Lechmere The Psychopath

[Harry D]

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?

I don't know, probably that it's fallacious reasoning?

[Pierre]

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.

What do you know about the prevalence of psychopathy in serial killers? Do you have any research for it?

[harry]

It appears to me,we shall never know that Cross was the killer of Nichols,because it can never be established that Cross was a physcopath. Being judged by evidence, there is no evidence that puts Cross in the company of Nichols while Nichols was alive,physcpath or not.Or am I wrong,he was a physcopath so must have been in company of Nichols while Nichols was alive? which he would have to be if he killed her.Getting a little confusing?W heres Andy Griffith's and Payne-James?

[Fisherman]

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

Which is just an opinion, and nothing else - speaking about being "down to the possible/impossible argument".

The statements we have do not give data that Paul heard the conversation. That is false, simple as that.

There is nothing to discount that he COULD have heard it and nothing to discount that he may NOT have.

Any other interpretation is untrue, and I prefer the truth in this case too.

[Fisherman]

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

Thank you. Then I entertain the hope that you will not again say that I have claimed that Charles Lechmere was a psychopath.

[Fisherman]

I don't know, probably that it's fallacious reasoning?

I am not doing any fallacious reasoning. It seems, however, that you are working from a fallacious angle. Moreover, you are helping - very willingly - to spread a fallacious picture of my reasoning. And thatīs just sad.

[Fisherman]

It appears to me,we shall never know that Cross was the killer of Nichols,because it can never be established that Cross was a physcopath. Being judged by evidence, there is no evidence that puts Cross in the company of Nichols while Nichols was alive,physcpath or not.Or am I wrong,he was a physcopath so must have been in company of Nichols while Nichols was alive? which he would have to be if he killed her.Getting a little confusing?W heres Andy Griffith's and Payne-James?

No, it does not take any proof that Lechmere was a psychopath to tell that he was the killer of Nichols. There are many other factors that can potentially strengthen such a thing, and proving that Lechmere was a psychopath is not the same as proving that he was the killer. Even psychopaths must have the right to pass a murder site without being accused of the murder.

[Fisherman]

Iīll offer one further clarification of the psychopathy bit, so we are all clear on it.

I have never said that it is a proven thing that Lechmere carried a knife with a long, sharp blade.

But I am saying that if he was the killer, he must have.

This seems to pose no sort of problem at all with anybody.

I have never said that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath.

But I am saying that if he was the killer, he must have been.

And suddenly all hell breaks loose, and I am accused of circular reasoning, of claiming as a fact that he was a psychopath, of misleading and all sorts of things.

I find this utterly strange.

[GUT]

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?

The problem I have is that these is not the slightest tiniest thing to point towards Lechmere being a psychopath. Not a solitary thing.

[Fisherman]

The problem I have is that these is not the slightest tiniest thing to point towards Lechmere being a psychopath. Not a solitary thing.

The same goes for the knife, Gut - there is nothing at all that tells us that Lechmere carried a long-bladed, sharp knife. But noone has a problem accepting that he may have.

So why would we have any problems accepting that he may have been a psychopath?

In both cases, we are dealing with suggestions.

In the case of the knife, there MUST have been a sharp, long blade included, since we can tell from the damage done.

In the case of psychopathy, Iīd say there must have been psychopathy involved, since we can see from the total lack of empathy and the callousness involved, that it must have been there.

The major problems people are having with the Lechmere theory is that they feel he would have done a runner if he was the killer - but a psychopath would not have any problems doing it the other way, on the contrary. People say that he would not have a wife and family and kids - but psychopaths are often eager to portray what is perceived as successful in society. They say that he would not have gone to the police - but psychopaths love to taunt and they feel superior to the rest of us.

I am not saying that Lechmere is in any way a proven psychopath. I am saying that those who have a problem with him as the killer on these grounds, seem to have forgotten - or never have been familiar with - how many serialists are psychopaths, playing the game by other rules than normal people play by.

Ergo, the question is not whether there is a single thing or not that points to Lechmere being a psychopath. It applies that there is not anything at all that rules it out either, not his family life, not his kids, not his amassing some money during his life, not his ambition...

The fact that we cannot say whether he was a psychopath or not, the fact that nothing at all proves it or points to it, the fact that nothing disproves it or point away from it, are secondary to the discussion I am trying to have.

We should not discount Lechmere on the grounds of his being a family man, his having a steady job, his ambition in working life, taking him to a shop of his own.

The reason we should not do this is because there is the OPTION that he was a psychopath - option, not fact, not a certainty - and as long as that option is open to us, Lechmere remains in the game.

What seems to be suggested out here is another approach altogether: We should regard him as highly unlikely on account of him being a family man, having kids and showing ambition. Or we should rule him out on account on not having been proved to be a psychopath.

Everybody is of course welcome to his or her own level of insight, his or her own insights and his or her own feeling about whether Lechmere was guilty or not.

But misrepresenting what I say - as some have done, you not included - and claining things as facts that are nowhere near facts - like for example Steve does in saying that the data tells us that Paul heard what Lechmere told Mizen - is not helpful at all.

Yes, this bloke suggests that Lechmere was the killer, on combined grounds involving many factors. No, this bloke does not say that Lechmere must have been a psychopath, he says that IF LECHMERE WAS THE KILLER, then he must have been a psychopath. And yes, this bloke points to how psychopathy can help understanding why he favours Lechmere as the killer.

The discussion is a far wider one than the more simple one of how there is at present nothing that proves that Lechmere was a psychopath, and not even anything that points to it before we accept that Lechmere was the killer.

[GUT]

Sorry Fish I do have a problem accepting that Lech carried a long handled knife, unless someone produces evidence that he did so.

The whole problem with "Ripperology" at the moment is it is all based on "he might have"

I know I've said it before but I'm a bit of a sucker for evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The same goes for the knife, Gut - there is nothing at all that tells us that Lechmere carried a long-bladed, sharp knife. But noone has a problem accepting that he may have.

So why would we have any problems accepting that he may have been a psychopath?

In both cases, we are dealing with suggestions.

In the case of the knife, there MUST have been a sharp, long blade included, since we can tell from the damage done.

In the case of psychopathy, Iīd say there must have been psychopathy involved, since we can see from the total lack of empathy and the callousness involved, that it must have been there.

The major problems people are having with the Lechmere theory is that they feel he would have done a runner if he was the killer - but a psychopath would not have any problems doing it the other way, on the contrary. People say that he would not have a wife and family and kids - but psychopaths are often eager to portray what is perceived as successful in society. They say that he would not have gone to the police - but psychopaths love to taunt and they feel superior to the rest of us.

I am not saying that Lechmere is in any way a proven psychopath. I am saying that those who have a problem with him as the killer on these grounds, seem to have forgotten - or never have been familiar with - how many serialists are psychopaths, playing the game by other rules than normal people play by.

Ergo, the question is not whether there is a single thing or not that points to Lechmere being a psychopath. It applies that there is not anything at all that rules it out either, not his family life, not his kids, not his amassing some money during his life, not his ambition...

The fact that we cannot say whether he was a psychopath or not, the fact that nothing at all proves it or points to it, the fact that nothing disproves it or point away from it, are secondary to the discussion I am trying to have.

We should not discount Lechmere on the grounds of his being a family man, his having a steady job, his ambition in working life, taking him to a shop of his own.

The reason we should not do this is because there is the OPTION that he was a psychopath - option, not fact, not a certainty - and as long as that option is open to us, Lechmere remains in the game.

What seems to be suggested out here is another approach altogether: We should regard him as highly unlikely on account of him being a family man, having kids and showing ambition. Or we should rule him out on account on not having been proved to be a psychopath.

Everybody is of course welcome to his or her own level of insight, his or her own insights and his or her own feeling about whether Lechmere was guilty or not.

But misrepresenting what I say - as some have done, you not included - and claining things as facts that are nowhere near facts - like for example Steve does in saying that the data tells us that Paul heard what Lechmere told Mizen - is not helpful at all.

Yes, this bloke suggests that Lechmere was the killer, on combined grounds involving many factors. No, this bloke does not say that Lechmere must have been a psychopath, he says that IF LECHMERE WAS THE KILLER, then he must have been a psychopath. And yes, this bloke points to how psychopathy can help understanding why he favours Lechmere as the killer.

The discussion is a far wider one than the more simple one of how there is at present nothing that proves that Lechmere was a psychopath, and not even anything that points to it before we accept that Lechmere was the killer.

Hi Fisherman and all

My own opinion is that the 'psychopathy' argument is a bit of a red herring. Fish knows that I don't believe that Lechmere was the killer. To simplify, it's my opinion that: if he went out that morning intending to kill I don't think that he allowed himself anywhere near enough time. I feel that it's highly unlikely that he would kill on the way to work. I think that he would have walked away rather than brazen it out. I see no issue with the 'Mizen incident.' I also see nothing suspicious about the name issue. Obviously Fish disagrees.
We cannot know if Lechmere was a psychopath or not. This is 'Fish's syllogism': Fish believes that Jack was a psychopath. Fish believes that Lechmere was Jack. Therefore, Fish believes that Lechmere was likely to be a psychopath. We cannot prove or disprove this.
It would be a major advantage to Fish's case he would, I'm sure admit, if we found out that Lechmere had some kind of history of violence or hatred of women. We don't have that. Based on the evidence that we have he was a happily married family man.
My point is that I don't feel that we can advance on 'psychopath' debate. We can't say 'he couldn't have done so and so because we know that he wasn't a psychopath.' And Fish can't say 'he must have done or thought so and so because we know that he was a psychopath.' It's only through assessing the weight of current evidence or by coming across new evidence that the debate could reach anything like a conclusion. As I said, I don't feel that the evidence points to a guilty Lechmere and I base my opinion on what I currently know or deduce from the facts. I, personally, don't think the psychopathy argument is particularly useful for either side at the moment.

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

But misrepresenting what I say - as some have done, you not included - and claining things as facts that are nowhere near facts - like for example Steve does in saying that the data tells us that Paul heard what Lechmere told Mizen - is not helpful at all.

I was not going to comment but I really must.

Despite what you have been saying and posting the witness sources are very clear.

Lechmere says Paul also spoke during the conversation with Mizen.
Paul claims to have taken part and at the very least to have known what was said . Agreeing with Lechmere.
Now I will point out as you often do that it is not me suggesting this, it is what is recorded.

You don't believe this fine, and we now know that is because you believe that Paul lied and one must assume you hold the same view of Lechmere.
In addition you interpret Mizen as saying they were not in close proximity and you believe Mizen was truthful.
Again that's fine.

However we are left with 3 sets of Witness statements and any views on what occurred need to be based on those. To suggest that pointing out that two of those 3 sets specifically say that both Lechmere and Paul were involved in the conversation with Mizen is unhelpful, is a somewhat strange approach,if one seeks a full and true picture of the events.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Sorry Fish I do have a problem accepting that Lech carried a long handled knife, unless someone produces evidence that he did so.

The whole problem with "Ripperology" at the moment is it is all based on "he might have"

I know I've said it before but I'm a bit of a sucker for evidence.

Much as you are uncertain about that knife, the overall point I was making is that although it is essential, the fewest have a problem accepting that he could have carried one. And it seems that carmen generally carried knifes, in order to be able to cut the harness in the event of an accident.

The "he might have" is not something that is a contemporary inclusion in Ripperology. It has been there from the start. As long as that is all that is said instead of "I am certain that he did", itīs as it should be.

We all love evidence, but when it is not around, the only way forward is to test different theories.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman and all

My own opinion is that the 'psychopathy' argument is a bit of a red herring. Fish knows that I don't believe that Lechmere was the killer. To simplify, it's my opinion that: if he went out that morning intending to kill I don't think that he allowed himself anywhere near enough time. I feel that it's highly unlikely that he would kill on the way to work. I think that he would have walked away rather than brazen it out. I see no issue with the 'Mizen incident.' I also see nothing suspicious about the name issue. Obviously Fish disagrees.
We cannot know if Lechmere was a psychopath or not. This is 'Fish's syllogism': Fish believes that Jack was a psychopath. Fish believes that Lechmere was Jack. Therefore, Fish believes that Lechmere was likely to be a psychopath. We cannot prove or disprove this.
It would be a major advantage to Fish's case he would, I'm sure admit, if we found out that Lechmere had some kind of history of violence or hatred of women. We don't have that. Based on the evidence that we have he was a happily married family man.
My point is that I don't feel that we can advance on 'psychopath' debate. We can't say 'he couldn't have done so and so because we know that he wasn't a psychopath.' And Fish can't say 'he must have done or thought so and so because we know that he was a psychopath.' It's only through assessing the weight of current evidence or by coming across new evidence that the debate could reach anything like a conclusion. As I said, I don't feel that the evidence points to a guilty Lechmere and I base my opinion on what I currently know or deduce from the facts. I, personally, don't think the psychopathy argument is particularly useful for either side at the moment.

Regards
Herlock

Personally, I think it would be careless not to include what we know about psychopaty, on account of it being so very common with psychopathy among serialists.
But everybody must make his own choice!

One small matter: You write that as far as we know, Lechmere was a happily married family man. I agree with that as long as we strike out the "happily". We do not know that it was a happy marriage at all. A divorce was not an everyday occurence in these days, and the marriage could well have been unhappy. Nothong points in either way.

I am always wary about these matters, when Lechmeres status as a family man is somehow portrayed as part of a guarantee that he would not have done it. Moreover, a number of serialists have been happily married, like for example Ridgway. To me, cottoning onto these matters as if they were some sort of approval of being a good guy is not a productive way forward. Once more, Robert Ressler described the typical serialist as being in his late thirties and upholding a steady job and having a wife and family. This must not be overlooked!