Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

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.

The suggestion that others believed Llewellyn had lied was what I responded to. Not that you believed such.
And as far as I know the idea that others believe Llewellyn lied has only been raised by you.
Thus it is your misconception that others believed he lied.

The responses are now very poor Fish it must be said.

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 depends on how one defines early, mid and late.
I agree that is subjective, But I note he gained most of his qualification by 1876, that means the majority of the training occurred in the third quarter of the century. 2nd and 3rd quarters can be termed mid.

That is the ground on which you rest your case?

If you mean the point that we do not know how upto date his knowledge was it is a major consideration.

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.

And again there appears to be a willfull misunderstanding of the arguments made.

The suggestion is that the vital parts mentioned were not in the abdomen, that Llewellyn was referring to the Neck. Why do you give a false impression on what others suggest?

No one has said Llewellyn confused flesh wounds with deeper wounds. I really do hate to tell you but cutting the omentum is not the result of a flesh wound.

Did Paul really say that?
I recall he did not rule such out, but suggested such was unlikely in his opinion.
In his last post on the subject #1368 in this thread, he still says he considers it unlikely.
That is somewhat different from you seem to be suggesting.

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.

No. It was not. You read it to say that others do not. The Neck makes far more sense.

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.

That is not what is being said. You are well aware of that, and these attempts to divert are getting truly desperate.

No one has said he confused a flesh wound with a deeper cut!
The deepest recorded cut is to the omentum, that is not a flesh cut!!
Why not read what is posted rather than what you wish other believe to have been said it will be far more productive for you.

The debate is over where the "vital areas" were.

You believe in the abdomen for which there is no historical support, others the Neck, the fatal wounds there are an established historical fact.

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.

Such is a personal insult under the rules of this forum. Please do not expect me to take anymore. Even my patience has it limits.

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.

One is not applying such to Llewellyn. And even if one were it is not unhistoric , maybe itt would be better to use the correct terms?

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.

I correct it to many who disagree with you.

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.

No it's based on you misinterpreting source after source.
And using the line of argument which amounts to :"you can't prove its not"

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?

Read all the posts, the main argument is you are wrong, it how you interpret Llewellyn.

He does not say all the vital parts are in the abdomen, you do.

He is not convinced himself that the abdomen is first, it appears to be because of the apparent lack of blood. Indeed his argument that the blood as gone into the loose tissue is only unrealistic if view from your perspective that the major vessels are cut . It is you who claims that he is conclusive about the abdomen being first.

This is now a sucssesion of post with no facts presented to rebutt the points put to you.
The cupboard must be getting bare.



Steve

[Elamarna]

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?

No change.
Better that your intreptation of him. That's all.
If you cannot see the difference I am sorry.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

It's ok Patrick.

That Christer now responds like this demonstrates that the cupboard is somewhat bare on the issue of meaningful rebuttal.

I do not get upset by the personally attacks, it just show a lack of reasoned arguments. However even my patience has limits and I have to say they are fast approaching.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's ok Patrick.

That Christer now responds like this demonstrates that the cupboard is somewhat bare on the issue of meaningful rebuttal.

I do not get upset by the personally attacks, it just show a lack of reasoned arguments. However even my patience has limits and I have to say they are fast approaching.


Steve

Steve

I think that you deserve a pint or 4 in The Ten Bells. Get one in for me while you're at it.

Regards
Herlock

[kjab3112]

To be fair to those who question Llewellyn's competence and findings, he was a relative amateur in forensic medicine (which was very much in its infancy at the time). In 1888, of the four physicians involved, he was the only one without a significant forensic practice, with Bond and Phillips both having near (or more than) twenty years experience as police surgeons. It is thus no surprise that the local obstetrician was quickly dropped for the veterans: both local (Phillips) and central (Bond) and why did Brown invite his colleague Phillips? Because he was giving away 15-16 years experience to the older man. Yes, medicine then was far more generalist than today and the police surgeon role was mostly that of in house GP and occupational health doctor, but a man with little apparent forensic experience would likely flounder in a coroners court. Only one man saw the reports of all the autopsies (Bond) and a second performed/was present at the majority (Phillips). I would thus trust Bond or Phillips over Llewellyn.

[drstrange169]

>>I am sorry, Dusty, but you are not going to get any answer. <<

... and yet, here you are answering!?!

>>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.<<

The specific reports in question, as I pointed out, were all made pre-post mortem. At the time those reports were written, Llewellyn had only made a cursory 10 minute inspection of the abdominal wounds. Why would any serious researcher regard them as more reliable than the comments made by Llewellyn after the post mortem?

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

It's been, what, a year so far, since I've asked you to back up any such claim?
Tick, tock.


>>Youīve got nerve, Iīll give you that. But there my interest ends.<<

Not nerve, just the knowledge that I can back up my comments and you can't.
Tick, tock.

[drstrange169]

>Lechmere strangles Nichols ...<<

Where does Llewellyn state Mrs Nichols was strangled?
Are you saying Llewellyn was not very good?

[Pierre]

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.

Was the killer 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 was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

[Pierre]

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.

Was the killer 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 was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;420491

I can guarantee you that I find it a lot more tiresome when people do not recognize this simple truth: Doctors know what they are talking about, and when they say that an organ or vessel is damaged, it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged.

From the wrong diagnosis to the wrong prescription, medical errors kill as many as 100,000 people a year in this country—and injure thousands more.

http://www.oprah.com/health/what-hap...#ixzz4mF2kr1WV

Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/...eath_in_the_us

Researchers: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...=.ce39f842d150


So of course Steve is right. Doctors make mistakes. And they make a lot of mistakes.

You, Fisherman, have no idea of what you are saying, and your invented figures are WRONG.

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was the killer 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 was cut before the abdomen, i.e. there is no indication that he was interrupted when doing the throat cuts.

Pierre

Makes sense to me

Regards
Herlock

[Fisherman]

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.

I have no idea where you got that from, ad it is of course a total no-starter. Pauls role in it all seems to have been that he made Lechmere come forward, but that does not men that the case against the carman is based on Paul. It is based on a large variety of things. And Paul had not very much to do with it.

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, Patrick, I will jump up and down and tear at my hair while frothing at the mouth if somebody even DARES to criticize me. Promise!

[Fisherman]

The suggestion that others believed Llewellyn had lied was what I responded to. Not that you believed such.
And as far as I know the idea that others believe Llewellyn lied has only been raised by you.
Thus it is your misconception that others believed he lied.

The responses are now very poor Fish it must be said.



That depends on how one defines early, mid and late.
I agree that is subjective, But I note he gained most of his qualification by 1876, that means the majority of the training occurred in the third quarter of the century. 2nd and 3rd quarters can be termed mid.



If you mean the point that we do not know how upto date his knowledge was it is a major consideration.



And again there appears to be a willfull misunderstanding of the arguments made.

The suggestion is that the vital parts mentioned were not in the abdomen, that Llewellyn was referring to the Neck. Why do you give a false impression on what others suggest?

No one has said Llewellyn confused flesh wounds with deeper wounds. I really do hate to tell you but cutting the omentum is not the result of a flesh wound.

Did Paul really say that?
I recall he did not rule such out, but suggested such was unlikely in his opinion.
In his last post on the subject #1368 in this thread, he still says he considers it unlikely.
That is somewhat different from you seem to be suggesting.



No. It was not. You read it to say that others do not. The Neck makes far more sense.



That is not what is being said. You are well aware of that, and these attempts to divert are getting truly desperate.

No one has said he confused a flesh wound with a deeper cut!
The deepest recorded cut is to the omentum, that is not a flesh cut!!
Why not read what is posted rather than what you wish other believe to have been said it will be far more productive for you.

The debate is over where the "vital areas" were.

You believe in the abdomen for which there is no historical support, others the Neck, the fatal wounds there are an established historical fact.




Such is a personal insult under the rules of this forum. Please do not expect me to take anymore. Even my patience has it limits.



One is not applying such to Llewellyn. And even if one were it is not unhistoric , maybe itt would be better to use the correct terms?



I correct it to many who disagree with you.



No it's based on you misinterpreting source after source.
And using the line of argument which amounts to :"you can't prove its not"



Read all the posts, the main argument is you are wrong, it how you interpret Llewellyn.

He does not say all the vital parts are in the abdomen, you do.

He is not convinced himself that the abdomen is first, it appears to be because of the apparent lack of blood. Indeed his argument that the blood as gone into the loose tissue is only unrealistic if view from your perspective that the major vessels are cut . It is you who claims that he is conclusive about the abdomen being first.

This is now a sucssesion of post with no facts presented to rebutt the points put to you.
The cupboard must be getting bare.



Steve

That is a VERY long post, considering it adds just about nothing new at all. I think saying that it is still a weird suggestion that Llewellyn was wrong and that you are right covers just about all that needs to be covered.

[Fisherman]

No change.
Better that your intreptation of him. That's all.
If you cannot see the difference I am sorry.


Steve

No, no, no - itīs me who is sorry. And have a bloody good reason to be.