Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

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!)

Not at all. It is impricise end of.

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?

Actually that is how you interpret the answers you got from Payne-James; if what he said was fully understood it would be clear that.

A. The hypothesis fails because it is not robust, the logic it uses is faulty or incomplete.

B. The evidence you fit to the hypothesis in an attempt to make you case is impricise and does not produce the results you desire.

It appears you have not actually test the hypothesis my friend, oh dear.


Steve

[Mark Adam]

Pierre
...have you ever comnsidered the ethical aspects of stealing time from others with extensive blabberdash??

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;420693]

And I KNOW that he fits the bill, because that is what Jason Payne-James has told me.

Perhaps we ought to contact this Payne-James and ask him if he as told you that.

Pierre

[Mark Adam]

[QUOTE=Pierre;420708]

Perhaps we ought to contact this Payne-James and ask him if he as told you that.

Pierre

Before critizise other you should speak out, and put your theroy to the test, since you do not have the balls to do so all that is left is to

a.) hide behind your allegedly expertise as a historian
b.) critizise and patronizing everybody else who at least has got a Theroy and put it to the test
P.S.: I īd like to add that a.) is still unproven by any scientific means.....

[John G]

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.

But we've been here before. Your theory is that the perpetrator strangled Nichols, before focussing on the abdomen and then returning to the neck to inflict the knife cuts. However, this is a highly convoluted theory that makes little logical sense: put simply, if he strangled the victim the neck cuts would, from at least a practical perspective, be sequentially the next step.

[John G]

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

Hi Paul,

But can we be certain that MJK was murdered by the same perpetrator who was almost certainly responsible for Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes? Consider the fact that the level of overkill is much greater than the earlier victims, and the degree of skill that was apparent substantially less.

Moreover, if JtR was responsible for Kelly then he may not have initially intended to strike indoors; it could be, hypothetically speaking, that he simply took advantage of the fact that Kelly lived near by and had access to a private room.

There's also the possibility that Kelly was murdered by someone she knew, whether that be JtR or not, as there are certain indications of a more personal motive.

[Pierre]

Hi Paul,

But can we be certain that MJK was murdered by the same perpetrator who was almost certainly responsible for Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes? Consider the fact that the level of overkill is much greater than the earlier victims, and the degree of skill that was apparent substantially less.

Moreover, if JtR was responsible for Kelly then he may not have initially intended to strike indoors; it could be, hypothetically speaking, that he simply took advantage of the fact that Kelly lived near by and had access to a private room.

There's also the possibility that Kelly was murdered by someone she knew, whether that be JtR or not, as there are certain indications of a more personal motive.

Oh, no. Not Kelly again. I have never seen an explanation from Fisherman for Kelly.


Pierre

[Mark Adam]

Oh, no. Not Kelly again. I have never seen an explanation from Fisherman for Kelly.


Pierre

Whats yours?

Just to start with.......

[Mark Adam]

Hi Paul,

But can we be certain that MJK was murdered by the same perpetrator who was almost certainly responsible for Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes? Consider the fact that the level of overkill is much greater than the earlier victims, and the degree of skill that was apparent substantially less.

Moreover, if JtR was responsible for Kelly then he may not have initially intended to strike indoors; it could be, hypothetically speaking, that he simply took advantage of the fact that Kelly lived near by and had access to a private room.

There's also the possibility that Kelly was murdered by someone she knew, whether that be JtR or not, as there are certain indications of a more personal motive.

If used bayes theorem it is much more unlikely to have two different killers doing basically the same thing (eviscerating etc.) in an area that small.

BTW.: I would also like to put out that the possibilty of two individuals in this small are you have gne over this special treshold not only to murder aprson but to nearly destroy them is very low.

I do not think that a normal bloke from the streets would be able to do this to a woman no matter how angry he is, without vomitting his soul out when done for the first time.

Just ask yourself the question: "Could I do this to some other individual" - I could not..........

[Harry D]

There's also the possibility that Kelly was murdered by someone she knew, whether that be JtR or not, as there are certain indications of a more personal motive.

Is there, though?

JTR went to town on Eddowes, as much as the dark corner of Mitre Square would allow for, with bobbies patrolling the beat. This is the first time he inflicted wounds designed to disfigure the face of the victim. Yes, it's one of those old Ripper chestnuts, but MJK is the next step-up for a killer escalating in violence who moved indoors.

[John G]

If used bayes theorem it is much more unlikely to have two different killers doing basically the same thing (eviscerating etc.) in an area that small.

BTW.: I would also like to put out that the possibilty of two individuals in this small are you have gne over this special treshold not only to murder aprson but to nearly destroy them is very low.

I do not think that a normal bloke from the streets would be able to do this to a woman no matter how angry he is, without vomitting his soul out when done for the first time.

Just ask yourself the question: "Could I do this to some other individual" - I could not..........

Hello Mark,

Yes, I agree, to argue otherwise appears counter-intuitive, and I do believe, on balance, that Kelly was a Ripper victim. And yet...Where do you draw the line?

Thus, there is no doubt that during this period there was an explosion of rare knife murders. And if your going to include into the Canon a case where there was undoubtedly a higher level of overkill, and lesser level of skill, apparent, what about cases where there was less overkill, such as Coles, McKenzie and Ellen Bury? In fact, you could argue that Mackenzie is a more likely JtR victim than Kelly, if only because of the unusual double neck cut, which links the murder to both Nichols and Chapman.

[John G]

Is there, though?

JTR went to town on Eddowes, as much as the dark corner of Mitre Square would allow for, with bobbies patrolling the beat. This is the first time he inflicted wounds designed to disfigure the face of the victim. Yes, it's one of those old Ripper chestnuts, but MJK is the next step-up for a killer escalating in violence who moved indoors.

However, it was a major escalation if that was what it was, involving almost total destruction of the body. And Kelly's face wasn't just subjected to relatively minor disfigurement; it was virtually cut off, to the point where the victim was virtually unrecognizable. And, as noted in my earlier post, consideration needs to be given to the substantial deterioration in the level of skill that was apparent.

[Jon Guy]

In fact, you could argue that Mackenzie is a more likely JtR victim than Kelly, if only because of the unusual double neck cut, which links the murder to both Nichols and Chapman.

Hi John

What are your sources for this ?

Of the above three victims, Kelly and Chapman had similar neck wounds that completely circled the neck, whereas Nichols had 2 cuts to the throat, and McKenzie had one entry wound to the neck which had been stabbed twice.

[Mark Adam]

Hi John G

As to the question:Yes, I agree, to argue otherwise appears counter-intuitive, and I do believe, on balance, that Kelly was a Ripper victim. And yet...Where do you draw the line?

As i read in the dissertation of Sam Flynn concerning the Eddows murder, there are not so many differences in technique and "performance" if you will between her and Kelly, and i tend to belive that - if in fact the head would have been removed or the incisions would be on the back I guess I would start doubting.......

But Iīm used to belive the mathematics and referring to Bayes it is more unlikely to have two killers/serialists at the same time having quite the same signature......

I would not exclude any of the victims you mentioned, it may be they all are done by the same hand ---- again Bayes.....

Mark

[John G]

!!!!!

Oh dear, as your unable to give a sensible response I'm going to take a wild guess that Ed Wasn't available, meaning we're back with the summer pantomime season. Of course, you've got form for these kinds of juvenile responses when backed into a corner. Frankly, at times it's like dealing with a small child or at least a most unruly pupil!

How the mighty have fallen...