Lechmere The Psychopath

[Pierre]

Steve

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

Regards
Herlock

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

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;420819

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

Hi Herlock,

it is not per Llewellyn, it is per Fisherman.

The newspapers have conflicting statements about this.

So it is not at all an historically established fact.

Cheers, Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Steve

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

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

I never said that they are.

Itīs 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.

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?

[Elamarna]

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 wanīt 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.

Of course as normal no attempt to actually answer the points you claim to be responding to by the quoted posted used.

Repeating the same statements over and over again, with no attempt to debate or rebutt the counter arguments made fully exposes the problems in your theory.

Your response claiming that this means that either Llewellyn did not know what he was talking about or he lied, can be seen as an attempt to suggest those arguing against are on morally questionable ground by suggesting such and is truly disingenuous.

Let us look at those options plus the one you do not mention.

1. He did not know what he was talking about?

We actually have no idea about his knowledge at all and such a debate is pointless. However his argument for the blood going into the loose tissue is unconvincing and debatable from a medical point of view. However that must be qualified by saying if he is talking about blood from vessels in the body wall, rather than the deep vessels you suggests, the idea is much more reasonable.
And of course Doctors can be wrong.

2. He lied?

This is a very emotive term and as far as I am aware No One has suggest that he deliberately made a statement he knew was untrue. It was his opinion, however it's how one interprets that opinion that is important.

And finally the point you do not include:

3. His testimony and how you interpret it.

It is your intpretation that vital areas means the abdomenial wounds; however there is nothing in the testimony which specifically points in that direction.

It is your opinion that we should accept wounds that are only postulated, that is theorized, as the cause of death; Over wounds that we know are fatal cuts to the Neck.
Such theorizing is pointless without evidence that the wounds actually existed.

To put it basically you see what you wish to see.


Steve