Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: A few things worth addressing, though not many. First, yes. I've read a great deal on psychopaths, psychopathy, etc. I've also read a lot about dinosaurs. And I don't think "the carman" was either.

Let me tell you then, that in the first case, you have absolutely no way of telling, so there can be no intelligible discussion on the topic. He either was o he was not, and there is nothing pointing in either direction if we take away the Nichols murder and the implications there.

Second, you say he did the math and realized he stood a better chance standing his ground, bluffing and Mizen scamming. Rather than simply....walking away. Of course, this absurd, unless, of course, we sign up for more invention (a word I know you enjoy). What possible barriers existed that would have precluded him form walking away? The deserted streets? The darkness? The menacing Paul bearing down on him with intent? Give us ACTUAL barriers, not things you supposed MAY have been there because "the carman" was a psychopath because whoever killed Nichols was psychopath, and since "the carman" killed her, he must have been a psychopath.

Have you forgotten, or is it just that you do not want to remember? There were a lot of PC:s and watchmen on the surrounding streets. THAT may well have made him decide to try and get out of the street with a guaranteed lack of any fuss.
Whether you consider it "absurd" is abslutely immaterial to me, and much more of an indication that you may not have picked up on very much when reading about psychopathy.

Again, the most notable thing you say in this post - and many others - is the bit about working from the viewpoint that "the carman" did it. I hope those new here read it. Of course, this isn't something any investigator, "murder squad leader", detective, or amateur sleuth would ever do...... but it's in full employ whenever we discuss "the carman" because - of course - the conversation would be so very brief if we didn't.

Yes, that is true - there was NO conversation about him at all for a hundred years, whereas now lots and lots of people on public sites profess their belief in him being the killer.
You may be surprised to hear this, but I am no murder squad leader, but instead a journalist and researcher looking at a very old murder series. And I fond that it is up to me to choose my angle of investigation. It frankly becomes a tad ridiculous when people feign a moral indignation over it, or at least that is what I think.
It may furthermore be of interest to you to learn that many murder squad leaders HAVE worked from a hypothesis of guilt before it was proven, in for example the Ridgway case, the Carpenter case and the Gacy case, to name but a few.

Lastly, nothing I've said about Andy Griffiths is "beyond the belt".

That is not for you to decide, I´m afraid, not least since I am by far the better informed man.

I don't know the man. Let's not behave childishly.

Sounds good to me. You are welcome to drop it any time.

And let's not pretend his performance in the documentary is beyond question.

Who pretended that? Not me? Question away, but allow the man some sort of a decent approach, please. This is not a back-alley brawl or a pub pissing tour.

I stand by what I said.

Then be damned for it, Patrick. Back to your old ways, I see.

[Fisherman]

There had been a significant outpouring of blood, with deep wounds in the throat and abdomen, so there was a strong possibility that the killer would have been contaminated with blood. Even if he hadn't been, how could he have been sure that his hands and/or clothing were clean, given the dim lighting conditions? If he didn't know for sure, he was taking one hell of a risk in trailing along with Paul, to say nothing of seeking out, and having a conversation with, a policeman.

Yes, and we all know how cautious a man the Ripper was. He would never take any risk at all, would he?

Or?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

Hi

Let me just add something here.

Not going into details, but in my professional career, I undertook many procedures that could be equated with the wounds to Nichols (non human, I should say).
To suggest he could walk away unmarked by blood is the view of someone with no experience of what is involved.

Meaning that you just dubbed Jason Payne-James "someone with no experience of what is involved".

He may have escaped from the Neck with little blood on his clothing, but may have had some on his hands. However with the abdominal wounds it is unrealistic to say his hands would not have blood on them, and if as Fish speculate that a major vessel was cut in this area, the suggestion he would be blood free is somewhat misguided to say the least.

I think it a hell of a lot more unrealistic to dub Payne-James "someone with no experience". It will not work in my book, but goes down as a rather pathetic effort. If we have ever had ANY person quoted on these boards who have a MASSIVE experience of these things, it is him. Need I post the man´s credentials again, Steve?

[Elamarna]

Elamarna:


Meaning that you just dubbed Jason Payne-James "someone with no experience of what is involved".


No not at all. In the documentary he is talking of far less extensive abdomenial wounds than we now suspect.



I think it a hell of a lot more unrealistic to dub Payne-James "someone with no experience". It will not work in my book, but goes down as a rather pathetic effort. If we have ever had ANY person quoted on these boards who have a MASSIVE experience of these things, it is him. Need I post the man´s credentials again, Steve?

See above. I full accept the Neck wounds, the abdomen wounds are different and the view has changed since the recording. So it's no disputing his view. And is certainly not pathetic. Be interesting to see which of us had the most experience with regards to those type of throat wounds actually.



Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, and we all know how cautious a man the Ripper was. He would never take any risk at all, would he?

Ah, the good old "psychopaths are natural risk-takers, so anything goes" argument; the ultimate ripperologists' Deus ex machina. I knew you'd play that card, Fish, so thanks for not disappointing me

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

Meaning that you just dubbed Jason Payne-James "someone with no experience of what is involved".

No not at all. In the documentary he is talking of far less extensive abdomenial wounds than we now suspect.

Wait a second! When I have said that the damage to the abdomen supposedly was deathly and therefore probably connected to severing large vessels, you have gone out of your way to tell me that this is NOT in evidence.
And yet, now you are proposing that we are "suspecting" far more extensive damage...?
I don´t know, Steve, but to me that comes across as bordering on politics.

Rest assured that Payne-James had read up well on the abdominal damage done to Nichols, including how Llewellyn suggested that it was enough to kill.

I think it a hell of a lot more unrealistic to dub Payne-James "someone with no experience". It will not work in my book, but goes down as a rather pathetic effort. If we have ever had ANY person quoted on these boards who have a MASSIVE experience of these things, it is him. Need I post the man´s credentials again, Steve?

See above. I full accept the Neck wounds, the abdomen wounds are different and the view has changed since the recording.

Has it? So explain to me what "we" think today, please. I would not want to miss out.

So it's no disputing his view. And is certainly not pathetic. Be interesting to see which of us had the most experience with regards to those type of throat wounds actually.

Okay. Here goes, from LinkedIn:

"I am a clinician, researcher, designer and author. I am a Specialist in Forensic & Legal Medicine and a Consultant Forensic Physician.

Particular areas of interest and research include deaths and care in custody, sexual assault (adult and child), drug and alcohol use, inter-personal violence, Use of Force, restraint, Taser, incapacitant spray, wound and scar interpretation, torture, non-accidental injury (adult and child), sexual assault, elder abuse, custodial medicine, driving and Road Traffic Act offences. Some of my work may be seen at http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Payne-James. I was President of the World Police Medical Officers from 2012-2014 and President of the Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine from 2015-2017.

I am a consultant and an adviser to a number of government and non-government agencies in the UK and elsewhere. I am an expert witness and an accredited mediator."

And here is what he did this spring, from a blog he keeps:

http://www.payne-james.co.uk/uncateg...s-in-the-life/

I have no idea, of course, how he relates to you in terms of professional experience and knowledge, and frankly I hope that you outweigh him - it would provide the boards with a top notch specialist in all things medico.

But do you?

[Fisherman]

Ah, the good old "psychopaths are natural risk-takers, so anything goes" argument; the ultimate ripperologists' Deus ex machina. I knew you'd play that card, Fish, so thanks for not disappointing me

Yes, Gareth, I obviously would play that precise card. And that is because it is the winning card. It sort of nullifies your argument about how a man willing to kill and eviscerate in the open street would not be a risktaker.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, Gareth, I obviously would play that precise card. And that is because it is the winning card.

Jokers are like that, aren't they? They trump everything, because they're "magic" - wooo!

Doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. Even the most blasé risk-takers wouldn't be so utterly stupid as to spend time with another witness and seek out a police officer, engaging the latter in conversation also, when there was every chance they might have had a victim's blood about their person.

[Abby Normal]

There had been a significant outpouring of blood, with deep wounds in the throat and abdomen, so there was a strong possibility that the killer would have been contaminated with blood. Even if he hadn't been, how could he have been sure that his hands and/or clothing were clean, given the dim lighting conditions? If he didn't know for sure, he was taking one hell of a risk in trailing along with Paul, to say nothing of seeking out, and having a conversation with, a policeman.

well yeah-agree with that. Its my main beef with him as a suspect. I could possibly see him bluffing it out with paul if he felt he was too close to try and skidaddle, but not walking with him straight into the arms of a cop.especially since hes got the knife still on him! he could have said OK well go our separate ways and notify a cop when we see one.

[Abby Normal]

Hi

Let me just add something here.

Not going into details, but in my professional career, I undertook many procedures that could be equated with the wounds to Nichols (non human, I should say).
To suggest he could walk away unmarked by blood is the view of someone with no experience of what is involved.

He may have escaped from the Neck with little blood on his clothing, but may have had some on his hands. However with the abdominal wounds it is unrealistic to say his hands would not have blood on them, and if as Fish speculate that a major vessel was cut in this area, the suggestion he would be blood free is somewhat misguided to say the least.


Steve

ok I don't have your experience so defer to your gory expertise!

[Abby Normal]

Ah, the good old "psychopaths are natural risk-takers, so anything goes" argument; the ultimate ripperologists' Deus ex machina. I knew you'd play that card, Fish, so thanks for not disappointing me

I disagree. the ultimate ripperologist Deus ex machine is missing police files! haha

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: A few things worth addressing, though not many. First, yes. I've read a great deal on psychopaths, psychopathy, etc. I've also read a lot about dinosaurs. And I don't think "the carman" was either.

Let me tell you then, that in the first case, you have absolutely no way of telling, so there can be no intelligible discussion on the topic. He either was o he was not, and there is nothing pointing in either direction if we take away the Nichols murder and the implications there.

Second, you say he did the math and realized he stood a better chance standing his ground, bluffing and Mizen scamming. Rather than simply....walking away. Of course, this absurd, unless, of course, we sign up for more invention (a word I know you enjoy). What possible barriers existed that would have precluded him form walking away? The deserted streets? The darkness? The menacing Paul bearing down on him with intent? Give us ACTUAL barriers, not things you supposed MAY have been there because "the carman" was a psychopath because whoever killed Nichols was psychopath, and since "the carman" killed her, he must have been a psychopath.

Have you forgotten, or is it just that you do not want to remember? There were a lot of PC:s and watchmen on the surrounding streets. THAT may well have made him decide to try and get out of the street with a guaranteed lack of any fuss.
Whether you consider it "absurd" is abslutely immaterial to me, and much more of an indication that you may not have picked up on very much when reading about psychopathy.

Again, the most notable thing you say in this post - and many others - is the bit about working from the viewpoint that "the carman" did it. I hope those new here read it. Of course, this isn't something any investigator, "murder squad leader", detective, or amateur sleuth would ever do...... but it's in full employ whenever we discuss "the carman" because - of course - the conversation would be so very brief if we didn't.

Yes, that is true - there was NO conversation about him at all for a hundred years, whereas now lots and lots of people on public sites profess their belief in him being the killer.
You may be surprised to hear this, but I am no murder squad leader, but instead a journalist and researcher looking at a very old murder series. And I fond that it is up to me to choose my angle of investigation. It frankly becomes a tad ridiculous when people feign a moral indignation over it, or at least that is what I think.
It may furthermore be of interest to you to learn that many murder squad leaders HAVE worked from a hypothesis of guilt before it was proven, in for example the Ridgway case, the Carpenter case and the Gacy case, to name but a few.

Lastly, nothing I've said about Andy Griffiths is "beyond the belt".

That is not for you to decide, I´m afraid, not least since I am by far the better informed man.

I don't know the man. Let's not behave childishly.

Sounds good to me. You are welcome to drop it any time.

And let's not pretend his performance in the documentary is beyond question.

Who pretended that? Not me? Question away, but allow the man some sort of a decent approach, please. This is not a back-alley brawl or a pub pissing tour.

I stand by what I said.

Then be damned for it, Patrick. Back to your old ways, I see.

Back to my old way. I see whenever I press you on anything, its back to my old ways. You claimed you boxed once. I did as well. Try and take a punch. You have problem delivering them.

The only thing worth asking with respect to above post: What does the number of PCs teeming in the streets have to do with psychopathy and my knowledge of it? Clearly SOMEONE killed Nichols in Bucks Row without any PC (or watchman) seeing it happen. No PC (or watchman) saw Cross or Paul or Nichols or the killer (if it were not "the carman) enter Bucks Row......Now, a man walking into the darkness is going to raise the proverbial alarm? And the only reasonable alternative to walking away is.......the Mizen Scam?

[Fisherman]

Jokers are like that, aren't they? They trump everything, because they're "magic" - wooo!

Doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. Even the most blasé risk-takers wouldn't be so utterly stupid as to spend time with another witness and seek out a police officer, engaging the latter in conversation also, when there was every chance they might have had a victim's blood about their person.

So let me get this right, then - he was willing to cut a woman open and eviscerate her in the open street, are we agreed on that?

You think that this must mean that the killer risked to have his person spattered to some extent with blood, is that correct too?

And you conclude that SINCE there was such a risk, the killer would never spend time with another witness and seek out a policeman, because he would think that way too risky? Is that on the money too?

But if this was so, what did he do after the murders? Vanish into thin air? If we use Mitre Square as an example, I think we can work from the assumption that the killer must have had blood on his hands. But we nevertheless know that he walked past Goulston Street some time after the strike.

What about the PC.s he was likely to meet on his way there? What about the other people who would get in his way? Surely, he would crap himself thinking about the risks it would involve?

Jeffrey Dahmer sought out two policemen and retrieved his victim-to-be from their custody. He brought the policemen along to his flat afterwards, where they had a quick look around. All the while, his fridge was stuffed with parts of human victims.

Now, tell me that he would NEVER do that, since that would be too frightening for him?

The truth is, Gareth, that these men will do heinous things with no hesitation at all, and they will take pride in it. Some will taunt the police - although it involve great risk.

The Whitechapel killer was - at least to my mind - the most prolific risktaker of them all. If you have an example of a serialist who was more of a risktaker, I´d be interested to hear bout that man. My money is on you failing to present any comparison.

But you cannot accept that the most prolific risktaker in the history of serial killing would seel out a PC in order to bluff his way out, because you think that he would worry about having blood somewhere on his person.

To begin with, he would of course have checked as best as he could if he DID have blood on his person. And if he saw no blood, then why would anybody else do? Couple that with the psychopaths´ brazen attitude and arrogance, and we have a very good reason to scrap your suggestion.

If that was not enough, have you forgotten that Lechmere achieved a first-class alibi for having blood on himself by examining Nichols together with Paul? "Oh, look - that must have happened when I felt her for breath!"

If this does not mean that you abandon your argument like a plague-infested rat, you are welcome to keep it. I would not want any part of it since it is compltely untenable.

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree. the ultimate ripperologist Deus ex machine is missing police files!

There is that, too, Abby

But, you gotta admit, the false syllogism that "all serial killers are risk-takers, therefore there's no risk that they wouldn't take", itself based on some flaky assertions, is pretty useful in a tight corner.

[Sam Flynn]

Whether you consider it "absurd" is abslutely immaterial to me, and much more of an indication that you may not have picked up on very much when reading about psychopathy.

What I've picked up, after reading a fair bit about the subject is that psychology, abnormal or otherwise, is not like cookery. Behaviours do not follow prescriptive recipes.