Lechmere The Psychopath

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn:

"bleeding from the several vessels" is a decidedly weird way of saying things, by any standards of English usage.

Not if the vessels have been mentioned before:

No, "bleeding from the several vessels" is weird English, pure and simple, irrespective of what had been said before. I should know; I'm bloody good at English.

Please observe what the ELO said: "On the abdomen were some severe cuts and stabs, which the witness described in detail."

So? There were some severe cuts and stabs. That makes perfect sense.

If he described how the cuts severed an array of arteries, all named, then saying "the several arteries" would be perfectly logical when referring back to them.

No. It's nonsensical, crappy English.

"from the severed arteries" makes demonstrably more sense.

I'm 100% certain that the original word was "severed".

I am not playing that game. Too childish, I´m afraid.

Nothing childish about it. It's called "logic".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent post, Herlock, which I think just about wraps it up.

Thank you John.

I think that the sandcastle is crumbling.

Regards
Herlock

[Pierre]

Thank you John.

I think that the sandcastle is crumbling.

Regards
Herlock

Fisherman ignores all those points.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman ignores all those points.

I've noticed Pierre. It's strange that all who disagree with him are closed minded, use faulty reasoning or just don't understand all those complicated facts.

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

Just checked in to fins a load of tosh.
Expected, of course, but not funny nevertheless.
Let´s add a few more bits and bobs from the paper articles, and well see whether these too will go down as misreportings...

We shall see

Daily News, 1 September
The abdominal wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted.

Statement of Dr Llewellyn, it adds nothing new to what we have discussed.

East London Advertiser, 1 September
...the abdomen was completely ripped open, with the bowels protruding.

Journalist's report, it is not given as a quote from any knowledgeable authority and as such is of limited value

IPN, 8 SeptemberThe abdominal wall, the whole length of the body, had been cut open, and on either side were two incised wounds almost as severe as the centre one. This reached from the lower part of the abdomen to the breast-bone. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted must have been not only of the sharpness of a razor, but used with considerable ferocity.

Journalists report again. The degree of sharpness of the blade is somewhat out with Llewellyn’s report; It's reliability is therefore questionable..

Lloyds Weekly, 2 September
There was a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it was accompanied by another one which reached around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body. The ghastliness of this cut, however, paled into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upwards twice.

Yet again a Journalist’s report and somewhat selectively quoted as well, Directly after the above it says
“it was early evident that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found”
So it is obvious that early rumors are being published.

Morning Advertiser:
There were other gashes, right and left, dividing the stomach and its coatings to the intestines. Any one of the wounds was sufficient to cause death, apart from the gashes across the throat.

Again another journalist report, no attribution of the source of the information. Again of limited value.

ELO, 8 September
On the abdomen were some severe cuts and stabs, which the witness described in detail.

Yes its reporting Llewellyn’s testimony thats better; unfortunately the detail is not reported.

Before looking at the comments lets take an overall view of the sources above:

1. 6 reports
2. The first is part of Llywellyn’s press statement, it adds nothing to the discussion.
3. Reports 2-5 appear to be the reports of journalist’s, they do not appear to be quoting any medical source,.
4. From reading the whole of each of the reports used, and not just the sections quoted above, it is clear that there is much reporting of , rumors and half truths. As such these reports much be question for reliability.
5. The last report is part of Llewellyn’s testimony, unfortunate it mentions details, but does not report such and so adds nothing,

So we have six reports which add no reliable evidence, and nothing to the debate.

So the absominal wounds were "severe". They had been dealt with "considerable ferocity" The cut to the neck, that nearly took her head off and left her with a gaping hole down to the spine, must have been a sickening sight. But it nevertheless "paled into insignificance" compared to the abdominal wound. Which, according to Steve and Gareth only reached into the omentum. Supposedly, the reporter thought that much, much worse than a nead decapitation? There were two wounds that were almost as severe as the large wound. That will have meant that the omentuym was ALMOST cut in those cases, of course...

And has you rightly say when you say “the reporter thought” its a journalists opinion not that of a doctor.

The wounds reached the intestines, apparently. As per the Morning Advertiser. And they were severe cuts AND stabs, effected with violence and a long-bladed knife.
But they did NOT reach beyond the omentum. The Morning Advertiser is lying and Llewellyn WOULD have said at the inquest if the wounds went any deeper than an inch or two. With that longbladed knife. And that violence, directed downwards. In cuts AND stabs.

Its a newspaper report, its not gospel. Papers make mistakes, papers print false stories the apparent indignation that a paper may not tell the truth is astounding.,

It did not happen. Only the omentum was cut. And Llewellyn was wrong when he said that all the vital parts were hit, for so says Steve. And he tells me that his arguments are reasoned..

The fact is that the Omentum is the deepest recorded cut,There is no mention of the underlying intestines being hit, and a hit on them would not be immediately or indeed certainly fatal.
Is Llewellyn wrong?
The real question is are you interpretations his comment regards vital areas correctly, I think many would say not and there is no reason to think he is not referring to the neck.
The arguments are reasoned, unlike the post above, which I am afraid is full of dubious Journalistic reports, and no actual facts apart from Llewellyn reported in details of the wounds.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Lloyds Weekly, 2 September
There was a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it was accompanied by another one which reached around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body. The ghastliness of this cut, however, paled into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upwards twice.

Forgot to mention that this journalist report is actually at odds with the report of Dr Llewellyn's inquest testimony carried in the same edition.


Steve

[drstrange169]

Actually Steve, it's copied almost verbatum from the Star's first report on 31 August, written when information was scarce.

"There is a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it is accompanied by another one which reaches around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body.

THE GHASTLINESS OF THIS CUT,

however, pales into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upward, not once but twice. ..."

A good indication of the of research used in picking those quotes.

[drstrange169]

Fish also quotes East London Advertiser, 1st Sept, but seemingly avioded what else they wrote that day,

"

Constable Neale at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary, which is situated in the Pavilion Yard close by. Mr. Edmunds, the keeper of the mortuary, was in attendance, and assisted by the officer and the scavengers, undressed the poor creature and placed her in one of the black coffins lying about the mortuary.

"

[drstrange169]

On a roll, Fish continued with a quote from the Moring Advertiser, which yet again was cribbed from the Pall Mall Gazette's August 31st story.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No, "bleeding from the several vessels" is weird English, pure and simple, irrespective of what had been said before. I should know; I'm bloody good at English.

It´s possible English, though. That´s what matters. And a point that shuld not be lost is that we do not know whether the reporter cut what he head down - not everything that was said was taken down and printed, we know that quite well. So it the reporter heard "The bleeding from the several vessels that had been cut", he may well have skipped over the obvious, latter part. What we cannot do is to try and rule out what we have in print just because we dislike it´s implications.

So? There were some severe cuts and stabs. That makes perfect sense.No. It's nonsensical, crappy English.

Severe cuts and stabs with a longbladed knife used with violence will damage the innards. That too makes perfect sense. It makes no sense at all that it would only travel into the omentum.

"from the severed arteries" makes demonstrably more sense.Nothing childish about it. It's called "logic".

No, there is nothing childish at all about that, I agree. It is a sensible suggestion that really has something going for it.
The childish thing was when you said that you were 100 per cent certain that you knew the actual wording.

[Fisherman]

Thank you John.

I think that the sandcastle is crumbling.

Regards
Herlock

Don´t say that - why not go all the way and say that it has been washed out to sea and disappeared? It would be equally correct.

Rest assured, though, it will come back to haunt you.

Producing a list like you did is not very decisive. I did the same before, posting 30 points plus in favour of Lechmere being the killer. But just as your list does nothing to dissolve the suggestion that he was, my list cannot cannot be more than an opinion.

We do not have facts to tell decisively either way, it´s that simple.

[Fisherman]

I've noticed Pierre. It's strange that all who disagree with him are closed minded, use faulty reasoning or just don't understand all those complicated facts.

Regards
Herlock

I never said that they are.

It´s just another thing you invented on my behalf, as you well know.

But I agree it would be stranger if they were open-minded, used correct reasoning and understood the case.

[Fisherman]

We shall see

Statement of Dr Llewellyn, it adds nothing new to what we have discussed.

Journalist's report, it is not given as a quote from any knowledgeable authority and as such is of limited value

Journalists report again. The degree of sharpness of the blade is somewhat out with Llewellyn’s report; It's reliability is therefore questionable..


Yet again a Journalist’s report and somewhat selectively quoted as well, Directly after the above it says
“it was early evident that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found”
So it is obvious that early rumors are being published.


Again another journalist report, no attribution of the source of the information. Again of limited value.

Yes its reporting Llewellyn’s testimony thats better; unfortunately the detail is not reported.

Before looking at the comments lets take an overall view of the sources above:

1. 6 reports
2. The first is part of Llywellyn’s press statement, it adds nothing to the discussion.
3. Reports 2-5 appear to be the reports of journalist’s, they do not appear to be quoting any medical source,.
4. From reading the whole of each of the reports used, and not just the sections quoted above, it is clear that there is much reporting of , rumors and half truths. As such these reports much be question for reliability.
5. The last report is part of Llewellyn’s testimony, unfortunate it mentions details, but does not report such and so adds nothing,

So we have six reports which add no reliable evidence, and nothing to the debate.

And has you rightly say when you say “the reporter thought” its a journalists opinion not that of a doctor.

Its a newspaper report, its not gospel. Papers make mistakes, papers print false stories the apparent indignation that a paper may not tell the truth is astounding.,

The fact is that the Omentum is the deepest recorded cut,There is no mention of the underlying intestines being hit, and a hit on them would not be immediately or indeed certainly fatal.
Is Llewellyn wrong?
The real question is are you interpretations his comment regards vital areas correctly, I think many would say not and there is no reason to think he is not referring to the neck.
The arguments are reasoned, unlike the post above, which I am afraid is full of dubious Journalistic reports, and no actual facts apart from Llewellyn reported in details of the wounds.


Steve

Your problem, Steve, lies in how it is never said that miraculously, not a single organ or vessels was damaged in he abdomen of Nichols. This is what you wan´t to lead on, though. But it is not going to work for the simple reason that we know that the examining doctor, who made the post mortem, laid down very clearly that the wounds on the abdomen were inflicted with a long-bladed knife, used with violence and downwards, that the wounds on the abdomen were in some instances very deep and that the wounds of the abdomen were, separately, enough to kill.

After that, it is only a question of which of the organs were struck, not IF they were struck. And LLewellyn answers this too, since he said that all of the vital parts were struck, indicating anatomical insights.

There are two ways only to get around this complex, and that is to claim that Llewellyn either did not know what he was talking about, or he was consciously lying about it.

And that is where your argument effectively ends.

[Fisherman]

I am sorry, Dusty, but you are not going to get any answer. The paper reports are all we have, and if we were to totally discard every report that involves some material that seems at odds with the real picture, we would be left with no material at all, more or less.

Anyway, once you imply that I leave things out of quotations, it brings a rye smile to my face... It´s not like throwing stomes in a glass house, it´s like dropping mount Everest on a schnaps glass.

You´ve got nerve, I´ll give you that. But there my interest ends.

[Kattrup]

Llewellyn stated throat cut first

So, was dr. Llewellyn of the opinion that Nicholl's abdomen was cut first?

No.



Lloyd's Weekly, September 2nd

An interview was had with Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London hospital, and he most courteously gave his opinion of the manner of the murder. In effect he said that the woman was killed by the cuts in the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae.

Pall Mall Gazette
Daily News
Evening Standard
September 3rd:

That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming.

Echo, September 1st

Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post mortem examination of the body this morning, the injuries are even more extensive than he at first supposed. It is his impression that she was not murdered at the spot where her body was found, but that her throat was cut, the dreadful abdominal injuries then inflicted, and that the body was then carried, enveloped in her large, heavy cloak, and thrown outside the gateway at Essex Wharf. Mr. Seccombe, Dr. Llewellyn's assistant, is of the same opinions, especially, he says, as there was comparatively little blood where the deceased lay

Does the good doctor ever change this stance? Not to my knowledge.

Wynne Baxter in his summation argues that Llewellyn may be understood as claiming that the abdominal wounds came first. But note the careful phrasing: "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion" - seems to, meaning he (Llewellyn) has not actually stated this; incline to, meaning even if he were of that opinion, he would not consider it certain.

At any rate, we have Fisherman's oft-repeated point that Baxter was not a medical man. When Baxter and Llewellyn disagree, we should therefore go with Llewellyn, who explicitly stated the throat was cut first.