Lechmere The Psychopath

[Patrick S]

We donīt.

I believe I have xplained that to you a dozen times or so too?

Maybe you just forgor, so Iīll explain again:

We do not know that Lechmere was a psychopath.

The signs on the murder sites and the deeds done speak very much for the killer being a psychopath, regardless who he was.

Therefore, if Lechmere was the killer, I am certain that he must have been a psychopath since his actions - if the killer - were extremely cool and controlled and typical for psychopathy.

Can I ask you to copy this and keep it stored for future needs, Patrick? We donīt want to take up unnecsessary space out here, do we?

No. I think its useful going over it again and again, actually. Important even.

[Patrick S]

Your denigration of him is sad. And based on not a single fact. Thatīs worse, but to be expected.

[/B]

John's "denigration" (which as best I can tell is suggesting that the knowledge available in the time in which he lived was limited and that he wasn't infallible) of Llewellyn is "sad".... Sounds familiar. Mizen received this same treatment: honest, wise, good, true. Those two men must have some common use for you? Damned if I can tell what it might be, though.

Alas, you've done far more than "denigrate" Charles Cross, have you not? So, I find it odd you so energetically castigating anyone who dare "denigrate" these men. After all, you've called him a murderer. A psychopath. Jack the Ripper. The Torso Killer. And you've whined incessantly when others have suggested - based on the life we know he lived - that such "denigration" may be unfounded or unjustified.

It's all so interesting.

[Fisherman]

Good point, I was not as clear as I could be.

Lack of suffering and distress were the legal requirement we worked to.
It can be translated as speed. One carotid does not kill as fast as both. And of course cutting the windpipe stops any chance of crying out.

So the cut to the throat especially the double cuts used by the killer show a need to cut all the vessels and the windpipe. All the "vital parts".

The result of such cuts is immediate prevention of sound from the victim and unconsciousness in about 30 seconds.

Strangulation would obviously mean crying out was not an issue and the victim would be unconscious or nearly so, depending on the degree of strangulation.
It would also mean that the killer could position himself so as to minimise and blood flow onto his person from a neck cut


Steve

The killer had apparently taken care of the risk of arterial spray before he cut the neck, Steve. Therefore, it seems that Nichols had no or very little arterial pressure in the neck when it was cut, meaning that she had suffered damage before it happened.

As I said before, cutting the whole of the neck can never be an indication of anatomical insights, because such a thing is only shown where a conscious choice is made, and where we can see that there are BOTH attacked and unattacked areas. when all of the neck is cut, if anything it points to a lack of anatomical knowledge and a propensity to cut everything to avoid risks.

Try as you might, that wonīt change, and that is where your proposition falls flat on itīs back.

Find me a single case where a medico says that cutting the whole of the neck means a probable anatomical insight, and I will reconsider.

I feel certain, though, that this will never happen.

Dropping an atom bomb on somebody would, I take it, also evince anatomical insights; once it exploded, you knew that you did not have to worry about the victim not dying quickly enough - anatomical insight, therefore!

[Fisherman]

Actually, I think you might be right. I don't think I understand how psychopaths think. They take risks. Thanks for explaining it. My bad. Oh. Sorry. One last question. We know "the carman" was a psychopath....how?

We donīt.

I believe I have xplained that to you a dozen times or so too?

Maybe you just forgor, so Iīll explain again:

We do not know that Lechmere was a psychopath.

The signs on the murder sites and the deeds done speak very much for the killer being a psychopath, regardless who he was.

Therefore, if Lechmere was the killer, I am certain that he must have been a psychopath since his actions - if the killer - were extremely cool and controlled and typical for psychopathy.

Can I ask you to copy this and keep it stored for future needs, Patrick? We donīt want to take up unnecsessary space out here, do we?

[Fisherman]

John G: I meant, of course, "isn't it easier to conclude." It was a predictive text error, which I would have thought you would have realized considering you seem to frequently make them yourself.

Being prone to make language errors does not make you good with language understanding, John. That is a total miscomprehension.

Your argument that Dr Phillips was merely an "overseer" is somewhat bizarre, considering that he was integral to the investigation and actually examined the last 4 canonical victims. Were you unaware of this?

Please tell me when I said that he was MERELY an overseer? I said that he WAS an overseer, meaning that he looked into all of the cases. That si a different matter.

Your veneration of Dr Llewellyn is touching.

Your denigration of him is sad. And based on not a single fact. Thatīs worse, but to be expected.

However, you should know that even modern forensic experts frequently disagree on important points, so I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in the infallibility of a Victorian GP.

Can you please take that statement and shove it where the sun never shines? I have a MILLION times said that I do not regard any person infallible. When will you understand that? Never? Is it really that bad?

And by the way, what precisely was his surgical experience?

He was a house surgeon in London Hospital, he won a prize in minor surgery, and he worked as a surgeon.

What precisely was Phillipsī surgical experience? By the way?

You see, I can play that game too. And it doesnīt lead anywhere but to embarrasment for you...

His comments that the cuts to the abdomen would kill instantly are questionable to say the least.

Says you? Based on your own rich surgical experience?

What is your line of work, John? Are you in the medical business in any fashion? You must be, must you not, to be able to make that kind of a comment. And you must be in the clairvoyance business too, to know what there was to see inside Nichols.
That baffles me. I always had you down as a bureucrat of some sort.

i In fact, even you're perplexed on this point: "All we need to do now is to find out why they would kill instantly." Well, as I opined before, good luck with that one.

How does that mirror perplexion? Not at all, Iīm afraid. If I am perplexed, it is on account of your rather weird suggestions. Then again, I am not perplexed.
The damage to the abdomen could be a number of things. Therefore, it remains to see what it was.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Ah! No one knows what "the carman" was thinking. But "the carman" knew what everyone else was thinking, what they'd say, what they'd do, and how it would all turn out. For if he did not, he'd have never undertaken the folly he chose to avoid detection, capture, and death.

Eh - no. It does not work that way, Patrick. A good many psychopathic serialists have been caught when they have grown overconfident, so we really cannot say that Lechmere - if a psychopath - would not take any risks.

Of course, I have explained all of this before. Many times. But it seems people are unable to take it in.

And it of course goes without saying that Lechmere cannot possibly have known what everyone else was thinking. That would be more like a Kosminsky thing, if you take my meaning

There really is no magical thinking involved anywhere in all of this, and I would really appreciate if you understood that instead of making things out as if there was. It is a very trivial thing, and quite, quite usual amongs psychopaths - they feel they are on top of things, they are quite often narcissists who feel superior to others, and so they beleive they will be able to pull things off easily.

After killing Nichols and hearing someone approach he chose not to walk into the darkness, hide in the shadows, or bluff that the woman on the ground was his beloved wife, the worse for drink again. Instead he chose...to take a few steps back, and WAIT for the man to arrive. In doing so, "the carman" KNEW that the man wasn't a policeman, former policeman, or night watchman, who may suspect him. He KNEW that he'd be able to bluff his way through because he KNEW the man didn't have a lantern, or even a match with which to light the scene, and reveal the injuries we're told he was so desperate to hide that he refused to move Nichols, KNOWING he had no blood on his person he'd have to explain later. Oh! We know that Paul tried to avoid "the carman". Yet, our man KNEW that he'd be perfectly safe in forcing the man to "come see this woman". He KNEW the man would fall in line and allow himself to be controlled, duped. He KNEW the man wouldn't cry "MURDER!" in the streets. He KNEW the man wouldn't immediately search his ("the carman's) person and find the murder weapon hidden there. He KNEW it was safe go have a look at the woman. He KNEW they'd not be joined in short order by a PC (even though Neil happened along seconds later). He KNEW that no one would emerge from the surrounding buildings with a torch and "raise" the proverbial "alarm". And he knew that accompanying the man through the streets and telling a PC about it would turn out just fine because he KNEW that Paul would allow him the space and time he needed to perform his Mizen Scam. And he KNEW that Mizen would let him go. He KNEW he wouldn't say "SHOW ME!" and drag him back into Buck's Row. He also KNEW that Mizen wouldn't inspect his person, ask his name, or suspect him in any way. He KNEW he'd allow him on his merry way. Just as he KNEW that turning up at the inquest the following day would turn out. He KNEW getting on the stand to tell lies about a PC would turn out just fine, too. He KNEW giving an "alternate" name but his real address and employer would help him escape justice, even though his actions tell us he seems to have had little interest in escaping justice in that he kept submitting himself to it. Still, it all worked out. Because he KNEW it would. And because he was a psychopath. But not a dumb one. A brilliant one. Who apparently knew the future.

More of the same, and all of it along the same lines as always. I cannot see why I would answer it, to be frank - I already have, dozens of times.

Actually, I think you might be right. I don't think I understand how psychopaths think. They take risks. Thanks for explaining it. My bad. Oh. Sorry. One last question. We know "the carman" was a psychopath....how?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Ah! No one knows what "the carman" was thinking. But "the carman" knew what everyone else was thinking, what they'd say, what they'd do, and how it would all turn out. For if he did not, he'd have never undertaken the folly he chose to avoid detection, capture, and death.

Eh - no. It does not work that way, Patrick. A good many psychopathic serialists have been caught when they have grown overconfident, so we really cannot say that Lechmere - if a psychopath - would not take any risks.

Of course, I have explained all of this before. Many times. But it seems people are unable to take it in.

And it of course goes without saying that Lechmere cannot possibly have known what everyone else was thinking. That would be more like a Kosminsky thing, if you take my meaning

There really is no magical thinking involved anywhere in all of this, and I would really appreciate if you understood that instead of making things out as if there was. It is a very trivial thing, and quite, quite usual amongs psychopaths - they feel they are on top of things, they are quite often narcissists who feel superior to others, and so they beleive they will be able to pull things off easily.

After killing Nichols and hearing someone approach he chose not to walk into the darkness, hide in the shadows, or bluff that the woman on the ground was his beloved wife, the worse for drink again. Instead he chose...to take a few steps back, and WAIT for the man to arrive. In doing so, "the carman" KNEW that the man wasn't a policeman, former policeman, or night watchman, who may suspect him. He KNEW that he'd be able to bluff his way through because he KNEW the man didn't have a lantern, or even a match with which to light the scene, and reveal the injuries we're told he was so desperate to hide that he refused to move Nichols, KNOWING he had no blood on his person he'd have to explain later. Oh! We know that Paul tried to avoid "the carman". Yet, our man KNEW that he'd be perfectly safe in forcing the man to "come see this woman". He KNEW the man would fall in line and allow himself to be controlled, duped. He KNEW the man wouldn't cry "MURDER!" in the streets. He KNEW the man wouldn't immediately search his ("the carman's) person and find the murder weapon hidden there. He KNEW it was safe go have a look at the woman. He KNEW they'd not be joined in short order by a PC (even though Neil happened along seconds later). He KNEW that no one would emerge from the surrounding buildings with a torch and "raise" the proverbial "alarm". And he knew that accompanying the man through the streets and telling a PC about it would turn out just fine because he KNEW that Paul would allow him the space and time he needed to perform his Mizen Scam. And he KNEW that Mizen would let him go. He KNEW he wouldn't say "SHOW ME!" and drag him back into Buck's Row. He also KNEW that Mizen wouldn't inspect his person, ask his name, or suspect him in any way. He KNEW he'd allow him on his merry way. Just as he KNEW that turning up at the inquest the following day would turn out. He KNEW getting on the stand to tell lies about a PC would turn out just fine, too. He KNEW giving an "alternate" name but his real address and employer would help him escape justice, even though his actions tell us he seems to have had little interest in escaping justice in that he kept submitting himself to it. Still, it all worked out. Because he KNEW it would. And because he was a psychopath. But not a dumb one. A brilliant one. Who apparently knew the future.

More of the same, and all of it along the same lines as always. I cannot see why I would answer it, to be frank - I already have, dozens of times.

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;421273



Hi Steve,

Does that concept of lack of suffering and distress applied to a murder case like this one include a risk of the murder victim crying out?

If so, what are the arguments for strangulation first?

Pierre

Good point, I was not as clear as I could be.

Lack of suffering and distress were the legal requirement we worked to.
It can be translated as speed. One carotid does not kill as fast as both. And of course cutting the windpipe stops any chance of crying out.

So the cut to the throat especially the double cuts used by the killer show a need to cut all the vessels and the windpipe. All the "vital parts".

The result of such cuts is immediate prevention of sound from the victim and unconsciousness in about 30 seconds.

Strangulation would obviously mean crying out was not an issue and the victim would be unconscious or nearly so, depending on the degree of strangulation.
It would also mean that the killer could position himself so as to minimise and blood flow onto his person from a neck cut


Steve

[Patrick S]

Herlock Sholmes: Hi Caz,

I've emboldened 2 parts of your post.

Fish's reasoning, apparently supported by Andy Griffiths, is that, mystically they know exactly how CL would be thinking.

Once again, no. Nobody knows how Lechmere was thinking, Herlock, not you, not I - and certainly not Caz. all we can offer is suggestions.

Ah! No one knows what "the carman" was thinking. But "the carman" knew what everyone else was thinking, what they'd say, what they'd do, and how it would all turn out. For if he did not, he'd have never undertaken the folly he chose to avoid detection, capture, and death.

After killing Nichols and hearing someone approach he chose not to walk into the darkness, hide in the shadows, or bluff that the woman on the ground was his beloved wife, the worse for drink again. Instead he chose...to take a few steps back, and WAIT for the man to arrive. In doing so, "the carman" KNEW that the man wasn't a policeman, former policeman, or night watchman, who may suspect him. He KNEW that he'd be able to bluff his way through because he KNEW the man didn't have a lantern, or even a match with which to light the scene, and reveal the injuries we're told he was so desperate to hide that he refused to move Nichols, KNOWING he had no blood on his person he'd have to explain later. Oh! We know that Paul tried to avoid "the carman". Yet, our man KNEW that he'd be perfectly safe in forcing the man to "come see this woman". He KNEW the man would fall in line and allow himself to be controlled, duped. He KNEW the man wouldn't cry "MURDER!" in the streets. He KNEW the man wouldn't immediately search his ("the carman's) person and find the murder weapon hidden there. He KNEW it was safe go have a look at the woman. He KNEW they'd not be joined in short order by a PC (even though Neil happened along seconds later). He KNEW that no one would emerge from the surrounding buildings with a torch and "raise" the proverbial "alarm". And he knew that accompanying the man through the streets and telling a PC about it would turn out just fine because he KNEW that Paul would allow him the space and time he needed to perform his Mizen Scam. And he KNEW that Mizen would let him go. He KNEW he wouldn't say "SHOW ME!" and drag him back into Buck's Row. He also KNEW that Mizen wouldn't inspect his person, ask his name, or suspect him in any way. He KNEW he'd allow him on his merry way. Just as he KNEW that turning up at the inquest the following day would turn out. He KNEW getting on the stand to tell lies about a PC would turn out just fine, too. He KNEW giving an "alternate" name but his real address and employer would help him escape justice, even though his actions tell us he seems to have had little interest in escaping justice in that he kept submitting himself to it. Still, it all worked out. Because he KNEW it would. And because he was a psychopath. But not a dumb one. A brilliant one. Who apparently knew the future.

[John G]

This is pure gold, since this clearly shows how you work. "who wasnīt utilized subsequently in the investigation".

Which doctors were? Phillips was chosen to be the overseer, and no other doctor was therefore "utilized subsequently" in the investigation. But you try to paint a picture where it was decided that Llewellyn was not good enough to be employed as some sort of advisor, and that really is not going to work.

Itīs a bit shameful when posters go to such lenghts, I find, and I am happy to be able to offer the completer picture.

The same of course goes for "clearly no forensic specialist": A/ We donīt know to which degree he was forensically interested/versed and B/ why would he need to be? He had certainly seen sharp violence before - unless you object to that? - and he had trained as a surgeon and worked as one. That should suffice to make his word a valid one.

You begin by writing "Isnīt it earlier to conclude...", and that makes me think that you may not be any specialist in the field of writing. Did you mean "isnīt it likelier", perhaps?

The answer to that question is of course no, it is not likelier to conclude that LLewellyn made a mistake. It is highly unlikely, but not impossible. The character of the question is of a kind where a mistake of the magnitude suggested - that LLewellyn may not have known that a cut to the omentum would not kill immediately - is nigh on impossible.

He was a surgeon. He would have cut through the omentum of many a patient, to reach the underlying organs. I donīt think he was amazed every time his patients survived that cut, instead of perishing instantly.

Do you?

I meant, of course, "isn't it easier to conclude." It was a predictive text error, which I would have thought you would have realized considering you seem to frequently make them yourself.

Your argument that Dr Phillips was merely an "overseer" is somewhat bizarre, considering that he was integral to the investigation and actually examined the last 4 canonical victims. Were you unaware of this?

Your veneration of Dr Llewellyn is touching. However, you should know that even modern forensic experts frequently disagree on important points, so I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in the infallibility of a Victorian GP. And by the way, what precisely was his surgical experience?

His comments that the cuts to the abdomen would kill instantly are questionable to say the least. In fact, even you're perplexed on this point: "All we need to do now is to find out why they would kill instantly." Well, as I opined before, good luck with that one.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: Hi Caz,

I've emboldened 2 parts of your post.

Fish's reasoning, apparently supported by Andy Griffiths, is that, mystically they know exactly how CL would be thinking.

Once again, no. Nobody knows how Lechmere was thinking, Herlock, not you, not I - and certainly not Caz. all we can offer is suggestions.

That he was a psychopath and would have wanted to 'brazen it out.' Walk away to absolute freedom or remain and call someone over (potentially with blood on him; definitely with a large, bloodstained knife on him!) then walk off to find a Constable. Then turn up at the Inquest to say that he'd found the body. Is this remotely believable? Of course it isn't. But nothing about this theory is.

That is your interpretation. Andy Griffiths differed - he found the suggestion a very likely one.

So lets ask a question in your vein: Is it even remotely likely that you will be the better judge? Of course not.

Caz, you ask how this theory has legs? You know the answer to that one...it doesn't.

I think that we should award it The Sir Douglas Bader Award for Ripperology.

Weīve already received lots of positive response, but a prize or two to add to it is of course always welcome. Thanks for the generous suggestion!

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;421273

A cut to a single carotid was not judged sufficient to ensure a lack of suffering and distress.

Hi Steve,

Does that concept of lack of suffering and distress applied to a murder case like this one include a risk of the murder victim crying out?

If so, what are the arguments for strangulation first?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish. I was beginning to doubt that the report existed, but I've finally found it (in the Chapman section of the Ultimate JTR Companion).
Must admit, I'm struggling to understand what sort of wound to the abdomen could be instantly fatal....everyone knows that if you want an instant kill you go for the neck or heart; a belly wound is a slow kill, and a slow kill may have enough left in him to kill you before he dies....

Well, for starters, there is no method that will kill immediately, unless we speak of nuclear bombs blowing a person to smithereens or something such. Otherwise, the heart will beat for some little time, the brain will shut down over a miniscule period of seconds - at least.

I donīt think we should take the expression too literally, but instead see it as an implication of a method of killing that would ensure a swift death.

If we allow for that, we can see that for example a severed aorta would fall into this category - a brisk pressure fall ensuring unconsciousness followed by the heart stopping when it runs out of fuel, if there is not an even faster heart attack...

That sort of thing.

Strictly speaking, it would be more or less the exact same story as a cut neck would result in.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=caz;421272]

Hold on a minute, Fish. Surely the prime suspect for Jack the Ripper is much more likely to be someone whose priority was to get away from one of his earliest crime scenes, if not the earliest, unseen and unidentified, so he could go on to kill again and again, with no risk of being stopped, searched and taken down the cop shop for questioning on any of these subsequent occasions and the police going: "Hold on a minute, fella. Charles Cross of Doveton Street, and carman at Pickfords, you say?? Are you having a hat and scarf? Being found with one freshly killed corpse is bad luck; being found in the immediate vicinity of another one is seriously bad judgement, my old son. You're nicked." Unless of course, by a stroke of good fortune, it was good old cuddly old PC Mizen who stopped him, in which case he'd just say: "All right, so sorry I mistook you for someone else" and carry on knocking up.

Do you not think a serial killer, just beginning to act out his murderous urges, would do anything in his power to keep well out of the spotlight at this early stage of the game, to pave the way for a long career in bloody encounters? Has there ever been a case of one deliberately and needlessly involving himself in the inquest of one of his earliest victims, knowing that he could never again afford to be seen with or near a future victim? And did the ripper take every precaution in this regard? Apparently not, if he was seen either talking to Chapman, manhandling Stride, canoodling with Eddowes or sharing a joke or a pot of ale with Kelly. None of them could realistically have been Cross, could they?

Indeed. Serial killers as described by Fisherman are psychopaths who do not experience fear.

But are they extensively stupid?

Cheers, Pierre

[Fisherman]

My aim? Oh, I've achieved my aim. Thank you.

Always happy to oblige, Patrick.