Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Patrick S]

Now, I am of course of the meaning that Lechmere is the killer, and in that respect, his behaviour after the murder seems to be very coldblooded and in line with psychopathy. But that is a suggestion, a possibility only. But one that must be looked into, I think.

Horse. Carriage. Okay?

Are you incapable of seeing the problems here? Can you imagine if someone took this approach toward you? You return home from the dentist one day and you're a little a out of it. Laughing gas and all. You don't mention the dentist and Joe decides that he THINKS you're using illegal drugs. Thus, when one day Joe sees you leaving your house at 2:45am and returning again at 3:20am he decides that behavior is in line with someone going to get a fix.... when in fact you ran out for Nyquil. He sees you stumble getting out your car one afternoon and decides that's in line with someone disoriented by narcotics... when you'd in fact injured your ankle landing a giant fish early in the day and just lost your footing. Your wife locks you out of the house and you take a nap on the porch until she returns...Joe sees a dope addict passed out, possibly overdosed. You hire a plumber who drives an old beat-up car. He's dirty and disheveled and spends an hour inside your home.... must be your dealer or one of your druggie pals, Joe decides! See how this works?

This is all true with Lechmere. His approaching Paul and asking him to see the body is (if he's not a psychopath and JtR) an innocent man alerting another innocent man to a woman on the ground.... or the actions of psychopath who killed her. The Mizen Scam is either Mizen trying to cover the damning statements about him (Mizen) in Lloyd's... or Lechmere pulling a ruse and recruiting the dupe (Paul) whose statement scarcely mentions him... because he's a psychopath.

My scenario above with Joe... you're approach to Lechmere... they're perfect examples of confirmation bias: "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses."

In any event, it's wonderful that you put this here... for all to read. I would just point anyone still on the fence... "Was Lechmere the Ripper... Wasn't he?"... to this line of thinking. I'm not saying everyone will abandon the theory. But, it's certainly fair caution.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Just a brief post to say that I will be posting regularily again in the very near future, the gap as been due to:

a) Relocation from London to Glasgow.

b) Writing up "Inside Bucks Row", nearly complete now. a summary report here in October before publication in November, nearly a year late, but such is life.

Looking at this thread, its the same repeated arguments seen before:
The opinion of a 19th century Doctor, should be regarded as being acurate, even when his own reports are vague, as with temperature; there was no attempt to record an actual temperature, just general descriptive terms are used.
Words like "cold" or "warm"tell us nothing of any real value.

The same reports also show a failure to comprehend what is actually being observed, as demonstrated by the comments on the time that would be required to carry out the murders.

Of course, phillips is not alone, similar failures are evident in Bucks Row.

It is not that the Medics made mistakes, its that their knowledge was sadly lacking, compared to even a few years later.

To take these utterances on such issues as TOD as factually acurrate is to actually ignore medicine and science, not to use it.


Glad to see nothing changes

Steve

Hey Elemarna,
Welcome to Glasgow.

The great thing about Glasgow is that you never know where your next invasion of privacy is coming from.

If you want to know some great old pubs to visit, just PM me.

[Fisherman]

Are you incapable of seeing the problems here? Can you imagine if someone took this approach toward you? You return home from the dentist one day and you're a little a out of it. Laughing gas and all. You don't mention the dentist and Joe decides that he THINKS you're using illegal drugs. Thus, when one day Joe sees you leaving your house at 2:45am and returning again at 3:20am he decides that behavior is in line with someone going to get a fix.... when in fact you ran out for Nyquil. He sees you stumble getting out your car one afternoon and decides that's in line with someone disoriented by narcotics... when you'd in fact injured your ankle landing a giant fish early in the day and just lost your footing. Your wife locks you out of the house and you take a nap on the porch until she returns...Joe sees a dope addict passed out, possibly overdosed. You hire a plumber who drives an old beat-up car. He's dirty and disheveled and spends an hour inside your home.... must be your dealer or one of your druggie pals, Joe decides! See how this works?

This is all true with Lechmere. His approaching Paul and asking him to see the body is (if he's not a psychopath and JtR) an innocent man alerting another innocent man to a woman on the ground.... or the actions of psychopath who killed her. The Mizen Scam is either Mizen trying to cover the damning statements about him (Mizen) in Lloyd's... or Lechmere pulling a ruse and recruiting the dupe (Paul) whose statement scarcely mentions him... because he's a psychopath.

My scenario above with Joe... you're approach to Lechmere... they're perfect examples of confirmation bias: "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses."

In any event, it's wonderful that you put this here... for all to read. I would just point anyone still on the fence... "Was Lechmere the Ripper... Wasn't he?"... to this line of thinking. I'm not saying everyone will abandon the theory. But, it's certainly fair caution.

Yes, one can treat it like you do. If the police looked for purple footprints on their suspects and found such footprints with one of their suspects, it would of course also be confirmation bias.
Then again, it would perhaps be a useful indicator too?

The "problems" you try to infer are in reality non-existing.

We are researching a case from more than a hundred years ago, and it is completely logical to look for possible traits in a suspect relating to something we believe is in existence. If others choose to call it brain ghosts, then fine.
I asked you whether you agree that we are dealing with a psychopathic killer, but you dodged that question, so I would be interested to have your answer to it now.

"Iīm not saying that everyone will abandon the theory" you add. Yes, its a bummer that you cannot have it guaranteed after all the good and consciencous work you have chipped in, but there you are - a good many people will see right through your arguments and how ridiculous they are.

Incidentally, it is not au fait to acknowledge that there was ever an "everyone" who COULD abandon the theory - as a naysayer, you are supposed to lead on that I am alone or almost alone in my delusions (this is the perfect opportunity to say that I am headed that way in my blinding bias - just a tip!)

I remain very unimpressed by your arguments, Patrick. You once again resort to the "alternative innocent explanations", and I can only say "Look! They didnīt make the suspicious elements go away anyway!"

That truth will prevail tomorrow too.

If there is any usefulness at all to your approach, I would say that you would make a very good propaganda minister in some obscure dictatorship. Other than that, nope.

Goodnight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Typo alert!

Disembowelled corpse, Herlock; the Ripper dismembered no-one.

well spotted Gareth.

Hang on.......are you saying that the Ripper wasn’t the Torso killer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a brief post to say that I will be posting regularily again in the very near future, the gap as been due to:

a) Relocation from London to Glasgow.

b) Writing up "Inside Bucks Row", nearly complete now. a summary report here in October before publication in November, nearly a year late, but such is life.

Looking at this thread, its the same repeated arguments seen before:
The opinion of a 19th century Doctor, should be regarded as being acurate, even when his own reports are vague, as with temperature; there was no attempt to record an actual temperature, just general descriptive terms are used.
Words like "cold" or "warm"tell us nothing of any real value.

The same reports also show a failure to comprehend what is actually being observed, as demonstrated by the comments on the time that would be required to carry out the murders.

Of course, phillips is not alone, similar failures are evident in Bucks Row.

It is not that the Medics made mistakes, its that their knowledge was sadly lacking, compared to even a few years later.

To take these utterances on such issues as TOD as factually acurrate is to actually ignore medicine and science, not to use it.


Glad to see nothing changes

Steve

Welcome back Mr B.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually, he very probably did.

Damn

[Herlock Sholmes]

I personally think, owing to the many points of suspicion against Lechmere, that there can be little doubt that he was the Ripper

Needless to say, but I’ll still say it, this is staggering over-confidence based on the fact that he found the body and pretty much nothing else

[Herlock Sholmes]

.As it happens, it seems that he may have decided to con Robert Paul, it seems he lied to Mizen to pass him by, he had no problems appearing in court, he did not panick and flee the murder site, etcetera.
All of these things fit in nicely with a psychopathic disposition and so I can easily say that if Lechmere truy was the killer, then he did a number of things that are in line with being a psychopath.

All of these things fit in nicely with a man who found a body, waited for a passerby to arrive, they checked for signs of life then went of to find a police officer together. They found a police officer together and spoke to him together. He had no problem appearing at an Inquest and he did not panic because he’d done nothing wrong and therefore had no reason to panic. And the police, with access to the facts and desperate over the next few weeks to capture the killer, never gave Lechmere another look. No one suspected him because he did nothing suspicious.

[Patrick S]

Yes, one can treat it like you do. If the police looked for purple footprints on their suspects and found such footprints with one of their suspects, it would of course also be confirmation bias.
Then again, it would perhaps be a useful indicator too?

The "problems" you try to infer are in reality non-existing.

We are researching a case from more than a hundred years ago, and it is completely logical to look for possible traits in a suspect relating to something we believe is in existence. If others choose to call it brain ghosts, then fine.
I asked you whether you agree that we are dealing with a psychopathic killer, but you dodged that question, so I would be interested to have your answer to it now.

"Iīm not saying that everyone will abandon the theory" you add. Yes, its a bummer that you cannot have it guaranteed after all the good and consciencous work you have chipped in, but there you are - a good many people will see right through your arguments and how ridiculous they are.

Incidentally, it is not au fait to acknowledge that there was ever an "everyone" who COULD abandon the theory - as a naysayer, you are supposed to lead on that I am alone or almost alone in my delusions (this is the perfect opportunity to say that I am headed that way in my blinding bias - just a tip!)

I remain very unimpressed by your arguments, Patrick. You once again resort to the "alternative innocent explanations", and I can only say "Look! They didnīt make the suspicious elements go away anyway!"

That truth will prevail tomorrow too.

If there is any usefulness at all to your approach, I would say that you would make a very good propaganda minister in some obscure dictatorship. Other than that, nope.

Goodnight.

Charming. As always. I'm happy to ask, let you respond, and let others read. I'm sure most will see what I see in your responses.

But, to answer the only legitimate question you asked...

I would certainly not be shocked to learn that the person who killed some or all of the Whitechapel victims was a psychopath. Knowing what we know of similar killers, I think its a near certainty he wasn't a "normal" fellow. He may well have been a psychopath. Although, it may be that that person was suffering Schizophrenia or suffered some emotional trauma in life, becoming a sociopath (thus acting more impulsively and with less cunning and forethought than your psychopath Lechmere). The killer may have suffered psychosis and was thus highly delusional. Since serial killers who are free of any and all mental conditions are rare (as opposed to the guy who kills his neighbor, wife, or the guy who scratched his car), I'd say that the man we're talking about was likely to a psychopath, sociopath, Schizophrenic, psychotic, etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Charming. As always. I'm happy to ask, let you respond, and let others read. I'm sure most will see what I see in your responses.

I’ve been seeing it for ages Patrick. We all have.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I am a bit of a power source, whereas you are more of a curfew. Lights out.

But you are correct in pointing out "all the objections" about Bucks Row - I call these objections "alternative innocent explanations", and they do come thick and fast.

None of them can be ruled out.

And none of them can change the points of suspicion. They steadfastly remain. Itīs not as Trevor Marriott seems to think - he corked up the champagne when he realized that there are alternative innocent explanations in spades (there always is) and told me that my theory had been "blown out of the water".

Thatīs a memorable moment.

I only ever tell the truth

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I’ve been seeing it for ages Patrick. We all have.

He said, taking on the role as spokesman for all Ripperologists.

[Fisherman]

Okay Patrick, letīs break down what you say, so that we may get a grip on whether you are correct or wrong. Letīs begin with your grip on serial killers on the whole.

You have many times aired that Lechmere was a family father with children and a steady work. Only on this thread, some posts back did you publish this:

"As well... and as you've said here may times... we must ALSO believe that Lechmere was a psychopath. And must believe "he was a psychopath because he was Jack the Ripper". Even though we have no evidence from the man's life that he was a psychopath.... we have no arrest records, no complaints of violence, ten children, a long career with Pickfords, a fifty-plus year marriage... yet... we must assume he was a psychopath, ONLY because you postulate that he was Jack the Ripper."

Actually, this quotation contains not one but two points of faulty information, but letīs begin with the flaw connected to the family, kids and work business.

It is true that most people who have a family, kids and a work are "good" people, in the sense that they are not serial killers.
But it is not true that they are not serial killers ON ACCOUNT of having a family, kids and a work.
Instead, having a family, kids and work is something that often serves as a platform for serial killers. The late Robert Ressler, who would be better suited than any of us to know about these things, said that the typical serial killer is a man in his thirties with a family, kids and a steady work.
Examples that leap to mind are Armstrong, Ridgway, Rader, DeAngelo...it is a common thing that serial killers have this background.
Saying that family men with kids and a steady job are normally not serial killers is therefore true only on a statistical level, and that level is useless since no matter which parameter we use, just about, we will get the same result. Sailors, school teachers and painters are normally not serial killers either, although each of these categories have produced serialists.

So we can see that you are not informed about what a serial killer is, or may be. You are instead leaning against misinformation.

That was step one - establishing that the very ground you work from is not only faulty, but you actually describe parameters that have been pointed out by Robert Ressler as typical traits of serial killers, as if they were some sort of guarantee that a person is good.

This leads us over to step two in a very pedagogical manner - your saying that I suffer from confirmation bias.

Letīs look at what confirmation bias looks like along the above suggested model:

-People with families, kids and a steady job are good people.
-Lechmere had a family, kids and a steady job.
-Lechmere was a good man.

That is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

Now, what applies in MY case, do I suffer from confirmation bias?

To begin with, we must ask ourselves a question: What is it that is supposedly confirmed by my suggested bias? Well, it can be one of two things - or both of them:

-Lechmere was a psychopath.
-Lechmere was the killer.

Now, much as I am suggesting that both things may have applied, and much as I suggest that the former must follow if the latter is correct, it does not mean that I am saying that either matter is a proven thing.

Accordingly, I cannot have made myself guilty of any confirmation bias.

This takes us over to the third and final step: So why am I speaking of psychopathy? And should my doing so be ruled out of the debate, as confirmation bias?

Well, that brings us back to point one: understanding what a serial killer is or may be. One main reason for my speaking of psychopathy is on account of how it is being said, for example, that family men with kids and a work are no likely serial killers.
This is true on a statistical level, but once we add the ingredient of psychopathy - and that ingredient is there in around 90 per cent of the serial killers - we get another picture.
It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would have run. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not so for a psychopath. They will not panick, and they very often enjoy playing games.
It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would never have gone to the police. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not necessarily so for a psychopath. Such a personality may welcome an opportunity to pull the wool over our eyes, and they are often narcissists who cannot see any danger in it. They consider themselves so superior that they cannot be outsmarted.

Now the risk we need to avoid here is you saying: "Look, you cannot say that Lechmere was such a man!".

And why must we avoid that? We must avoid it because it is not true. I am not saying that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath. I am saying that it would be dangerous to rule him out on uninformed grounds.
Letīs not put more fire on the "confirmation bias" fire since it would be very wrong.
Incidentally, this was the second fault I alluded to in the quotation we started out with.

I believe that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper. When somebody says that a man like Lechmere would not be the killer and that a man like Lechmere would not have done this or that, I am perfectly entitled to point out A/ that the reasoning is based on misconceptions and B/that Lechmere may well have been the killer, because the behaviour he showcased after the murder is entirely consistent with a condition that is present with the absolute majority of serial killers - psychopathy.

It would of course be nice if I could prove that Lechmere was a psychopath, but both you and me know that the chances of finding that kind of verification 130 years after the deeds and with very little documentation existing is close to zero.

What remains is therefore a case where there are many points of suspicion against the carter, and where none of them has been defused. What has happened is that alternative innocent explanations have been suggested. And such things do not mean that the suspicion goes away.
Added to that, severe misconceptions have guided the criticism towards the theory and continue to do so as shown above.

It is really not a platform that will work.

[Fisherman]

I only ever tell the truth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In your case, I donīt rule out that you actually think that it IS the truth that alternative innocent explanations can blow my theory out of the water.

Whether that is a good thing or not, I will leave to yourself to decide.

[Fisherman]

I'd say that the man we're talking about was likely to a psychopath, sociopath, Schizophrenic, psychotic, etc.

And just how likely do you think it is that a schizophrenic or psychotic killer will pull of a series of murders with total stealth, killing silently outside of open windows? Just how likely is it that such a man will escape the sites when the risk gets too high, leaving no trace whatsoever behind?

I can give my answer: it is totally unlikely.