Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Fish, a non-adversarial question.

Do you have a date for the book yet?

Regards
Herlock

The in-depth book on Lechmere will have the name Edward Stow on it.

[Sam Flynn]

... and they did not know what a deep cut was, they did not understand where to look for blood, instead accepting that it had been spirited away at times

They knew that a deep cut was something worse than a scratch but, beyond that, we have no information as to how deep it really was.

They did understand where to look for blood and, furthermore, they understood how to report where that blood was; if it was sloshing about in the abdominal cavity, they'd have explicitly stated so.

plus they habitually mistook a shallow cut to the abdomen for cuts that damaged all the vital parts in it.

Speculation, not fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that the "vital parts" referred to were in the abdomen.

[Fisherman]

Not addressing any of the points raised of course!
Just the same old tired lines.
The idea is just so closed to any possibility that Llewellyn may be wrong it is truly sad.

Steve

It´s not closed at all. I would never do that, as you wouod know if you´ve read my posts.

Llewellyn MAY have gotten it wrong.

But it is infinitely more probable that he knew exactly what he was talking about.

If you find it tiresome that I am of that opinion, 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. And no, I cannot provide any statistic source for it. Nor do I have to.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: They knew that a deep cut was something worse than a scratch but, beyond that, we have no information as to how deep it really was.

"Very deep". You "forgot the "very". Again.

They did understand where to look for blood and, furthermore, they understood how to report where that blood was; if it was sloshing about in the abdominal cavity, they'd have explicitly stated so.Speculation, not fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that the "vital parts" referred to were in the abdomen.

There is no functioning alternative. Least of all the brain, you previous effort. And no, "they" would not necessarily have written "it was sloshing about in the abdominal cavity"v about the blood. It would suffice to say that the wounds there were very deep, that the killer apparently had anatomical insights because all the vital parts had been hit, and that the blood had leaked out of the vessels and collected in the loose tissues. And, of course, it was all detailed in the report Llewellyn wrote.

If it´s not enough for you, well then I am soooooooooooooo amazed. I mean - WHO would have thought it?

[Fisherman]

I´m joining a number of you gentlemen in going to sleep now. See you tomorrow.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: That is one view.
It is based on little blood had been absorbed by the clothing, which is debatable given the reports.
And on all the blood being recorded. Which it may not have been given it was washed away by a member of the public.

The blood James Green washed away was quantified by Llewellyn.

Not so I am afraid.

A. There is no source to say he checked the whole environment for blood, it was after all still dark.

B. PC Thain describes blood which Llewellyn did not see as it was under the body.

Just conjecture that the majority of the blood was in the abdominal cavity.
The intestines are not loose tissue. I specifical asked you your understand of the term earlier in the year, that was not your response..
If you like I will happily post the conversation.
Blood by the way does not get absorbed by the intestines which is what soaked implies.

No, it does not. You can leave yourself to soak in bathwater without absorbing it. And I would say that you will have ubnderestood perfectly that I was not suggesting that the blood was absorbed by the intestines. But it seems you will opt for any stupid interpretation you can think up on y behalf, so thanks for that.

If it was not absorbed it would form large clots, which Llewellyn does not describe.

However far more important is that the intestines are not loose tissue, as you well know.
To claim they are is to give a false impression.

May one ask why yet again do not answer the main issue, but rather prefer the semantics of soak.?

One cannot compare medical knowledge in 1888 to that of today.
Infection was not understood, nor were the causes or treatments of illnesses like cancer, heart disease. Epilepsy, diabetes or depression to name but a few.

... and they did not know what a deep cut was, they did not understand where to look for blood, instead accepting that it had been spirited away at times, plus they habitually mistook a shallow cut to the abdomen for cuts that damaged all the vital parts in it. Yes, I know - they were a pack of incompetent liars.

Not addressing the issue at all. Just the same tired argument repeated over and over.

No one is calling them liars, that is a term you have used. No one else has.
Back to the point, their knowledge was far removed from that of present day Doctors, who still make mistakes. Why do you find it impossible to admit Llewellyn may have as well?

TOD is also a classic example of what was considered in 1888 to be certain now not being so.

They did not think it certain, no. Nor do we do so today. It was always an estimation, but I will give you that they sometimes overinvested in their estimations.
Leading on that they would make very large errors as a rule is not correct, though.

Please Fish, in case after case the doctors gave opinions on time of death that no Doctor would now. It's not that they were incompetent or negligent they simply did not have the knowledge.

There are therefore many reasons why medical opinion from over a century ago needs to be assed at more than face value.

Should that really be "assed"? Isn´t the term "arsed"?

Yet another personal. Will you never stop.
It's not funny at all. Nor does the comment have any value or place this or indeed any debate on this forum.

But you are probably right. When a medico looked into the abdominal cavity and saw that the liver, the spleen, the pancreas, the aorta, the stomach and the kidneys had been shredded, stating that "many a vital part had been damaged", they were probaly taking things too much at face value.
Shame on them. Amateurs. What did they know that you don´t know much better?

Very good apart from 1 very small issue: It Never Happened.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Doctors know what they are talking about.

Doctors often know what they're talking about, but they do make mistakes. As can the press, who may misquote, misunderstand and/or misrepresent what a doctor may have said.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre. You are not a historian until such time as you provide some evidence to back that up. Nothing you say has any greater validity on that basis. You don't get to pull rank on people and expect us to accept that you have the right to do so purely because you assert that it's true.

"I am a historian. You are not" must qualify as the most childish contribution yet in a thread blessed with abundant competition for that accolade.

What a foolish and unpleasant thing to write.

[Elamarna]

I believe Llewellyn was referring to the Loose Connective Tissues, which as the name implies are the loose, spongy tissues which connect, surround and cushion the organs and other tissues.

Hi Joshua,

Yes that is the meaning of the term.


Steve

[Elamarna]

That sounds very probable to me. I have been thinking about whether he meant the soft tissues, and said "loose" instead. Any which way, I am much more comfortable with both suggestions than with the one that he either got it all wrong or lied about it. That does not sit well with me at all.

Is not using the wrong word getting it wrong?

Loose tissue is a defined anatomical term. It does not mean intestines.
A few posts back You posted:

colleced to a large degree in the loose tissues, which in my universe means that it was soaked into the heap of intestines and rested there.

Is the suggestion that the intestines are called soft tissues?


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

"Very deep". You "forgot the "very". Again

OK, so how "very" is "very"? I mean, if I sustained a long cut to my belly of two inches in depth, I'd say that was "very deep", and it would cut my omentum, but it should leave my intestines unscathed, and would be nowhere near deep enough to sever the great blood vessels of my abdomen.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the "vital parts" referred to were in the abdomen.

There is no functioning alternative. Least of all the brain, you previous effort.

Why not? He could have punctured her cranium with the knife, jabbed the blade into her ears or eyes... lots of ways of attacking that particular "vital part". What's that you say? There's nothing in the evidence to back up my suggestion? Well, that puts you and me on an even keel, then.

Besides, where in the evidence were the brain, heart, jugular veins and/or the carotid arteries ruled out as the "vital parts" in question? Get a sharp knife slicing into any one of those, and I'd say you'd have a pretty "vital" crisis on your hands.

because all the vital parts had been hit

Again, nobody in their right mind would interpret "ALL the vital parts" as referring to the abdomen. Most of the truly "vital parts" are in the chest and head.

[Elamarna]

Derek Osborne, Michael Connor and Edward Stow.

Posting the names of some who agree with you is meant to say ?


Steve

[Elamarna]

It´s not closed at all. I would never do that, as you wouod know if you´ve read my posts.

Llewellyn MAY have gotten it wrong.

But it is infinitely more probable that he knew exactly what he was talking about.

If you find it tiresome that I am of that opinion, 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. And no, I cannot provide any statistic source for it. Nor do I have to.

I read every single word of every post.
So now Doctors are infallible?

If that is not what you are saying then they make mistakes, yes?

And we are not talking of present day Doctors but those from 1888 with a far more limited knowledge.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes: Hello Fisherman

First, thanks to HarryD for pointing out my silly error. It was Davis not Richardson who found Chapmans body.

The point that I was making in the first part of my post was about the importance of Paul arriving after CL. If he hadn't, and CL had gone alone to find a Constable there would have been no suspicion against him (CL)

No suspicion from whom? If he had disagreed with the police over what was said, I would be suspicious. If he gave the wrong name, I would be suspicious.
So who is it that would not be suspicious?

My point is that the presence of Paul has been used to imply that CL was somehow compelled to make his presence known and to follow a path that led him to the police i.e. that he was reacting to being almost 'caught in the act.'

"Used to imply?" The implication is either true or false, end of.

We know that this isn't the case however because he had ample time to walk away undiscovered.

No, "we" certainly don´t know that.

I am sorry, but I am now predisposing that the rest of your post will be along the same fallacious lines, and so I will leave it here.

You are correct of course that we do not know if Paul had any suspicions of CL. All we know is that he did not act on them if he had them. But surely if we try and weigh up every aspect of events (as you, Steve and others are currently doing on the medical evidence) you would have to place the fact that no one appeared to suspect CL at the time as a tick (however faint) in the 'case against' box.

Wait - it´s getting a bit better. Maybe I should stay on? Okay.

No, I don´t agree that it must tick the "case against box" if nobody expresses any suspicion. It can just as well tick the "skilful liar" box. Good to see that you are admitting what I am saying about Paul and his stance, though.

I agree that we cannot simply say either that the police were useless or that they were blameless.

You can try. But it ain´t gonna work.

Finally, on the 'or had he hidden his tracks,' comment. I'm sorry Fish but I wouldn't call drawing someone's attention to the body you were standing near (when there was absolutely no need to) as 'hiding his tracks.' Or going to find a Constable. Or turning up for the Inquest. Or working at the same place for 20 years.

Just to take one example: If he went to the police to hide that he had been in place for five minutes before Paul arrived, he WAS hiding his tracks. What seems like an anomoly will have helped him immensely if he was the killer, that is important to keep in mind!

Absolutely there are 2 sides of every coin. And once 'named' a suspect cannot be 'un-named!' I do look at both sides and try to weigh up the likely and the unlikely.

We do not differ in that respect. It may sound strange, but I do the exact same. People think that I spend my nights making voodoo effigies of Lechmere and sticking needles into them, but I really don´t.

I'll say again. We cannot categorically exonerate CL. I just feel that he's an unlikely Ripper.

I´m perfectly fine with that. But how does it relate to how you say that you are certain that he would have run, Herlock? A partly open mind is better than a closed one, but...

'The implication is either true or false, end of.'

It's false. And obviously so. CL wasn't 'caught in the act.' He stood in the street away from the body waiting for Paul to arrive on the scene. We can debate whether a killer would stay or flee but it's not debatable that he had every opportunity of doing so.

And so I'm being 'fallacious.' But wait, when I say that you are correct on something you say 'maybe I should stay,'

I'm sorry but this is fairly typical. Disagree with you and someone is using 'fallacious arguments,' or faulty reasoning. Agree with you and it's : now you're being reasonable. This attitude pervades the whole thread. You speak as though you are the only one who understands anything fully and everyone else is being wilfully dumb. I don't claim to speak for everyone here but I'm tired of it. Maybe I'm less patient than others here? You constantly talk down to people just for disagreeing with you.

The fact that there is no evidence that anyone at the time suspected CL should stand as it is. Yet you cite that it could be evidence of CL being a skilful liar. Not unless you have evidence that he was a 'skilful liar.' And you don't. Certainly not the differing statements during the completely fabricated 'Mizen Scam'.

'If he went to the police to hide that he'd been in place for 5 minutes before Paul arrived.'

If, if, if. Timings are notoriously loose all across this case due to, among other things, a lack of personal timepieces, policemen being late 'knocking up,' etc. There is no evidence to prove that CL spent any length of time with Nichols. With this kind of thinking though you could pretty much build up a case for anyone who was 'around' at the time.

You end with 'a partly open mind is better than a closed one, but...'

Utterly patronising. Yet again, disagree with you and someone is closed minded or just plain wrong!

And finally, on the subject of balanced viewpoints. Gathering together all the flimsy or largely non-existant evidence for CL as the killer you can still state that 'realistically, its game over.' Staggering!

'Never in the field of Ripperology has so much been claimed on so little by so few.'

To be honest, I think that it was 'game over' before it started!

[Fisherman]

Doctors often know what they're talking about, but they do make mistakes. As can the press, who may misquote, misunderstand and/or misrepresent what a doctor may have said.

This is exactly how I see it too, Gareth. Doctors do mistakes at times, but they are mire prone to make some mistakes than others.
They may for example miss out on how a bone is fractured or something like that.

But will they open a body, look at the inner organs and say that they are all damaged if they are not? I think not. We may safely rule out that sort of mistake, at least to my mind. When they report a damage they have seen with their own eyes, then that damage will have been there. If they say "there was a punctured hole in the liver", then there will have been a punctured hole in the liver.

As for the press, I find it more likely that they can get things medico wrong. But if many papers report the same thing, the odds changes in favour of the reporting being correct.

On the whole, we may safely assume that there is a very much larger chance that what Llewellyn said was correct than wrong, not least since he was speaking of a body he had done the post mortem on, meaning that he had all the time in the world to check and recheck carefully.

As for the possibility that Llewellyn got it all right and then the press got it all wrong, I find that the possibilitites for this are rather small, although not unexistant. The more likely thing is that they took down what the doctor said and did it correctly.

When dealing with things like these, there are always possible pitfalls, just like you say. But it applies that when somenbody suspects that it has gone wrong - that a dcotor has missed out or that the press has misreported - the onus of proof must lie on those who make such a suggestion. And until they prove their case, it must be accepted that the doctor and the press were in all probability correct.

In this case, for example, we have Steve saying that "yes, Llewellin said that all vital parts were hit by the killer, but he got that wrong".

To my mind, thatbis a waste of time up until any evidence at all can be shown to corroborate the idea.

Likewise, Steve seems to work under the miscomprehension that the aorta will not have been damaged since Llewellyn does not mention this.

That is a very spurious suggestion to make, not least since Llewellyn says that all the vital parts were damaged and adds that a swift death would follow as a result of that.

Since people tell me tjat a swift death can ONLY be the case with abdominal damage if the aorta is cut, it stands to reason that the only way LLewellyns statements can work is if this happened in the Nichols case.

And given that she was shredded deeply by the killers knife in the abdominal region, the suggestion is anything but a realistic one, much as there is no absolute proof that it happened.