Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

In this case, for example, we have Steve saying that "yes, Llewellin said that all vital parts were hit by the killer, but he got that wrong".

To my mind, thatbis a waste of time up until any evidence at all can be shown to corroborate the idea.

Likewise, Steve seems to work under the miscomprehension that the aorta will not have been damaged since Llewellyn does not mention this.

That is a very spurious suggestion to make, not least since Llewellyn says that all the vital parts were damaged and adds that a swift death would follow as a result of that.

There is nothing to say which areas he is refering to. You chose abdomen, over neck.

However the Neck is vital. All vital parts there are damaged. Historically established fact.

The same is not true of the abdomen; indeed it relies on the "vital parts" to be in the abdomen to allow this possibility to be discussed.

And that depends on how one reads the statement of Llewellyn.
There is only Spratling's reprot which can be used for corroberation; and that report does not in fact do so.

Since people tell me tjat a swift death can ONLY be the case with abdominal damage if the aorta is cut, it stands to reason that the only way LLewellyns statements can work is if this happened in the Nichols case.

Not so we have agreed that the severing of the Vena Cava would also lead to a fast, if slower than from the Aorta, death.

And given that she was shredded deeply by the killers knife in the abdominal region, the suggestion is anything but a realistic one, much as there is no absolute proof that it happened.

The term shredded is not in any source. It is a term used to convey greater damage than can be historically proven.


Steve

[Elamarna]

....but if the damage was as severe as you belive, and the abominal damage was done before the neck damage, why is there so little blood in the clothing of Nichols?
As the aorta is considered high pressure environment and given the damage that affected all vital organs, the opening must have been sufficient to let blood splash out of the abdomen, which would be found in the clothing or if performed standing in front of the victim on the killler? Or am I getting this wrong?

Hi Mark

The question of blood on the clothing is interesting.

No report has any blood on the front of clothing covering the abdomenial wounds.

The Neck area according to most reports has clothing which is covered or Saturated with blood. Other reports say this blood extends on to her back as far as her waist.
Apart from one report there is no mention of blood on her petticoats.

This blood amount of blood in the Neck area is debated. It has been said the clothing was not very absorbent, with as far as I know no data to back such a claim up.
It is also suggested that there was no blood on the back, to be fair the reports are not conclusive, however few actually say there is none, the main issue is how far down it spreads.

Blood on her front would be greatly controlled by the angle of any possible cut.


Steve

[Mark Adam]

Quote Elarmana:Blood on her front would be greatly controlled by the angle of any possible cut.

Hi Steve
Methinks that to, but as Fisherman likes to pint out that the knife was directed from the sternum downwards in direction of the pubes (and very voilently according to Fisherman) - and with that angle the Originator would be in a convenient position to end up bloodstained I guess.
Please correct me if iīm wrong

[Elamarna]

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.:

Fish it is your intreptation of Baxter. It is not the only one or indeed the most plausible.

The arteries he mentions can easily be seen as those in the skin and underlying tissues that make up the body wall.
It would be perfectly natural to assume these would mark the front of her clothing, they did not.

And of course the wounds to the abdomen should have left some blood on the clothing; however it did not.

There can be only a few reasons for this.

1. Pure luck that no clothing touched the skin. Possible.

2 . She was already dead from strangulation before the abdomenial cuts. Unlikely there would be no blood but possible.

3. She was already dead from the cuts to the vital areas in the Neck.
Given the required bleed out time this is again highly unlikely but possible.

4. The cuts to the vital areas in the Neck, resulted in massive blood loss. Such forces the body to reduce blood flow to the extremities in an attempt to maintain flow to the vital organs.
Such would appear to be the most plausible reason.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Welcome back!

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

Mark are you a Hutch fan?

I should have included him in my local suspects.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

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

Cheers, Pierre

Thank you Pierre
I left out the % sign. Silly

Best to get these things right.

Steve

[Mark Adam]

Hi Steve

Concerning Hutch, letīs say Iīm a fan of Hutch being a witness, with a strong possibilty of being also a suspect.....what leaeves me a little sceptic about hutch is, that I belive you avarage bloke not to be able to act like the ripper did for two reasons:
a.) There is a threshold that has to be overcome before being able to cut into a human body, it must be even more so cutting a living body, and I talk from experience....even if the times were tougher and bloodier I doubt that Mr.Normal could do so as the Ripper did
b.) It is damned hard to cut organs out of a body, even if he avoided the flowing blood and so on, it is still a fact that he emptied the abdominal cavity by using his knife and his hands, and I do not think that Otto Normal could do it wothout vomiting his soul out......

Mark

[Elamarna]

Quote Elarmana:Blood on her front would be greatly controlled by the angle of any possible cut.

Hi Steve
Methinks that to, but as Fisherman likes to pint out that the knife was directed from the sternum downwards in direction of the pubes (and very voilently according to Fisherman) - and with that angle the Originator would be in a convenient position to end up bloodstained I guess.
Please correct me if iīm wrong

As was suggested by Kjab3112. The clothing not being removed or cut suggests and only suggests that to a degree the killer was working under her clothing and so probably cut at an oblique angle rather than directly from above.

It's all a matter of opinion as in 1888 angles of cuts were not used.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

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....

Hello Mark

Of course you are correct in that the situation that you faced was different to the one faced by CL and Paul. It's impossible of course to know exactly what they were thinking at the time. You were in a very pressured and stressful situation. Whilst this doesn't make a situation easier to cope with I suppose that you could say that not having the time to overthink things could help in some situations. Moving the body or propping her up as has been suggested is significantly different, in my view, from just touching her hand. This would mean arms around her; close up stuff. Many just wouldn't fancy the idea of that. Perhaps as his stepfather was a Police Officer he might have heard about not disturbing a crime scene?

On point two, if he'd given the name Fred Smith, 27 Flower and Dean Street, that would have been suspicious. I can't see anything significant in the use of Cross.

Regards
Herlock

[Mark Adam]

Herlock

For sure,and given the fact that he had cops in his family, supports the idea that he knew such things like "Do not disturb a crime scene....", but honestly I think that this also was the reason he insisted in Paul helping him ---> to have somebody else moving the body, if it was for the reason īcause he knew she was stabbed or just did not want to touch a stranger (like my second son.....) we will never know, and thats the problem.

The other thing cocerning CL as Jack, if I had just fulfilled my urges in killing Nichols and being CL would I have a increased heart rate, heavy breathing and a light glow of satisfaction in my face, I guess Paul would have noticed that.......

[caz]

Once more, Mizen was first to take the stand. Whatever lie he presented would reasonably be revealed and gainsaid by both carmen, leaving Mizen looking rather sad.
Did you forget that, or do you think that Mizen didnīt care about it? It would effectively result in that 2-1 advantage of the carmen, and I am constantly being told how this means that Mizen was wrong.
Kind of backfires now, eh?

Not at all, Fish. We know Mizen gave an account at the inquest which was contradicted in more than one aspect by both carmen at the inquest, so at least one of these three witnesses was telling porkies, misremembering, mistaken or trying to cover their arse. Cross didn't really need to cover his own arse as he was there completely of his own volition - presumably enjoying his opportunity to run his psychopathic rings round Mizen and co, while Paul had to be tracked down and Mizen had no choice but to appear after he was 'outed' by Paul in that interview. It's just odd that nobody at the time - particularly not Mizen - seemed to want to rock the boat by pointing out the discrepancies and insisting on answers.

...I am keeping the possibility open that Lechmere and Paul had agreed to con the PC when they met him, in order to get to work earlier. I think Lechere may have presented such an opportunity if he did not go for getting Paul out of earshot.

You might want to make this your better option, because many posters have now pointed out the complete lack of evidence that Cross uttered a word to Mizen out of Paul's earshot, and a fair bit of evidence that Paul heard it all and was therefore able to cast himself as Mizen's informer. In fact, if Paul allowed Cross to say anything to Mizen out of his own hearing, he was a fool to give that interview using his real name. What if Cross had whispered to Mizen that he had found the other man [Paul] with the woman and thought he might have been up to no good?

But your alternative option is not much better, because it relies on Paul trusting this stranger, Cross, to report faithfully to Mizen what they had agreed to say, and then taking it upon himself to give a different version to the press under his own name! Again, you need Paul to be as brazen as Cross for this to work - practically in cahoots.

Or he asked Lechmere "what did you say to him"? Or the carmen decided together wgat to say.

But nah - it couldnīt be THAT simple, could it?

Not really, Fish. See above.

How do you know that he didnīt boil over? Did you check with him, Caz? How do you know that he meekly accepted it? How do you know that he did not go to his superiors and complaint about it? How do you know how that turned out?

I don't, but if Mizen did kick up a stink, his superiors evidently decided it was better to let sleeping dogs lie and to conclude there had been some innocent confusion over what was reported to Mizen, what Mizen heard, and what each witness recalled about the conversation later. There is no suggestion that either Cross or Paul was thought to have lied at the inquest, is there?

Conversely, how do we know that Mizen didnīt think "Strange, I must have misunderstood the man"?

Quite possible, but as I'm sure I've pointed out to you before, if Mizen himself believed he had misunderstood, or even believed it possible, then he very well could have done! Unless you can claim to know him better than he knew himself.

Or was Cross such a magician that he could cause even the most competent policeman to doubt his own powers of hearing and recollection?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock

For sure,and given the fact that he had cops in his family, supports the idea that he knew such things like "Do not disturb a crime scene....", but honestly I think that this also was the reason he insisted in Paul helping him ---> to have somebody else moving the body, if it was for the reason īcause he knew she was stabbed or just did not want to touch a stranger (like my second son.....) we will never know, and thats the problem.

The other thing cocerning CL as Jack, if I had just fulfilled my urges in killing Nichols and being CL would I have a increased heart rate, heavy breathing and a light glow of satisfaction in my face, I guess Paul would have noticed that.......

Mark

Regarding your second point. I made the point recently that, despite being alone with the body (if only for a very short time), there is no evidence that anyone, whether the police or Robert Paul, had any suspicions about CL at the time. This has been put down either to police incompetence or the fact that any record of suspicion hasn't survived (or, to be fair, that Paul may have had suspicions but kept them to himself).
Also, when I suggested in a previous post, that 30-40 minutes was an insufficient amount of time for CL find a victim, kill etc, I could also have added that the killer might have needed a few minutes to 'come down' after the exultation of the kill.

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

Mark

Regarding your second point. I made the point recently that, despite being alone with the body (if only for a very short time), there is no evidence that anyone, whether the police or Robert Paul, had any suspicions about CL at the time. This has been put down either to police incompetence or the fact that any record of suspicion hasn't survived (or, to be fair, that Paul may have had suspicions but kept them to himself).
Also, when I suggested in a previous post, that 30-40 minutes was an insufficient amount of time for CL find a victim, kill etc, I could also have added that the killer might have needed a few minutes to 'come down' after the exultation of the kill.

Regards
Herlock

Herlock

I did not thank you for the comments yesterday.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem Steve

I admire your patience

Regards
Herlock

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;420602

As was suggested by Kjab3112. The clothing not being removed or cut suggests and only suggests that to a degree the killer was working under her clothing and so probably cut at an oblique angle rather than directly from above.

Hi Steve,

Could you please be so kind as to tell me which post that is when you have the time?

Thanks a lot.

Pierre