Lechmere The Psychopath

[Mark Adam]

The thing to keep in mind is that there are numerous possibilities involved here.

Alternatively, Nichols was first strangled, and so she could have been dead when she suffered the neck cuts, and that could perhaps explain the lack of arterial spray up at the neck.

But let´s speculate that she was strangled, that the heart stopped beating before she had the neck cut and that the residue pressure inside the vessels had gone away. Even in that case, I would have wanted a lot more blood in the pool underneath the neck. Put a bottle of water on the ground and pull the cork out and you will realize why.

This was why the dearth of blood initially led LLewellyn to conclude that Nichols must have been killed in some other place and carried to the site.

Now, let´s return to your question about the aorta being cut inside the abdomen! Would it not produce an arterial gush of blood that left the abdominal cavity?
Quite possibly, yes, although it would hinge on where and how it was cut to an extent.

However - and this is the real point I am trying to make - if we look at what Llewellyn said about the perpetrator being to an exten versed in anatomy, since he had hit all the vital parts, we may be looking at another scenario.

For the aorta to produce a gush of blood when cut, it will take two things:

1. The heart must still be beating. And just as it can be reasoned that the small amount of blood at the neck and the lack of arterial spray up there could be due to the heart having stopped befpre the cut was made, the exact same thing applies here too. There WERE strangulation signs on the body.

2. There must not be an array of other vessels and organs that had been cut before the aorta was hit. And as we know, Llewellyn said that "all the vital parts" had been damaged, supposedly in the abdomen. So we may have a lot of blood leakage through many smaller vessels, arteries and veins alike, coupled with a shredded liver, a shredded spleen, shredded kidneys and so on. Consequently, the carnage may have offered no initial high pressure bleeding at all, and much of the blood could have exited before the aorta was hit, if it WAS indeed hit - the one thing that speaks for it is how Llewellyn said that the damage to the abdomen would lead to imminent death, more or less.

So there are some of the factors that we need to weigh in. I hope you are able to take it on board in your analysis.

Hi Fisherman

Thanx for the reply, but when i get you right there are a lot of assumptions to be made to make this work, like:
--she was strangled
--there was severe damage to other organs in the abdominal cave
as we do have no prove for it.
On the other hand the lack of blood from the neck wound, supports the theory you put up concerning the strangulation, i give you that. But as I do know how to get signal from living bodies and how to produce images or graphs from them, I lack the necessary knowledge how a body opened and damaged this was would react.....

Another thought came up reading your answear.
If somebody had strangled a woman with his hands, opened her up using a knife and created a mess in her abdominal cavity ----
--why would he cut the neck also , no need for it it´s just a waste of time
--would he be a little bit exited, hardbreathing, and in a "high" state of mind?
Which would not apply to Lechmere at all when Paul met him....

[Trevor Marriott]

The thing to keep in mind is that there are numerous possibilities involved here.

The aorta is high pressure environment, yes. That is why I am saying that the neck did not come first: there was no arterial spray on the ground, and there really should have been if the neck had come first. .

I think you should take note of what Dr Biggs say with regards to arterial spray which could bring into question you belief that the abdominal wounds came first which I dont they they did.

"It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy;420562]I don`t mind being misquoted when it`s funny, Christer :-)

I was banking on that. Had I posted it in another direction, it would have been perceived as an insult and petty semantics. It´s good to see that someone out here has a sense of humour.

There`s no need to choose.
Why do we have to choose ?
These are historical facts. What we think about them today is irrelevant

I don´t think so, and I will tell yo why below!


(Loose) Fact 1 - Llewellyn apparently thought abdominal wounds came before throat cut. Although there is no mention of this at the inquest

Not on Llewellyn´s behalf. But the coroner was quite clear about it, and that was at the inquest as well!

Fact 2 - The Coroner thought Llewellyn was mistaken

Actually, he said no such thing. This is what he put in words:
"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck."

Therefore, Baxter seems to offer the possibility that Llewellyn was mistaken, without claiming that this must have been so. And if we look more carefull at it all, what do we find?
-Baxter thought the cut to the neck unnecessary if the abdominal wounds came first. But he clearly did not weigh in the option that the killer may have been around as Paul came upon the body and dealt the cut as a coup-de-grace. So there is a logical alternative right there.
-Baxter is further baffled by how there was so little bleeding from the several arteries Now THIS is truly interesting, becasue here we have something that has been missed in the ongoing discussion about whether vital parts in the abomen were cut or not. Steve and Gareth say that there is no evidence for it, but here we have Baxter saying that "several arteries" were cut!
Bingo, I´d say.
And he is NOT talking about the neck arteries, since a lack of bleeding there would be totally consistent with the abdomen coming first; he is talking about abdominal arteries, where he wanted to see more blood. Llewellyn, however, HAD explained it:
"On the abdomen were some seven cuts and stabs, which the witness described in detail. Nearly all the blood had been drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues."
That also answers Baxter´s suggestion that there was less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck.
In the end, these remarks of Baxter´s are of course always going to be words uttered by a man with no medical education at all.

Fact 3 - Dr Bond thought the throat cut was first.

He based that assumption on second hand knowledge, since he never even got clsoe to the body of Nichols.Plus we know that he made strange calls at times, like in the Mylett case. So he is much less credible when it comes to these matters than is Llewellyn himself.

That too is a historical fact - doctors who have seen the damage done to a body during post mortems they have performed themselves, will always be the primary source for understading what happened.
Doctors offering second opinions on such matters are secondary sources, especially if they offer nothing at all to strengthen their ideas. And Bond does not do so in the Nichols case.

Taking this a step further, it is also a historical fact that Bond, when assessing the murder series, said "In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed".

And surely, you do not want us to take on board that four hours could have elapsed before Nichols and Eddowes were found?
Bond´s notes on this are a bit spurious at times, and we need to be acutely aware of that before we suggest him as the better source in cases he never participated in himself.

[Mark Adam]

Hello Mark

Don't worry about the 'arrogant' thing. Threads can often get a little heated. It's probably mainly down to this form of non face to face debate. We're probably all guilty of stuff at one time or another.

On point a. CL said that he touched her hands. Maybe that was the limit to the amount of contact he wanted with a possible dead body? To be honest I don't know how I'd feel about handling a dead body as I've never been in that situation?

On point 2. We can't be sure why he used Cross instead of Lechmere. Proponents of CL the Ripper have implied that it's suspicious and shows that he had something to hide but I can't see any advantage gained as he gave his own address, 22 Doveton Street, at the Inquest.
Possible reasons could be; as his stepfather was a police officer called Thomas Cross he may have held him in high regard and used Cross in everyday life. Though he did use Lechmere in writing. But he could just have been told that that was the correct thing to do.
I've recently been talking to researcher Gary Barnett on the JTR Forum and he informed me that the Lechmere's were in their recent past quite a well-to-do family that had come down in the world. Maybe they didn't want the Lechmere name linked to the ripper investigation?
Alternatively, maybe he thought that Lechmere sounded a bit 'foreign' and was worried about discrimination?

Regards
Herlock

Hi Herlock

Thanx for the reply..

Concerning point one: I did get get in some kind of situation where it was needed to check if a person wa still alive or not, together with a friend of mine we had to check if someone drowned showed any vital signs at all, in this stressy situation we did not have the time to think about, "Holy Sh..., do I really have to touch a dead person", but given the reports it was surely a more calm environment for Lechmere and Paul.......at least I guess so, based on what I have got to know so far.....

Concerning point two: Given the family stipulation, that might be it, at least more likely than some serialist kind of ruse....

[Fisherman]

I think you should take note of what Dr Biggs say with regards to arterial spray which could bring into question you belief that the abdominal wounds came first which I dont they they did.

"It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting"


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Please, Trevor - not Biggs AGAIN!!!!

Do I have to do this? Okay:

"Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut"

This could not have happened in the Nichols case, as Jason Payne-James has pointed out.

"The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures"

... which does not matter a iot when it is on record that they were nevertheless svered in the Nichols case. All of them. Down to the bone.

"even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting"

That only is true of there is an obstacle for the bloodflow, and there was no such thing in the Nichols case. Have a look at Chapman and Kelly, where there was arterial spray a plenty - why did they not listen to Biggs...?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

Thanx for the reply, but when i get you right there are a lot of assumptions to be made to make this work, like:
--she was strangled
--there was severe damage to other organs in the abdominal cave
as we do have no prove for it.
On the other hand the lack of blood from the neck wound, supports the theory you put up concerning the strangulation, i give you that. But as I do know how to get signal from living bodies and how to produce images or graphs from them, I lack the necessary knowledge how a body opened and damaged this was would react.....

Another thought came up reading your answear.
If somebody had strangled a woman with his hands, opened her up using a knife and created a mess in her abdominal cavity ----
--why would he cut the neck also , no need for it it´s just a waste of time
--would he be a little bit exited, hardbreathing, and in a "high" state of mind?
Which would not apply to Lechmere at all when Paul met him....

Trevor Marriott just surfaced, and that means I am taking my leave for now - there is only so much waffle a man can stand. But I wanted to give you an answer before it, on a few of your points:

There is no evidence that any inner organs were cut, you say.

But Llewellyn said that the killer hit all the vital parts, showing anatomical insights, and that must refer to the abdomen, since there is nothing else to use in that context.
More pertinently, as I just discovered, Baxter pointed out that there was surprisingly little bloodflow from the abdomen in spite of how several arteries were severed. And that kind of clinches what I am suggesting.

You ask why the killer would have cut the neck, with all the other damage already done.

In order to secure death and silence. If it was Lechmere, he would not want Nichols to gasp "He cut me!". He could not be asolutely sure that this would not happen until he had cut the neck.

Now I´m off, allowing others to enjoy Trevors posting to the full...

[Elamarna]

Once you infer that I believe that doctors are infallible (and that is what happens when you write "So doctors are infallibe now?), you must take full responsibility for that suggestion.

There was no inferring of your views it was a question.
It's in black and white:


So now Doctors are infallible? -- which is asking are you saying Doctors are infallible?
The expected response to be NO, anything else being illogical.
This is then followed by

If that is not what you are saying then they make mistakes, yes?

Again this is asking if that is not the case then they make mistakes don't they.

I care not about any qualifications you try to make afterwards; not when it is clear that it has led you to the above conclusion.

I realize that you now see that you overstepped the lines of decency and logic, and want to get out of the whole business, but it is a tad too late for that.

There are no later qualifications to the question. However you have chosen to read the question in isolation from the sentence which followed. Therefore you are changing the context.

Your post almost reads as if I am both backtracking and possibly offering some form of apology.

Let's be clear. There is no backtracking, there was No overstepping of any line of dencecy or logic.

I stand by Exactly what I posted. No changes at all!
.

Yes, I read what you write, and yes, I comprehend it - with the exception of when you do not express yourself fully intelligibly. This time over, you wrote "So doctor are infallible now?", and I corrected you.

You have certainly not corrected me as there was and is nothing to correct my friend.

If you make amense, and stop inferring that I would somehow believe that doctors are infallibel, then yes, I do think it is truly useful. If you persist, I agree with you, it´s time wasted for no good reason at all.

What you should not do is to speak of "semantics", because we all have it in black and white that you wrote "So doctors are infallible now?". Those are the "semantics" involved, they are yours and they are more than a tad wrong and shameful.

How can one make amends when such as never been said or inferred

What you should not do is to speak of "semantics", because we all have it in black and white that you wrote "So doctors are infallible now?". Those are the "semantics" involved, they are yours and they are more than a tad wrong and shameful.[/B]

Again why not give the full quote rather than the selective one. That is truly shameful

Steve

[Mark Adam]

Hi All

Another question: Would anyone be interested in providing C5 facts/documents and Torso facts/documents with the purpose of training a deep learning network?

[Garza]

I've been away for a few years.

So is Cross the new hot suspect now? When I left the Hutchinson train was all the rage.

Cheers

[Mark Adam]

Hi Welcome back!

Seems so that Cross took over, but don´t worry Hutch still has his fans here.......

[Pierre]

There was no inferring of your views it was a question.
It's in black and white:
So now Doctors are infallible? -- which is asking are you saying Doctors are infallible?
The expected response to be NO, anything else being illogical.
This is then followed by

If that is not what you are saying then they make mistakes, yes?

Again this is asking if that is not the case then they make mistakes don't they.




There are no later qualifications to the question. However you have chosen to read the question in isolation from the sentence which followed. Therefore you are changing the context.

Your post almost reads as if I am both backtracking and possibly offering some form of apology.

Let's be clear. There is no backtracking, there was No overstepping of any line of dencecy or logic.

I stand by Exactly what I posted. No changes at all!
.


You have certainly not corrected me as there was and is nothing to correct my friend.




How can one make amends when such as never been said or inferred



Again why not give the full quote rather than the selective one. That is truly shameful

Steve

Fisherman interprets your post in the same way he interprets text generally, i.e. sources from the past:

by misunderstanding, selectiveness and overgeneralization.

Perfect example.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

So that we do not forget where this question:

So now Doctors are infallible?

If that is not what you are saying then they make mistakes, yes.

Came from, we need to go back to post # 1293 by Fisherman:

"Doctors know what they are talking about, and when they say that an organ or vessel is damaged, it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged. And no, I cannot provide any statistic source for it. Nor do I have to."

While it is not clear what the 99,999 is out of, 100,000 seems a reasonable choice.
That would give a .001 chance of the Doctor being incorrect. Such a figure could be seen as no chance at all.
The question was therefore asked to clarify this.

Such points of the real reasons for question are apt to get lost in this sort of debate.
It is best we see they are not to give the full picture.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Please, Trevor - not Biggs AGAIN!!!!

Do I have to do this? Okay:

"Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut"

This could not have happened in the Nichols case, as Jason Payne-James has pointed out.

"The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures"

... which does not matter a iot when it is on record that they were nevertheless svered in the Nichols case. All of them. Down to the bone.

"even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting"

That only is true of there is an obstacle for the bloodflow, and there was no such thing in the Nichols case. Have a look at Chapman and Kelly, where there was arterial spray a plenty - why did they not listen to Biggs...?

There you go again disregarding what experts tell you, and yet you still peddle your own misguided opinions in the belief that your medical knowledge is more superior to theirs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mark Adam]

There you go again disregarding what experts tell you, and yet you still peddle your own misguided opinions in the belief that your medical knowledge is more superior to theirs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

..but you always get it right, don´t you - just like the medical student disposal bodies....... (Torso Muders)

[Pierre]

So that we do not forget where this question:

So now Doctors are infallible?

If that is not what you are saying then they make mistakes, yes.

Came from, we need to go back to post # 1293 by Fisherman:

"Doctors know what they are talking about, and when they say that an organ or vessel is damaged, it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged. And no, I cannot provide any statistic source for it. Nor do I have to."

While it is not clear what the 99,999 is out of, 100,000 seems a reasonable choice.
That would give a .001 chance of the Doctor being incorrect. Such a figure could be seen as no chance at all.
The question was therefore asked to clarify this.

Such points of the real reasons for question are apt to get lost in this sort of debate.
It is best we see they are not to give the full picture.

Steve

Hi Steve,

.001 is one per thousand. 1/100.000=0.00001.

Cheers, Pierre