Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

kjab3

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

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

And me!
Of course it cannot rule him out, it's not pricise enough to do that.
However you translate "can't be ruled out" into "fits perfectly." It does not, because the hypothesis you use is faulty, nor is the evidence you apply to it compelling, despite your belief it is.

Steve

[Fisherman]

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

All that is proven by a cut to the neck that severs all the vessels and leaves the head hanging on by the spine only, is that thre was a wish to kill.

Nothing else.

Unless, of course the killer did not realize that such a cut would kill. Maybe that is where your point applies: if the killer realized that the cut would kill, it would prove that he was versed enough in anatomy to understand this.

Bravo!

I am seriously doubtful if a medico would phrase it like that, though. They generally do not wish to be laughed at.

Strideīs neck was PARTIALLY cut, and THEN it becomes a question of where to cut to ensure death, and THEN a medico can say afterwards "well, he knew where to cut, or he got lucky".

That is the realistic take on things.

Yours is what it always was - the revisionistic one.

[Fisherman]

And me!
Of course it cannot rule him out, it's not pricise enough to do that.
However you translate "can't be ruled out" into "fits perfectly." It does not, because the hypothesis you use is faulty, nor is the evidence you apply to it compelling, despite your belief it is.

Steve

I KNOW that you cannot rule him out.

I KNOW that you wish you could. ("Itīs not precise enough to do that" - as if the implication was that it comes close to ruling him out; priceless!)

And I KNOW that he fits the bill, because that is what Jason Payne-James has told me. As I have repeatedly stated, he does allow for another killer, but thinks that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm, owing to the bleeding times implied and the coagulation observed. If fits like a glove.

Itīs a bummer, is it not - all these medicos who will not accept that you are the better judge?

[Fisherman]

Leaving you again for some time now - mind the railing when you step into the lifeboat, Steve.

[Elamarna]

HAS most definitely TURNED, Steve.

I see despite my explaining my internet situation and for the difficulties of typing on a phone and autocorrection you again try to score cheap points..
Not that you ever make typos yourself of course, which on the whole are never mentioned to you.; but I guess it your way..

And yes, I have no doubt at all that people can see the varying strenghts of our arguments - why wouldnīt 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, Nicholsī wound will not have differed in this respect at all. People are crude in that respect, Steve.

No one as called it a scratch, you seem terribly confused Fish.
I think you will find until recently most believed the wounds were as portrayed in the Documentary on Lechmere, that was the common view. No long vertical cut at all.
Times have changed. The current view of the majority of serious students of the subject is not know by either of us.

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.

Oh dear.
Let's be clear what I have said.

The omentum cuts give an historically guide to the depth of cuts.

There is no mention of any wounds to any organ.

There would certainly be damage to vessels in the abdomenial wall.
The intestines may have been damaged , however it is not recorded.
As Paul has previously said cuts to all but the Aorta or Vena Cava to a lesser extent, are highly unlikely to cause immediate or rapid depth. And has he also posted at the weekend: a 5mm laceration to the Aorta will stop bleeding at around 20% blood loss, that is the heart carries on beating.. He gave the reference on Saturday so I will not repeat it.
And of course there is NO mention of any such wound.

I do not say views are wrong because you say it. I say they are wrong because I believe they are, no matter who says it.

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 thatīs just me, Steve.

So many posts and still nothing sticks. That is why the posts are challenged my friend because such largely unsupported ideas must be challenged and their failings exposed.

Clumsy?

Not for me to say? And clumsy is such a subjective term, so really I have no idea what you mean?

Uncalled for?

No I believe people need to see the full unbias view, not tainted by personal belief and agenda


Unhealthy to challenge ideas? That is a truly reactionary view is it not?


Still carry on posting, I will keep rebutting if such is needed.

Steve

[Pierre]

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.

But you called the intestines "tissue".

Muscle tissue is just one specific part in the walls of the intestines in this description.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;420682]

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

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

Not being possible to rule out is not the same as fitting perfectly.

There are many indications in the sources for Lechmere having been a finder and not a serial killer.

You refuse these indications and these sources.

Pierre

[Pierre]

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 itīs 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 Nicholsī 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.

So if it was not avoiding risk that made him choose to kill indoors on the 9th November - what was it?

Pierre

[Pierre]

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

Exactly.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;420689

HAS most definitely TURNED, Steve.

If you canīt correct anything else that Steve writes you can always try to correct his spelling.

Everyone knows what Steve means and nobody cares for the spelling, just you.

Since you have nothing else to criticize.

Pierre

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;420697]

Not being possible to rule out is not the same as fitting perfectly.

There are many indications in the sources for Lechmere having been a finder and not a serial killer.

You refuse these indications and these sources.

Pierre

But at least he has enough guts to name his suspect and argue his case, unlike some people.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;420689]

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.

SOURCES?

I see no other reason at all for your revisionistic suggestions in this field of reseach,

YOU ARE NOT IN A FIELD OF RESEARCH. YOU ARE A JOURNALIST ON AN INTERNET FORUM.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=GUT;420701]

But at least he has enough guts to name his suspect and argue his case, unlike some people.

Have you ever considered the ethical aspects of Fishermans accusations of a dead man?

Pierre

[Mark Adam]

QUOTE=Fisherman;420689



If you canīt correct anything else that Steve writes you can always try to correct his spelling.

Everyone knows what Steve means and nobody cares for the spelling, just you.

Since you have nothing else to criticize.

Pierre

.... plese consider the words written above yourself, as you come across like the king of nitpickers...

[Pierre]

And me!
Of course it cannot rule him out, it's not pricise enough to do that.
However you translate "can't be ruled out" into "fits perfectly." It does not, because the hypothesis you use is faulty, nor is the evidence you apply to it compelling, despite your belief it is.

Steve

The population of men over 20 years in Whitechapel 1888. Can it be ruled out?

Pierre