fine with that. But how does it relate to how you say that you are certain that he would have run, Herlock? A partly open mind is better than a closed one, but...

[Fisherman]

I believe Llewellyn was referring to the Loose Connective Tissues, which as the name implies are the loose, spongy tissues which connect, surround and cushion the organs and other tissues.

That sounds very probable to me. I have been thinking about whether he meant the soft tissues, and said "loose" instead. Any which way, I am much more comfortable with both suggestions than with the one that he either got it all wrong or lied about it. That does not sit well with me at all.

[Fisherman]

# 8 in the thread "Documentary: Jack The Ripper: Has Christer Holmgren discovered the killer's identity?":

You say:



The "killerīs" identity. Wow.



Lucky him.



You have certainly made your own contributions. Drawing conclusions from non existing sources and making total generalizations from one murder to a whole set of murders of different kinds to mention a couple of those.



Game over? Really? We will see about that.



The total generalization - based on no evidence at all.



Can I also do this?

You are WRONG.

Pierre

Derek Osborne, Michael Connor and Edward Stow.