Lechmere The Psychopath

[David Orsam]

Have you heard about the queens councellors and barristers writing history?

Oh yes, my dear boy. Jonathan Sumption Q.C. as he formerly was (now a Law Lord of the Supreme Court), then a well known barrister, is one. He is also a renowed historian, being the author of four volumes on the Hundred Years War and a book on the The Albigensian Crusade as well as a book on Christian pilgrimages prior to the 16th century. Given his renown as a historian, it is rather surprising, considering your own status as a historian, that haven't heard of him, is it not?

[Fisherman]

I honestly believe that is wishful thinking at least on the Ripper.
The only similarity I see is that we both whole heartedly believe what we post.


Steve

To be fair, Steve, it was a joke - whenever people tell me I wont agree with them, I tend to disagree with that...

Childish, I know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dominic Selwood, Michael Arnheim, Joshua Levine..... barristers who write history

Regards
Herlock

[Sam Flynn]

Oh yes, my dear boy. Jonathan Sumption Q.C. as he formerly was (now a Law Lord of the Supreme Court), then a well known barrister, is one. He is also a renowed historian, being the author of four volumes on the Hundred Years War and a book on the The Albigensian Crusade

Sumption's writing is as brilliant as his mind, which is saying something. I thoroughly enjoyed his book on the Albigensian Crusade, and I recently got the four-volume set on the Hundred Years War as a gift. I can't wait to read them.

[Sam Flynn]

If the information given is not a full representation of the facts, the views of those persons commenting on the internet will be wrong.

Quite. I've lost count of the number of exaggerated claims I've read/heard apropos Lechmere's strength as a Ripper candidate, from laypeople whose primary - perhaps only - source of information seems to have been that one documentary.

[Fisherman]

Quite. I've lost count of the number of exaggerated claims I've read/heard apropos Lechmere's strength as a Ripper candidate, from laypeople whose primary - perhaps only - source of information seems to have been that one documentary.

Laypeople?

I have noted quite a few real enthusiasts who have a very good grip of the case and who are very impressed.

Maybe they don´t count?

[Fisherman]

Double posting.

[Sam Flynn]

Laypeople?

Yes, by which I really meant folks not particularly well-versed on the details of the case.

I have noted quite a few real enthusiasts who have a very good grip of the case and who are very impressed.

I daresay, but "being impressed" is one thing, whilst saying that Lechmere "is the best Ripper candidate" is quite another. There are many good(ish) candidates for whom strong cases have been made, as we know, so anyone who claims that Lechmere is the "best/strongest" suspect betrays a very shallow grasp of the ripperological field as a whole.

[Fisherman]

Yes, by which I really meant folks not particularly well-versed on the details of the case.
I daresay, but "being impressed" is one thing, whilst saying that Lechmere "is the best Ripper candidate" is quite another. There are many good(ish) candidates for whom strong cases have been made, as we know, so anyone who claims that Lechmere is the "best/strongest" suspect betrays a very shallow grasp of the ripperological field as a whole.

That´s no good news at all, Gareth, for I make that exact claim. And now you tell me that because of that, I betray that I have a very shallow grasp of the ripperological fiels as a whole?

You are welcome to put that thesis to the test any time, and I will oblige. I actually think you may be surprised.

My own suggestion is that those who claim that Lechmere is NOT the best/strongest suspect, basing the case on the existing evidence, are either voluntarily deceiving themselves or simply ignorant.

So it seems there are two schools involved here.

[Sam Flynn]

That´s no good news at all, Gareth, for I make that exact claim. And now you tell me that because of that, I betray that I have a very shallow grasp of the ripperological fiels as a whole?

No, I'm talking about those who DON'T have a grasp of the case, and who - on the basis of one documentary - instantly believe that yer man is the "best" candidate yet.

My own suggestion is that those who claim that Lechmere is NOT the best/strongest suspect, basing the case on the existing evidence, are either voluntarily deceiving themselves or simply ignorant.

On the contrary, they are just being rational.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No, I'm talking about those who DON'T have a grasp of the case, and who - on the basis of one documentary - instantly believe that yer man is the "best" candidate yet.

Was that why you specifically wrote "anyone who claims that Lechmere is the "best/strongest" suspect betrays a very shallow grasp of the ripperological field as a whole."?
Because to me, simple man that I am, that sounded very much as if you spoke not only about, ehrm... "laymen".

Plus of course, if you don´t think that I am a good representative for people with a "very shallow grasp" of the case, then how can a layman betray such a thing by voting for Lechmere? It adds up very poorly in the end, does it not? It does not add up at all, come to think of it.

On the contrary, they are just being rational.

To rationalize, Gareth, is not always the same as being rational. You speak of how there are many "goodish" (betraying that you seemingly find them less than good) suspects, but let´s face it - there are not.
You are welcome to disprove me and present any such case with a motivation for why they are goodish. Be prepared, though, for some REALLY rational criticism when it happens.

Myself, I would choose Bury as one of the best suspects after Lechmere. A looong way after him.

And everybody out here knows what I think about Bury. It does not amount to any verdict of a goodish suspect.

So who are these men you are thinking of, Gareth?

[Herlock Sholmes]

My own suggestion is that those who claim that Lechmere is NOT the best/strongest suspect, basing the case on the existing evidence, are either voluntarily deceiving themselves or simply ignorant.

Sorry but I can't let that nonsensical comment go. I am neither ignorant or voluntarily self-deceiving. Like most people I've viewed the evidence with difficulty for hardly any exists. It's entirely based on CL being there. To which you added the 'name issue.' To convince you contrive a 'Mizen Scam.' You have CL taking an utterly pointless risk when, under no real pressure, he could have escaped to obscurity. Everything about CL's actions speak of an innocent man who lived a perfectly normal life. There's absolutely nothing to connect him to any of the other murders except ludicrous suggestions that certain sites were on the way too.... There is not a smidgeon of evidence that he was linked to any crime after the Whitechapel Murders. There's no evidence that he was in any way violent (unlike Bury who was an actual, proven murderer) or even hated prostitutes in particular.
CL, like most suspects, cannot be completely discounted simply because we don't have that single piece of evidence (say, that he was out of town on the night of one or more of the murders). But we can take an overall view and the absolutely unavoidable one is that CL is an extremely unlikely Ripper.
I dont know who the ripper was. No one does. But you have 'invested' in a suspect (I do not mean financially) and show an almost religious commitment to him. A commitment which is totally undeserved. You have every right to your opinions of course but constantly deriding people who disagree with you just serves to illustrate the weakness of your case.

[Sam Flynn]

You have every right to your opinions of course but constantly deriding people who disagree with you just serves to illustrate the weakness of your case.

Very well said.

[Fisherman]

Very well said.

You still owe me an answer. Let´s hope that is equally well said.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: Sorry but I can't let that nonsensical comment go. I am neither ignorant or voluntarily self-deceiving.

You ARE aware that my answer was led on by how Gareth stated that "anyone who claims that Lechmere is the "best/strongest" suspect betrays a very shallow grasp of the ripperological field as a whole."? No?

Maybe you are not aware of that, and therefore you were willing to let that pass, whereas you cannot do so when I turn the perspective?

Like most people I've viewed the evidence with difficulty for hardly any exists.

A lot of circumstantial evidence exists. You cannot feel upset by implicitly having been called in denial or ignorant, and then go on to prove my point. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, MUCH MORE SO THAN FOR ANY OTHER SUSPECT. That is my entire point. If you choose to think the evidence weak, so be it. James Scobie, who knows his way around evidence, certainly didn´t, so it bothers me little if you disagree.

It's entirely based on CL being there.

No, it is not.

To which you added the 'name issue.'

So it´s NOT entirely based on CL being there, suddenly?

To convince you contrive a 'Mizen Scam.'

I contrive nothing. I point to how Lechmere and the police actually disagreed totally over a wording that may have hidden Jack the Ripper.

You have CL taking an utterly pointless risk when, under no real pressure, he could have escaped to obscurity.

Not THAT again! You have no idea whatsoever if Lechmere (if the killer) regarded it a pointless risk. It is your contention only, and others disagree. Please try to draw a conclusion or two from that. The old "he would have run" suggestion did not impress a man like Griffiths at all. For some reason! Probaly because he was payed to say that, as per Patrick S, eh?

Read up on psychopathy. That is the best and friendliest piece of advice I have to offer.

Everything about CL's actions speak of an innocent man who lived a perfectly normal life.

Could that possibly be because it was the impression he needed and wanted to give? Do you think it strange, if he was the killer, that he did not smear his face with the victims blood in his face and danced around shouting "I did it, I did it"?
Do you? It seems so!

Must I once again tell you how many serialists have hidden behind a facade of the typical working family man? Must I?

Must I reiterate how the creator of the profiling business at FBI has the typical seriaist down as a man in his late thirties with a steady job and a family? Must I?

There's absolutely nothing to connect him to any of the other murders except ludicrous suggestions that certain sites were on the way too....

How is it ludicruous if a suspected killers paths take him past a number of the murder sites in a series? Explain that to me, PLEASE. It will be funny, I´m sure. But not for you.

There is not a smidgeon of evidence that he was linked to any crime after the Whitechapel Murders.

Look at other serialists, please. Think and wor a little before you open your mouth. It helps.

There's no evidence that he was in any way violent (unlike Bury who was an actual, proven murderer) or even hated prostitutes in particular.

He died in 1920. There is not any evidence at all that he was not violent either.

CL, like most suspects, cannot be completely discounted simply because we don't have that single piece of evidence (say, that he was out of town on the night of one or more of the murders).

He cannot be "completely" discounted? He cannot be IN THE SLIGHTEST discounted, I´m afraid.

But we can take an overall view and the absolutely unavoidable one is that CL is an extremely unlikely Ripper.

You have no idea, I´m afraid. If he was a good man, he was an unlikely killer. If he was that paragon of virtue that you will have him as, he was an unlikely killer. The problem is that you base this "truth" of yours on your own baseless suggestions altogether.
We do not know if he was good or bad, and history teaches us that many serialists work under the pretense and facade of being good.
And do you know why we don´t see through it. Beacuse, and read my lips, people are GULLIBLE. Some even choose to be, although they should have known better.

I dont know who the ripper was. No one does.

You don´t know that. I am rather sure that I know who he was. Maybe you should say "It is not proven who the Ripper was". That would be more correct.

But you have 'invested' in a suspect (I do not mean financially) and show an almost religious commitment to him.

Being steadfast and having a lot to show for it has nothing to do with religion. If it has, then you are the Spanish inquisition. On your own.

A commitment which is totally undeserved.

It is not for you to decide, once again.

You have every right to your opinions of course but constantly deriding people who disagree with you just serves to illustrate the weakness of your case.

Or it serves to illustrate that people CONSTANTLY deriding me and the theory are a bunch of ignorant naysayers who feel they are being robbed of their hobby.

Just as you cannot prove that I am a dumb bastard who is totally wrong, I cannot prove that you are wrong either. That you are ignorant of important matters about serialists, I don´t have to prove - you just did it yourself.

Now, we can go on "discussing" like this, or we can do it in a better way. You decide.