Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Not at all. I said let's all be honest. Meaning let's all face up to the facts, me, you, everyone.
If you take it another way, that is your choice and is not the intention.



Yes I have no issue with admitting one man's view, a view question by at least one other poster who claims to have discussed the issues with James Scobie. Now let me be clear not know the content of that debate it cannot be used in any way at all, however the point remains such has been raised by another poster.

The main issue is that Scobie's comments were and remain the view of one agreed highly experienced man, But just one man none the less.


The ONLY things not debated are where he lived, where he worked, what time he started work, his age, his date of death, his step fathers name and his mother's address. Yes those issue are firm and strong.




That is not my view.
We know he took one route on the day of the Nichols murder.
We can assume he took the same for Chapman and Kelly however the times of death are debated in both cases and CANNOT at present be fitted to Lechmere.

For all other murders there is no evidence that Lechmere took a route close to those murder sites, yes there is supposition but that is all.



No it would not have the same implications at all.
It is certainly not not picking, it is a statement which gives a truly misleading impression.

It give the impression the the "Police" officially accepted Mizen's account and rejected that of Lechmere. Has you are well aware there is no evidence to back that up.
Before you suggest he was not disciplined and therefore the "police" accepted his view in that light, it is just as likely that like many they accepted it as a misunderstanding.

I am not in the slightest surprised you have no desire to debate what is clearly a questionable statement.

Let me assure you none of the comments you make have any serious bearing on the arguments I make. I base those on sources and the analysis of such, not on pure speculation.

Steve

There is nothing much to comment on here for me. Itīs all VERY old hat.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No it isn't - it's consistent with being human.

It is ALSO potentially consistent with being human, yes. But that does not rule out how it is consistent with psychopathy too, if he was the killer.

Not all psychopaths do risky things and many non-psychopaths are capable of doing very risky things.

But the overall rule is that generally speaking, a psychopath is infinitely more willing to take risks. And that owes to how he will not panick - he canīt, simple as that. And psychopaths are generally very accomplished liars, who LIKE to lie and deceive their fellow men.

No talking about how we cannot look at all psychopaths as being totally similar changes that.

This is yet another case whereby argument-from-profiling proves to be a useless diagnostic tool; see my post above about the "ordinary men" Venn Diagram for the rationale.

So you are first telling me that we must allow for differences - and then you provide a diagramme to establish how these things work? Oh, the irony!

I am not saying anything at all that is in any way controversial. if Lechmere was the killer, he must with a very near certainty have been a psychopath. That does not equal saying "because this is how all psychopaths work". It is instead a way of saying that the cool behaviour he exhibited after Paul surfaced can be explained by psychopathy if he was the killer. Nothing more, nothing less. You are the one dragging in diagrammes and stuff that are utterly worthless, other than to establish what we already knew - that most people who seem not to be killers are not killers.

I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in that particular argument. Don't take things so personally.

When you say that MY argument is flawed, you ARE being personal. Not least since it is NOT flawed other than if we allow you to represent me as having said and meant something I have neither said nor meant. When that happens, seriousness tumbles down into sillyness, reason stops playing a role and a farce is made of the whole matter.
Donīt take that personally, though, Gareth.

[Elamarna]

If Steve thinks that I am overrating the evidence and feels that honesty is the remedy for that particular illness, then there can be little doubt that he does not feel that honesty and thinking the Lechmere case is a strong one works together.

It is not a very hard matter to see, Gareth.

I of course appreciate that he may be reasoning "honestly, I donīt think the case is at all strong", but that was not how he worded himself.

Plus letīs not forget that we are dealing with a poster who saw his way through to claiming that I am willing to put a figure to how often doctors make mistakes. How is THAT for generalizing from a very specific statement about how a doctor will recognize a damaged inner organ for a damaged inner organ?

First point.

Try as much as you like Fisherman. I was not calling you dishonest, the a
Wording used is very clear:

"Let's all try and be honest here. Much of that circumstantial "evidence" is either highly debated or very far from strong".


It really does seem that you can view anything posted which disagrees with you view as an attack.

Second point on the figures.

There is no question that what I quoted was the words you posted. If it was misunderstood it was because it was poorly worded by yourself in the first place.
You were not misrepresented.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Indeed, but the overwhelming majority of men of all kinds are ordinary also. To make up some figures by way of illustration, let's say that 99% of "ordinary men" are not murderers, 0.8% are murders, and 0.2% are serial killers. Given that Lechmere appeared to be an "ordinary man", which part of this imaginary Venn Diagram would he most likely have occupied - the 99% segment, the 0.8% segment or the 0.2% bit?

That will depend on the circumstances surrounding the murder, as you well know, Gareth.

No, it won't. If those are the stats, those are the stats, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding a given murder. If you want to put Lechmere in the 0.2% segment, you need to find firm evidence other than his "ordinariness" in order to place him there.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Indeed, but the overwhelming majority of men of all kinds are ordinary also. To make up some figures by way of illustration, let's say that 99% of "ordinary men" are not murderers, 0.8% are murders, and 0.2% are serial killers. Given that Lechmere appeared to be an "ordinary man", which part of this imaginary Venn Diagram would he most likely have occupied - the 99% segment, the 0.8% segment or the 0.2% bit?

That will depend on the circumstances surrounding the murder, as you well know, Gareth.

Isolating the question, there is no doubt that people with works and families and where we have no record of criminality, are almost always not killers. That goes without saying, but since you bring the topic up, I thought Iīd give you my take on it, so that I am not brought into doubt on the score - I donīt rule out that this could happen. As I believe you know, these boards could well turn up a poster or two who is willing to say "Fisherman thinks having a steady job and a family equals being a serial killer". The quality of the ciriticsm of the theory would easily harbour such a statement.

But if we were to make a REAL disucssion of the matter, I could say that people with steady jobs and families who are found alone close to murder victims killed in a space of time that roughly coincides with the presence of the family man/steady worker on the murder site, are much, much more likley to be killers than family men with steady jobs and families who are NOT found in such circumstances.

Similarly, people with steady jobs and families who do not state the name they are registered by and that they always otherwise use in authority contacts as they are questioned in a murder case where they have been found alone close to the body of the victim, are much more likely to be killers than those who state the name they are registered by and use in other authority contacts.

So the question is a much more difficult one than what you seem to be leading on.

If you disagree with any of these two points I made, Iīd be interested to hear how that works.

This is just one example of where justifying an argument by appealing to "criminal profiling" is nowhere near as useful as we might think it is.

To be frank, neither of us can establish how useful it is. If Lechmere WAS the killer, it is 100 per cent useful. If he was not, it was 100 per cent useless, other than from a pedagogical point of view.

[Sam Flynn]

To make up some figures by way of illustration, let's say that 99% of "ordinary men" are not murderers, 0.8% are murders, and 0.2% are serial killers.

I'd emphasise that my illustrative figures aren't meant to be correct, as it's clearly not the case that fully 1% of all "ordinary men" have committed one or more murders! In reality, the "murderer" and "serial-killer" parts of the Venn Diagram would be significantly smaller, and the "non-killer" segment will be bigger still.

[Fisherman]

Steve's not doing that, Fish. His appeal was quite specific, and it was for us to be honest with ourselves ("let's all try and be honest") about the circumstantial nature of the evidence, which is obviously highly debated and is not strong, despite your belief to the contrary.

If Steve thinks that I am overrating the evidence and feels that honesty is the remedy for that particular illness, then there can be little doubt that he does not feel that honesty and thinking the Lechmere case is a strong one works together.

It is not a very hard matter to see, Gareth.

I of course appreciate that he may be reasoning "honestly, I donīt think the case is at all strong", but that was not how he worded himself.

Plus letīs not forget that we are dealing with a poster who saw his way through to claiming that I am willing to put a figure to how often doctors make mistakes. How is THAT for generalizing from a very specific statement about how a doctor will recognize a damaged inner organ for a damaged inner organ?

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Let's all try and be honest here. Much of that circumstantial "evidence" is either highly debated or very far from strong.

You ARE aware that you are implicitly calling me dishonest, are you not? Not that I care much, but I thought Iīd point it out to you anyway.

Not at all. I said let's all be honest. Meaning let's all face up to the facts, me, you, everyone.
If you take it another way, that is your choice and is not the intention.

The highly debated and far from strong evidence made James Scobie say that it was enough to represent a prima faciae case strong enough to take to court.

Letīs be honest and admit that.

Yes I have no issue with admitting one man's view, a view question by at least one other poster who claims to have discussed the issues with James Scobie. Now let me be clear not know the content of that debate it cannot be used in any way at all, however the point remains such has been raised by another poster.

The main issue is that Scobie's comments were and remain the view of one agreed highly experienced man, But just one man none the less.

Noting that you say that" much of that evidence is highly debated and far from strong", I wonder if that means that you consider SOME of it not debated and strong?

The ONLY things not debated are where he lived, where he worked, what time he started work, his age, his date of death, his step fathers name and his mother's address. Yes those issue are firm and strong.

Plus, of course, it was suggested on these boards that it is "ludicrous" to point to the fact that Lechmere passed through the killing fields on the approximate hours of the murders. So things that are "highy debated" may - at least to my mind - be very compelling evidence in spite of some peopleīs misgivings.

That is not my view.
We know he took one route on the day of the Nichols murder.
We can assume he took the same for Chapman and Kelly however the times of death are debated in both cases and CANNOT at present be fitted to Lechmere.

For all other murders there is no evidence that Lechmere took a route close to those murder sites, yes there is supposition but that is all.

That reads as if the Met as a whole, at the very least senior officers in the case, disagreed with Lechmere. That of course is not the case, the reality is one police constable gave a different story to the two carmen.

He gave his story to the police, represented by Mizen, and the police, represented by Mizen, disagreed. When we approach the police, we always approach representatives of the police, not the whole corps. When we afterwards speak about it, we donīt say "I went to sergeant Davies and told him...", we say "I went to the police, and told them", and we are in our full right to do so.

It therefore also applies that if Davies afterwards say "No, you never approached me", then we are disagreeing with the police, more specifically with Davies.

Itīs nitpicking, Steve. I could have said that he disagreed with a serving police officer, but it is slightly more cumbersome, and it would carry the same implications, since our dealings with the police are dealings with representatives of the corps.

I have absolutely nothing further to add to this point, so I will leave any further discussion of it to you. I hope that you do not base your verdict of "highly debated" and "far from strong" on my saying that Lechmere spoke to the police, because he actually did.

No it would not have the same implications at all.
It is certainly not not picking, it is a statement which gives a truly misleading impression.

It give the impression the the "Police" officially accepted Mizen's account and rejected that of Lechmere. Has you are well aware there is no evidence to back that up.
Before you suggest he was not disciplined and therefore the "police" accepted his view in that light, it is just as likely that like many they accepted it as a misunderstanding.

I am not in the slightest surprised you have no desire to debate what is clearly a questionable statement.

Let me assure you none of the comments you make have any serious bearing on the arguments I make. I base those on sources and the analysis of such, not on pure speculation.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I am saying what I have always said: That Lechmereīs behaviour, if he was the killer, is perfectly consistent with psychopathy.

No it isn't - it's consistent with being human. Not all psychopaths do risky things and many non-psychopaths are capable of doing very risky things. This is yet another case whereby argument-from-profiling proves to be a useless diagnostic tool; see my post above about the "ordinary men" Venn Diagram for the rationale.

I would very much warn against oversimplifying matters on my behalf and pretend that I was the one making the suggestion.

I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in that particular argument. Don't take things so personally.

[Sam Flynn]

Elamarna: Let's all try and be honest here. Much of that circumstantial "evidence" is either highly debated or very far from strong.

You ARE aware that you are implicitly calling me dishonest, are you not?

Steve's not doing that, Fish. His appeal was quite specific, and it was for us to be honest with ourselves ("let's all try and be honest") about the circumstantial nature of the evidence, which is obviously highly debated and is not strong, despite your belief to the contrary.

[Sam Flynn]

[The argument that Lechmere was a "cosy family man"] can never have any effect at all on the suggestion that Lechmere may have been the killer. None whatsoever. All we can say is that on the surface, he seemed an ordinary man - and that on the surface, many, many serialists are ordinary men.

Indeed, but the overwhelming majority of men of all kinds are ordinary also. To make up some figures by way of illustration, let's say that 99% of "ordinary men" are not murderers, 0.8% are murders, and 0.2% are serial killers. Given that Lechmere appeared to be an "ordinary man", which part of this imaginary Venn Diagram would he most likely have occupied - the 99% segment, the 0.8% segment or the 0.2% bit?

This is just one example of where justifying an argument by appealing to "criminal profiling" is nowhere near as useful as we might think it is.

[Fisherman]

Can I just interject here? I want it on record that I have an alarming overconfidence in almost all the suspects proposed on the forums. I think Lechmere and Van Gogh were in cahoots, Bury supplied the hardware, and Kosminski sourced the chalk.

You should ALWAYS interject, Henry!

But it really was Lechmere who provided the chalk AND wrote the GSG with the tip of his forefinger - he was shining white throughout, see...

[Fisherman]

Everyone here is free to go back through this thread and see, with their own eyes, which poster has been intolerant and insulting. Also which poster has an obvious, and quite alarming, overconfidence in his suspect!

And when they arrive at the point where you say that it is ludicrous to point to how a suspects paths lead through the killing fields in a murder series, what will they conclude?

That this was a very tolerant and non-insulting thing to say?

That you seem to be a knowledgeable man, who suggest that men with a job and family need to be cleared from any suspicion of being a killer?

Let me tell you right now, Herlock, that strangely enough, a bunch of people will say just that. And they will commend you on what they think is a rightfully indignant post.

I suggest you hang out with them in the future.

[Fisherman]

Not THAT (get-out-of-jail card) again! How many times do you have to be told that human behaviour doesn't work like a recipe book and that, even if Cross were psychopathic, it doesn't follow that he'd automatically do the riskiest things "just because" he was a psychopath.

The fact is that hailing another man, drawing his attention to the body, and then accompanying him to find and speak with a policeman were hugely risky things - things, plural - to do, when he could have easily slipped away in the first place.

Please donīt try and paint it out as if I am saying that all people, psychopaths or not, always follow the same pattern of behaviour.

I am saying what I have always said: That Lechmereīs behaviour, if he was the killer, is perfectly consistent with psychopathy.

I would very much warn against oversimplifying matters on my behalf and pretend that I was the one making the suggestion. It is unfair and unethical.

[Fisherman]

Just a reminder that I had a long telephone conversation with James Scobie and it became apparent that he clearly had not been given the full facts, and so given all of that I would suggest his opinion is unsafe to totally rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just a reminder that you have already been told that Scobie could never be given the "full facts" as in all information pertaining to the case, that you did not record your conversation with Scobie and you can therefore not reiterate what he actually said, and that Paul Begg, among other people, pointed out to you that it is perfectly legit to ask a barrister to look at the points presented against a suspect and ask how he evaluates them.

And, of course, a reminder that if Scobie had been deceived, he would have had all the reason in the word to come out and say so.

The last reminder is how Iīd like to point out that I have told you before that your suggestions out here belong to the most unsavoury ones I have ever seen on the boards. You probably do not understand what you are doing, but that is really the poorest of excuses.