Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Sam Flynn]

"the behaviour he showcased after the murder is entirely consistent with a condition that is present with the absolute majority of serial killers - psychopathy"

How many psychopathic serial killers are known to have remained at the scene and personally brought attention to their crimes? If the answer to the question is "very few" or "none", how can Cross' behaviour be said to be consistent with what the majority of such killers would do?

[Fisherman]

"the behaviour he showcased after the murder is entirely consistent with a condition that is present with the absolute majority of serial killers - psychopathy"

How many psychopathic serial killers are known to have remained at the scene and personally brought attention to their crimes? If the answer to the question is "very few" or "none", how can Cross' behaviour be said to be consistent with what the majority of such killers would do?

If you read it once again- more carefully this time - You may notice that I did not say what the majority of the serialists would do.

I said the majority of serialists are psychopaths.

What I am saying is that if Lechmere stayed at the scene on account of being a psychopath, then that is entirely consistent with how psychopaths will not panick and how they are very accomplished liars, generally speaking. The same goes for conning Mizen and reporting in at the cop shop - a psychopath could well do it that way, whereas a non-psychopath probably would not.

I don´t mind explaining what I think, but I do mind being told that I think something else.

[Fisherman]

How many psychopathic serial killers are known to have remained at the scene and personally brought attention to their crimes?

How many serial killers are known to have had somebody arriving at the murder scene out in an open street in darkness, giving away their approach a long time before their arrival by way of the sound of their steps? And in a surrounding where it could be reasoned that there would be policemen patrolling the neighbouring streets?

Each case is specific, and each case must be considered on it´s own merits.

[Sam Flynn]

If you read it once again- more carefully this time - You may notice that I did not say what the majority of the serialists would do.

I said the majority of serialists are psychopaths.

I read, and understood, fully what you said, which is why I asked about psychopathic serial killers.

What I am saying is that if Lechmere stayed at the scene on account of being a psychopath, then that is entirely consistent with how psychopaths will not panick and how they are very accomplished liars, generally speaking.

Non-psychopaths can be accomplished liars, too, and equally capable of keeping their cool.

[Sam Flynn]

Each case is specific, and each case must be considered on it´s own merits.

Indeed, so how can we claim that Cross' behaviour is consistent with that of a psychopathic SK, if we don't know of any psychopathic SK's behaving in a like manner under similar circumstances?

You ask, rightly, how many killers found themselves in the same position as Cross in the first place, i.e. risk being caught out by the potential arrival of third party on the scene. If the answer to this is "not many" or "none", might this not be due to the fact that, whether psychopathic or not, they did the sensible thing and fled the scene before the risk became a reality?

[Fisherman]

I read, and understood, fully what you said, which is why I asked about psychopathic serial killers.
Non-psychopaths can be accomplished liars, too, and equally capable of keeping their cool.

If you understood it, why would you ask "how can Cross' behaviour be said to be consistent with what the majority of such killers would do?" as if I had ever said it was?

I am perfectly aware of how non-psychopaths can lie too, but that is kind of uninteresting in this discussion since it does nothing to take away from how psychopaths more often than not ARE accomplished liars. Which was what I said.
On a side note, I don´t think that non-psychopaths actually are "equally capable of keeping their cool". With the non-psychopath, there is always nervousness and panick to master. They are not around with the psychopath, and so he cannot have that problem.
But that´s just my suggestion, of course - you are the psychology student, and so you should perhaps know.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, so how can we claim that Cross' behaviour is consistent with that of a psychopathic SK, if we don't know of any psychopathic SK's behaving in a like manner under similar circumstances?

You ask, rightly, how many killers found themselves in the same position as Cross in the first place, i.e. risk being caught out by the potential arrival of third party on the scene. If the answer to this is "not many" or "none", might this not be due to the fact that, whether psychopathic or not, they did the sensible thing and fled the scene before the risk became a reality?

What other case do you know of that involves "similar circumstances"? We can easily see that if Lechmere was the killer he lied his way out and did not panick at any stage. And that is compatible with psychopathy, like it or not.

As for the second part here there can be no knowing. But let´s not try and sweep the all important factor that psychopaths will not panick under the carpet. It is something that tells them wide apart from the rest of us and that enables them to face danger and stay put where others run. Loftily speculating about how there may be cases where psychopaths DID run does nothing to change that thing. Instead, it becomes one of those "alternative innocent explanations" that you excel in.

Let´s also remind you of how risk may have been a calculated reality from the outset, even before Paul arrived. Staying put may have represented less of a risk to Lechmere than running would have.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A couple of questions.

One.

Polly Nichols 3.40 / Annie Chapman 3.30-5.30 / Catherine Eddowes 2.20-2.50 (depositing the apron) - 2.00+ (later if you believe Maxwell correct.)

Given these times, times that the Ripper would have had to have been out and about, would a profiler have described a killer who had to be at work at 4am every morning?

Two.

I wonder if any figures are available; any kind of percentage? Of all the unfortunate people that have discovered bodies how many turned out to be the killer? (And I’m not counting for example husbands that killed their wives, set it up to look like intruders and then ‘discovered’ the body.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Given what is believed about Lechmere by Fish I wondered about John Richardson.

Lechmere - alone with the corpse / Richardson - alone with the corpse.

Lechmere - could have been there earlier than he said / Richardson - could have been there earlier than he said.

Lechmere - inaccuracies in police statement / Richardson - inaccuracies in police statement.

Lechmere - only came forward because he was mentioned by Paul / Richardson - might only have come forward if he thought he’d been seen entering or leaving.

Lechmere - had Paul to confirm his actions / Richardson - had no one.

Lechmere - had to be at work by 4am / Richardson - appeared to have had to have been at work later (probably 5)

Why isn’t Richardson a suspect given the above? Does anyone know if Richardson was his real name?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A couple of questions.

One.

Polly Nichols 3.40 / Annie Chapman 3.30-5.30 / Catherine Eddowes 2.20-2.50 (depositing the apron) -Mary Jane Kelly 2.00+ (later if you believe Maxwell correct.)

Given these times, times that the Ripper would have had to have been out and about, would a profiler have described a killer who had to be at work at 4am every morning?

Two.

I wonder if any figures are available; any kind of percentage? Of all the unfortunate people that have discovered bodies how many turned out to be the killer? (And I’m not counting for example husbands that killed their wives, set it up to look like intruders and then ‘discovered’ the body.)

A correction on my previous post.

[Fisherman]

A couple of questions.

One.

Polly Nichols 3.40 / Annie Chapman 3.30-5.30 / Catherine Eddowes 2.20-2.50 (depositing the apron) - 2.00+ (later if you believe Maxwell correct.)

Given these times, times that the Ripper would have had to have been out and about, would a profiler have described a killer who had to be at work at 4am every morning?

Two.

I wonder if any figures are available; any kind of percentage? Of all the unfortunate people that have discovered bodies how many turned out to be the killer? (And I’m not counting for example husbands that killed their wives, set it up to look like intruders and then ‘discovered’ the body.)

One:

We can´t tell whether the times are correct, of course - if it was Lechmere, the times may - may! - be very consistent.
Furthermore, any profiler who had these times on bhis hands would see that Eddowes and Stride were killed on what would normally have been a day off.

That leaves us with the other times, and I don´t mind including Tabram too. Would a profiler say "Gee, this must be somebody who was on his way to work and who started at 4AM".
He would instead probaly say that it was perhaps somebody who had reasons to be out at those approximate hours, since nobody saw anybody out of the ordinary.

Two:

No, I have never seen such figures. But as I told Gareth, the circumstances surrounding the Bucks Row deed were rather unique. And what we do is to a very alrge degree governed by the circumstances prevailing, as I´m sure you will agree.

[Fisherman]

Given what is believed about Lechmere by Fish I wondered about John Richardson.

Lechmere - alone with the corpse / Richardson - alone with the corpse.

Lechmere - could have been there earlier than he said / Richardson - could have been there earlier than he said.

Lechmere - inaccuracies in police statement / Richardson - inaccuracies in police statement.

Lechmere - only came forward because he was mentioned by Paul / Richardson - might only have come forward if he thought he’d been seen entering or leaving.

Lechmere - had Paul to confirm his actions / Richardson - had no one.

Lechmere - had to be at work by 4am / Richardson - appeared to have had to have been at work later (probably 5)

Why isn’t Richardson a suspect given the above? Does anyone know if Richardson was his real name?

He DID come under some sort of suspicion. He was sent to fetch the knife on account of how he confessed to having been alone at the murder site.

However, that was at a time that deviates from the estimate given by Phillips, something that may show us that Phillips was held high in regard for his professionalism.

Moreover, another similarity with Lechmere is that both men freely contacted the police and told them about their roles in the murder dramas, and just as that may have gotten Lechmere off the hook, the same may apply with Richardson.

We know that he lived in John Street, quite close to the Chapman murder site, and so we cannot say that we know that he had reason to pass the other sites, least of all the Eddowes and Stride sites.

He was apparently normally not out on the streets at around 2-4 am - he at least had no professional reason to be.

He did not use an alias, like Lechmere did.

There was not the matter of hidden wounds, that tends to make Lechmere attract suspicion.

He did not openly disagree with the police about what was said between him and them.

For starters.

Otherwise, John Richardson, being the dodgy witness that he is and living in the district as he did, is not a half bad suspect, and there are those who point a finger at him. Much less points to him than to Lechmere, though.

Now, lets try Diemschitz again, yeah?

[Michael W Richards]

Now, lets try Diemschitz again, yeah?

I think I'm beginning to see how this idea of yours germinated Fisherman. But its the last man seen with the soon to be deceased, not the first man after death.

I don't see any evidence in any of these killings that would lead someone to conclude the probable killer would, or did, loiter. That infers a lack of a attention to personal safety and liberty. I believe the killer of Polly and Annie demonstrated that overtly, I see that attention being paid by moving behind a house for the second attack.

[Fisherman]

I think I'm beginning to see how this idea of yours germinated Fisherman. But its the last man seen with the soon to be deceased, not the first man after death.

I don't see any evidence in any of these killings that would lead someone to conclude the probable killer would, or did, loiter. That infers a lack of a attention to personal safety and liberty. I believe the killer of Polly and Annie demonstrated that overtly, I see that attention being paid by moving behind a house for the second attack.

In all fairness, Lechmere may well have been the last man NOT to have been seen with a still living Nichols.

The fact that Chapman was killed in a backyard may or may not be testimony to an increased level of safety thinking on the killers behalf. We don´t know who suggested the venue, but it was likely Chapman in my eyes. And safe it was not - it was something of a cul-de-sac, and there were windows open that overlooked the area.

[caz]

There are many diseases that give a heightened body temperature - or so I gather. I am not a biologist, as Caz so kindly has pointed out, but that´s how it reads when you research it.

Malnourishment may lower the body temperature, at least in situations when yu have had no food for a while, and so you have no energy to burn. But it just so happens that we know that Chapman did eat before she went out on the murder night, and so that factor does not need to come into play.

Besides, Phillips was indeed the one who pointed the malnourishment out, and so he will reasonably have weighed it in in his verdict. He had all the cards on hand.

The point is, Fish, as Herlock has already mentioned, digestion will slow down or speed up depending on a whole variety of different circumstances. And Phillips didn't know all the circumstances!

Chapman was found to be 'far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain' and there were 'signs of great deprivation' and having been 'badly fed'. One unknown factor was how long she had been exposed to the night air before her killer struck; another, how mobile she had been during that unknown period of time. Had she found somewhere to doze for a while, or had she kept on the move the whole time?

Digestion uses up energy, just like any other bodily function. With limited energy resources, there would have been a battle royal going on in her poor worn-out body, over the energy needed to fully digest her last bit of food [before it could release more energy], and the energy needed immediately to keep her core temperature up and prevent hypothermia kicking in. The digestive process could have become a lot slower and less efficient if energy had to be constantly diverted to keep her warm enough to survive the night outdoors.

What I doubt very much Phillips could have known in Chapman's case was how one factor - maintaining body temperature - had influenced the other - the rate of digestion. He didn't know how much energy had been used up to regulate her temperature [in either direction, if you think she could have had a fever], so he didn't know what energy had been available for the digestive process.

As for the rigor question, you have already been advised that there is no magic formula and that a traumatic death, such as a cut throat, might affect the onset to an unpredictable degree. It was not Phillips's fault that he didn't have enough information at his fingertips when giving his opinion. Nobody would have done.

Love,

Caz
X