So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Joshua Rogan]

Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

Does Baxter actually establish this, or does his use of "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that..." show this is just Baxter's opinion of Llewellyn's opinion?

So Baxter does not say that the neck wounds came first, he simply opines that it may well be so, in light of what happened to Annie Chapman.

Swanson's Sept 19th report also says Llewellyn expressed the opinion that the abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat was cut, but like
Gareth, I would be happy to see where Llewellyn actually says that the abdominal wounds came first, as I'm struggling to find such a reference.

[Fisherman]

The abdominal aorta lies beneath the abdominal walls, intestines and other viscera. Unless the killer cut through the latter, which doesn't appear to have been the case, then the aorta would have been unscathed.

We donīt know that, Gareth. We have no idea about which organs were struck and we donīt know that the aorta was left undamaged. The large wound was a very deep one, it was said, and thatīs about as far as our knowledge stretches. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, as you know.

[Fisherman]

This comes from Baxter's summing-up at the end of the inquest, more than a fortnight after Llewellyn had given his testimony. Is it possible that Baxter was simply mistaken or confused? Certainly, those earlier reports quoted by Joshua seem to show that Llewellyn, whilst noting the blood found in the abdomen, maintained that death was caused by the cut throat, and that it was this wound which was inflicted first.

Possible? Yes, very much is possible. But if there was never any doubt about how Llewellyn thought that the neck wounds came first, then why would Baxter, two weeks afterwards, come up with such an idea?

The last stop on a line is normally the one where things have been staightened out, and this is what we are looking at here, Iīd say.

Joshua turned his reports around chronologically. On the 1:st, Llewellyn said that the wounds to the neck killed her. At that stage, I believe he had not made his final examination of the body.

On the 3:rd, he had seen the blood in the abdomen and had a change of heart. But Helson - who I think is quoted here - seems disinclined to accept Llewellynīs altered decision. So if anybody is misunderstanding here, it is him. Baxter quoted Llewellyn as having said that the abdominal wounds were what caused Nicholsī death. Accordingly, since the neck wounds would have killed her if they came first, they must have come second.

Baxter had it correct at the inquest - and he did not like it one bit.

[Sam Flynn]

Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat..."

This comes from Baxter's summing-up at the end of the inquest, more than a fortnight after Llewellyn had given his testimony. Is it possible that Baxter was simply mistaken or confused? Certainly, those earlier reports quoted by Joshua seem to show that Llewellyn, whilst noting the blood found in the abdomen, maintained that death was caused by the cut throat, and that it was this wound which was inflicted first.

[Sam Flynn]

There is the possibility that the killer cut the aorta open,in which case we would have imminent death, more or less.

The abdominal aorta lies beneath the abdominal walls, intestines and other viscera. Unless the killer cut through the latter, which doesn't appear to have been the case, then the aorta would have been unscathed.

[Fisherman]

Daily News 3 Sept;
"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."

Morning Advertiser 1 Sept
"Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae."

Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards."

So Baxter does not say that the neck wounds came first, he simply opines that it may well be so, in light of what happened to Annie Chapman.

[Fisherman]

I can't recall where this is reported; can you point me in the right direction, Fish?

Because only the abdominal wall had been cut, surely that would not entail any great blood loss into the abdomen? Not as much as would have been occasioned by such a severe and extensive throat wound, at any rate.

There is the possibility that the killer cut the aorta open,in which case we would have imminent death, more or less.

I take it that you are aware that the abdominal wounds is not disclosed in the material left to us, we only know that Llewellyn said that they came first, they were enough to kill and they had blood flowing into the abdominal cavity. This opens up for the possibility that the aorta can have been cut, but there are many large vessels in the abdomen, for example the ones that supply the liver with blood. It is not my area of expertise - but it was Llewellyns.

[Joshua Rogan]

I can't recall where this is reported; can you point me in the right direction, Fish?

Daily News 3 Sept;
"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."

Morning Advertiser 1 Sept
"Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae."

[Sam Flynn]

Llewellyn actually found the blood that was lacking on the street in her abdominal cavity

I can't recall where this is reported; can you point me in the right direction, Fish?

And so the signs are pretty much in line with the abdomen coming first in the Nichols case

Because only the abdominal wall had been cut, surely that would not entail any great blood loss into the abdomen? Not as much as would have been occasioned by such a severe and extensive throat wound, at any rate.

[Fisherman]

Let's be precise: the throats were cut.

More than the throats were cut. Do you consider the muscles in the back of your neck part of your throat? These parts were cut on Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.

If we say that the throats only were cut, we discard some of the evidence in favour of pleasing your wish not to allow for any comparison with the torso murders - where throat and neck was cut. Just as throat and neck was cut in the majority of the C5 cases.

It was not said that Chapmans and Kellys throats were nearly severed. It was said that their _ _ _ _ _ were (fill in the correct term. Clue: it starts with an "N".

See? It bounced back again.

[Fisherman]

What about Andy Griffiths? Does the same go for him?

Griffiths judgment was shaped from working with murder, consorting with murderers, discussing cases with other specialists, reading up on an academic level and so on - that is what makes you an expert.

If you have problems with that, please define them.

If you think it has been said that experts cannot be mistaken, please show me where that happened.

Griffiths and Scobie are experts of the criminal and law field, and they are accordingly very well suited to comment on matters of criminality and law. What they say is likely to be grounded in their experience, and as such also likely to be valuable and insightful.

Whatever problems you have with that, please let me know.

[Sam Flynn]

And when we see that the cutting of the necks was a primary matter in the following cases

Let's be precise: the throats were cut.

[Fisherman]

When I'm working on legal cases I often consult our resident solicitor/barrister for the benefit of his expertise. However, I can only afford to summarise the case to him, and the slightest omission or misrepresentation of the facts can skew his opinion. I'm also aware that experts can often differ in their conclusions, which is why I always suggest clients seek a second opinion.

Professionals in law and criminology have supported other suspects and theories that contradict your findings that Lechmere is the best suspect. There is no one single authority in this case. We should be careful about relying uncritically on experts, as you are doing.

More twaddle.

Who says I am relying uncritically on experts? I am saying that Griffiths thoughts are in line with my own thinking, and so it is him who agrees with me, itīs not the other way around.

Yes, professionals have supported other suspects, but on what grounds? The FBI supported Kosminski because they liked him as a type, not because he could be put on any of the spots or be shown to have any sort of connection with any of the victims.

Griffiths may well have agreed that Kosminski is an interesting character, what do I know? But that would not detract from his input on Lechmere, because the two do not move in the same circles. Kosminski is a suggestion that lacks any form of practical link to the murders, while Lechmere is firmly tied to the case, who makes a very good fit geographically and who has anomalies en masse attaching to his person, anomalies with a direct and exact bearing on the case as such.

Kosminski is about conjecture, while Lechmere is about facts. Some say that I make the wrong interpretation of the facts (and that Griffiths agreeing with me is because the poor sod was grossly underinformed and misled, surprise, surprise), but it remains that I HAVE facts to interpret, while there are no such facts relating to just about any of the other suspects.

The whole idea of how Griffiths would perhaps have changed his mind if he was told about the other suspects (which he WAS to a degree by discussing the case with me and Edward) is ludicruous. "Oh, so there was this man called Levy who was not sound and who lived in the area - then Lechmere cannot be as good a suspect as I originally thought!"

As if that was going to happen.

Policemen love to get their hands on REAL evidence, caserelated true material, timelines, proven opportunities and such - all of the kind of things Lechmere has going for him.
They hate rumours and hearsay, like what Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Bury, Chapman and so on and so on and so on, have going for them.

And thatīs for a reason.

[Harry D]

Did Baxter never make a mistake? Was his judgement always sound?

What about Andy Griffiths? Does the same go for him?

[Fisherman]

That's not medical science, nor science and completely omits the function of Coroner to just a man sitting on chair wagging his mouth.

Wrong on all counts.

The medical implications are there from the outset. They do not change. A wound does not become smaller or larger because that fits with subsequent acts on behalf of the killer. Llewellyn didnīt change his mind. He believed that the neck was cut after the abdomen was attacked, and he did so on account of the implications on the crime scene. altering those implications is not possible.

It is possible, however, to question implications and to reinterpret them. And when we see that the cutting of the necks was a primary matter in the following cases, it is only natural to look at the option that it was the same in the Nichols case.

But the signs that should have been there are not. There is no blood splatter, there is no large pool under her body and Llewellyn actually found the blood that was lacking on the street in her abdominal cavity. And so the signs are pretty much in line with the abdomen coming first in the Nichols case. And that is not something that should be regarded as very odd - if the killer did for Tabram, the neck was never cut at all.

As for Baxter, he was never a man to sit quietly and listen to things. He was a very active coroner, offering his own thinking on several occasions. And that is precisely because we can all offer our own interpretations. When a coronor with no medical qualifications whatsoever takes it upon himself to distrust what an experienced and highly qualified medico says, we may have trouble on our hands.

You want us to believe Baxter over Llewellyn. Does that belief stretch to how we must also believe that Baxter was right about how the deeds were the outcome of an american doctors will to pay for specimens taken from the human body?

Or are you cherrypicking?