Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Oxford English Dictionary: Definition of "in company" -- "with another person or a group of people"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/in_company

Oxford English Dictionary: definition of "together"-- "with or in proximity to another person or people"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/together

Granted the latter word may be used in other ways, but this is the first example.

Oxford English Dictionary: definition of "with"-- "Accompanied by (another person or thing)"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/with

Oxford English Dictionary: definition of "proximity" -- "Nearness in space, time or relationship"

This has all been done before. It did not prove then that they were close together and it does not do so today either. Especially not if one leaves out the alternative explanations...

[Fisherman]

Hi pat.

That's something I did not even bother to argue. Interesting but I doubt it will have an effect of Fishmans view has he just does not accept what Lechmere and Paul say has having any validity.

Steve

Wrong. What I do not accept is that you would have the only interpretation right about what they meant by saying it.

[Fisherman]

Struggling to catch up with this thread, but I think this may be one of the best posts I've read on the whole sorry Lechmere mess - sorry - 'theory'.

As with Hutchinson, it's time the suspect theorists made up their mind whether their Jack was a) so frightened of his own shadow that he had to come forward and bluff his way out, to prevent the police seeking him out; or b) such a fearless psychopath that the thrill of putting himself under the spotlight time and time again, when he could have melted away into the morning, an anonymous nobody, was just too much to resist.

If it's the former, and Paul's account in the newspaper really did spook Jack the Scaredy-cat into the open for some as yet unexplained reason, he was no psychopath - and bang goes the whole theory. If it's the latter, Jack the Psycho would surely have come forward anyway, just for jolly, even if Paul had included an accurate description of him so detailed that Hutchinson would have been in awe of it, and added that he had "found" the carman leaning over the woman, with an evil grin on his face.

The combination of fearful one minute, fearless the next, depending on what the theory needs to make it work, doesn't work for me and never has.

Love,

Caz
X

The idea of you being able to see things from two angles does not work for me and never has.

[Elamarna]

The data tells us that Lechmere and Paul said that they were "together" and it was said by the coroner (who was not there) that they were "in company". I am all for acknowledging this, but that is ALL the data tells us. It says not a iot about how far from each other the two carmen were in Bakers Row, and it says not a iot about whether Paul was within earshot or not. So read my lips, Steve: THERE-IS-NO-DATA-FOR-PAUL-HAVING-OVERHEARD-WHAT-LECHMERE-TOLD-MIZEN!

And itīs upcoming, not up coming by the way...

Why do you ignore the facts.

Lechmere says in a sworn statement that Paul took part in the conversation. Not my view it's what Lechmere says and so there is data.

Paul in the Lloyds account gives an account of what was said which corroborates the sworn statement of Lechmere as regards to the content of the conversation. The major issue being he claims he was the only protagonist in the conversation.
Again not my view but what is in the data.

The required data exists in two sources. and to claim it does not is truly illogical and betrays a intransigence that goes beyond reason.

You may not accept the sources as being reliable; However they are there. and no amount of shouting is going to change that.


My typo was auto correct,but still means the same.
Yours involved two different concepts. Inability is not the same as disability. It could be viewed as a very serious offence term. I assumed it was a typo or maybe the fact that English is not your first language.
Why a simple sorry, could not be given rather than that response, I fail to understand.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Wrong. What I do not accept is that you would have the only interpretation right about what they meant by saying it.

And I have not been using either the term "together" or "in company" as the basis for my view. Rather I am using what the statements from Lechmere and Paul say about the conversation with Mizen.
There I have not been using any interpretation of the words at all, hence why my reply you quoted said I had not even bothered to argue that .


Steve

[Harry D]

We cannot condemn him on no solid grounds at all, he was not reprimanded at the inquest and he got a very good service grade when retiring from the police.

And yet you have no problem condemning a gainfully employed family-man with a clean criminal record as a notorious serial killer.

[caz]

If I may make a further suggestion, I would use a starting point like this one: Suppose that Lechmere was the killer. Suppose that he had been in a bubble as he cut away, not hearing Paul until the latter was a mere fifty yards away or so. Suppose that Lechmere realized that there was no way he could escape undetected. Suppose that Lechmere did not know if Paul would arrive fast enough to see him backing off from the body. Suppose that he realised that if Paul did see this, he would immediately recognize Lechmere as the probable killer. Suppose Lechmere then quickly covered the wounds, hid the knife and backed away a few steps, as silently as he could, while deciding that he would try to bluff Paul, and that if this did not work, he would kill him. Suppose that Lechmere afterwards joined up with Paul to try and check just how much Paul had seen.
When we look at such a scenario, I do not see a cretin. I see a resourceful and clever man who makes the best of a very perilous situation.
You may see something entirely different, but if so, to me, that matters very little.

Hi Fishy,

Just reached this suggestion of yours.

If Lechmere was prepared to kill Paul the instant things got tricky, why didn't he do so anyway? He was a psychopath so conscience was no barrier. Why fanny about with trying to 'check just how much Paul had seen'? The clock was ticking and PC Neil would soon arrive and had the men still been at the scene, he'd have been a cretin of a copper not to detain and search them while ascertaining what had been going on. And for Lechmere to know how long he had to assess any risk Paul might pose, before the beat copper would spot them, resourceful and clever wouldn't have covered it. He'd have needed to be more psychic than psycho. But psychopaths have little or no empathy and are not the best judges of what others are thinking, so there's another problem. Paul could have been harbouring seriously bad vibes about him, for all Lechmere knew, or could even have seen a lot more than he was letting on, while playing it cool and planning to express his concerns to the first policeman they came across together. Was your man a behavioural expert to boot?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The idea of you being able to see things from two angles does not work for me and never has.

So no answer then, Fish? Not even an attempt?

I call that a minor victory for Lechmere's memory.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As a matter of fact, and I have said this before: If it could be proven that Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath, then I would say that he was not the killer. He could not possibly have been, the way I see it.

This is very important, Fishy - for the survival of your theory. So I do hope you will not pass on a considered response this time.

Do you maintain that Lechmere the psychopath was spooked into coming forward to identify himself as Paul's 'man', and to give his version of events at the inquest, because of what he had read about himself in Paul's account?

In short, did he fear that if he didn't identify himself as this 'man', someone else would and he might hang as a result?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Why do you ignore the facts.

I only ignore the facts you invent, Steve. The rest of them, I look closely at.

Lechmere says in a sworn statement that Paul took part in the conversation. Not my view it's what Lechmere says and so there is data.

A. It does not say that Paul was within earshot when Lechmere told fibs to Mizen, though, does it?

B. I am convinced that killers who want to get cleared will sometimes lie to enhance peopleīs picture of them. It is a major problem to claim that we must accept the testimony of a man who is under suspicion of murder. His testimony must be regarded as uncertain. Therefore, we must move on to the other sources, and we immediately find that Mizen says not a iot about any statement from Paul on the night.
These two testimonies cannot be joined together - either Lechmere and Paul both walked up to Mizen and spoke to him (in which case Lechmere is telling the truth), or it was just Lechmere who did so (in which case Mizen is telling the truth).
If the first option applies, can you offer any idea at all why Mizen would say that ONE man approached and spoke to him, if it was in fact TWO men who did so?
I am having all sorts of trouble explaining that myself.

Paul in the Lloyds account gives an account of what was said which corroborates the sworn statement of Lechmere as regards to the content of the conversation. The major issue being he claims he was the only protagonist in the conversation.
Again not my view but what is in the data.

But it directly contradicts Lechmeres and Mizens version of who did the talking. Does that not bother you in the least? Can you see what it does to your data? It puts it in grave doubt, Steve.
Plus, of course, the paper interview does not on any way exclude the possibility that Lechmere spoke to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. It never touches on the subject.

The required data exists in two sources. and to claim it does not is truly illogical and betrays a intransigence that goes beyond reason.

I donīt claim that what was said was not said. I claim it makes for an imposible scenario where both Paul and Lechmere played the leading role. But most of all, I claim that we cannot exclude that Lechmere spoke to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. Even if Paul DID tell Mizen that the woman was dead - whereafter the PC supposedly disguised this fact and perjured himself at the inquest - he may well have walked off afterwards, leaving Lechmere to dupe Mizen with Paul out of earshot.
It should not be all that difficult to understand?

You may not accept the sources as being reliable; However they are there. and no amount of shouting is going to change that.

Then stop shouting.

My typo was auto correct,but still means the same.

Yes, I was just catching onto your funny little game of correcting people, and since autocorrection is something that we can mend, I think the responsibility lies with you anyway. It should make for a grand future if we start adding these things. Good inititiative!

Yours involved two different concepts. Inability is not the same as disability.

Yes, I know that, but since I am not using my native language, I sometimes miss out.

It could be viewed as a very serious offence term. I assumed it was a typo or maybe the fact that English is not your first language.

Correct on the latter score!

Why a simple sorry, could not be given rather than that response, I fail to understand.

It may have something to do with then overall tone of this discussion - of course, I realize that I alone are to blame for it, but nevertheless.

[Fisherman]

And I have not been using either the term "together" or "in company" as the basis for my view. Rather I am using what the statements from Lechmere and Paul say about the conversation with Mizen.
There I have not been using any interpretation of the words at all, hence why my reply you quoted said I had not even bothered to argue that .

Steve

I trust my last post has taken you out of your misconceptions about the matter anyway?

[Fisherman]

And yet you have no problem condemning a gainfully employed family-man with a clean criminal record as a notorious serial killer.

It seems to be the other way around with you? You are crying your eyes out abut poor Lechmere, but you donīt mind kicking Mizen in the butt?

Maybe itīs time to grow up for the two of us, who knows? Or maybe we are allowed to make our own separate interpretations?

As for that "clean criminal record", it only amounts to us not being familiar with what he was. Not that such a thing prevents you from thinking Mizen a perjurer, a worthless cop and a shame for the Met, but nevertheless, Harry.

I really AM a partycrasher, am I not?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fishy,

Just reached this suggestion of yours.

If Lechmere was prepared to kill Paul the instant things got tricky, why didn't he do so anyway? He was a psychopath so conscience was no barrier. Why fanny about with trying to 'check just how much Paul had seen'? The clock was ticking and PC Neil would soon arrive and had the men still been at the scene, he'd have been a cretin of a copper not to detain and search them while ascertaining what had been going on. And for Lechmere to know how long he had to assess any risk Paul might pose, before the beat copper would spot them, resourceful and clever wouldn't have covered it. He'd have needed to be more psychic than psycho. But psychopaths have little or no empathy and are not the best judges of what others are thinking, so there's another problem. Paul could have been harbouring seriously bad vibes about him, for all Lechmere knew, or could even have seen a lot more than he was letting on, while playing it cool and planning to express his concerns to the first policeman they came across together. Was your man a behavioural expert to boot?

Love,

Caz
X

Yawn.

This has been answered before. You may have missed out, but I promise that going back and reading up will be rewarding.

[Fisherman]

So no answer then, Fish? Not even an attempt?

I call that a minor victory for Lechmere's memory.

Love,

Caz
X

You would. I think that is by far the best thing you can get from me - an unwillingness to answer ignornt questions. and then you can do a Steve and claim that I cannot answer.

To be frank, I canīt even remember what you asked about. I may have fallen asleep when reading.

[Fisherman]

caz: This is very important, Fishy - for the survival of your theory. So I do hope you will not pass on a considered response this time.

Oh, okay. Is it the same question that had me erecting a statue in Lechmereīs memory in your former post? I think it must be, otherwise no resurrection would be possible, would it?

Do you maintain that Lechmere the psychopath was spooked into coming forward to identify himself as Paul's 'man', and to give his version of events at the inquest, because of what he had read about himself in Paul's account?

Eh - have I claimed it in the first place? Did I use the term "spooked"? I seem to remember that my feeling was that Lechmere would have been annoyed at first and then possibly a bit roused by the opportunity to fool the police and inquest.
Maybe you can post the snippet where I used the word "spooked"? I must correct it, if this was the case, because I keep telling people that psychopaths do not spook or panick.

Oh, wait - maybe you just made it up! Now, thereīs an idea!

Maybe you can clarify, Caz. Did I say that he was spooked? Really? Or?

In short, did he fear that if he didn't identify himself as this 'man', someone else would and he might hang as a result?

Oh, I see your game - you want to introduce the term "fear" here, so as to make it look as if I have suggested that Lechmere was given to fear and fright.

Okay, then, I fear I have to put you right (Notice how I used the word "fear" here without being afraid at all. The word can be used in that way too, which is important to keep in mind).

I think he realized that there was a very great risk that he would become the prime suspect. I do not think it scared him at all, but I think that he - for purely practical reasons - decided that he needed to take action to prevent that development.

You may have missed out on this, but if he was the killer, it was actually - far from being the act of a panicking man - quite a brazen thing to do to go to the police and call them out, the way he did.

Tell me, Caz - was that the answer I did not give in my earlier post? Or are there more matters that give away how very wrong I am and how geniously correct you are?
Letīs hope the reasoning behind it is less puerile if this is so!