Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

John G: I meant, of course, "isn't it easier to conclude." It was a predictive text error, which I would have thought you would have realized considering you seem to frequently make them yourself.

Being prone to make language errors does not make you good with language understanding, John. That is a total miscomprehension.

Your argument that Dr Phillips was merely an "overseer" is somewhat bizarre, considering that he was integral to the investigation and actually examined the last 4 canonical victims. Were you unaware of this?

Please tell me when I said that he was MERELY an overseer? I said that he WAS an overseer, meaning that he looked into all of the cases. That si a different matter.

Your veneration of Dr Llewellyn is touching.

Your denigration of him is sad. And based on not a single fact. Thatīs worse, but to be expected.

However, you should know that even modern forensic experts frequently disagree on important points, so I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in the infallibility of a Victorian GP.

Can you please take that statement and shove it where the sun never shines? I have a MILLION times said that I do not regard any person infallible. When will you understand that? Never? Is it really that bad?

And by the way, what precisely was his surgical experience?

He was a house surgeon in London Hospital, he won a prize in minor surgery, and he worked as a surgeon.

What precisely was Phillipsī surgical experience? By the way?

You see, I can play that game too. And it doesnīt lead anywhere but to embarrasment for you...

His comments that the cuts to the abdomen would kill instantly are questionable to say the least.

Says you? Based on your own rich surgical experience?

What is your line of work, John? Are you in the medical business in any fashion? You must be, must you not, to be able to make that kind of a comment. And you must be in the clairvoyance business too, to know what there was to see inside Nichols.
That baffles me. I always had you down as a bureucrat of some sort.

i In fact, even you're perplexed on this point: "All we need to do now is to find out why they would kill instantly." Well, as I opined before, good luck with that one.

How does that mirror perplexion? Not at all, Iīm afraid. If I am perplexed, it is on account of your rather weird suggestions. Then again, I am not perplexed.
The damage to the abdomen could be a number of things. Therefore, it remains to see what it was.

[Fisherman]

Actually, I think you might be right. I don't think I understand how psychopaths think. They take risks. Thanks for explaining it. My bad. Oh. Sorry. One last question. We know "the carman" was a psychopath....how?

We donīt.

I believe I have xplained that to you a dozen times or so too?

Maybe you just forgor, so Iīll explain again:

We do not know that Lechmere was a psychopath.

The signs on the murder sites and the deeds done speak very much for the killer being a psychopath, regardless who he was.

Therefore, if Lechmere was the killer, I am certain that he must have been a psychopath since his actions - if the killer - were extremely cool and controlled and typical for psychopathy.

Can I ask you to copy this and keep it stored for future needs, Patrick? We donīt want to take up unnecsessary space out here, do we?

[Fisherman]

Good point, I was not as clear as I could be.

Lack of suffering and distress were the legal requirement we worked to.
It can be translated as speed. One carotid does not kill as fast as both. And of course cutting the windpipe stops any chance of crying out.

So the cut to the throat especially the double cuts used by the killer show a need to cut all the vessels and the windpipe. All the "vital parts".

The result of such cuts is immediate prevention of sound from the victim and unconsciousness in about 30 seconds.

Strangulation would obviously mean crying out was not an issue and the victim would be unconscious or nearly so, depending on the degree of strangulation.
It would also mean that the killer could position himself so as to minimise and blood flow onto his person from a neck cut


Steve

The killer had apparently taken care of the risk of arterial spray before he cut the neck, Steve. Therefore, it seems that Nichols had no or very little arterial pressure in the neck when it was cut, meaning that she had suffered damage before it happened.

As I said before, cutting the whole of the neck can never be an indication of anatomical insights, because such a thing is only shown where a conscious choice is made, and where we can see that there are BOTH attacked and unattacked areas. when all of the neck is cut, if anything it points to a lack of anatomical knowledge and a propensity to cut everything to avoid risks.

Try as you might, that wonīt change, and that is where your proposition falls flat on itīs back.

Find me a single case where a medico says that cutting the whole of the neck means a probable anatomical insight, and I will reconsider.

I feel certain, though, that this will never happen.

Dropping an atom bomb on somebody would, I take it, also evince anatomical insights; once it exploded, you knew that you did not have to worry about the victim not dying quickly enough - anatomical insight, therefore!

[Patrick S]

Your denigration of him is sad. And based on not a single fact. Thatīs worse, but to be expected.

[/B]

John's "denigration" (which as best I can tell is suggesting that the knowledge available in the time in which he lived was limited and that he wasn't infallible) of Llewellyn is "sad".... Sounds familiar. Mizen received this same treatment: honest, wise, good, true. Those two men must have some common use for you? Damned if I can tell what it might be, though.

Alas, you've done far more than "denigrate" Charles Cross, have you not? So, I find it odd you so energetically castigating anyone who dare "denigrate" these men. After all, you've called him a murderer. A psychopath. Jack the Ripper. The Torso Killer. And you've whined incessantly when others have suggested - based on the life we know he lived - that such "denigration" may be unfounded or unjustified.

It's all so interesting.

[Patrick S]

We donīt.

I believe I have xplained that to you a dozen times or so too?

Maybe you just forgor, so Iīll explain again:

We do not know that Lechmere was a psychopath.

The signs on the murder sites and the deeds done speak very much for the killer being a psychopath, regardless who he was.

Therefore, if Lechmere was the killer, I am certain that he must have been a psychopath since his actions - if the killer - were extremely cool and controlled and typical for psychopathy.

Can I ask you to copy this and keep it stored for future needs, Patrick? We donīt want to take up unnecsessary space out here, do we?

No. I think its useful going over it again and again, actually. Important even.

[Fisherman]

No. I think its useful going over it again and again, actually. Important even.

Okidoki. Itīs good to have it established. Maybe I will even be able to muster the will to give you the same answer over and over again.

Have you thought of any timetable? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month?

[Patrick S]

Okidoki. Itīs good to have it established. Maybe I will even be able to muster the will to give you the same answer over and over again.

Have you thought of any timetable? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month?

Don't take the fun out of it.

[Fisherman]

John's "denigration" (which as best I can tell is suggesting that the knowledge available in the time in which he lived was limited and that he wasn't infallible) of Llewellyn is "sad".... Sounds familiar. Mizen received this same treatment: honest, wise, good, true. Those two men must have some common use for you? Damned if I can tell what it might be, though.

Alas, you've done far more than "denigrate" Charles Cross, have you not? So, I find it odd you so energetically castigating anyone who dare "denigrate" these men. After all, you've called him a murderer. A psychopath. Jack the Ripper. The Torso Killer. And you've whined incessantly when others have suggested - based on the life we know he lived - that such "denigration" may be unfounded or unjustified.

It's all so interesting.

Itīs easy. I think Lechmere was a killer, meaning that I think he deserves denigration. But I think LLewelyn and Mizen were good mean, meaning that they do not deserve denigration.

I may be wrong in no, one, two or three of the cases, but regardless what applies, I am taking responsibility for it. Just like we all need to take responsibility for what we write out here.

Just a word about the "debate" you and I are having now. I feel that it centers around all the wrong things and that there is no real will on your behalf to discuss the case, but instead to focus on me as a poster. And if there is anything that I am genuinely disinterested in, that is it.

So donīt be surprised if I leave the topic to you. I can only hope that you are decent enough not to spread any malicious material about me if I should decide to desist from answering.

Then again, why would you?

[Fisherman]

Don't take the fun out of it.

Actually, I think you are about to take the fun out of the useful debate we have had for some time now. It was always more fun than the vile exchanges from the olden days, or at least so I think.

Itīs up to you to decide whether it is a good idea to end that improvement or not.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;42132

The signs on the murder sites and the deeds done speak very much for the killer being a psychopath, regardless who he was.

What "signs" on the murder sites?

I am sure you can not answer this one.

[Elamarna]

The killer had apparently taken care of the risk of arterial spray before he cut the neck, Steve. Therefore, it seems that Nichols had no or very little arterial pressure in the neck when it was cut, meaning that she had suffered damage before it happened.

Pure guess work.

As I said before, cutting the whole of the neck can never be an indication of anatomical insights, because such a thing is only shown where a conscious choice is made, and where we can see that there are BOTH attacked and unattacked areas. when all of the neck is cut, if anything it points to a lack of anatomical knowledge and a propensity to cut everything to avoid risks.

Try as you might, that wonīt change, and that is where your proposition falls flat on itīs back.

Your opinion is so certain, I could almost fall for it myself.
However it seems your view is based on something you call logic and not on scientific experience or knowledge.

Actually I prefer the experience of those who perform similar procedures for a living, on the skill and knowledge needed, over assumptions and guesses.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Itīs easy. I think Lechmere was a killer, meaning that I think he deserves denigration. But I think LLewelyn and Mizen were good mean, meaning that they do not deserve denigration.

I may be wrong in no, one, two or three of the cases, but regardless what applies, I am taking responsibility for it. Just like we all need to take responsibility for what we write out here.

Just a word about the "debate" you and I are having now. I feel that it centers around all the wrong things and that there is no real will on your behalf to discuss the case, but instead to focus on me as a poster. And if there is anything that I am genuinely disinterested in, that is it.

So donīt be surprised if I leave the topic to you. I can only hope that you are decent enough not to spread any malicious material about me if I should decide to desist from answering.

Then again, why would you?

I have nothing malicious to say about you. And I take full responsibility for everything I write out here. I assume you do the same, thus I suggest you read some of the responses you've given, on this thread, any thread. I think we can find plenty of "malicious material". I doubt you regret any of it and I'm sure you view all of it as perfectly appropriate. Direct all manner of maliciousness at me, if you like. You usually don't hold back. I don't complain. It's beside the point, isn't it. If you knew me you'd know I'm a pretty contented, confident guy. So I don't put much stock in message board trash-talk.

I post to challenge you're theory. Just as you post to advance it. I'm not here to ask for your respect and shown any (although I've stated mine for you and your work many times). I'm not here to denigrate you as a person. I don't KNOW you as a person.

Do I think you have tunnel vision when it comes to "the carman"? I do.

Do I think that makes you more or less the same as every man and woman who has ever presented a "suspect"? I do.

Do I think you honestly believe Lechmere was Jack the Ripper? I do.

Do I think it's appropriate for me to use any knowledge and perspective I may have to argue against the theory that Lechmere as Jack the Ripper? I do. And you should too.

And should you - if something monumental is found proving "the carman" was what you say he was - spike the ball in my face and tell everyone I'm a fool who should have his Ripperolgist badge confiscated? Absolutely you should. I'd take that with a smile on my face. In person. Id' fly to Sweden and toast you!

But, it's quite alright not to reply. As I've said, the posts are not necessarily for you anyway. You can't own these boards after all. Those reading your posts must have another, more reasonable view to consider, after all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah! No one knows what "the carman" was thinking. But "the carman" knew what everyone else was thinking, what they'd say, what they'd do, and how it would all turn out. For if he did not, he'd have never undertaken the folly he chose to avoid detection, capture, and death.

After killing Nichols and hearing someone approach he chose not to walk into the darkness, hide in the shadows, or bluff that the woman on the ground was his beloved wife, the worse for drink again. Instead he chose...to take a few steps back, and WAIT for the man to arrive. In doing so, "the carman" KNEW that the man wasn't a policeman, former policeman, or night watchman, who may suspect him. He KNEW that he'd be able to bluff his way through because he KNEW the man didn't have a lantern, or even a match with which to light the scene, and reveal the injuries we're told he was so desperate to hide that he refused to move Nichols, KNOWING he had no blood on his person he'd have to explain later. Oh! We know that Paul tried to avoid "the carman". Yet, our man KNEW that he'd be perfectly safe in forcing the man to "come see this woman". He KNEW the man would fall in line and allow himself to be controlled, duped. He KNEW the man wouldn't cry "MURDER!" in the streets. He KNEW the man wouldn't immediately search his ("the carman's) person and find the murder weapon hidden there. He KNEW it was safe go have a look at the woman. He KNEW they'd not be joined in short order by a PC (even though Neil happened along seconds later). He KNEW that no one would emerge from the surrounding buildings with a torch and "raise" the proverbial "alarm". And he knew that accompanying the man through the streets and telling a PC about it would turn out just fine because he KNEW that Paul would allow him the space and time he needed to perform his Mizen Scam. And he KNEW that Mizen would let him go. He KNEW he wouldn't say "SHOW ME!" and drag him back into Buck's Row. He also KNEW that Mizen wouldn't inspect his person, ask his name, or suspect him in any way. He KNEW he'd allow him on his merry way. Just as he KNEW that turning up at the inquest the following day would turn out. He KNEW getting on the stand to tell lies about a PC would turn out just fine, too. He KNEW giving an "alternate" name but his real address and employer would help him escape justice, even though his actions tell us he seems to have had little interest in escaping justice in that he kept submitting himself to it. Still, it all worked out. Because he KNEW it would. And because he was a psychopath. But not a dumb one. A brilliant one. Who apparently knew the future.

Nicely summed up Patrick.

Now.... why don't you believe it?

Regards

Herlock

[Patrick S]

Actually, I think you are about to take the fun out of the useful debate we have had for some time now. It was always more fun than the vile exchanges from the olden days, or at least so I think.

Itīs up to you to decide whether it is a good idea to end that improvement or not.

I'm sorry, Christer. What vile things have I said?

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421342]Itīs easy. I think Lechmere was a killer, meaning that I think he deserves denigration. But I think LLewelyn and Mizen were good mean, meaning that they do not deserve denigration.

[QUOTE]

I just want to touch on something quickly. I understand that's why you feel like Lechmere is fair game. You think he's serial killer so why spare the rod.

But try and understand that I, and others, feel that Lechmere was a good man. At least, I feel as if the historical record indicates that he was. There's nothing in it to say he was not. Just as you feel Llewellyn and Mizen were good men. The distinction I've made many times before is this: Mizen can have done everything I THINK he did...and can still be good man. At least in my opinion, if not yours. I understand why a man might not tell the truth in order to protect his livelihood, or his reputation and that of his employer, the Met. And even if he we agree that he was lying scum, he's still not accused of being Jack the Ripper. As for Llewellyn, I've no real thoughts on him other than that I think he was a product of his times in terms of medical knowledge.