Lechmere The Psychopath

[David Orsam]

And the same goes for me.

My dear boy I'm so sorry to hear that it didn't work out for you and you were never able to "find" him after all. Never mind, not everyone can have a suspect, and, in any case, you seem to have found alternative employment in "destroying" Fisherman's theory.

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?

I refer to you to #1844.

[Henry Flower]

My dear boy I'm so sorry to hear that it didn't work out for you and you were never able to "find" him after all. Never mind, not everyone can have a suspect, and, in any case, you seem to have found alternative employment in "destroying" Fisherman's theory.



I refer to you to #1844.

Can I just interject here? I want it on record that I have an alarming overconfidence in almost all the suspects proposed on the forums. I think Lechmere and Van Gogh were in cahoots, Bury supplied the hardware, and Kosminski sourced the chalk.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that Jack the Ripper did it.

Or maybe not.

Anyway, I'm taking a short break from Jack.

I'm currently reading David's Camden Town Murder Mystery.

Regards
Herlock

[Fisherman]

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.

Very shortly, this is what I wrote:

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.

So as you can see, I did not say that anybody has called me a dumb bastard, Gut, and as far as I can tell, nobody has ever used that exact wording. Some have said just about the same, but in other words, of course, but that has nothing to do with what I said in my post.

What I did was too point out that much as we all lack proof for our points, we can nevertheless point it out when ignorance surfaces.

The sad thing about this is that people bluch with indignation when the word ignorance is used (at least when I am the one using it).

In the case at hand, I meant - and very much still mean - that it is ignorant not to weigh in how serial killers are very often working behind a facade of being a faithful employee and a cosy family man. Herlock Sholmes made that exact mistake when he (once again) presented Charles Lechmere as a faithful employee and a cosy family man.

That argument can never have any effect at all on the suggestion that Lechmere may have been the killer. None whatsoever. All we can say is that on the surface, he seemed an ordinary man - and that on the surface, many, many serialists are ordinary men.

But the truly appaling thing that was said by Herlock was that it was "ludicrous" to point out how the carmans routes took him through the killing fields.

I don´t know about you, Gut, and if you suggest that more people than Lechmere may have taken the same routes, I´d say that this is very true - but I hope that you - and any other poster out here - realizes that when we are looking at a series of murders and can show that a person has reasonably walked paths that will have taken him right through the killing fields at the approximately correct times of the murders, then that is anything but ludicrous.
It is instead a very powerful reason to feel that whatever suspicions one has against a person will have been very much strengthened.

Not to recognize this fact - for it IS a fact - and instead vomit over it and taunt it, is nothing but ignorance in it´s purest form.

Once it happens, one can either say "Wow, you really should not make that kind of a totally wrongful point, Herlock" or you can let is pass, and start picking on me for calling it ignorant.

That is anybody´s choice, has always been so and will remain so.

[Fisherman]

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

You ARE aware that you are implicitly calling me dishonest, are you not? Not that I care much, but I thought I´d point it out to you anyway.

The highly debated and far from strong evidence made James Scobie say that it was enough to represent a prima faciae case strong enough to take to court.

Let´s be honest and admit that.

Noting that you say that" much of that evidence is highly debated and far from strong", I wonder if that means that you consider SOME of it not debated and strong?

Plus, of course, it was suggested on these boards that it is "ludicrous" to point to the fact that Lechmere passed through the killing fields on the approximate hours of the murders. So things that are "highy debated" may - at least to my mind - be very compelling evidence in spite of some people´s misgivings.

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.

He gave his story to the police, represented by Mizen, and the police, represented by Mizen, disagreed. When we approach the police, we always approach representatives of the police, not the whole corps. When we afterwards speak about it, we don´t say "I went to sergeant Davies and told him...", we say "I went to the police, and told them", and we are in our full right to do so.

It therefore also applies that if Davies afterwards say "No, you never approached me", then we are disagreeing with the police, more specifically with Davies.

It´s nitpicking, Steve. I could have said that he disagreed with a serving police officer, but it is slightly more cumbersome, and it would carry the same implications, since our dealings with the police are dealings with representatives of the corps.

I have absolutely nothing further to add to this point, so I will leave any further discussion of it to you. I hope that you do not base your verdict of "highly debated" and "far from strong" on my saying that Lechmere spoke to the police, because he actually did.

[Fisherman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just a reminder that you have already been told that Scobie could never be given the "full facts" as in all information pertaining to the case, that you did not record your conversation with Scobie and you can therefore not reiterate what he actually said, and that Paul Begg, among other people, pointed out to you that it is perfectly legit to ask a barrister to look at the points presented against a suspect and ask how he evaluates them.

And, of course, a reminder that if Scobie had been deceived, he would have had all the reason in the word to come out and say so.

The last reminder is how I´d like to point out that I have told you before that your suggestions out here belong to the most unsavoury ones I have ever seen on the boards. You probably do not understand what you are doing, but that is really the poorest of excuses.

[Fisherman]

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.

Please don´t try and paint it out as if I am saying that all people, psychopaths or not, always follow the same pattern of behaviour.

I am saying what I have always said: That Lechmere´s behaviour, if he was the killer, is perfectly consistent with psychopathy.

I would very much warn against oversimplifying matters on my behalf and pretend that I was the one making the suggestion. It is unfair and unethical.

[Fisherman]

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!

And when they arrive at the point where you say that it is ludicrous to point to how a suspects paths lead through the killing fields in a murder series, what will they conclude?

That this was a very tolerant and non-insulting thing to say?

That you seem to be a knowledgeable man, who suggest that men with a job and family need to be cleared from any suspicion of being a killer?

Let me tell you right now, Herlock, that strangely enough, a bunch of people will say just that. And they will commend you on what they think is a rightfully indignant post.

I suggest you hang out with them in the future.

[Fisherman]

Can I just interject here? I want it on record that I have an alarming overconfidence in almost all the suspects proposed on the forums. I think Lechmere and Van Gogh were in cahoots, Bury supplied the hardware, and Kosminski sourced the chalk.

You should ALWAYS interject, Henry!

But it really was Lechmere who provided the chalk AND wrote the GSG with the tip of his forefinger - he was shining white throughout, see...

[Sam Flynn]

[The argument that Lechmere was a "cosy family man"] can never have any effect at all on the suggestion that Lechmere may have been the killer. None whatsoever. All we can say is that on the surface, he seemed an ordinary man - and that on the surface, many, many serialists are ordinary men.

Indeed, but the overwhelming majority of men of all kinds are ordinary also. To make up some figures by way of illustration, let's say that 99% of "ordinary men" are not murderers, 0.8% are murders, and 0.2% are serial killers. Given that Lechmere appeared to be an "ordinary man", which part of this imaginary Venn Diagram would he most likely have occupied - the 99% segment, the 0.8% segment or the 0.2% bit?

This is just one example of where justifying an argument by appealing to "criminal profiling" is nowhere near as useful as we might think it is.

[Sam Flynn]

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

You ARE aware that you are implicitly calling me dishonest, are you not?

Steve's not doing that, Fish. His appeal was quite specific, and it was for us to be honest with ourselves ("let's all try and be honest") about the circumstantial nature of the evidence, which is obviously highly debated and is not strong, despite your belief to the contrary.

[Sam Flynn]

I am saying what I have always said: That Lechmere´s behaviour, if he was the killer, is perfectly consistent with psychopathy.

No it isn't - it's consistent with being human. Not all psychopaths do risky things and many non-psychopaths are capable of doing very risky things. This is yet another case whereby argument-from-profiling proves to be a useless diagnostic tool; see my post above about the "ordinary men" Venn Diagram for the rationale.

I would very much warn against oversimplifying matters on my behalf and pretend that I was the one making the suggestion.

I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in that particular argument. Don't take things so personally.

[Elamarna]

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

You ARE aware that you are implicitly calling me dishonest, are you not? Not that I care much, but I thought I´d point it out to you anyway.

Not at all. I said let's all be honest. Meaning let's all face up to the facts, me, you, everyone.
If you take it another way, that is your choice and is not the intention.

The highly debated and far from strong evidence made James Scobie say that it was enough to represent a prima faciae case strong enough to take to court.

Let´s be honest and admit that.

Yes I have no issue with admitting one man's view, a view question by at least one other poster who claims to have discussed the issues with James Scobie. Now let me be clear not know the content of that debate it cannot be used in any way at all, however the point remains such has been raised by another poster.

The main issue is that Scobie's comments were and remain the view of one agreed highly experienced man, But just one man none the less.

Noting that you say that" much of that evidence is highly debated and far from strong", I wonder if that means that you consider SOME of it not debated and strong?

The ONLY things not debated are where he lived, where he worked, what time he started work, his age, his date of death, his step fathers name and his mother's address. Yes those issue are firm and strong.

Plus, of course, it was suggested on these boards that it is "ludicrous" to point to the fact that Lechmere passed through the killing fields on the approximate hours of the murders. So things that are "highy debated" may - at least to my mind - be very compelling evidence in spite of some people´s misgivings.

That is not my view.
We know he took one route on the day of the Nichols murder.
We can assume he took the same for Chapman and Kelly however the times of death are debated in both cases and CANNOT at present be fitted to Lechmere.

For all other murders there is no evidence that Lechmere took a route close to those murder sites, yes there is supposition but that is all.

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.

He gave his story to the police, represented by Mizen, and the police, represented by Mizen, disagreed. When we approach the police, we always approach representatives of the police, not the whole corps. When we afterwards speak about it, we don´t say "I went to sergeant Davies and told him...", we say "I went to the police, and told them", and we are in our full right to do so.

It therefore also applies that if Davies afterwards say "No, you never approached me", then we are disagreeing with the police, more specifically with Davies.

It´s nitpicking, Steve. I could have said that he disagreed with a serving police officer, but it is slightly more cumbersome, and it would carry the same implications, since our dealings with the police are dealings with representatives of the corps.

I have absolutely nothing further to add to this point, so I will leave any further discussion of it to you. I hope that you do not base your verdict of "highly debated" and "far from strong" on my saying that Lechmere spoke to the police, because he actually did.

No it would not have the same implications at all.
It is certainly not not picking, it is a statement which gives a truly misleading impression.

It give the impression the the "Police" officially accepted Mizen's account and rejected that of Lechmere. Has you are well aware there is no evidence to back that up.
Before you suggest he was not disciplined and therefore the "police" accepted his view in that light, it is just as likely that like many they accepted it as a misunderstanding.

I am not in the slightest surprised you have no desire to debate what is clearly a questionable statement.

Let me assure you none of the comments you make have any serious bearing on the arguments I make. I base those on sources and the analysis of such, not on pure speculation.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Steve's not doing that, Fish. His appeal was quite specific, and it was for us to be honest with ourselves ("let's all try and be honest") about the circumstantial nature of the evidence, which is obviously highly debated and is not strong, despite your belief to the contrary.

If Steve thinks that I am overrating the evidence and feels that honesty is the remedy for that particular illness, then there can be little doubt that he does not feel that honesty and thinking the Lechmere case is a strong one works together.

It is not a very hard matter to see, Gareth.

I of course appreciate that he may be reasoning "honestly, I don´t think the case is at all strong", but that was not how he worded himself.

Plus let´s not forget that we are dealing with a poster who saw his way through to claiming that I am willing to put a figure to how often doctors make mistakes. How is THAT for generalizing from a very specific statement about how a doctor will recognize a damaged inner organ for a damaged inner organ?

[Sam Flynn]

To make up some figures by way of illustration, let's say that 99% of "ordinary men" are not murderers, 0.8% are murders, and 0.2% are serial killers.

I'd emphasise that my illustrative figures aren't meant to be correct, as it's clearly not the case that fully 1% of all "ordinary men" have committed one or more murders! In reality, the "murderer" and "serial-killer" parts of the Venn Diagram would be significantly smaller, and the "non-killer" segment will be bigger still.