Lechmere The Psychopath

[GUT]

Thought it was bad form to call people names like ignorant and winder if you can show us where anyone called you a dumb bastard as you claim.

[Elamarna]

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 didnīt, so it bothers me little if you disagree.

Let's all try and be honest here. Much of that circumstantial "evidence" is either highly debated or very far from strong.

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 may not intend to, but let's look at the wording you use above.
"Lechmere and the police"

That reads as if the Met as a whole, at the very least senior officers in the case, disagreed with Lechmere. That of course is not the case, the reality is one police constable gave a different story to the two carmen.
I fully accept you may not mean to give a misleading statement but unfortunately that can be seen as such, particularly If read by those we may refer to as "Laymen"




Steve

[Elamarna]

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 didnīt, so it bothers me little if you disagree.

And your final statements there is what bothers a lot of people here.
Your continual reliance on single experts opinions.
If nothing else it is not a balanced view. You need to use at least two.
However we have debated this before.

Steve

[Elamarna]

H
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?

Yes Griffiths view on this appears from the documentary at 24mins 50seconds.
We are told he concludes that Lechmere had to bluff it out because of heavy police presence and no easy escape routes.

Both of those statements are incorrect.

The police presence was not heavy, only Neil passed down Bucks Row, and only every half hour. The ends were indeed covered by other officers but again only once in every 30 minutes or so. A man walking out of Bucks Row would not attract undue attention.

No easy escape routes?
This is also incorrect, he could be out of sight before Paul arrived and there were at least 6 escapes routes (all of which were covered by just one officer- Neil.) without going down Bucks Row and into Bakers Row.

My point of course is that at least Part of Griffiths reasoning for Lechmere not leaving and having to bluff it out are apparently based on faulty information.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

And your final statements there is what bothers a lot of people here.
Your continual reliance on single experts opinions.
If nothing else it is not a balanced view. You need to use at least two.
However we have debated this before.

Steve

Just a reminder that I had a long telephone conversation with James Scobie and it became apparent that he clearly had not been given the full facts, and so given all of that I would suggest his opinion is unsafe to totally rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

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

Not THAT (get-out-of-jail card) again! How many times do you have to be told that human behaviour doesn't work like a recipe book and that, even if Cross were psychopathic, it doesn't follow that he'd automatically do the riskiest things "just because" he was a psychopath.

The fact is that hailing another man, drawing his attention to the body, and then accompanying him to find and speak with a policeman were hugely risky things - things, plural - to do, when he could have easily slipped away in the first place.

[Pierre]

Not THAT (get-out-of-jail card) again! How many times do you have to be told that human behaviour doesn't work like a recipe book and that, even if Cross were psychopathic, it doesn't follow that he'd automatically do the riskiest things "just because" he was a psychopath.

The fact is that hailing another man, drawing his attention to the body, and then accompanying him to find and speak with a policeman were hugely risky things - things, plural - to do, when he could have easily slipped away in the first place.

YES.

There is no historical evidence for Charles Allen Lechmere having wanted (impossible motive explanation for waiting for the other carman, finding a PC, going to the inquest) to NOT get his face known to the police and the authorities at the inquest.

AND important: Fishermanīs hypothesis of Lechmere having "lied about his name" because he wanted to go on killing and therefore not wanted to have his family name in the press so his wife could recognize him - this hypothesis CONFLICTS with the willingness to become visible and recognizable to the police and the authorities.

I.e. Lechmere wanted to be recognized by the authorities but not by his wife. Conflict. Inconsistency. Not congruent with THE PAST. Not corresponding. I.e. very bad history.

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes:

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 didnīt, so it bothers me little if you disagree.

The part of your point that begins ' You cannot feel upset,' and ands with 'and then go on to prove my point', appears to show that you don't even know when you are being insulting!
Trevor Marriotts' comment about having a long conversation with Scobie is interesting. It's not the first time on here that people have wondered just how much experts have been told. As Steve pointed out you appear to believe that one expert equals proof. I recall a while ago asking what you feel that 'other' experts might conclude. You called it childish!! To enquire about other experts opinions!
You might feel that there is more circumstantial evidence for CL than any other suspect. I mean, as opposed to say, Bury. A known prostitute using, proven violent murderer who had easy access to Whitechapel! Yes of course. I see it all now!

It's entirely based on CL being there.

No, it is not.

More precisely it's based on the appearance of Paul because it allows you to say that he was caught in the act. When he wasn't.


To which you added the 'name issue.'

So itīs NOT entirely based on CL being there, suddenly?

Fair point. I should have said 'mainly' instead of 'entirely.'


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.

As Steve has pointed out, not the police, Mizen alone. 'May have hidden....' Unfortunately there are far more likely interpretations of any disagreements over wording. You do contrive because you tried to show that CL spoke to Mizen out of Paul's earshot for which there's not a shred of evidence. I even recall you resorting to phrases like (and I'm not saying that this is an exact quote by the way)...people can consider themselves together whilst not being actually together! Perhaps CL and Paul were together 'in spirit only.'

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?

Yes THAT again Fish! It may not have impressed Griffiths but I begin to wonder if he was given the impression that Paul virtually appeared at CL's shoulder! I regard it as a pointless risk because it was a pointless risk. He didn't need to do it. Where else in these murders did the killer 'brazen it out!? He didn't. He exhibited all the traits of a man who didn't want to get caught. The decision to stay or go was a complete no brainier. Again another 'one expert' case closed!


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

I don't need to read up in it Fish as your 'experts' are apparently all that we need.

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"?

So to sum up, he spent his life cautiously creating the impression of normality to avoid any suspicion and yet faced with the chance of escaping to definate freedom he leaps into the middle of the road and draws attention to himself and his victim to the next passerby. Nice thinking Fish.

Do you? It seems so!

Not worth answering.

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

No you mustn't. It means nothing. It means Abberline could have been Jack. Or Arnold. Or ....pretty much anyone around at the time.

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?

Genuis. These profilers are such magicians. No wonder killers never get away with it!
How can anyone take such a generality serious?

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, Iīm sure. But not for you.


I will explain it to you Fish. It's actually remarkably simple. People find the best route to work and stick to it. They don't change everyday and I'm certain that there weren't many 'scenic' routes in Whitechapel! And just to say that a site was 'on the way to something' is pathetically weak. Proves absolutely nothing.


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.

More insults! I think...you follow an agenda!


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.


Just because you cannot prove the negative doesn't give you the right to assume the positive. No evidence of violence....end of (as you like to say!)


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, Iīm afraid.

He can. Despite your increasing desperate attempts. Foot stamping, sulking and insulting do not count as a case!

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

You have no idea, Iīm 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.

But you do. You have the secret info that we are all too stupid to see. I'm sure that you have a pair of 'Lechmere was the Ripper' glasses! I base my belief that he was an unlikely killer on the fact that ...he was an unlikely killer. No evidence.


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 donīt see through it. Beacuse, and read my lips, people are GULLIBLE. Some even choose to be, although they should have known better.


Again,same old. Serial killers hide their guilt so CL is guilty! 'Read my lips' you say, more patronising insults!!
People are gullible. But not Fisherman. He sees through it all. He understands. Or has he just set his stall on a suspect, his eyes lit up, and he pursues him no matter what!

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

You donīt 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.

How can you be certain when faced with such a dearth of evidence?

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.

Nope. I'm just not hopelessly tunnel visioned and biased.

A commitment which is totally undeserved.

It is not for you to decide, once again.

It's my opinion. There is no final judge on who was Jack. Certainly not you.

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.

More insults, surprise, surprise. I thought Swedes had a reputation for being phlegmatic? Obviously not! 'Robbed of their hobby.' That's rich coming from someone with, shall we say, a particular interest in the success of the CL venture.

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 donīt have to prove - you just did it yourself.


Ignorant! Insults again!

This is how it goes. Fish makes a point. Someone disagrees. Fish then patronisingly tells them that they just don't understand, or they are misinterpreting or being wilfully obtuse. The 'someone' refutes Fish's point again. Then Fish throws his toys out of the Pram and resorts to insults.


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

Everyone here is free to go back through this thread and see, with their own eyes, which poster has been intolerant and insulting. Also which poster has an obvious, and quite alarming, overconfidence in his suspect!

[Paddy Goose]

I'd agree that Lechmere is most interesting topic in "Ripperology" these days. It's certainly one of the most discussed. By far the most discussed on this board. ... But, I - for one - love it, and enjoy the hell out of debating it. I don't think I'm alone in that.

Hi Patrick and thanks for your reply. Yes, that was my point, why discuss this? A twelve year old child knows Charles Cross found the body of Polly Nichols. But obviously this is a hobby you enjoy. I would find it a chore, but since you like it, okay.

Thanks again,

Paddy

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;422044

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

Fisherman,

You USE external sources about psychopathy to convince yourself that Lechmere was a killer.

What you must use is internal sources from the life of Lechmere.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Everyone here is free to go back through this thread and see, with their own eyes, which poster has been intolerant and insulting. Also which poster has an obvious, and quite alarming, overconfidence in his suspect!

Brilliant post, Herlock. Bravo.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Brilliant post, Herlock. Bravo.

If we change just one word in Herlock's post - "thread" to "forum" - we get something rather interesting:

"Everyone here is free to go back through this forum and see, with their own eyes, which poster has been intolerant and insulting. Also which poster has an obvious, and quite alarming, overconfidence in his suspect!"

He could almost be talking about you my dear boy.

[Pierre]

If we change just one word in Herlock's post - "thread" to "forum" - we get something rather interesting:

"Everyone here is free to go back through this forum and see, with their own eyes, which poster has been intolerant and insulting. Also which poster has an obvious, and quite alarming, overconfidence in his suspect!"

He could almost be talking about you my dear boy.

Or you rather, David.

[David Orsam]

Or you rather, David.

Certainly not me my dear boy, even if you think I have been intolerant and insulting, I cannot possibly have "an obvious and quite alarming, overconfidence" in my suspect because I don't have a suspect. So that rules me out.

What about you my dear boy? Have you been intolerant and insulting would you say? And do you have an obvious and quite alarming overconfidence in your suspect?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;422085]

Certainly not me my dear boy, even if you think I have been intolerant and insulting, I cannot possibly have "an obvious and quite alarming, overconfidence" in my suspect because I don't have a suspect. So that rules me out.

And the same goes for me.

What about you my dear boy? Have you been intolerant and insulting would you say? And do you have an obvious and quite alarming overconfidence in your suspect?

What about you David? Have you been intolerant and insulting would you say? And do you have an obvious and quite alarming overconfidence in your suspect, David?

Pierre