Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;419833]


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.

I am sorry, but you cannot first say that Andy Griffiths was paid to say what the film crew wanted him to say, and then call him honest. That is not compatible with honesty on any level. It is prostituting yourself, view-wise.

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.

No, that is not what you are saying at all. It is perhaps what you SHOULD be saying, but you instead opted for saying that Andy Griffiths was paid to say what the film crew wanted him to say. Meaning that everything he said counts for absolutely nothing, since he was a marionette only, through which the film crew chanelled their message.

Once you have made such a remarkable accusation, the obvious continuation would be for you to call me hysterical for pointing it out - which you have done. Strategically, all that lacks now is you saying that I may be a tad naive and that I donīt seem to understand how the film industry and Ripper ditto work, how it is sweet that somebody can be as hopeful about human nature as I am but alas ...

Still waiting for that one, Patrick?

Of course, I am not the slightest hysterical or naive. I am very calm and very versed in all of these strategies, and I simply put it to you that you have overstepped not only a line of decency but also the line where your own credibility starts to smoulder away.

Itīs all very undramatic to me, Iīm afraid. I hope I am quite clear on what I am saying.

[Fisherman]

Yes; But we were disscusing far more than that in April my dear Fish.

Just rewatched the section In the documentary.

The diagram shows no major vertical cut, Payne-James refers to the wounds as minor compared to the other victims. There is no mention that the abdomenial wounds may have killed her.

Depth is the primary risk of blood on the cutter?
Is it really?
Sorry that really is utter rot.
What dictates the risks to the cutter are:
Which vessels are cut, arteries may spray.
How the blood flows from the wounds, and that includes the cuts to the skin and muscle.
And of course if the hands are likely to come in contact with any blood or tissue.


With the Neck, can cut away from himself, you can't do that so easily that if cutting vertical and horizontal strokes into the abdomen, without moving, which you would need to do to avoid reaching across other wounds, and thus increasing the risk of getting blood stained. And you certainly cannot see which vessels you may hit And try to avoid those which may mark you.

To be honest I am not even sure why you are arguing this. It's clear in the documentary what Payne-James said. Anyone can watch it if they want, and see what he does actual say; not what you or I claim he says and knew.


Steve

I was hoping that you would be a bit more willing to take in what I am saying when I speak in general terms. A deep wound is more likely to set off blood on a person than a shallow one because the hand of the perpetrator will travel closer to the victims body.

After that, yes a cut vessel will play a role. But they are not placed in the skin layer, are they? They are instead normally placed... yes...wait for it... DEEP inside the body.

Can you see now what I am saying? Or is it still "a rot"?

[Fisherman]

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.

Exactly so, Henry. A very concise and to the point description, if I may say so.

The problem here, though, is that much as you and I both understand the viability of the point I am making, others, like Gareth, would want to disallow for the point to be made at all. Away, foul accusation!

Since I cannot prove that Lechmere was a psychopath, it should not be accepted to point to how such a thing offers the possibility to realize his actions in combination with the murder night. That is Gareths view.

Goes to show how differently we look at things every now and then.

It can be compared (shallowly) to how Gareth says that he is absolutely certain that Dr Phillips was wrong on the TOD for Chapman; it is quite alright not only to work from the unproven assumption that Phillips was wrong, but also in fact to work from the idea that this is a certainty.
Wheras it is not allowed to work from the assumption that Lechmere MAY have been a psychopath.

I trust most people can see the elephant in the room.

[Fisherman]

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

Maybe Holland mistook another woman for Nichols?

[Fisherman]

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

Given that Nichols had had her neck severed down to the bone and her abdomen cut very severely, so severely as to make Llewellyn say that it was enough to kill immediately - can we reason that Nichols would possibly have gone on breating for a couple of minutes? Or even a minute? Are there any examples of people with this kind of extensive damage doing that? Would not the cut off air supply to the brain ensure that we are looking at a very short period of breathing indeed?

If people with this kind of damage CAN breathe for a couple of minutes or so - is that something that is mostly an offhand possibility or is it more like a general rule that they do? Can something - anything - be said about the general possibilities that there will be this kind of breathing with these kinds of victims?

What I am asking is whether you can offer any idea of your own about how long you personally would think it likely that Nichols would have breathed. Even if you are prepared to allow for a couple of minutes, would you think it the more likely thing? If you find that a question you rather not would answer, I am fine with that.

Please note that I am not expressing an opposite view here - I am genuinely interested in finding out as much as I can, thatīs all.

[Fisherman]

If people out here should be interested in psychopathy and what it is, I can recommend this recent article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/04/20/psychopaths-can-spot-one/

Not only is it very instructive and useful, but it also introduces Robert Hare, who is the perhaps foremost expert on the topic.

[Fisherman]

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.

On one level, we agree on this matter, Henry - both of us think that Lehmere, if guilty, would not want to take unneccesary risks.

But you identify coming forward to the inquest as such a risk, whereas I think that Lechmere would have regarded not coming forward as a larger risk.

If he did not come forward, he would no doubt become the prime suspect of the case. It would ensure that the focus of the investigation would be to find him, and when found, he would doubtlessly have been subjected to very intense scrutiny.

By coming forward, he effectively cleared these things away.

And a psychopath would not feel fear for coming forward like this - he could (and would) weigh the risks up and find that it was not worth it, and then he could stay away for that reason. But he would not stay away on account of feeling afraid.

In this case, I would suggest that it boiled down to him asking himself "will coming forward be advantageous or disadvantageous to me?". And he would see that he would get a chance to influence the proceedings and paint an innocent picture of himself by doing so. He would also be aware that Mizen and Paul would both be able to ID him, so if he did not come forward, he would run an immense risk of getting caught anyway. Pickfords would perhaps be able to tell the police that a carman passing through Bucks Row at 3.45 could well be him.
Moving away would involve the same type of risks.

So it hinged on whether he thought himself able to con the inquest. And if you read the article I just posted, you will realize from the Hare criteria that there is every chance that the idea that he could be found out may not even have seemed realistic to him.

The bottom line in what I am trying to tell you here is that if you think he would feel afraid about coming forward to the inquest, you are simply wrong. He would never be afraid.

He may, though, have made the calculation that it was less profitable to do so. If so, he would have stayed away.

That is how you should look at a psychopaths manner of weighing things up.

Iīm perfectly fine with how your gut feeling looks on this matter, but I am also eager to point out the possible cul-de-sacs of reasoning about psychopaths in terms of fear on their behalf.

PS. As you may already know, or as you will gather from the article, there are levels of psychopathy, and thus what I say will apply to a smaller or larger degree. But maybe we should not try and establish the exact level of psychopathy in Lechmere before we have established that he was a psychopath.

[Henry Flower]

On one level, we agree on this matter, Henry - both of us think that Lehmere, if guilty, would not want to take unneccesary risks.

But you identify coming forward to the inquest as such a risk, whereas I think that Lechmere would have regarded not coming forward as a larger risk.

If he did not come forward, he would no doubt become the prime suspect of the case. It would ensure that the focus of the investigation would be to find him, and when found, he would doubtlessly have been subjected to very intense scrutiny.

By coming forward, he effectively cleared these things away.

And a psychopath would not feel fear for coming forward like this - he could (and would) weigh the risks up and find that it was not worth it, and then he could stay away for that reason. But he would not stay away on account of feeling afraid.

In this case, I would suggest that it boiled down to him asking himself "will coming forward be advantageous or disadvantageous to me?". And he would see that he would get a chance to influence the proceedings and paint an innocent picture of himself by doing so. He would also be aware that Mizen and Paul would both be able to ID him, so if he did not come forward, he would run an immense risk of getting caught anyway. Pickfords would perhaps be able to tell the police that a carman passing through Bucks Row at 3.45 could well be him.
Moving away would involve the same type of risks.

So it hinged on whether he thought himself able to con the inquest. And if you read the article I just posted, you will realize from the Hare criteria that there is every chance that the idea that he could be found out may not even have seemed realistic to him.

The bottom line in what I am trying to tell you here is that if you think he would feel afraid about coming forward to the inquest, you are simply wrong. He would never be afraid.

He may, though, have made the calculation that it was less profitable to do so. If so, he would have stayed away.

That is how you should look at a psychopaths manner of weighing things up.

Iīm perfectly fine with how your gut feeling looks on this matter, but I am also eager to point out the possible cul-de-sacs of reasoning about psychopaths in terms of fear on their behalf.

PS. As you may already know, or as you will gather from the article, there are levels of psychopathy, and thus what I say will apply to a smaller or larger degree. But maybe we should not try and establish the exact level of psychopathy in Lechmere before we have established that he was a psychopath.

I suppose that he may have been reasonably confident of appearing at the Inquest free from all bloodstains, at any rate

Your reasoning is not in question, to my mind, Christer; it's just that it all hinges on whether or not he killed her. You've built a very tempting little funhouse here, if only we could be certain the foundations weren't made of sand.

[Elamarna]

I was hoping that you would be a bit more willing to take in what I am saying when I speak in general terms. A deep wound is more likely to set off blood on a person than a shallow one because the hand of the perpetrator will travel closer to the victims body.


No nesseciraly

After that, yes a cut vessel will play a role. But they are not placed in the skin layer, are they? They are instead normally placed... yes...wait for it... DEEP inside the body.

All the vessels in the skin and underlying tissue, before when penetrates the body wall will bleed, given the pattern of cuts it is highly possible that blood could have got onto the hands. Such of course is particularly true if a flap had been opened.

Can you see now what I am saying? Or is it still "a rot"?

I See what you are say but I disagree.

However, in the spirit of recent exchanges I will replace utter rot with you are incorrect.



Cheers


Steve

[Fisherman]

I suppose that he may have been reasonably confident of appearing at the Inquest free from all bloodstains, at any rate

Your reasoning is not in question, to my mind, Christer; it's just that it all hinges on whether or not he killed her. You've built a very tempting little funhouse here, if only we could be certain the foundations weren't made of sand.

Once we are, we have found our man. If that ever happens.

As for the foundations, I would describe them as a mixture of concrete and sand right now; sadly, the proportions are not correct to allow for all and sundry to move in just yet. Of course, I sleep fearlessly in the house every night myself, but the building council bureaucrats wonīt allow me to run a full hotel service for some reason.

[Fisherman]

I Ser what you are say but I disagree.

However, in the spirit of recent exchanges I will replace utter rot with you are incorrect.



Cheers


Steve

So you disagree with deep wounds being more likely to set off blood on a cutters hand than shallow ones? Have I got that correct?

[Elamarna]

Given that Nichols had had her neck severed down to the bone and her abdomen cut very severely, so severely as to make Llewellyn say that it was enough to kill immediately - can we reason that Nichols would possibly have gone on breating for a couple of minutes? Or even a minute? Are there any examples of people with this kind of extensive damage doing that? Would not the cut off air supply to the brain ensure that we are looking at a very short period of breathing indeed?

If people with this kind of damage CAN breathe for a couple of minutes or so - is that something that is mostly an offhand possibility or is it more like a general rule that they do? Can something - anything - be said about the general possibilities that there will be this kind of breathing with these kinds of victims?

What I am asking is whether you can offer any idea of your own about how long you personally would think it likely that Nichols would have breathed. Even if you are prepared to allow for a couple of minutes, would you think it the more likely thing? If you find that a question you rather not would answer, I am fine with that.

Please note that I am not expressing an opposite view here - I am genuinely interested in finding out as much as I can, thatīs all.

Hi Fish, a figure would have been nice I agree, however I am not surprised by Paul's replies.it's what I suggested to you, inconclusive .

The issue, it's not a problem except to the like of us, who would love fixed figures; is nature does not work to fixed timetables.

It will be interesting to see if Paul responds to your questions.

Cheers


Steve

[Elamarna]

So you disagree with deep wounds being more likely to set off blood on a cutters hand than shallow ones? Have I got that correct?

It really all depends on the circumstances, and here the circumstances do not back the view you expressed.

Steve

[Henry Flower]

Hi Fish, a figure would have been nice I agree, however I am not surprised by Paul's replies.it's what I suggested to you, inconclusive .

The issue, it's not a problem except to the like of us, who would love fixed figures; is nature does not work to fixed timetables.

It will be interesting to see if Paul responds to your questions.

Cheers


Steve

Hi Steve. Hypothetical question. Given what we have as approximate timings of Lech, Paul, and the descriptions by Paul of what he saw / felt, let me ask you: yes, we all expected an inconclusive answer to the forensic question. That was inevitable. But what answer (if any) would it take to convince you that Lech might just be the man? My thinking is as follows:

If death were very fast, say within a minute, it would have been something that I think might have caught Paul's attention as he approached. I would expect at least 20 seconds of gurgling, coughing blood, gasping through the throat wound. I'm thinking of the horrific sounds I can never forget from one of those repugnant ISIS videos. I couldn't watch it and averted my eyes, but the sounds were terrible enough. However, maybe the one I endured documented a noisier death than others. I'm so sick of all these variables!

So I suspect that if she's died recently enough to land Lechmere well and truly in the frame then Paul is going to have noticed more than he did. One possible feint chest movement suggests to me she's not been sliced within the past minute.

But as you say, this isn't an exact science. Maybe she could show almost no sign or sound of life "almost instantaneously". If the blood had not coagulated then that gives me pause.

So I'm asking, given all the known factors and timings, is there a biological answer that might've caused you to think, "Hello, this is maybe worth a very close look"?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish, a figure would have been nice I agree, however I am not surprised by Paul's replies.it's what I suggested to you, inconclusive .

The issue, it's not a problem except to the like of us, who would love fixed figures; is nature does not work to fixed timetables.

It will be interesting to see if Paul responds to your questions.

Cheers


Steve

Well, Steve, Iīm quite aware that we must be dealing with a spectre of times, and that it can never be established what applied to Nichols. However, if Paul can make some general outlining about it all, that would be very interesting to hear.
Jason Payne-James was always very careful in his way of expressing matters and he always allowed for this kind of spectre, and when he said what he did about bleeding times, it was in reply to my question. He would of course never claim that there is a timetable with exact bleeding times. It all boils down to many years of experience and a rational guess based on that experience, and that is about as much we can hope to get from Paul.