Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;420602




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

Post 1103 I believe


Steve

[Fisherman]

Okidoki - I have used another approach this time. Instead of engaging in dabate with people who are hellbent on denying what I suggest, I simply looked for the facts where it seems they were to be found.

And I found them. In the coroners summing up.

Here´s a number of quotations from the different papers, and I will make a number of comments below them:

Daily News, 24 Sept

She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing.

The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.

Daily Telegraph, 24 September

The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.

Dr Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge.

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.

Morning Advertiser, 24 September

The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.

There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.

Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nichols could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were made by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries again have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge.

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 throat.

The Times, 24 September

She was only just dead, if life were really extinct.

There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.

Dr. Llewellyn seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seemed difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it came about there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained and the legs not soiled, and that there was very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++

So! First a few minor goodies:

No, Steve, there was NOT blood hidden under the body of Nichols that Thain amassed afterwards. There was not a trace of blood anywhere else than under the neck.
There goes that misconception.

And no, the body was not found at 3.40, it was found at 3.45 or thereabouts, as that was fixed by a number of independent data.
There goes that one.

And now, for the true story of whether the knife wounds to the abdomen of Nichols did hit any vital parts or not!

It was said when comparing the Chapman case to the Nichols case that:
"There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge."

So the damage is listed:

Bruising to the face.

The head nearly severed.

... and there were OTHER dreadful injuries in both cases - that means the abdominal cutting.

Aaaand - "THOSE INJURIES" (meaning, once again, the abdominal injuries) have in EACH case (meaning BOTH in the Chapman and the Nichols case) been performed with anatomical knowledge. We KNOW that it is the abdomen that is spoken of, since we KNOW that the anatomical knowledge ascribed to Chapmans killer was evinced by the abdominal cutting and nothing else.

There we are! If the wounds only got as far as the omentum, then there was no reason at all to say that there was underlying anatomical knowledge. That knowledge was revealed by how all the vital parts inside the abdomen were struck!

So it´s game over, gentlemen. Finito, Över, Ende, Fine. Done and dusted.

And there is MORE!

"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."

So what Baxter says here is that he is disinclined to believe that the abdominal injuries came first, and if they DID, it is hard to comprehend why there was so little bleeding from "the several arteries"!

Right! So where, oh where, were the "several arteries" Baxter spoke of, that should have bled more to his mind?

In the neck? Nope, because why would he state that the abdomen coming first would have called for more blood at the neck?

Correct - he would not have said something like that. It would be Alice in Wonderland stuff.

So then we are left with just the one place where they could have been and where Baxter would have expected to see more blood - in the abdominal cavity. Or, putting it differently, where the "other dreadful injuries" were quoted above as having displayed anatomical knowledge.

You know, I am going to sleep really well tonight. It has been a thoroughly rewarding hunt through the papers, and a number of matters we have discussed over the last weeks out here have had some very useful clarifications added to them. Plus we have found definitive evidence that several arteries in Nichols´ abdomen were cut. And since we know that Llewellyn himself spoke of how the blood had left the "arteries and veins" and sunk into the loose tissues, I think there is a really, really good chance that veins and organs as well were damaged - just like Llewellyn said (seems the good doctor was correct after all, Steve, and you were wrong. Surprise, surprise...!).
But of course, Baxter only mentions arteries, and we should never be as bold as to start concluding too much from that - maybe the killer managed to cut several arteries in the abdomen without touching a single organ or vein, who knows? If it is not in writing, it is not in evidence, as Steve and Gareth so aptly and diligently have pointed out.

Then again, why would I not simply settle for how "several arteris" having been cut could well have led Llewellyn to the conclusion that Nichols would die swiftly from that damage?

I think I´ll take that offer any day in the week.

So I´m leaving you know. Remember to put the lifejackets on as your ship sinks, gentlemen.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;420592

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

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

Highly relevant comments.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Okidoki - I have used another approach this time. Instead of engaging in dabate with people who are hellbent on denying what I suggest, I simply looked for the facts where it seems they were to be found.

And I found them. In the coroners summing up.

Here´s a number of quotations from the different papers, and I will make a number of comments below them:

Daily News, 24 Sept

She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing.

The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.

Daily Telegraph, 24 September

The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.

Dr Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge.

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.

Morning Advertiser, 24 September

The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.

There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.

Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nichols could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were made by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries again have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge.

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 throat.

The Times, 24 September

She was only just dead, if life were really extinct.

There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.

Dr. Llewellyn seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seemed difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it came about there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained and the legs not soiled, and that there was very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++

So! First a few minor goodies:

No, Steve, there was NOT blood hidden under the body of Nichols that Thain amassed afterwards. There was not a trace of blood anywhere else than under the neck.
There goes that misconception.

And no, the body was not found at 3.40, it was found at 3.45 or thereabouts, as that was fixed by a number of independent data.
There goes that one.

And now, for the true story of whether the knife wounds to the abdomen of Nichols did hit any vital parts or not!

It was said when comparing the Chapman case to the Nichols case that:
"There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge."

So the damage is listed:

Bruising to the face.

The head nearly severed.

... and there were OTHER dreadful injuries in both cases - that means the abdominal cutting.

Aaaand - "THOSE INJURIES" (meaning, once again, the abdominal injuries) have in EACH case (meaning BOTH in the Chapman and the Nichols case) been performed with anatomical knowledge. We KNOW that it is the abdomen that is spoken of, since we KNOW that the anatomical knowledge ascribed to Chapmans killer was evinced by the abdominal cutting and nothing else.

There we are! If the wounds only got as far as the omentum, then there was no reason at all to say that there was underlying anatomical knowledge. That knowledge was revealed by how all the vital parts inside the abdomen were struck!

So it´s game over, gentlemen. Finito, Över, Ende, Fine. Done and dusted.

And there is MORE!

"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."

So what Baxter says here is that he is disinclined to believe that the abdominal injuries came first, and if they DID, it is hard to comprehend why there was so little bleeding from "the several arteries"!

Right! So where, oh where, were the "several arteries" Baxter spoke of, that should have bled more to his mind?

In the neck? Nope, because why would he state that the abdomen coming first would have called for more blood at the neck?

Correct - he would not have said something like that. It would be Alice in Wonderland stuff.

So then we are left with just the one place where they could have been and where Baxter would have expected to see more blood - in the abdominal cavity. Or, putting it differently, where the "other dreadful injuries" were quoted above as having displayed anatomical knowledge.

You know, I am going to sleep really well tonight. It has been a thoroughly rewarding hunt through the papers, and a number of matters we have discussed over the last weeks out here have had some very useful clarifications added to them. Plus we have found definitive evidence that several arteries in Nichols´ abdomen were cut. And since we know that Llewellyn himself spoke of how the blood had left the "arteries and veins" and sunk into the loose tissues, I think there is a really, really good chance that veins and organs as well were damaged - just like Llewellyn said (seems the good doctor was correct after all, Steve, and you were wrong. Surprise, surprise...!).
But of course, Baxter only mentions arteries, and we should never be as bold as to start concluding too much from that - maybe the killer managed to cut several arteries in the abdomen without touching a single organ or vein, who knows? If it is not in writing, it is not in evidence, as Steve and Gareth so aptly and diligently have pointed out.

Then again, why would I not simply settle for how "several arteris" having been cut could well have led Llewellyn to the conclusion that Nichols would die swiftly from that damage?

I think I´ll take that offer any day in the week.

So I´m leaving you know. Remember to put the lifejackets on as your ship sinks, gentlemen.

Fisherman: Why have you selected sources exclusively from the 24th September and why have you selected these very late sources?

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

There we are! If the wounds only got as far as the omentum, then there was no reason at all to say that there was underlying anatomical knowledge. That knowledge was revealed by how all the vital parts inside the abdomen were struck!

IF the "vital parts" were abdominal, IF the great abdominal blood vessels had been severed with the abdominal organs suffering extensive damage in the process, and IF there had been extensive pooling of blood in the organs (as opposed to "loose tissues") of the abdomen, then Llewellyn would have said so. Explicitly. But, apart from the slit throat, he only talks about cuts to the flesh of the abdomen.

It's as simple as that.

[Pierre]

Post 1103 I believe


Steve

Thanks Steve.

[Sam Flynn]

Fisherman, why have you selected sources exclusively from the 24th September and why have you selected these very late sources?

They're not even independent sources, either. Compare the texts when the equivalent parts of each report are placed side by side:



This was clearly a press agency release that got picked up by several newspapers, so what we have is one source in reality.

[Pcdunn]

Because yes, the intestines are represented amongst the soft tissues.

No, the intestines are considered an organ.

"Intestine: The long, tubelike organ in the abdomen that completes the process of digestion. It consists of the small and large intestines."-- MedicineNet.com

This is the definition of "soft tissue" in a human anatomy sense:

"Soft tissue includes tendons, ligaments, fascia, skin, fibrous tissues, fat, and synovial membranes (which are connective tissue), and muscles, nerves and blood vessels (which are not connective tissue)." -- Wikipedia.

[Pierre]

They're not even independent sources, either. Compare the texts when the equivalent parts of each report are placed side by side:

[ATTACH]18119[/ATTACH]

This was clearly a press agency release that got picked up by several newspapers, so what we have is one source in reality.

Yes, so Fisherman used these sources to try to give the impression that he had more sources than he had.

Pierre

[Pierre]

No, the intestines are considered an organ.

"Intestine: The long, tubelike organ in the abdomen that completes the process of digestion. It consists of the small and large intestines."-- MedicineNet.com

This is the definition of "soft tissue" in a human anatomy sense:

"Soft tissue includes tendons, ligaments, fascia, skin, fibrous tissues, fat, and synovial membranes (which are connective tissue), and muscles, nerves and blood vessels (which are not connective tissue)." -- Wikipedia.

Don´t ask Fisherman, ask Wikipedia!

[Sam Flynn]

Besides, where in the evidence were the brain, heart, jugular veins and/or the carotid arteries ruled out as the "vital parts" in question?

They were ruled out by how Llewellyn qualified what he said by pointing out that getting at the vital parts showed that the killer had anatomical insights. That means that the killer revealed that he knew where the vital parts were situated within the body.

That's quite possibly some of the most convoluted reasoning I've seen in a long time. Talk about trying to make the evidence fit the theory!

Truth is, Llewellyn simply does NOT say where these "vital parts" were, and there's no reason at all to suppose that he meant "the vital parts of the abdomen"... whatever the heck they might be.

[Joshua Rogan]

That's quite possibly some of the most convoluted reasoning I've seen in a long time. Talk about trying to make the evidence fit the theory!

Truth is, Llewellyn simply does NOT say where these "vital parts" were, and there's no reason at all to suppose that he meant "the vital parts of the abdomen"... whatever the heck they might be.

It might be worth noting that Dr Phillips at the Stride inquest said "as in the other cases, there appears to have been a knowledge where to cut the throat".

[Elamarna]

Okidoki -

Daily News, 24 Sept
She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing.
The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.
Daily Telegraph, 24 September
The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.
Dr Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge.
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.
Morning Advertiser, 24 September
The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.
There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.
Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nichols could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were made by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries again have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge.
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 throat.
The Times, 24 September
She was only just dead, if life were really extinct. no issue
There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.
Dr. Llewellyn seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seemed difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it came about there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained and the legs not soiled, and that there was very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck.
So! First a few minor goodies:

No, Steve, there was NOT blood hidden under the body of Nichols that Thain amassed afterwards. There was not a trace of blood anywhere else than under the neck.

That is contrary to Thain’s testimony at the inquest which is not challenged by Baxter.
However the blood is from the same source the Neck, indeed we have debated that the blood extended under the body from the neck wound, not a seperate pool of blood, just one sizeable pool. Baxters statement can reasonable be seen as referring to this blood which had come from her neck.

There goes that misconception.

Of course it does not!

And no, the body was not found at 3.40, it was found at 3.45 or thereabouts, as that was fixed by a number of independent data.
There goes that one.

Of the 4 reports, 3 of which appear to be from the same source(same reporter).
2 say “not far from a quarter to four”
1 says “not far from 3.45.
The times makes no comment.

“Not far from” is a of course a very imprecise term, to attempt to suggest it means 3,45 and rules out 3.40 is a very poorly thought out argument.

The reports then go on to say this rough time is fixed by so many independent sources, that is more than one, more than just Paul.
Baxter obviously takes into account the testimonies of Thain and Neil, plus that of Mizen who gives the time the carmen arrived at him.
So sorry its not gone, wrong again!

And now, for the true story of whether the knife wounds to the abdomen of Nichols did hit any vital parts or not!
It was said when comparing the Chapman case to the Nichols case that:
"There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge."
So the damage is listed:
Bruising to the face.
The head nearly severed.
... and there were OTHER dreadful injuries in both cases - that means the abdominal cutting.
Aaaand - "THOSE INJURIES" (meaning, once again, the abdominal injuries) have in EACH case (meaning BOTH in the Chapman and the Nichols case) been performed with anatomical knowledge. e KNOW that it is the abdomen that is spoken of, since we KNOW that the anatomical knowledge ascribed to Chapmans killer was evinced by the abdominal cutting and nothing else.

There we are! If the wounds only got as far as the omentum, then there was no reason at all to say that there was underlying anatomical knowledge. That knowledge was revealed by how all the vital parts inside the abdomen were struck!

So it´s game over, gentlemen. Finito, Över, Ende, Fine. Done and dusted.

Again sorry to inform you such is not the case.
The idea that one can take an opinion based on apparent similarities between two cases and then somehow use such to attempt to establish the actual injuries in the other case is truly ridiculous.
Of course this ideas is based on the suggestion that anatomical knowledge is present, such is of course disputed, to suggest game over is actually stupendous over the top.

And there is MORE!

I truly hope it is more credible than that before.

"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."
So what Baxter says here is that he is disinclined to believe that the abdominal injuries came first, and if they DID, it is hard to comprehend why there was so little bleeding from "the several arteries"!
Right! So where, oh where, were the "several arteries" BAxter spoke of, that should have bled miore to his mind?
In the neck? Nope, because why would he state that the abdomen coming first would have called for more blood at the neck?
Correct - he would not have said something like that. It would be Alice in Wonderland stuff. So then we are left with just the one place where they could have been and where Baxter would have expected to see more blood - in the abdominal cavity. Or, putting it differently, where the "other dreadful injuries" were quoted above as having displayed anatomical knowledge.

Sadly not really much more credible as it turns out.
I have already dealt with this issue earlier today.
You miss the most simple and plausible interpretation of Baxter.
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 Nichols clothing, they did not.
And of course these wounds to the abdomen should have left some blood on the clothing, however they did not.
There can be only a few reasonable explanations for this:

1. Pure luck that no clothing came into touch with the wounds, possible but unlikely given the movement of the body.

2. She was already dead from strangulation before the abdomen was cut, unlikely to work out unless the heart had stopped before the cut was made, requires him to wait.

3. She was already dead from the cuts to the vital areas of the neck, however given the bleed out time this is also unlikely.

4. The cuts to the vital organs in the neck, resulted in massive blood loss. Such forces the body to reduce blood flow to the extremities, prioritizing the core.
The last would appear to be the most plausible option.

You know, I am going to sleep really well tonight. It has been a thoroughly rewarding hunt through the papers, and a number of matters we have discussed over the last weeks out here have had some very useful clarifications added to them. Plus we have found definitive evidence that several arteries in Nichols´ abdomen were cut. And since we know that Llewellyn himself spoke of how the blood had left the "arteries and veins" and sunk into the loose tissues, I think there is a really, really good chance that veins and organs as well were damaged - as Llewellyn said (seems the good doctor was correct after all, Steve, and you were wrong. Surprise, surprise...!).

Wrong on all counts I am afraid Fish, You misinterpret all the evidence, such is common when working to a preconceived goal.

So I´m leaving you know. Remember to put the lifejackets on as your ship sinks.

Not needed the alternative to your view is as seaworthy as ever. Sadly unlike the post which is full of holes below the waterline !

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

It might be worth noting that Dr Phillips at the Stride inquest said "as in the other cases, there appears to have been a knowledge where to cut the throat".

Well observed, Josh.

[Elamarna]

It might be worth noting that Dr Phillips at the Stride inquest said "as in the other cases, there appears to have been a knowledge where to cut the throat".

Thank you Joshua.


Steve