Lechmere The Psychopath

[Mark Adam]

Quote Pierre: If someone could analyze the discourse about the cuts from the sources available and compare to the cuts on Chapman and Eddowes, we can perhaps see if he had planned to take out intestines and/or organs from Nichols too.

Hi Pierre

Actually that sounds like a good idea to me.....I wonder if a deep learning network trained on serial killers would clasiify them as being from the same hand....

..and wouldnīt this be a hint that CL disturbed JtR?
or am I wrong going in this direction...?
Mark

[Kattrup]

Llewellyn changed his mind when he performed the post mortem, apparently.

If you take the time to read the articles, you will find they say the doctor made his statement after the postmortem.

[Elamarna]

In short but in toto:

Yes, I repeat the same arguments. That is because you repeat the same arguments.

You claim that Llewellyn was wrong, and I am saying that such a thing takes proof before it can even be considered, at least as long as there is nothing strange about what Llewellyn said.

So much for that.

You now say that nobody is suggesting that Llewellyn lied. Good. Thatīs one misconception gone.

It was only ever an idea of yours. Only your misconception.

What remains is that he was mistaken. You propose that we do not have any idea at all about his knowledge.

That is dead wrong, of course. We know that he was highly educated and a member of the Royal college this and that. That means that we are perfectly aware that he was a trained medico with extensive knowledge.

That is mid nineteenth century knowledge (when he achieved is qualifications) we have no idea if he had kept up to date on advances. To just recite A CV again proves nothing.

Furthermore, you are not suggesting that he was mistaking the Eastern Dutch flue for the Western Dutch flue, are you? No, you are suggesting that he was not able to tell a potentially lethal wound from an ordinary flesh wound, and you are suggesting that his stating that the killer had anatomical knowledge since he had hit all the vital parts in his attack on the abdominal area was wrong, and that it may in fact be that not an organ or abdominal vessel was hit at all.

That is poppycock, to put it mildly. It is insulting, unhistorical, unworthy blabbering and it firmly fixes you and your insights about these matters where they belong - on historyīs scrap heap, with no sea view.

Firstly there is no evidence that any major abdomenial vessels were hit.
Secondly the idea that they were is based on YOUR interpretation that "vital areas" refers to the abdomen.
There is nothing in Llewellyn's testimony which indicates that.

It is not insulting to question if a medically professional is wrong, they are not immune from mistakes, why you see it as such I have no idea.

It is not unhistoric, it is taken from what the historical sources say
However so much of the theory you propose is very reliaent on YOUR interpretation of Llewellyn; not on established historical fact.

Unworthy blabbering, yes the term you use for any who disagree.

That little Rant including all of the above accusations really does highly how poor the arguments it is used to support are.

Protest all you will, but PLEASE find some evidence first.

We have all given evidence based on the sources, that you refuse to see that is your choice and ultimately your loss.

It's so strange when much of your argument is not based on fact but rather on lack of fact.
And once again it reminds me of Lee J Cobb character in "12 angry men"
When he continual shouts : " but you can't prove he didn't "

A case built on negatives.


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;420834]

The question here is: Was he interrupted?

In a case where the wounds were hypothetically less extensive than expected compared to the cases of Chapman and Eddowes (outdoors) the example of "less extensive" is historically established only for the abdomen and not for the throat.

Therefore, the throat - from this hypothesis - was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

I have to agree.


Steve

[Fisherman]

You ended post 1288 (a response to my post) with :

'A partly open mind is better than a closed one, but....'

Not an invention; a quote. Do you say things and then immediately forget them?

No. Do you?

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes:
Part of the medical debate, I believe, is about whether the abdominal wounds came before the throats wounds (as per Llewelyn) or visa versa?

I really can't comment from a viewpoint of any medical knowledge but I'll comment from one of ignorance.
Which is the more likely of the two variants? My lack of medical knowledge gives me something in common with CL.

That must be a guess only, since none of us know to what extent Lechmere was medically versed.

Therefore if you have your victim, you've put your hand over her mouth to prevent her crying out, she's still making a noise though and you need to stop it. Is it likely that a killer would attack the abdomen first? He would have no idea which organ would cause death quickest or where that organ was located. He would also have no idea how long it would take. And so, to stop the noise and stop her breathing surely it's obvious that a killer would go for the throat first ?

If it went down that way, yes. But what if he strangled her, then lowered her body to the ground and started cutting only after that. You see, that changes the game plan.
You could say the exact same about Tabram - surely the killer FIRST pierced her heart to ensure death, and only then turned to stabbing her about the abdomen. Why deal a deadly blow if you donīt deal it first?

Itīs the exact same thinking. But Killeen was very clear on how that deadly blow through the sternum came LAST.

Why canīt things be simple, eh?

I'm quite prepared to be 'shot down' here Steve but I've never understood why someone would believe that a killer would go abdomen first.

Well, Llewellyn believed so because the medical evidence made a case for it. And I believe it because Llewellyn said that he thought the abdomen came first.
What others think and why, I cannot say, but for Steve, who thinks he is better informed about the matter than Llewellyn was. Itīs just a guess n his behalf, since he has nothing at all to prove it by, just a feeling. But there you go.

From the point of a medical non starter (myself and CL) it appears to make no sense at all.

As I said, letīs not try and fix Lechmereīs level of medical understanding, since we will not be able to do that. What we may need to weigh in is the preferences of the killer - what was his aim with what he did, which cuts were of importance to him, which cuts answered to his urges, the ones to the neck or the ones to the abdomen. And if you have a real urge, what do you cut first. That simple question may not be irrelevant in all of this.

[Fisherman]

...which would mean based on the severity of the wounds hints of which came first can be deduced......makes sense

sorry to ask this one: were eddows and chapman abdominal regions much more damaged than Nichols? I tought them all to be at the same level so to say...
Mark

That will depend a whole lot on who you ask, Mark!

As for the logic of the neck cut coming first, try this:

Lechmere strangles Nichols, lowers her to the ground, and does what he very much desires to do - goes to work on her abdomen. Suddenly he hears approaching steps, realizes that whoever it is will hear him if he moves, so he decides to stay put and bluff it out. But before he does so, he realizes that he may need to ensure that the woman is dead, so that she cannot utter anything at all. In order to secure that, he cuts her neck last. That is why there is no arterial spray and why there is not much blood at all under her neck - the bulk of it has already left the arteries and veins in her abdomen and sunk into the abdominal cavity.

Another logic. It works for me.

[Fisherman]

Hi Pierre

The question of 'interruption' is a vital one for me. The whole case against CL, for me, originates with Robert Paul. The impression has been created that he 'interrupted' CL. Which he obviously didn't.

A comparison that I've tried to make involves John Davis when he found Annie Chapman. If at that moment someone had come into the passage and seen Davis standing above a horribly mutilated corpse he might have felt that he'd caught the killer in the act. He might have panicked and ran for the police. Davis would immediately have become a suspect. By the time that the police arrived, after being told that a man had been 'caught' with a mutilated corpse, it might have been said that Davis had had time to get rid of the knife.
As Davis wasn't 'disturbed' but went for the police, he's not a suspect.
He found the body at 6.00. We have Cadosch at 5.25. We don't need complicated medical arguments to show that time-wise Davis could have killed her. The fact that he lived there makes this unlikely in the extreme.

Yet CL is a suspect and Davis isn't. Davis definately 'could' have killed. We can't say that for CL.

Regards
Herlock

It is not Davisī going for the police that makes him no suspect. It is the fact that Chapman was cold when he found her. If he was the killer, he must have killed Chapman, gone back to his room and laid down for some time, then returned back to "discover" her.

You are welcome to that theory - I donīt think anyone has pounced on it yet. He was 56 and described as elderly at the time, which makes him an unexpected suspect to say the least, but he WAS a carman so all may not be forlorn anyway. And after all, ANY suspect is better than Lechmere.

[Elamarna]

Well, Llewellyn believed so because the medical evidence made a case for it. And I believe it because Llewellyn said that he thought the abdomen came first.
What others think and why, I cannot say, but for Steve, who thinks he is better informed about the matter than Llewellyn was. Itīs just a guess n his behalf, since he has nothing at all to prove it by, just a feeling. But there you go.

No. I just consider my interpretation of the sources more reasonable, than yours.


Steve

[Fisherman]

If you take the time to read the articles, you will find they say the doctor made his statement after the postmortem.

"THEY" say so, yes. But Llewellyn himself does not. My contention is that Helson was not aware of the altered stance of Llewellyn or he did not want any part of it. Baxter blows him out of the water at the summing up, anyhow.

Helson said this on the evening of the 2:nd:

"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."

Llewellyn had performed the post-mortem on the day before. Itīs either a case of LLewellyn still being doubtful about the matter after Helsoin not being informed about his stance. Regardless of what applies, some twenty days later, Baxter reluctantly informed the papers that LLewellyn believed the abdominal wounds came first.

We cannot establish the time table, but we know which station the train ended up at.

You are left with the common approach here, therefore - reinvent history and make it fit better with your ideas.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: It was only ever an idea of yours. Only your misconception.

I can assure you that I have never led on or believed that Llewellyn lied.

That is mid nineteenth century knowledge (when he achieved is qualifications) we have no idea if he had kept up to date on advances. To just recite A CV again proves nothing.

So you are suggesting that a late (not mid) nineteenth century medico may not have known which parts are vital and that he would be able to mistake a flesh wound for a deadly one?
That is the ground on which you rest your case?

Then I have but one thing to say. It begins with "Hahahahahaha" and ends with "Can somebody pass me a hanky, my eyes are tearing with all this laughter."

Hey, an idea! Ask Paul if he thinks that a late nineteenth century doctor would have known which parts of the body are vital? And ask him if he would mistake a flesh wound for a deadly wound? You seem keen enough to employ him otherwise, although the flame seems to have grown a bit cold since he said that the cuts may well have hit the organs in a deadly fashion.

Firstly there is no evidence that any major abdomenial vessels were hit.
Secondly the idea that they were is based on YOUR interpretation that "vital areas" refers to the abdomen.
There is nothing in Llewellyn's testimony which indicates that.

And no realistic alternative to it, sorry. So it was the abdomen he spoke of, alright.

It is not insulting to question if a medically professional is wrong, they are not immune from mistakes, why you see it as such I have no idea.

I donīt. It hinges of the level of the questions asked. What you infer that Llewellyn was not able to tell a flesh would from a deadly one, and that he was wrong in saying tha the vital parts had all been hit, you have stepped over the insult line to my mind.
If I infer that you cannot tell your behind from your head, is that an insult? Or is it quite possible that an early twentyfirst century poster out here may have failed to check?
That, I am very sorry to say, is an apt comparison. I wish it was not, but it is.

It is not unhistoric, it is taken from what the historical sources say
However so much of the theory you propose is very reliaent on YOUR interpretation of Llewellyn; not on established historical fact.

It is deeply unhistoric to award a medico like Llewellyn the medical insights of a ten year old.

Unworthy blabbering, yes the term you use for any who disagree.

No, I donīt use it for anyone who disagrees. It is yet another of the lies presented out here. I wouold never use that term in a discussion with f ex Wickerman, Jon Smyth, who disagrees about a whole lot of things with me, not least the Lechmere theory.

But he and I always have amiable exchanges, as have Henry Flower and I, as have Jon Guy and I, as have...

See what I mean? You lie and itīs apparent. It is also apparent why - tarnish all you can, but it will show.

That little Rant including all of the above accusations really does highly how poor the arguments it is used to support are.

That little lie tells a truer story.

We have all given evidence based on the sources, that you refuse to see that is your choice and ultimately your loss.

Is it based on the sources that Llewellyn was wrong? I fail to find that particular source. It seems to me that is an invention concocted out of the fact that not all information is at hand.

It's so strange when much of your argument is not based on fact but rather on lack of fact.

Did I just hear that from a man who accuses LLewellyn of being wrong, based on... Yes?

And once again it reminds me of Lee J Cobb character in "12 angry men"
When he continual shouts : " but you can't prove he didn't "

A case built on negatives.

You ARE speaking of yourself here, yes? I must see that movie sometime. And you should see "The Sting".

[Fisherman]

No. I just consider my interpretation of the sources more reasonable, than yours.


Steve

And that means that I am correct in saying that you think you are better informed than Llewellyn was, right? Or have you changed your mind?

[Fisherman]

I can only hit a sandbag for so long, so Iīm off now.

[Patrick S]

Elamarna: It was only ever an idea of yours. Only your misconception.

I can assure you that I have never led on or believed that Llewellyn lied.

That is mid nineteenth century knowledge (when he achieved is qualifications) we have no idea if he had kept up to date on advances. To just recite A CV again proves nothing.

So you are suggesting that a late (not mid) nineteenth century medico may not have known which parts are vital and that he would be able to mistake a flesh wound for a deadly one?
That is the ground on which you rest your case?

Then I have but one thing to say. It begins with "Hahahahahaha" and ends with "Can somebody pass me a hanky, my eyes are tearing with all this laughter."

Hey, an idea! Ask Paul if he thinks that a late nineteenth century doctor would have known which parts of the body are vital? And ask him if he would mistake a flesh wound for a deadly wound? You seem keen enough to employ him otherwise, although the flame seems to have grown a bit cold since he said that the cuts may well have hit the organs in a deadly fashion.

Firstly there is no evidence that any major abdomenial vessels were hit.
Secondly the idea that they were is based on YOUR interpretation that "vital areas" refers to the abdomen.
There is nothing in Llewellyn's testimony which indicates that.

And no realistic alternative to it, sorry. So it was the abdomen he spoke of, alright.

It is not insulting to question if a medically professional is wrong, they are not immune from mistakes, why you see it as such I have no idea.

I donīt. It hinges of the level of the questions asked. What you infer that Llewellyn was not able to tell a flesh would from a deadly one, and that he was wrong in saying tha the vital parts had all been hit, you have stepped over the insult line to my mind.
If I infer that you cannot tell your behind from your head, is that an insult? Or is it quite possible that an early twentyfirst century poster out here may have failed to check?
That, I am very sorry to say, is an apt comparison. I wish it was not, but it is.

It is not unhistoric, it is taken from what the historical sources say
However so much of the theory you propose is very reliaent on YOUR interpretation of Llewellyn; not on established historical fact.

It is deeply unhistoric to award a medico like Llewellyn the medical insights of a ten year old.

Unworthy blabbering, yes the term you use for any who disagree.

No, I donīt use it for anyone who disagrees. It is yet another of the lies presented out here. I wouold never use that term in a discussion with f ex Wickerman, Jon Smyth, who disagrees about a whole lot of things with me, not least the Lechmere theory.

But he and I always have amiable exchanges, as have Henry Flower and I, as have Jon Guy and I, as have...

See what I mean? You lie and itīs apparent. It is also apparent why - tarnish all you can, but it will show.

That little Rant including all of the above accusations really does highly how poor the arguments it is used to support are.

That little lie tells a truer story.

We have all given evidence based on the sources, that you refuse to see that is your choice and ultimately your loss.

Is it based on the sources that Llewellyn was wrong? I fail to find that particular source. It seems to me that is an invention concocted out of the fact that not all information is at hand.

It's so strange when much of your argument is not based on fact but rather on lack of fact.

Did I just hear that from a man who accuses LLewellyn of being wrong, based on... Yes?

And once again it reminds me of Lee J Cobb character in "12 angry men"
When he continual shouts : " but you can't prove he didn't "

A case built on negatives.

You ARE speaking of yourself here, yes? I must see that movie sometime. And you should see "The Sting".

I have nothing to add to the discourse other than to point out to Christer that if someone posted something like this directed at him we'd see a deluge of "Fisherman" posts demanding respect, decrying a lack of civility, demands for an apology, and threats to stop posting deference is paid and admiration given. So...if someone responds in kind, be sure you're prepared.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not Davisī going for the police that makes him no suspect. It is the fact that Chapman was cold when he found her. If he was the killer, he must have killed Chapman, gone back to his room and laid down for some time, then returned back to "discover" her.

You are welcome to that theory - I donīt think anyone has pounced on it yet. He was 56 and described as elderly at the time, which makes him an unexpected suspect to say the least, but he WAS a carman so all may not be forlorn anyway. And after all, ANY suspect is better than Lechmere.

I think that anyone could tell that I'm not proposing Davis as the ripper. The point that I'm making is this: the whole of the case against CL is based on Paul. The false idea that he interrupted CL's dastardly work. But, and I'll never tire or desist from mentioning this, CL had ample time to get away, either by running or walking, but he didn't. Despite all the 'psychopathic brazening it out mumbo-jumbo'. He wasn't even pressured, Paul was 40 yards away down a poorly lit Whitechapel backstreet at 3.40am! I'll say it again: he was not interrupted or caught in the act. Now, anyone looking into this case would have to think: surely if he was guilty he'd have fled? And they'd be absolutely correct. But no, to make your case fit we have to have this assessment of CL's state of mind which neither yourself, Andy Griffiths or Mystic Meg could possibly know.
And so when you see that CL's actions were the actions of a transparently innocent man what you should of said at the beginning of your investigation was:' oh well, that's the end of that then'. But no. You really wanted CL the Ripper. So you found the name thing. Which CL gained absolutely, categorically no advantage from when you see the fact that he gave his correct address at the inquest. So at that point you have a non-existant suggestion of being caught in the act backed up by a use of a non-birth name,which gave your suspect absolutely no advantage, to back it up. Add a little non-existant and unnecessary 'Mizen Scam' he what have you got? Zilch! Or as Rainbow would probably have said 'conclusive proof. Hang him!'