Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: 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?

That will depend on the circumstances surrounding the murder, as you well know, Gareth.

Isolating the question, there is no doubt that people with works and families and where we have no record of criminality, are almost always not killers. That goes without saying, but since you bring the topic up, I thought I´d give you my take on it, so that I am not brought into doubt on the score - I don´t rule out that this could happen. As I believe you know, these boards could well turn up a poster or two who is willing to say "Fisherman thinks having a steady job and a family equals being a serial killer". The quality of the ciriticsm of the theory would easily harbour such a statement.

But if we were to make a REAL disucssion of the matter, I could say that people with steady jobs and families who are found alone close to murder victims killed in a space of time that roughly coincides with the presence of the family man/steady worker on the murder site, are much, much more likley to be killers than family men with steady jobs and families who are NOT found in such circumstances.

Similarly, people with steady jobs and families who do not state the name they are registered by and that they always otherwise use in authority contacts as they are questioned in a murder case where they have been found alone close to the body of the victim, are much more likely to be killers than those who state the name they are registered by and use in other authority contacts.

So the question is a much more difficult one than what you seem to be leading on.

If you disagree with any of these two points I made, I´d be interested to hear how that works.

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.

To be frank, neither of us can establish how useful it is. If Lechmere WAS the killer, it is 100 per cent useful. If he was not, it was 100 per cent useless, other than from a pedagogical point of view.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: 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?

That will depend on the circumstances surrounding the murder, as you well know, Gareth.

No, it won't. If those are the stats, those are the stats, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding a given murder. If you want to put Lechmere in the 0.2% segment, you need to find firm evidence other than his "ordinariness" in order to place him there.

[Elamarna]

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?

First point.

Try as much as you like Fisherman. I was not calling you dishonest, the a
Wording used is very clear:

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


It really does seem that you can view anything posted which disagrees with you view as an attack.

Second point on the figures.

There is no question that what I quoted was the words you posted. If it was misunderstood it was because it was poorly worded by yourself in the first place.
You were not misrepresented.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No it isn't - it's consistent with being human.

It is ALSO potentially consistent with being human, yes. But that does not rule out how it is consistent with psychopathy too, if he was the killer.

Not all psychopaths do risky things and many non-psychopaths are capable of doing very risky things.

But the overall rule is that generally speaking, a psychopath is infinitely more willing to take risks. And that owes to how he will not panick - he can´t, simple as that. And psychopaths are generally very accomplished liars, who LIKE to lie and deceive their fellow men.

No talking about how we cannot look at all psychopaths as being totally similar changes that.

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.

So you are first telling me that we must allow for differences - and then you provide a diagramme to establish how these things work? Oh, the irony!

I am not saying anything at all that is in any way controversial. if Lechmere was the killer, he must with a very near certainty have been a psychopath. That does not equal saying "because this is how all psychopaths work". It is instead a way of saying that the cool behaviour he exhibited after Paul surfaced can be explained by psychopathy if he was the killer. Nothing more, nothing less. You are the one dragging in diagrammes and stuff that are utterly worthless, other than to establish what we already knew - that most people who seem not to be killers are not killers.

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

When you say that MY argument is flawed, you ARE being personal. Not least since it is NOT flawed other than if we allow you to represent me as having said and meant something I have neither said nor meant. When that happens, seriousness tumbles down into sillyness, reason stops playing a role and a farce is made of the whole matter.
Don´t take that personally, though, Gareth.

[Fisherman]

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.



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.


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.




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.



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

There is nothing much to comment on here for me. It´s all VERY old hat.

[Fisherman]

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.

I would not worry about that for a second, Gareth. Nobody out here will question figures given by an anti-Lechmereian. Regardless.

And I certainly have no problems discussing things from this kind of a perspective, without trying to crucify people for making generalistic statements - it is sometimes useful.

[Fisherman]

No, it won't. If those are the stats, those are the stats, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding a given murder. If you want to put Lechmere in the 0.2% segment, you need to find firm evidence other than his "ordinariness" in order to place him there.

So if a person is standing with a smoking gun over a person with a fresh bullet hole in the forehead, the caliber of the hole corresponding to the smokoing gun, that circumstance has nothing to do with how we should place the holder of the gun in the 0,2% segment?

That is another discussion?

If so, I´d be happy to alter my take on things to: Yes, your figures are correct, but they do not involve and consider the surrounding circumstances.

I´m quite flexible, as long as we get it right.

[Fisherman]

First point.

Try as much as you like Fisherman. I was not calling you dishonest, the a
Wording used is very clear:

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


It really does seem that you can view anything posted which disagrees with you view as an attack.

Second point on the figures.

There is no question that what I quoted was the words you posted. If it was misunderstood it was because it was poorly worded by yourself in the first place.
You were not misrepresented.

Steve

And an even OLDER hat. Amazing.

[Elamarna]

There is nothing much to comment on here for me. It´s all VERY old hat.

Always clear when you struggle to answer, it always this is "very old hat" or something similar.
Well it's not! And all can see that is the case. Particularly the issue over the statement that the Police disagreed with Lechmere which is has far as we know untrue.

Steve

[Elamarna]

And an even OLDER hat. Amazing.

Really are struggling it seems . Not amazing at all.

Steve

[Elamarna]

And an even OLDER hat. Amazing.

Truly amazing that 2 items raised by you only a few posts back, claiming both are attacks on you are now old hat.

It speaks for itself.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman,

How do you know that Lechmere passed the other murder sites at approximately the right times?

[Sam Flynn]

So if a person is standing with a smoking gun over a person with a fresh bullet hole in the forehead, the caliber of the hole corresponding to the smokoing gun, that circumstance has nothing to do with how we should place the holder of the gun in the 0,2% segment?

You've added another variable in the form of the smoking gun evidence, which is a far, far more significant indicator of guilt. It's the strength of the smoking gun evidence that's relevant, not the percentage of "ordinary men" who happen to be serial killers. Given the figures - and it's probably more like 0.00002% than 0.2% - the latter is nowhere near strong enough to be a remotely useful diagnostic tool.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

How do you know that Lechmere passed the other murder sites at approximately the right times?

You know the exact answer to that question, Herlock. He lived in 22 Doveton Street, he worked at the Pickfords depot at Broad Street, the two simplest and fastest routes there were the Hanbury Street route and the Old Ontague Street route, both more or less equally timeconsuming. We know that he walked through Bucks Row at the night of the Nichols murder, he reasonably used it alwyas, since it was the only way through that made sense, and thereafter he would opt for the Hanbury Street route or the Old Montague Street route.
We do not know that he used either route on the occasions of the deaths of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, but we know that it is consistent with where he lived and worked to suggest that he did. It is also probable that Tabram, Chapman and Kelly all died at roughly the time when he would have been en route to work

There was no cctv that caught him, and there is no evidence that puts him there. All there is is a totally logical suggestion that fits with what we know.

It was 1888. It is therefore a hell of a lot more than anybody could ask for. And it puts every other suspect in the shade by comparion. No wait, not in the shade - in total darkness.

It is a piece of circumstantial evidence that is breathtakingly interesting to anybody with an interest in the case, and a nail in the eye of the Lechmere naysayers.

And that is where it remains.

[Fisherman]

Truly amazing that 2 items raised by you only a few posts back, claiming both are attacks on you are now old hat.

It speaks for itself.


Steve

Yes, it tells us that I have provided all the material it takes to show that you were barking up the wrong tree. I need not go there again, therefore. Old hat, consequentially.