Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Once again, the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

It therefore applies that if Lechmere was a killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.

What is it you gentlemen have problems with on that account?

[Bridewell]

I've made this exact argument for years. So, I know where this is headed. We will get examples of serial killers who were married (although, I've yet be provided an example of one who was married for fifty years, to the same woman). Examples of serial killers who had kids (although, I'm not sure I've gotten an example of one who had 11 kids, all with the same woman). We'll get examples of serial killers who maintained steady employment (although, I'm not sure we'll see one who managed it in a time a place when so many tried and failed to do so).

In the end, its a pretty simple equation: Fisherman himself tells us that in order to have been Jack the Ripper Charles Lechmere HAD to have been a psychopath. Okay. So. Do we have any evidence that Lechmere WAS a psychopath? Anything? Anything at all? No? Alright. Then we have our answer. Charles Lechmere was NOT Jack the Ripper.

Patrick, that's beautifully argued and I am, to put it mildly, not an ardent enthusiast of the Lechmere theory. However, there is always the possibility that Fisherman was wrong to conclude that Lechmere had to be a psychopath. As you have pointed out, unless an 'argument from self' is employed, there is no evidence whatever that Lechmere was a psychopath.

[Bridewell]

Once again, the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

It therefore applies that if Lechmere was a killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.

What is it you gentlemen have problems with on that account?

There is no problem.

Put simply, there is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath, unless you start with the assumption that he was a serial killer. The killer was, as you say, 'in all probability a psychopath'. There is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath; therefore there is no likelihood that Lechmere was the killer.

I know you don't accept that, but such is the argument presented here as I understand it to be.

[Fisherman]

Patrick, that's beautifully argued and I am, to put it mildly, not an ardent enthusiast of the Lechmere theory. However, there is always the possibility that Fisherman was wrong to conclude that Lechmere had to be a psychopath. As you have pointed out, unless an 'argument from self' is employed, there is no evidence whatever that Lechmere was a psychopath.

Fisherman never concluded that Lechmere had to be a psychopath, however. What Insay is that THE KILLER was in all probability a psychopath (something numerous experts agree with), and thus I say that IF Lechmere was the killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.
I also say that if it can be proven (but it of course canīt) that Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he will not have been the killer to my mind.

We really need to get these things correct, or I will be grossly misrepresented. I do not wish for that to happen.

[Patrick S]

Once again, the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

It therefore applies that if Lechmere was a killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.

What is it you gentlemen have problems with on that account?

If that seems reasonable to you...well.... I don't really know what to say.

[Patrick S]

There is no problem.

Put simply, there is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath, unless you start with the assumption that he was a serial killer. The killer was, as you say, 'in all probability a psychopath'. There is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath; therefore there is no likelihood that Lechmere was the killer.

I know you don't accept that, but such is the argument presented here as I understand it to be.

That sums up my understanding as well.

[Patrick S]

Fisherman never concluded that Lechmere had to be a psychopath, however. What Insay is that THE KILLER was in all probability a psychopath (something numerous experts agree with), and thus I say that IF Lechmere was the killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.
I also say that if it can be proven (but it of course canīt) that Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he will not have been the killer to my mind.

We really need to get these things correct, or I will be grossly misrepresented. I do not wish for that to happen.

I'll try this even though I know it's hopeless and will only end in confusion.......

You say the KILLER was in all probability a psychopath. You say that Lechmere IF he were the killer was in all probability a psychopath. Okay. That's harmless enough.......I think. The PROBLEM is that you use your assumption that Lechmere was a psychopath to explain what we've gone 'round and 'round about for some time now: His behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest. You tell us that he didn't walk away from the body into the darkness because he was a psychopath. You tell us he went to Paul and flat begged the man to pay attention to him and come "see this woman", his victim, because he was a psychopath. You tell us he went with Paul to find a PC rather than NOT go looking for a PC because he was psychopath immersed in a elaborate ruse. You tell us he found Mizen and then pulled his "Mizen Scam" duping Paul, Mizen, and everyone studying the case for a century because he was a psychopath. You tell us he then appeared voluntarily at the inquest to tell more lies, in open court, to the coroner and the jury, again, because he was a psychopath, unable to become rattled or lose his cool, executing the perfect bluff. This seems reasonable, even PROBABLE, to you because Lechmere was Jack and Jack was a psychopath. When - at least in my view - the more reasonable, rational, logical, and LIKELY interpretation of the man's actions is simple and obvious: He wasn't a psychopath and acted like any NON-psychopath who DID NOT kill Nichols would have acted.

[Fisherman]

There is no problem.

Put simply, there is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath, unless you start with the assumption that he was a serial killer. The killer was, as you say, 'in all probability a psychopath'. There is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath; therefore there is no likelihood that Lechmere was the killer.

I know you don't accept that, but such is the argument presented here as I understand it to be.

There IS a problem. It is impossible to establish whether Lechmere was a psychopath or not. Therefore, it cannot be decided either way; itīs not as if the lac of evidence in this department is indicative of him not having been a psychopath. He may have been and he may not have been.
Whichever applies, it still stands that the killer was a psychopath, with overwhelming probability.

The idea that I am in any way saying that Lechmere was a psychopath is wrong. I am saying that if he was the killer, then he was a psychopath. The same applies if Druitt was the killer - then HE was a psychopath.

So there is no circular reasoning and no false accusations going on.

You say that there is no evidence for Lechmere being a psychopath and that this means that there is no likelihood that he was the killer, but those are two different matters. All we can say is that as long as he is not a proven psychopath, he cannot be accused of the Whitechapel murders on that account.

[Elamarna]

The fewest present theories based on other peopleīs views, Steve. Didnīt you know? Ann in my case it is very firmly based on the sources, since they tell me that Mizen did not meet and discuss with two men but instead just the one.


At last you give a reply .
However it is your view that Paul was not party to the conversation. Mizen does not say that it is your intreptation of his statement but that is fine.

It is a question of which sources we use. And I am pointing to how there are sources that support my view, making it a viable one.

Donīt lie about that, if you please.

No one has told lies it is you who has refused to make your views clear
Considering you said previously that you did not need to support your arguments it is good to see this change..



You are falsely inferring that what was said must mean that Paul heard what Lechmere told Mizen. That is twisting the facts into something that was never there.

I have done no such thing my dear Fish. It is clear from the statements of Lechmere And Paul that they are saying he did.
That is twice so far you have accused me of deliberately misleading.
However in both cases the arguments I have made are supported by the sources I quote, so please stop.


I am using the sources - it is not me who is suggesting what Mizen said, we have it on record. There is therefore support for my take, although I am quite aware that mine is not the common interpretation of the sources - then again, that is the very idea; I believe the sources have been misinterpreted, and I present an alternative take on it. Which, like I said, is the same as you presenting the alternative take that Lechmere called himself Cross at work.
Where are the sources for THAT, Steve?


With which I have no problem. I have been asking you for the last 24hours for what source you are using. Now at last you give it after realising that you must if you are to maintain any hope of arguing for your theory.

However to admit your view is not the normally accepted view after accusing others of misleading is an interesting take.

Can you show me where I have presented that,other than as a vague possibility. My main argument over the name has been based around why he may have used Cross in matters relating to the Police.
.

A total misfiring; two misunderstandings baked into one.
I am SUGGESTING what I think Mizen meant.

That was not unfortunately how the post read. If you want me to quote it I will..
However I accept you did not mean it how it read.


I am stating that I think you look silly. Me. Not "all the members of the forum.

Again that is not how it read.

You really need to read a bit more comprehensivel if you are to discuss interpretations. I wil put it down to ignorance instead of lying, but Iīm not sure thatīs a better thing .


Oh please how truly condescending!
And the 4th personal insult in 2 posts. Now I am ignorant and lacking somehow.
It's actually very funny and I do not take offence as it is all I have come to expect.

You may have missed out on it, but you have lost the debate. You - for some exotic reason - said that I was the one who needed data to support my view. And all the while, you were clinging on to the demonstrably faulty thesis that "together" and "in company" must mean "in close proximity".


In the opinion of whom have I lost? I see no posters agreeing with either of us.
I was not clinging on to "together" at all, but rather presenting the statements which say that Paul heard what was said; have you not been reading?


Itīs a beginners mistake and a beginnerīs reaction to being exposed. And if you think saying that is typical for my "style" too, you may want to consider that I may just be correct. In fact, I am.

Ah again the belittling and insults. Do you know no other way of debating?



But I have never claimed that I can do that, Steve. I have claimed that I can present a viable scenario in which it applies.

Yes but as a hypothesis it fails. And as I said remains just one more possibility.


As a small aside, it is common knowledge that all Paul said CAN NOT be true, so we can laeve hom unconsidered in this respect. Lechmere is another thing, and I am saying that i THINK he lied, which is just as good a suggestion as any idea that he told the truth.


It is common opinion, not knowledge, that his Lloyds statement is at the very least highly questionable. And that includes all of it.
However where it is corroborated by others we need to look at it carefully.
I think he wanted to take credit than got cold feet.



I am not going to get on the Kindergarten train and ask you to provide proof that renders Lechmere and Paul correct.
We all, all of the posters, all of the world, everybody KNOWS that it canīt be proven either way. So letīs not get too childish about it.

I see a change of position, good.

The one pertinent question - and so far you have avoided it - is this: Can you prove that Paul was not out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen? Once that question has itīs answer, this debate will be over.
[/B]

And I have answered many times. The combined statements of Lechmere and Paul say Paul heard the debate. After studying all of these and looking for any corroberation between them I see no reason to doubt what is said.

Steve

[Elamarna]

The problem is that you ar speaking of a lack of evidence in a post that was never intended to provide evidence. You are therefore making a contribution to the discussion that is completely irrelevant and worthless.

In your view.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: I'll try this even though I know it's hopeless and will only end in confusion.......

Ah, letīs not be pessimistic now!

You say the KILLER was in all probability a psychopath.

Yes!

You say that Lechmere IF he were the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

Yes!

Okay. That's harmless enough.......I think.

It is.

The PROBLEM is that you use your assumption that Lechmere was a psychopath to explain what we've gone 'round and 'round about for some time now: His behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest.

I am pointing to how psychopathy can have lain behind his behaviour and how it seems consisten with much of what he did.

You tell us that he didn't walk away from the body into the darkness because he was a psychopath.

No, Iīm sorry, but I donīt. I am NOT saying that he WAS a psychopath. I am saying that if he did not walk away from the body in spite of being the killer, that seemingly points to psychopathy.

You tell us he went to Paul and flat begged the man to pay attention to him and come "see this woman", his victim, because he was a psychopath.

No. I am saying that if he WAS a psychopath, this could explain how he could act like this.

You tell us he went with Paul to find a PC rather than NOT go looking for a PC because he was psychopath immersed in a elaborate ruse.

No, I donīt. Once again, I point to how a behaviour that may seem very law-abiding, can have been something entirely different IF he was a psychopath.

You tell us he found Mizen and then pulled his "Mizen Scam" duping Paul, Mizen, and everyone studying the case for a century because he was a psychopath.

Nope. I am saying that if he was the killer, then the Mizen scam is perfectly consistent with that.

You tell us he then appeared voluntarily at the inquest to tell more lies, in open court, to the coroner and the jury, again, because he was a psychopath, unable to become rattled or lose his cool, executing the perfect bluff.

Nein, njet, no - I am saying that psychopaths do these kinds of things and that what Lechmere did is therefore consistent with psychopathy IF HE WAS THE KILLER.

This seems reasonable, even PROBABLE, to you because Lechmere was Jack and Jack was a psychopath.

No, it seems quite possible to me IF Lechmere was the killer, because the killer was with great certainty a psychopath.

When - at least in my view - the more reasonable, rational, logical, and LIKELY interpretation of the man's actions is simple and obvious: He wasn't a psychopath and acted like any NON-psychopath who DID NOT kill Nichols would have acted.

It is an alternative take on tings. But I find it less credible than the ersion that Lechmere was the killer, on account of the many anomalies and coincidences surrounding the carman.

Now, you have time and time again claimed that I have said that he was a psychopath. What I am saying is that I THINK he was, because I beleive he was the killer and I am pretty certain the killer was a psychopath. If I am wrong, and Lechmere was NOT the killer, then it was somebody else who was that psychopath: The dreaded Phantom killer.

Have I made myself clear, Patrick? Can you see what I am saying? Or did it end in confusion?

[Fisherman]

In your view.

Steve

Yes, obviously.

[Fisherman]

And I have answered many times. The combined statements of Lechmere and Paul say Paul heard the debate. After studying all of these and looking for any corroberation between them I see no reason to doubt what is said.

Steve

But that is not the issue. The issue and question is CAN it be wrong? CAN I be correct? IS my suggestion a viable one?

That is what you need to answer. As it stands, you seem to be saying that you MUST be right and I MUST be wrong.

If that is the case, you need to conclusively prove your point or adm it that I can be right.

[Elamarna]

But that is not the issue. The issue and question is CAN it be wrong? CAN I be correct? IS my suggestion a viable one?

That is what you need to answer. As it stands, you seem to be saying that you MUST be right and I MUST be wrong.

If that is the case, you need to conclusively prove your point or adm it that I can be right.

I see we are now down to the is it possible/impossible argument.

Reminds me of the Lee J Cobb character in "12 angry men"

I repeat what I have said the statements give data that Paul heard the conversation. Nothing has been presented that effectively counter that.
We began with the semantics of "together " and "company" and progressed to an interpretation of Mizen.
Neither argument is convincing in my opinion.

Steve

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: I'll try this even though I know it's hopeless and will only end in confusion.......

Ah, letīs not be pessimistic now!

You say the KILLER was in all probability a psychopath.

Yes!

You say that Lechmere IF he were the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

Yes!

Okay. That's harmless enough.......I think.

It is.

The PROBLEM is that you use your assumption that Lechmere was a psychopath to explain what we've gone 'round and 'round about for some time now: His behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest.

I am pointing to how psychopathy can have lain behind his behaviour and how it seems consisten with much of what he did.

You tell us that he didn't walk away from the body into the darkness because he was a psychopath.

No, Iīm sorry, but I donīt. I am NOT saying that he WAS a psychopath. I am saying that if he did not walk away from the body in spite of being the killer, that seemingly points to psychopathy.

You tell us he went to Paul and flat begged the man to pay attention to him and come "see this woman", his victim, because he was a psychopath.

No. I am saying that if he WAS a psychopath, this could explain how he could act like this.

You tell us he went with Paul to find a PC rather than NOT go looking for a PC because he was psychopath immersed in a elaborate ruse.

No, I donīt. Once again, I point to how a behaviour that may seem very law-abiding, can have been something entirely different IF he was a psychopath.

You tell us he found Mizen and then pulled his "Mizen Scam" duping Paul, Mizen, and everyone studying the case for a century because he was a psychopath.

Nope. I am saying that if he was the killer, then the Mizen scam is perfectly consistent with that.

You tell us he then appeared voluntarily at the inquest to tell more lies, in open court, to the coroner and the jury, again, because he was a psychopath, unable to become rattled or lose his cool, executing the perfect bluff.

Nein, njet, no - I am saying that psychopaths do these kinds of things and that what Lechmere did is therefore consistent with psychopathy IF HE WAS THE KILLER.

This seems reasonable, even PROBABLE, to you because Lechmere was Jack and Jack was a psychopath.

No, it seems quite possible to me IF Lechmere was the killer, because the killer was with great certainty a psychopath.

When - at least in my view - the more reasonable, rational, logical, and LIKELY interpretation of the man's actions is simple and obvious: He wasn't a psychopath and acted like any NON-psychopath who DID NOT kill Nichols would have acted.

It is an alternative take on tings. But I find it less credible than the ersion that Lechmere was the killer, on account of the many anomalies and coincidences surrounding the carman.

Now, you have time and time again claimed that I have said that he was a psychopath. What I am saying is that I THINK he was, because I beleive he was the killer and I am pretty certain the killer was a psychopath. If I am wrong, and Lechmere was NOT the killer, then it was somebody else who was that psychopath: The dreaded Phantom killer.

Have I made myself clear, Patrick? Can you see what I am saying? Or did it end in confusion?

Oh. You've made yourself clear. Perfectly. There is no confusion at all.