Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Wickerman 25 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Abby Normal 49 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Wickerman 60 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Wickerman 1 hour and 28 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (35 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (14 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (13 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - (6 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #331  
Old 06-19-2017, 01:16 PM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Once again, the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

It therefore applies that if Lechmere was a killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.

What is it you gentlemen have problems with on that account?
I don't know, probably that it's fallacious reasoning?
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 06-19-2017, 01:43 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
There IS a problem. It is impossible to establish whether Lechmere was a psychopath or not. Therefore, it cannot be decided either way; itīs not as if the lac of evidence in this department is indicative of him not having been a psychopath. He may have been and he may not have been.
Whichever applies, it still stands that the killer was a psychopath, with overwhelming probability.

The idea that I am in any way saying that Lechmere was a psychopath is wrong. I am saying that if he was the killer, then he was a psychopath. The same applies if Druitt was the killer - then HE was a psychopath.

So there is no circular reasoning and no false accusations going on.

You say that there is no evidence for Lechmere being a psychopath and that this means that there is no likelihood that he was the killer, but those are two different matters. All we can say is that as long as he is not a proven psychopath, he cannot be accused of the Whitechapel murders on that account.
What do you know about the prevalence of psychopathy in serial killers? Do you have any research for it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 06-19-2017, 06:50 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,683
Default

It appears to me,we shall never know that Cross was the killer of Nichols,because it can never be established that Cross was a physcopath. Being judged by evidence, there is no evidence that puts Cross in the company of Nichols while Nichols was alive,physcpath or not.Or am I wrong,he was a physcopath so must have been in company of Nichols while Nichols was alive? which he would have to be if he killed her.Getting a little confusing?W heres Andy Griffith's and Payne-James?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:10 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I see we are now down to the is it possible/impossible argument.

Reminds me of the Lee J Cobb character in "12 angry men"

I repeat what I have said the statements give data that Paul heard the conversation. Nothing has been presented that effectively counter that.
We began with the semantics of "together " and "company" and progressed to an interpretation of Mizen.
Neither argument is convincing in my opinion.

Steve
Which is just an opinion, and nothing else - speaking about being "down to the possible/impossible argument".

The statements we have do not give data that Paul heard the conversation. That is false, simple as that.

There is nothing to discount that he COULD have heard it and nothing to discount that he may NOT have.

Any other interpretation is untrue, and I prefer the truth in this case too.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-19-2017 at 10:40 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:12 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
Oh. You've made yourself clear. Perfectly. There is no confusion at all.
Thank you. Then I entertain the hope that you will not again say that I have claimed that Charles Lechmere was a psychopath.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:15 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
I don't know, probably that it's fallacious reasoning?
I am not doing any fallacious reasoning. It seems, however, that you are working from a fallacious angle. Moreover, you are helping - very willingly - to spread a fallacious picture of my reasoning. And thatīs just sad.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:17 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
It appears to me,we shall never know that Cross was the killer of Nichols,because it can never be established that Cross was a physcopath. Being judged by evidence, there is no evidence that puts Cross in the company of Nichols while Nichols was alive,physcpath or not.Or am I wrong,he was a physcopath so must have been in company of Nichols while Nichols was alive? which he would have to be if he killed her.Getting a little confusing?W heres Andy Griffith's and Payne-James?
No, it does not take any proof that Lechmere was a psychopath to tell that he was the killer of Nichols. There are many other factors that can potentially strengthen such a thing, and proving that Lechmere was a psychopath is not the same as proving that he was the killer. Even psychopaths must have the right to pass a murder site without being accused of the murder.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-19-2017 at 10:46 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 06-19-2017, 11:57 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Iīll offer one further clarification of the psychopathy bit, so we are all clear on it.

I have never said that it is a proven thing that Lechmere carried a knife with a long, sharp blade.

But I am saying that if he was the killer, he must have.

This seems to pose no sort of problem at all with anybody.

I have never said that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath.

But I am saying that if he was the killer, he must have been.

And suddenly all hell breaks loose, and I am accused of circular reasoning, of claiming as a fact that he was a psychopath, of misleading and all sorts of things.

I find this utterly strange.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 06-20-2017, 12:13 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Once again, the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

It therefore applies that if Lechmere was a killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.

What is it you gentlemen have problems with on that account?
The problem I have is that these is not the slightest tiniest thing to point towards Lechmere being a psychopath. Not a solitary thing.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 06-20-2017, 12:49 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
The problem I have is that these is not the slightest tiniest thing to point towards Lechmere being a psychopath. Not a solitary thing.
The same goes for the knife, Gut - there is nothing at all that tells us that Lechmere carried a long-bladed, sharp knife. But noone has a problem accepting that he may have.

So why would we have any problems accepting that he may have been a psychopath?

In both cases, we are dealing with suggestions.

In the case of the knife, there MUST have been a sharp, long blade included, since we can tell from the damage done.

In the case of psychopathy, Iīd say there must have been psychopathy involved, since we can see from the total lack of empathy and the callousness involved, that it must have been there.

The major problems people are having with the Lechmere theory is that they feel he would have done a runner if he was the killer - but a psychopath would not have any problems doing it the other way, on the contrary. People say that he would not have a wife and family and kids - but psychopaths are often eager to portray what is perceived as successful in society. They say that he would not have gone to the police - but psychopaths love to taunt and they feel superior to the rest of us.

I am not saying that Lechmere is in any way a proven psychopath. I am saying that those who have a problem with him as the killer on these grounds, seem to have forgotten - or never have been familiar with - how many serialists are psychopaths, playing the game by other rules than normal people play by.

Ergo, the question is not whether there is a single thing or not that points to Lechmere being a psychopath. It applies that there is not anything at all that rules it out either, not his family life, not his kids, not his amassing some money during his life, not his ambition...

The fact that we cannot say whether he was a psychopath or not, the fact that nothing at all proves it or points to it, the fact that nothing disproves it or point away from it, are secondary to the discussion I am trying to have.

We should not discount Lechmere on the grounds of his being a family man, his having a steady job, his ambition in working life, taking him to a shop of his own.

The reason we should not do this is because there is the OPTION that he was a psychopath - option, not fact, not a certainty - and as long as that option is open to us, Lechmere remains in the game.

What seems to be suggested out here is another approach altogether: We should regard him as highly unlikely on account of him being a family man, having kids and showing ambition. Or we should rule him out on account on not having been proved to be a psychopath.

Everybody is of course welcome to his or her own level of insight, his or her own insights and his or her own feeling about whether Lechmere was guilty or not.

But misrepresenting what I say - as some have done, you not included - and claining things as facts that are nowhere near facts - like for example Steve does in saying that the data tells us that Paul heard what Lechmere told Mizen - is not helpful at all.

Yes, this bloke suggests that Lechmere was the killer, on combined grounds involving many factors. No, this bloke does not say that Lechmere must have been a psychopath, he says that IF LECHMERE WAS THE KILLER, then he must have been a psychopath. And yes, this bloke points to how psychopathy can help understanding why he favours Lechmere as the killer.

The discussion is a far wider one than the more simple one of how there is at present nothing that proves that Lechmere was a psychopath, and not even anything that points to it before we accept that Lechmere was the killer.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-20-2017 at 12:52 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.