Lechmere The Psychopath

[Sam Flynn]

If you should feel inclined to continue implying that Griffiths was lied to or misled or underinformed, I will not reply.

Good-oh. For the record, I will always suggest that Griffiths could easily have been inadvertently (I emphasise, inadvertently) misled, and certainly underinformed. Given the complexities of the case, and with so little by way of unambiguous evidence having survived, he was bound to have been.

It's remarkable that you affect such pious dismay whenever this is suggested, Fish, when I'd have thought it self-evident to any seasoned student of ripperology.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes: So in your world I'm disqualified from having a view. I am slightly wounded that I can't live up to your level of Holmes-like genius!

No, you are not. You should read more thoroughly - in my world, you are disqualified from having a view IF you discount Lechmere as a suspect on account of my not being able to prove that he was a a psychopath.
I think you would react in the same manner if I was to say that if we cannot prove that you are over average when it comes to criminology, then you cannot be correct in Lechmere being innocent and we can discount the suggestion. That would be just as stupid and useless, and if I was to present such an idea, I would disqualify myself from any discussion on that topic.

Can you see what I mean now, or are you still hurt?

And my question, basically asking if all experts would agree, is an immature one!

I find it to be, yes. It is the kind of stuff asked in Kindergartens about whose daddy is strongest - one that can never be productive until the fathers give it a try. Before that, there is no use at all in discussing it.

Would that be as immature as the petulant strop that you appear to descend into when anyone questions your theory?

A lot worse, actually. And you are welcome to question my theory every day in the week - I like discussing it, and I want it to get widely sread, and you are helping out with it.
But when somebody says that it cannot be true because it cannot be proven that Lechmere was a psychopath, we are getting bogged down in an ocean of sticky, smelly ignorance. We don´t want to go there, do we?

You choose to interpret every aspect of these events with a pre-defined slant that Lechmere is obviously a murdering psychopath which you can do with almost any suspect. Most of us though try and see if events have a prosaic and reasonable explanation. And they usually do.

I do the exact same thing. I also look at the possibility/viability of an innocent explanation. And I find there is always such an explanation to every detail used in the accusation act against Lechmere. The one thing that makes him guilty to my mind is that there should not be any need to find such an astonishing heap of innocent explanations.
He should have said "Lechmere" when asked his name, he should not have arrived when the blood was still running, he should not have the bad luck of the body being covered up, he should have had Paul arriving in time to see that Lechmere was innocent, the papers should not have written "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street", he should not have disagreed with the police, he should not go to work through the killing fields, the murders should not have happened when he did so, he should not have his mother living a stone´s throw away from the Stride murder site, the killer should not have used his approximate old working route when seeking out Eddowes, he should have said "I walked to work at 3.38", he should have helped prop Nichols up when asked, he should have stayed with the body when Paul said he was late...

Pick any of these things, say his traversing the killing fields - and we can all see that he had to, to get to work. And we can say that a number of people would have done the same.
Innocent. Perfectly understandable. Logical. Nothing to see here.

"Piece it all together and the prosecution has the most powerful, most probative case for a court to use". Or something like that. It was what Scobie said when looking at the case, adding that he very much disliked when the coincidences came thick and fast.

I'd also like to point out that I have no suspect and therefore no axe to grind or bias. I wouldn't burst into tears if Lechmere was proven to be Jack the Ripper. I'm not alone in saying that, of course, he could have been. But you seem to possess an, shall we say, almost unhealthy level of confidence. And I, and others, cant see where that level of confidence comes from.

I genuinely look upon that as your problem, not mine. Scobie and Griffiths saw it, and to me, this was what I have ben looking for for very long - experts of the field, unversed in ripperology and with no suspects of their own and no "the killer will never be found"-bias" (many have nailed their colours to that mast) looking at and judging Lechmere.
Of course, if I had chosen ripperologists, people would say "they are biased". I chose non-ripprologists instead, and the outcome was "they are not knowledgeable". Any way, you are damned. But it does not affect me at all, since I am old out here, and I know how people do their ripperology. For example, when they are dealing with somebody who will not acccept their misgivings as the better bid, they will say "He is possesed". That - too - is old hat.
My level of confidence comes from many sources, some of them still not revealed. I can say that much.

So I will continue to give an opinion. Whether you think that I 'qualify' for one or not.

Normally, you are as qualified as your brothers in arms out here. In the case of dismissing Lechmere if it could not be proven that he was a psychopath, you were making a serious mistake and suggesting something that ought never be done.
And as I said, keep it coming - it guarantees that Lechmere is not forgotten.

I'm not going to bother replying point by point for two reasons. 1) it's too wearying and 2) I'm tired of your obvious bias and your petulant tone.

So, another rant. What a surprise.

You find the question about the other experts to be like the 'kind of stuff asked in kindergarten.' I'm sorry but that's just pathetic on a staggering level. How can anyone take umbrage at someone asking, what could be re-phrased as, 'how does your experts opinion compare with the opinions of other experts in that field?' To anyone unbiased that is a valid question but not to you. Your expert is obviously sufficient. Job done then!
Calm(ish) debate is good. You like discussing your 'theory' so you say. Although you should probably just call it a 'final solution.' Unles, that is, someone else's opinion pollutes it with 'an ocean of sticky, smelly ignorance.' Calm and measured as ever.

I think anyone reading this thread will see where the attitude is coming from. It pours from your every post. I won't lose any sleep over it though. It's just a pity that you can't just calmly debate your theory without such intolerance and exasperation against those who disagree. Maybe we should all drop out to leave you to agree with yourself on every point!

[Elamarna]

Herlock Sholmes: Fisherman:


Then don´t believe it, Herlock. I really don´t care all that much. But don´t present things as facts that are not facts - they left Bucks Row together, it would seem - but did they really meet Mizen together? What do you base this statement on and how do you propose to prove it?
]The devil is in the details. And so is the truth.

Well we have the sworn statement of Lehmere saying they did,
we have the sworn statements of Paul which says they meet Mizen together.
We have the non-sworn statement in llloyds weekly that Paul spoke to Mizen,

And last but not least we have the sworn evidence of Mizen himself:

Star 3rd September.
“Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man”


Daily News 4th September
“when a carman passing by in company with another man”


Daily Telegraph 4th September
“Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man “

The Times 4th September
“When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.”


Illustrated Police News 8th September
“ while he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, a carman passing by, in company with another man”

Lloyds Weekly News 9th September.
“on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man”


It seems clear that in Mizen’s view they were together when they arrived; is there any evidence that exist to suggest they did not approach him together, I can see nothing in the sources which suggest that occurred.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes:

You find the question about the other experts to be like the 'kind of stuff asked in kindergarten.' I'm sorry but that's just pathetic on a staggering level. How can anyone take umbrage at someone asking, what could be re-phrased as, 'how does your experts opinion compare with the opinions of other experts in that field?' To anyone unbiased that is a valid question but not to you.

But that is another question altogether, and a much better one. If you had used it instead of the one you posted, you would not be having an agitated discussion about my criticism now.

Your expert is obviously sufficient. Job done then!

No, no, no. Wrong, Sherlock. Just because i criticize your question, it does not follow that it is because I don´t want Griffiths challenged. I welcome ALL specialist and experts and have always done so - they are better suited than the rest of us to clear things up and add knowledge. So please don´t tarnish me in this manner, it is totally incorrect.

Calm(ish) debate is good. You like discussing your 'theory' so you say. Although you should probably just call it a 'final solution.' Unles, that is, someone else's opinion pollutes it with 'an ocean of sticky, smelly ignorance.' Calm and measured as ever.

You claimed that Lechmere should be dismissed as a suspect if it could not be proven today that he was a psychopath. It is exactly the kind of stuff that must be harshly criticized - and moreover, I think you understand perfectly well why.
I am all for a calm debate, but say the word "Lechmere" and it that calm will not be on offer.

I think anyone reading this thread will see where the attitude is coming from.

Yes, from two directions - you and me.

It pours from your every post. I won't lose any sleep over it though. It's just a pity that you can't just calmly debate your theory without such intolerance and exasperation against those who disagree. Maybe we should all drop out to leave you to agree with yourself on every point!

Alternatively, you could see what happens if you are less aggressive yourself. As a poster out here, I am the result of what I have been treated to over the years. And that is not to complaint - I was well prepared for it when I became a pesky suspectologist. But I will point it out.
If you go through the posts made over the years, you will find a number of posters who protest about the treatment those who propose Lechmere as a candidate are subjected to. Most of them posts are met with a very aggresive response clearing the non-Lechmerians collectively in favour of pointing out that those who propose Lechmere are mad anyway.'
In the end, the same old truth is always going to prevail - it takes two to tango.

[Fisherman]

Well we have the sworn statement of Lehmere saying they did,
we have the sworn statements of Paul which says they meet Mizen together.
We have the non-sworn statement in llloyds weekly that Paul spoke to Mizen,

And last but not least we have the sworn evidence of Mizen himself:

Star 3rd September.
“Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man”


Daily News 4th September
“when a carman passing by in company with another man”


Daily Telegraph 4th September
“Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man “

The Times 4th September
“When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.”


Illustrated Police News 8th September
“ while he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, a carman passing by, in company with another man”

Lloyds Weekly News 9th September.
“on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man”


It seems clear that in Mizen’s view they were together when they arrived; is there any evidence that exist to suggest they did not approach him together, I can see nothing in the sources which suggest that occurred.


Steve

They arrived up at Bakers Row together - probably, but not proven. I all hinges on what we mean with "together". Once they saw Mizen, I think that Lechmere and Paul parted ways, Paul proceeding forward, Lechmere veering off to speak to Mizen. We all know that it cannot be proven that the men were close together and we all know that Mizen said that "A" man passing spoke to him. Not TWO men.

That´s evidence enough to put the being "together" in very serious doubt.

[Fisherman]

Good-oh. For the record, I will always suggest that Griffiths could easily have been inadvertently (I emphasise, inadvertently) misled, and certainly underinformed. Given the complexities of the case, and with so little by way of unambiguous evidence having survived, he was bound to have been.

It's remarkable that you affect such pious dismay whenever this is suggested, Fish, when I'd have thought it self-evident to any seasoned student of ripperology.

Yes, I know that you will always propose that Griffiths was misled and underinformed.

Otherwise, you would have a carman in your lap that was most probably a murderer.

Can´t have that, can we?

There are more than one way of misleading, I´ll say that. Proposing that Griffiths was misled and underinformed - in spite of how I say he was not - could well be a very sad example of such a thing.

But you would NEVER, would you? Speaking about piety.

[andy1867]

They arrived up at Bakers Row together - probably, but not proven. I all hinges on what we mean with "together". Once they saw Mizen, I think that Lechmere and Paul parted ways, Paul proceeding forward, Lechmere veering off to speak to Mizen. We all know that it cannot be proven that the men were close together and we all know that Mizen said that "A" man passing spoke to him. Not TWO men.

That´s evidence enough to put the being "together" in very serious doubt.

would you not then presume that Paul had no suspicion about Cross?
Sort of happy for Cross to tell the story, while he proceeded to work?
I dunno whether I would be too happy to do that..because surely Cross is going to tell Mizen that "He AND.. another man" looked at the body
I would rather I accounted for what I saw myself, if I was Paul.
Not an argument Fisherman, just a passing comment

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;418304]

Once they saw Mizen, I think that Lechmere and Paul parted ways, Paul proceeding forward, Lechmere veering off to speak to Mizen.

I would like to say it in Greek since I don´t know the English expression for it, but it is something like "you should be ashamed".

Why?

Because you prefer that interpretation just to keep the so called "Mizen Scam", i.e. that you postulate that Lechmere told Mizen there was a PC who wanted his assistance in Buck´s Row.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

would you not then presume that Paul had no suspicion about Cross?
Sort of happy for Cross to tell the story, while he proceeded to work?
I dunno whether I would be too happy to do that..because surely Cross is going to tell Mizen that "He AND.. another man" looked at the body
I would rather I accounted for what I saw myself, if I was Paul.
Not an argument Fisherman, just a passing comment

Yes, we can all try and put ourselves in Pauls place and try and gauge how we would have done it.

Maybe we get it right, maybe we get it wrong.

What I am suggesting is a very convincing and seemingly jovial and friendly Lechmere telling Paul "Now, there we are - there´s that constable we are looking for! Now you just go on your way so you do not run too late, and I´ll tell him about the woman, and then I´ll catch up with you in no time at all!"

Psychopaths - that dreaded word! - are very good liars, and they are very apt at painting themselves out as good guys, very persuasive and so on. I posted a map of it all some year back. I´ll see if I can fond it and repost it. It is helpful, I think, in explaining how they work.

[andy1867]

Yes, we can all try and put ourselves in Pauls place and try and gauge how we would have done it.

Maybe we get it right, maybe we get it wrong.

What I am suggesting is a very convincing and seemingly jovial and friendly Lechmere telling Paul "Now, there we are - there´s that constable we are looking for! Now you just go on your way so you do not run too late, and I´ll tell him about the woman, and then I´ll catch up with you in no time at all!"

Psychopaths - that dreaded word! - are very good liars, and they are very apt at painting themselves out as good guys, very persuasive and so on. I posted a map of it all some year back. I´ll see if I can fond it and repost it. It is helpful, I think, in explaining how they work.

I get your point Fish....but if I was Paul, I would expect to get drawn into it anyway, or would I presume Cross was not going to mention meeting me?
They had already pondered as to whether Nicholls was dead or not before meeting a policeman...
Surely Paul would realise he was going to be in the investigation one way or another.
I don't think I would have trusted someone else to put the whole story together with me as a participant, without putting my version across.
Unless of course Paul was a trusting soul and maybe not too savvy...I dunno..Theres a lot of supposition involved.
I am in no way denegrating your theory...I haven't got one myself, so would be the last to cast aspersions...and I fail to see how Cross/Lechmere isnt a suspect, given the rest of the "Cast"...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes:

You find the question about the other experts to be like the 'kind of stuff asked in kindergarten.' I'm sorry but that's just pathetic on a staggering level. How can anyone take umbrage at someone asking, what could be re-phrased as, 'how does your experts opinion compare with the opinions of other experts in that field?' To anyone unbiased that is a valid question but not to you.

But that is another question altogether, and a much better one. If you had used it instead of the one you posted, you would not be having an agitated discussion about my criticism now.

Your expert is obviously sufficient. Job done then!

No, no, no. Wrong, Sherlock. Just because i criticize your question, it does not follow that it is because I don´t want Griffiths challenged. I welcome ALL specialist and experts and have always done so - they are better suited than the rest of us to clear things up and add knowledge. So please don´t tarnish me in this manner, it is totally incorrect.

Calm(ish) debate is good. You like discussing your 'theory' so you say. Although you should probably just call it a 'final solution.' Unles, that is, someone else's opinion pollutes it with 'an ocean of sticky, smelly ignorance.' Calm and measured as ever.

You claimed that Lechmere should be dismissed as a suspect if it could not be proven today that he was a psychopath. It is exactly the kind of stuff that must be harshly criticized - and moreover, I think you understand perfectly well why.
I am all for a calm debate, but say the word "Lechmere" and it that calm will not be on offer.

I think anyone reading this thread will see where the attitude is coming from.

Yes, from two directions - you and me.

It pours from your every post. I won't lose any sleep over it though. It's just a pity that you can't just calmly debate your theory without such intolerance and exasperation against those who disagree. Maybe we should all drop out to leave you to agree with yourself on every point!

Alternatively, you could see what happens if you are less aggressive yourself. As a poster out here, I am the result of what I have been treated to over the years. And that is not to complaint - I was well prepared for it when I became a pesky suspectologist. But I will point it out.
If you go through the posts made over the years, you will find a number of posters who protest about the treatment those who propose Lechmere as a candidate are subjected to. Most of them posts are met with a very aggresive response clearing the non-Lechmerians collectively in favour of pointing out that those who propose Lechmere are mad anyway.'
In the end, the same old truth is always going to prevail - it takes two to tango.

Ok Fisherman, I've taken a deep breath. First an admission. The 'Lechmere not being a psychopath' one was ill considered. I framed it as an instant reaction/reversal of your statement without taking enough time to think about it. What I should have said was more along the lines of 'having no evidence of violent behaviour, mental imbalance or instability would, in my opinion, weaken any suspects claim to be Jack the Ripper. It wouldn't rule him out just because we are not aware of it but it makes some difference. Obvious if some of this kind of evidence existed Lechmere would instantly become more viable.'

On the 'experts' question I still don't see that my phrasing of it alters what I originally said. But, that's my perception. As you've accepted, my point was just that it would be interesting to hear other experts opinions, especially on the 'walk away or brazen it out,' debate. I'm in no way denigrating the opinion of Andy Griffiths. I may disagree though.

You said ' you could see what happens if you are less aggressive yourself.' Point taken Fisherman.

Keep calm and carry on. I think I've heard that before somewhere.

Regards

Herlock

[Pierre]

Yes, we can all try and put ourselves in Pauls place and try and gauge how we would have done it.

Maybe we get it right, maybe we get it wrong.

What I am suggesting is a very convincing and seemingly jovial and friendly Lechmere telling Paul "Now, there we are - there´s that constable we are looking for! Now you just go on your way so you do not run too late, and I´ll tell him about the woman, and then I´ll catch up with you in no time at all!"

Psychopaths - that dreaded word! - are very good liars, and they are very apt at painting themselves out as good guys, very persuasive and so on. I posted a map of it all some year back. I´ll see if I can fond it and repost it. It is helpful, I think, in explaining how they work.

Good liars. I see. How interesting.

Have you any sources for Lechmere doing that?

If not, you can borrow a couple of sources from me.

[Harry D]

I can assure you, Harry, that if you take the discussion to the level you are aiming at, you will get a handful back. Just try me if you are in some sort of doubt about that as well.

Please don't pretend to be a badass, Fish. Tough-typers like you don't intimidate me in the slightest.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, I know that you will always propose that Griffiths was misled and underinformed.

I did not say that Griffiths "was misled and underinformed". I said that Griffiths "could easily have been inadvertently misled and underinformed". I then went on to say why, "given the complexities of the case, and with so little by way of unambiguous evidence having survived".

All this is demonstrably true.

[Sam Flynn]

Proposing that Griffiths was misled and underinformed - in spite of how I say he was not

You say he was not misled (inadvertently or otherwise) and underinformed, but as far as I know you haven't yet told us precisely what briefing material Griffiths was given.

Please produce it, if only to reassure me that my reasonable caution as to the completeness of the information provided is, in this instance, misplaced.