Lechmere The Psychopath

[Henry Flower]

In terms of Christer's argument about the psychopathy and resultant behaviours, I suspect one reason why it gets so heated is that he and others end up repeating the same arguments over and over again - and this is unavoidable, because until such time as proof or disproof is forthcoming both positions are tenable and rational:

• If Cross was innocent then he acted like an innocent man. Naturally.

• If Cross was the killer, a psychopath, then - knowing he had been seen - he took control by acting like an innocent man. And convincingly so.

What I don't agree with is the suggestion that Christer's interpretation of those events is somehow invalid because it's based on the presumption of guilt and psychopathy, the idea that he's playing a magic get-out-of-jail-free card. It's not as though Christer thinks Lech was guilty because he acted innocent and that's something a psychopath can do convincingly. He thinks Lech is guilty primarily because in his estimation the woman was not even dead yet when Paul reached her, nobody else was seen or heard, and Lech was standing near her, her wounds were covered, he refused to help prop her up, told a lie to a police officer, and used a name that he did not normally use.

Given those readings of the night's events, I think Christer is well within his rights to hypothesize an explanation for those actions of Lechmere that look more innocent than those listed above.

There's no point getting so riled about the use of this argument. Either he was innocent, or he was guilty and did a good job of impersonating innocence. Christer is just saying, that's not untypical of psychopathic behaviour. And none of us know with 100% certainty which was true.

Oh. Except Rainbow. Who apparently does. But that's .... that's something else.

[Sam Flynn]

What I don't agree with is the suggestion that Christer's interpretation of those events is somehow invalid because it's based on the presumption of guilt and psychopathy, the idea that he's playing a magic get-out-of-jail-free card.

But it is, though, and it's a circular argument to boot. Psychopathy (specifically, in this case, the presumption that, as psychopaths are prepared to take outrageous risks, Cross's [evident!] psychopathy enabled/compelled him to take a huge risk by hanging around with Paul and Mizen) is frequently invoked in suspect-based ripperology to explain unusual or anomalous behaviour on the part of the favoured suspect. It's little more than a "God of the gaps" excuse that simply ducks the issue without confronting it.

[kjab3112]

Steve & Pierre

It is highly variable for time to brain death post ischaemia (loss of blood supply), in addition the brain stem is protected by primarily relying on the posterior circulation from the vertebral arteries thus not effected as much by severance of the carotid arteries. In monkey studies ischaemia of 20 minutes is associated with inevitable death, but only within seven days. Consciousness is from the forebrain area which is where the seconds figure comes.

Paul

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: 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.

Try this on for size then: Your suggestion is unethical, immoral, childish and stupid. Surely there´s a little punching power in that one?

It is fine to say that the film company would not want a hostile attitude. It is okay to say that Andy Grifiths was payed for his role - I speculate that without knowing, but it would be correct to my mind. It is fine to say that the cutting work will favour the idea that Lechmere was the killer.

But is it not okay to say that Griffiths was payed to say things, because that implies that he did not express his own thinking and ideas, but instead was a marionette who would say anything at all as long as he was payed for it.

I find the suggestion unsavoury and untenable, not least since I have told you that Griffiths himself in private told me that he thought that we could well have the right man. It is therefore clear that he was positive to the idea after having given it consideration.

I have seen far too much of this crap, Patrick, from Trevor Marriott and from a few other masterminds, all of them linked together by a very poor understanding of the case and a willingness to sell out morally in order to try and make what they thought was a good point. It was n ot and it will never be.
I would have had you down as a man of much higher standards and knowledge, but you are now pressing me to reconsider that.

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?

It offers an explanation to why a practically reasoning and calm psychopath would not take the risk running into them, instead opting for a bluff. That´s as clear as I can be. And it is the umpteenth time I am telling you this. Do you not listen or du you simply refuse to accept it, Patrick?

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?

Or any other scam that works, yes. Is that not totally obvious? That if you are the killer and choose to stay, then you MUST come up with a ruse? What else would he do in that predicament? What other "reasonable alternative" is there? Pray tell me!

As for there not being a PC or watchman in Bucks Row - I think that if there had been, Lechmere (or the phantom killer) would hardly have set about killing and eviscerating Nichols.

Does that make as much sense to you as it does to me?

Afterwards, however, I believe the killer would not be able to bank on all other streets being as empty on PC:s or watchmen - they WOULD be around to some degree and the killer would reasonably know this.

Does that also make sense to you? Or do you reason that the killer would have worked from the presumption that the policemen and watchmen were collectively having tea and bisquits in Toynbee Hall at this hour?

Really, Patrick!

This is a somewhat hysterical post, Christer. But, no. Not much of what you posted here makes much sense to me. And that's fine. We clearly have very different views of what happened in Bucks Row, etc. I simply do not think that its at all likely that anything you propose that has "the carman" as the killer of Nichols actually happened. From my perspective, its simply not reasonable. Can I PROVE the man wasn't Jack the Ripper? Can I prove he wasn't a psychopath? Of course, not. That's why we're all still here debating this.

Your comments about Griffiths are - of course - nonsense. I don't know the man's character and I'm not inferring that he's a less than honest fellow. What I am saying is that I wonder how much he knows of the opposing viewpoint, the issues that have been presented here and elsewhere that may suggest "the carman" was exactly what we've always thought him to be. And I'd enjoy a discussion with the man.

Further, I assume he's a bright enough fellow, as well. Capable of understanding why he was asked to appear on the show. I suggest he understood the surface level "facts" as you presented them and found them tenable. They are tenable....when not considered along side all the rest.

And that brings me to your accusation that I don't have the requisite understanding and knowledge to properly engage on this topic. Obviously, this is the kind of thing that if said to you would have you crying foul and demanding an apology. That's not my style. I'm confident that your statement is - to use a favorite phrase - absurd, and I'm not concerned that readers of this thread - outside of Rainbow - would find me unknowledgeable and incapable of understanding.

We likely see the WORLD very differently, Christer. And that's not an issue unless you make it one. Calm down. Realize that I'm not casting anyone as a super villain - you, Andy Griffiths - no one.

[Elamarna]

Steve & Pierre

It is highly variable for time to brain death post ischaemia (loss of blood supply), in addition the brain stem is protected by primarily relying on the posterior circulation from the vertebral arteries thus not effected as much by severance of the carotid arteries. In monkey studies ischaemia of 20 minutes is associated with inevitable death, but only within seven days. Consciousness is from the forebrain area which is where the seconds figure comes.

Paul

Thank you Paul

Much as I suspected.


Steve

[GUT]

In terms of Christer's argument about the psychopathy and resultant behaviours, I suspect one reason why it gets so heated is that he and others end up repeating the same arguments over and over again - and this is unavoidable, because until such time as proof or disproof is forthcoming both positions are tenable and rational:

• If Cross was innocent then he acted like an innocent man. Naturally.

• If Cross was the killer, a psychopath, then - knowing he had been seen - he took control by acting like an innocent man. And convincingly so.

What I don't agree with is the suggestion that Christer's interpretation of those events is somehow invalid because it's based on the presumption of guilt and psychopathy, the idea that he's playing a magic get-out-of-jail-free card. It's not as though Christer thinks Lech was guilty because he acted innocent and that's something a psychopath can do convincingly. He thinks Lech is guilty primarily because in his estimation the woman was not even dead yet when Paul reached her, nobody else was seen or heard, and Lech was standing near her, her wounds were covered, he refused to help prop her up, told a lie to a police officer, and used a name that he did not normally use.

Given those readings of the night's events, I think Christer is well within his rights to hypothesize an explanation for those actions of Lechmere that look more innocent than those listed above.

There's no point getting so riled about the use of this argument. Either he was innocent, or he was guilty and did a good job of impersonating innocence. Christer is just saying, that's not untypical of psychopathic behaviour. And none of us know with 100% certainty which was true.

Oh. Except Rainbow. Who apparently does. But that's .... that's something else.

But the big problem is, there is no evidence anywhere that Lech/cross was a psychopath.

It's fine to say if he killed Polly and acted like he did he must have been psycho, but then you'd look for proof in the rest of his life that he was a psychopath, indeed what little we know of the rest of his life would seem to deny this.

[Sam Flynn]

in addition the brain stem is protected by primarily relying on the posterior circulation from the vertebral arteries thus not effected as much by severance of the carotid arteries.

Indeed. The vertebral arteries would have been pretty well shielded from even the worst excesses of the Ripper's knife. Perhaps only in Annie Chapman's case, where apparently an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck, would the primary blood supply to the brainstem have been directly compromised.

[Elamarna]

Indeed. The vertebral arteries would have been pretty well shielded from even the worst excesses of the Ripper's knife. Perhaps only in Annie Chapman's case, where apparently an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck, would the primary blood supply to the brainstem have been directly compromised.

I think we can say from Kjab3112's (Paul)comments that if Robert Paul did indeed detect breathing it proves nothing.

I wonder how Rainbow will react ?

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I think we can say from Kjab3112's (Paul) comments that if Robert Paul did indeed detect breathing it proves nothing.

Absolutely.

Which leads me to wonder why Robert Paul only reported the possible movement of breathing, but said nothing about the sound of air being expelled. If Nichols truly had been "freshly killed" mere minutes previously, with the blood wet and flowing in the tissues of her neck, wouldn't a raspy, rattling breath (aka stridor) have been readily detectable in the early morning stillness?

I'd welcome Paul's (Kjab3112) view on this.

[Henry Flower]

But it is, though, and it's a circular argument to boot. Psychopathy (specifically, in this case, the presumption that, as psychopaths are prepared to take outrageous risks, Cross's [evident!] psychopathy enabled/compelled him to take a huge risk by hanging around with Paul and Mizen) is frequently invoked in suspect-based ripperology to explain unusual or anomalous behaviour on the part of the favoured suspect. It's little more than a "God of the gaps" excuse that simply ducks the issue without confronting it.

I absolutely get what you're saying, I do, but what I was trying to say is that we do often hear those things detailed in proven cases, and if Christer is right about Cross, well then we'd hear those things said about Cross too. It's circular, of course: and that's all I was saying - in the absence of clinching proof then all hypotheses are going to depend to a greater or lesser extent on circular reasoning. We may have to just put up with it. Another thing I was trying to point out was that the whole psychopath thing, that isn't Christer's case! That's just secondary. His case is the timing, the suspicious stuff. Can't we cut people some slack for some secondary musing?

Listen, on a smaller and infinitely more trivial level I've done it myself, others here maybe have too. I've broken something expensive and then to avoid trouble I've been very proactive and helpful as the 'discoverer' of the breakage. And I'm not even a psychopath, just one of those hideous INTJ personality types.

Of course it's circular: as I see it, IF Cross is the killer and thinks he has been seen, he has two options: leave, and risk having cops looking out for him on every street when the extent of the injuries are discovered, or: make sure he's the helpful guy who found a woman in distress and fetched an officer to help her. The type of person who coldly slices other humans up has been shown to be more than capable of styling that one out.

Where I think Christer has his work cut out is the business of voluntarily coming forward to the Inquest. I've never been fully convinced a guilty Cross would've felt a pressing need to take that risk.

[Henry Flower]

But the big problem is, there is no evidence anywhere that Lech/cross was a psychopath.

It's fine to say if he killed Polly and acted like he did he must have been psycho, but then you'd look for proof in the rest of his life that he was a psychopath, indeed what little we know of the rest of his life would seem to deny this.

I keep coming back to Dennis Rader. I agree with you, but there's always Dennis Rader.

[Henry Flower]

Absolutely.

Which leads me to wonder why Robert Paul only reported the possible movement of breathing, but said nothing about the sound of air being expelled. If Nichols truly had been "freshly killed" mere minutes previously, with the blood wet and flowing in the tissues of her neck, wouldn't a raspy, rattling breath (aka stridor) have been readily detectable in the early morning stillness?

I'd welcome Paul's (Kjab3112) view on this.

This was as far as my layman's research got me too - that if she were freshly attacked the signs of struggling life would've been unmissable, and if she were found at that last stage of life we would more likely have been expecting intermittent, diminishing, but unmistakable gasps and heaves.

But the language varies from account to account, and none of it is beyond question.

My gut feeling is she was dead, and Paul was mistaken.

[Sam Flynn]

My gut feeling is she was dead, and Paul was mistaken.

I agree. Probably long dead, in the scheme of things.

[kjab3112]

Stridor which is the sea lion like sound of upper airway obstruction relies on air movement and obstruction. A cut across the trachea would remove any stridorous sounds, especially with minimal air movement. Having witnessed many dying breaths (in a professional role), those last agonal gasps are not the Hollywood style, but rather an ineffectual silent breath which would be near silent and only noticeable on checking for chest movement (a la Paul's statement)

Good night

Paul

[Abby Normal]

I agree. Probably long dead, in the scheme of things.

Long dead? Wasn't she just seen an hour or so before she was discovered?