Lechmere The Psychopath

[Sam Flynn]

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

Bear in mind that this only comes from only one press source. Seen in this light "from the several arteries" is clearly either a mishearing or a typo for "from the severed arteries".

"The several" makes little to no sense anyway.

[Elamarna]

Bear in mind that this only comes from only one press source. Seen in this light "from the several arteries" is clearly either a mishearing or a typo for "from the severed arteries".

"The several" makes little to no sense anyway.

Gareth


Certainly very possible.
Do like my own answer as it fits very well.

Steve

[kjab3112]

To be fair to Fish, I suspect the "several arteries" represents those supplying the abdominal wall musculature. My issue with involvement of the aorta lies in the pure depth of these arteries. The mean depth of the aorta from the abdominal wall are 6cm (normal), 10cm (overweight) and 13cm (obese) [Hunt teal 1992]. With a given knife length of 6-8 inches (15-20 cm) and the clothing position, I doubt the wounds are quite deep enough. Do they enter the peritoneal cavity, yes (Spratling: the omentum was cut); would some vessels be involved, undoubtedly; would these be fatal, eventually; would they cause death early enough to result in no scream by the time the larynx was cut, there lies the problem. The neck cut though would sever both carotid arteries and cut the trachea below the larynx, hence no scream.

Does this mean the killer did not commit overkill by performing several unnecessary cuts, the opposite is true. Does this mean Lechmere/Cross was not present within a few minutes of the cut, undoubtedly. Can Lechmere/Cross be ruled out by the bleeding time, no. Do I believe Lechmere/Cross the killer, as stated before a person of interest, but unlikely. Why? He was caught at the scene, the killer though didn't change his pattern until MJK to move indoors, surely Lechmere/Cross, if the killer, would have switched earlier and although Annie was in a secluded yard, Kate and Mitre Square are not exactly the action of someone taking more care.

Paul

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Paul

To be fair to Fish, I suspect the "several arteries" represents those supplying the abdominal wall musculature.

The phrasing in this press report (which comes from a single source) is decidedly weird; it's not the "several arteries", but "the several arteries". I suppose one might say "there was so little bleeding from several arteries", though even that seems odd, albeit nowhere near as odd as "there was so little bleeding from THE several arteries", which is what appears in the report.

In comparison "there was so little bleeding from the severed arteries", which is what I suspect was actually said, makes complete sense on a number of levels - not least in terms of English usage.

[Fisherman]

Rule number one:

What I suggest or point out MUST be denied.

So now it is proposed that what Baxter was recorded as saying was a mishearing!

It´s quite comical.

"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."

"the several arteries" of course points to how evidence that several arteries were cut in the abdomen, and when spoken of here, it refers back to these arteries - the cut ones.
So what we have is "... there was so little bleeding from the several arteries (that had been cut).

But you stick with your picture, Gareth, by all means!

[Fisherman]

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.

Anatomy and physiology of soft tissue

Soft tissue is found all over the body. It includes tissues that connect, support or surround other structures and organs in the body. Types of soft tissue include:

fat
muscle
fibrous tissue (tendons and ligaments)
synovial tissue (in joints)
blood vessels
lymph vessels
peripheral nerves


Note the heading "muscle"! This is developed further like this:

Muscle

There are 3 types of muscle tissue: smooth, skeletal and cardiac. Each type of muscle does different things.

Smooth muscle is also called visceral muscle. It is found in the walls of the body’s hollow organs, such as the stomach, intestines, bladder, uterus and blood vessels. Smooth muscle allows organs to relax and get bigger (expand) or tighten and get smaller (contract). These muscles are involuntary, which means you can’t control their movement.

Read more: http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-infor...#ixzz4m1vj8frE

If you have any further doubt, consult a physician.

[Fisherman]

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".

Yes, but what Llewellyn said was that it was the fact that all the vital parts were hit that gave away the killers anatomical insights.

I somehow find it harrd to believe that Llewellyn meant that it was how the killer cut all the vessels in the neck that pointed to anatomical knowledge.

[Fisherman]

kjab3112: To be fair to Fish, I suspect the "several arteries" represents those supplying the abdominal wall musculature. My issue with involvement of the aorta lies in the pure depth of these arteries. The mean depth of the aorta from the abdominal wall are 6cm (normal), 10cm (overweight) and 13cm (obese) [Hunt teal 1992]. With a given knife length of 6-8 inches (15-20 cm) and the clothing position, I doubt the wounds are quite deep enough. Do they enter the peritoneal cavity, yes (Spratling: the omentum was cut); would some vessels be involved, undoubtedly; would these be fatal, eventually; would they cause death early enough to result in no scream by the time the larynx was cut, there lies the problem. The neck cut though would sever both carotid arteries and cut the trachea below the larynx, hence no scream.

Well, thanks for that, Paul. I am quite pleased to hear that you think that the blade would have entered the peritoneal cavity and that some vessels would undoubtedly be involved in the cutting process, and that the damage done may have been fatal.
I think your estimation of the blade lenght is a fair one; the one medico who gave a length was Phillips in the Chapman case, who said "It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer."
If this was the same knife - and Llewellyn said it was a longbladed one - then we should keep in mind that Llewellyn aslo said that the knife was used with violence and downwards, so we must predispose that the pressure power towards the underlying organs would have been considerable. I have no problems, therefore, to envisage the aortas suppying the organs with blood being cut. And I think this would answer better to Baxters being surpised abut the dearth of blood - I take it these aortas would hold a lot more blood than the ones supporting the muscles attached to the abdominal wall. Please correct me if that is wrong.
You write that the distance from the abdominal wall to the aorta is 6 centimeters, about two inches therefore, in a normal person. And Nichols was not overweight, apparently. So with a blade of 15-20 centimeters, applied with violence as per Llewellyn, likely compressing the tissues during the stabbing motion, I fail to see why we would not reason that the aorta quite possibly could be cut. Indeed, if the stab was directed towards it´s exact position, why would it NOT get struck?


Your problem lies with how you would have expected Nichols to cry out if the abdomina cutting preceded the neck cutting. Could it be that Nichols had been strangled/partially strangled before the cutting commenced, and that this was what kept her silent?

I will point to Martha Tabram, who suffered 39 stabs to her body and who did not make a sound in the process.
In the Tabram deed, we also have Dr Killeen saying that the final stab was dealt with a much larger and stronger instrument. It went through the heart, piercing the breastbone in the process, and it looks like a coup-de-grace. In that respect, it offers a parallel to what I see in the Nichols case - the abdominal cutting precedes the final coup-de-grace, in Nichols´ case dealt as a cut neck.

Does this mean the killer did not commit overkill by performing several unnecessary cuts, the opposite is true.

I take this to mean that you mean that there was an overkill, something I agree with.

Does this mean Lechmere/Cross was not present within a few minutes of the cut, undoubtedly.

This I fail to understand. Are you saying that Lechmere could not have been there as whe was cut? Or is there a "not" too much here?

Can Lechmere/Cross be ruled out by the bleeding time, no.

My take too. Not in a million years. If anything, he fits perfectly.

Do I believe Lechmere/Cross the killer, as stated before a person of interest, but unlikely. Why? He was caught at the scene, the killer though didn't change his pattern until MJK to move indoors, surely Lechmere/Cross, if the killer, would have switched earlier and although Annie was in a secluded yard, Kate and Mitre Square are not exactly the action of someone taking more care.

So your misgivings are centered around the fact that you do not believe that he would keep on killing in the streets if he had been nearly caught in the act?
If so, you are welcome to your view, but there are numerous examples of serialists inviting risk, so I really cannot agree at all. It will all come down to a weighing together of the opportunities open to the killer, his willingness to take risks, his sense of being impossible to stop (something many serialists have witnessed about - they feel invincible if they are not caught, and that makes them careless), his position on the scale of opportunism and a few other factors.
The possibilities are endless. But I always warn against the idea that men like these are unwilling to take risks.
If it had applied in the Rippers case, he would never have taken to the streets killing in the first place.

[Fisherman]

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".

Of course, what must also be mentioned here is that unlike Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, Stride did not have her neck cut to the bone, severing all the tissues and vessels in the process.

In those three cases, no doctor would say "it is evident that he knew where to cut", because no choice was made; everything that could be cut was cut.

In Strides case, however, the cut was six inches long, and it only travelled deep where it had to, in order to cut the arteries on the left side of the neck. So in that case, it could be argued that the killer seemingly knew where to cut to ensure death.

[Fisherman]

Steve!

One has to love gems like these:


My wording: There goes that misconception.

Your answer: Of course it does not!

Ouch. It´s those "semantics" again, Steve...

[Elamarna]

Steve!

One has to love gems like these:


My wording: There goes that misconception.

Your answer: Of course it does not!

Ouch. It´s those "semantics" again, Steve...

Yes it really is semantics on your part to ignore the reasoned debate given before a one line comment and the present that comment as if there were no debate made to support it.

But don't worry.
All see the relative strengths of the alternative arguments.

I am afraid that to use the seagoing analogy you began, the tide as most definitely turn.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Anatomy and physiology of soft tissue

Soft tissue is found all over the body. It includes tissues that connect, support or surround other structures and organs in the body. Types of soft tissue include:

fat
muscle
fibrous tissue (tendons and ligaments)
synovial tissue (in joints)
blood vessels
lymph vessels
peripheral nerves


Note the heading "muscle"! This is developed further like this:

Muscle

There are 3 types of muscle tissue: smooth, skeletal and cardiac. Each type of muscle does different things.

Smooth muscle is also called visceral muscle. It is found in the walls of the body’s hollow organs, such as the stomach, intestines, bladder, uterus and blood vessels. Smooth muscle allows organs to relax and get bigger (expand) or tighten and get smaller (contract). These muscles are involuntary, which means you can’t control their movement.

Read more: http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-infor...#ixzz4m1vj8frE

If you have any further doubt, consult a physician.

You are missing the point I made yesterday, yes the intestines contain soft tissue and are indeed made of IF HOWEVER they are very rarely referred to as a whole as soft tissue which is your suggestion.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, but what Llewellyn said was that it was the fact that all the vital parts were hit that gave away the killers anatomical insights.

I somehow find it harrd to believe that Llewellyn meant that it was how the killer cut all the vessels in the neck that pointed to anatomical knowledge.

Why not?

How many lay persons would have the knowledge that there are blood vessels on both sides of the Neck, not just one, nor in the front.

For a quick, relatively silent death the killer needs to cut all the vessels and the windpipe to prevent calling out.

That must qualify as anatomical knowledge surely?

Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes it really is semantics on your part to ignore the reasoned debate given before a one line comment and the present that comment as if there were no debate made to support it.

But don't worry.
All see the relative strengths of the alternative arguments.

I am afraid that to use the seagoing analogy you began, the tide as most definitely turn.

Steve

HAS most definitely TURNED, Steve.

And yes, I have no doubt at all that people can see the varying strenghts of our arguments - why wouldn´t they?

I somehow doubt that most ripperologists see the large wound on Nichols abdomen as a fiteen or twenty inch scratch, reaching the omentum only. Most will work from an assumption that since the other cuts from ribs to pubes went all the way down the abdominal cavity and organs, Nichols´ wound will not have differed in this respect at all. People are crude in that respect, Steve.

But maybe your "reasoned" arguments have made that tide turn too. Who knows?

My own feeling was always that you are so opposed to the idea that the abdomen came first that you are not only willing to claim that LLewellyn was wrong about it whereas you are right, you will also try and paint a picture where not a single inner organ or vessel was cut, since such a thing would be in line with what both myself and Llewellyn think about it all - that the abdomen WAS cut first.

I see no other reason at all for your revisionistic suggestions in this field of reseach, and I think your efforts are clumsy, uncalled for and unhealthy to any effort to make a rational weighing of what was said in the affair.

But maybe that´s just me, Steve.

[Fisherman]

You are missing the point I made yesterday, yes the intestines contain soft tissue and are indeed made of IF HOWEVER they are very rarely referred to as a whole as soft tissue which is your suggestion.


Steve

Where did I say that intestines are referred to as soft tissue on the whole? Plus, of course, the discussion should be about loose tissue, not soft tissue.

What I AM saying - if you are hellbent on explaining to people what I think, that is - is that I think that the blood sunk into the bottom of the abdominal cavity, where the intestines would arguably be. I´m sure a proper physician could offer an explanation as to what Llewellyn may have meant, but the gist of the matter is that Llewellyn thought that the abdominal wounds came first, and reasonably, he thought so on account of the overall blood distribution.
You may quote me on that, but get it right, please.