Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Quite probably, but I honestly don't know. I'm not sure that these labels help much, anyway.

Okay, thanks for helping out with that. Myself, I think it a very important parameter to keep track of. I agree with the assessment "quite probably", since I donīt think there can be any absolute certainty going by the murder site evidence only. I make it perhaps 80-20 or 90-10.
It is only when combining this with Lehmeres behaviour on the murder night that I am saying that he must have been a psychopath if he was the killer. if he was, we have an astonishi display of coolness and control, coupled with quick thinking.

To me, this only becomes circular if we say that he WAS the killer, and I donīt - I say that he is very probable to have been the killer.

[Fisherman]

Killed in the scheme of things, "as good as done for", or "it was all over bar the shouting". They're just turns of phrase. Compare Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch.

Hm. But you donīt seem to regard "freshly killed" as part of a sketch...? You seem to think it is not funny at all?

I trust you can see where I am coming from. If you are going to pick on that wording of mine, you should not expect to get away with "long dead" in this context. The mere idea that such a thing would work is pushing up daisies...

[Fisherman]

Steve!

I find the current matter you are going on about a very useless matter by now. If you knew all the time that Payne-James had access to Llewellyns testimony, why question if he did?

Can we do less of these things and more of productive debate?

[Patrick S]

I'm not disallowing anything, Fish. I genuinely think that saying that "the Ripper was a psycho, psychos take big risks, so Lechmere [being a psycho] was happy to take big risks" is a false syllogism, or at best a weak argument. For one thing, it's circular; for another, it really is a Deus ex machina, of the type often wheeled out by suspect theorists when the need arises; and, even putting those objections aside, I don't really see that it's necessarily true anyway. As I said yesterday, human behaviour doesn't follow recipes, and psychological profiling has nowhere near the predictive reliability of an empirical physical law.

A timely post, Sam. Enjoyable as discussions about the duration for which nearly decapitated women can continue breathing can be, I think this really is the core of what's wrong with "the case" against "the carman".

We must begin with an assumption: that Charles Cross killed Mary Ann Nichols. We must then move to another assumption, one that it completely dependent upon the first: that Charles Cross was a psychopath - because whoever killed Nichols was Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a psychopath. Seems somewhat circular, but, let's press on.

It seems as if this all began with a notable discovery, and - of course - an assumption. The discovery, of course, is that fact that Charles Cross' given name was Charles Lechmere. The following assumption is that he gave the name Cross because - and this will sound familiar - he killed Polly Nichols. And was Jack the Ripper. And was, therefore, a psychopath.

And then, of course, we move on to a few more assumptions. Since we know that "the carman" lived past his 70th birthday, dying in 1920, and because we know that it's highly unlikely that a successful, psychopathic serial killer will simply and freely top killing, especially one that's remained uncaught and unsuspected for decades, we must assume that he didn't stop. He simply changed. He stopped being Jack the Ripper and became the Torso Killer, maybe a few others.

So then we take a closer look at the man. We find he was married to the same woman for 50+ years, raised 10 children, maintained employment at Pickfords for 20+ years, became a business owner in his retirement, and left his wife a comfortable sum upon his death. Of course, none of this is assumption. We KNOW these things as they're part of the historical record. What we do not find in the historical record is any evidence of violence, incarceration, arrest, commitment. It could be argued - and I have - that the content of the KNOWN historical record indicates that one doesn't find arrest records, etc., because they do not exist. And based upon what we KNOW, the absence of such records makes perfect sense.

Still, let's look closely, and more specifically, at the night of Nichols' murder. Let's look at what we KNOW of this man's behavior in (and beyond) Bucks Row. But, let's stay at a very high level and avoid stating the man's motivations in order to avoid MORE assumption, shall we?

We know he called Paul's attention to Nichols body. We know he went with Paul and found PC Mizen. We know he appeared at the inquest and offered testimony. One might interpret these high level actions as those of a man who found a woman in the street, and told others what he'd found. His actions are consistent with that. His actions are consistent with what most "normal" people would do. Unless of course he wasn't normal at all......and here we go again, that circle Sam mentioned, he killed Nichols, and was Jack the Ripper, because he was a psychopath.

And round and round we go.

[Sam Flynn]

Excellent post, Patrick.

[Elamarna]

Steve!

I find the current matter you are going on about a very useless matter by now. If you knew all the time that Payne-James had access to Llewellyns testimony, why question if he did?

Can we do less of these things and more of productive debate?

Can only assume that you have not read correctly what I have been posting.
I asked why he had not mentioned the abdomenial wounds, and could think of only two reasons:
A. He was not aware of them (highly unlikely, given he was there to give his professional view on the wounds).

B. He didn't mention them because He did not accept them or considered them unimportant and unsupported.

You have now given a 3rd reason, the comments may have been cut, like some of Scobie's were when he sneered at the theory.

It is highly productive, and certainly not useless, to ask why Payne-James does not mention Llewellyn' s view on the abdomenial wounds.

Of course I could be cynical and say I believe you have fully read and understood what has been posted but just do not want to address it!

However I am nice so I won't.

Steve

[Elamarna]

A timely post, Sam. Enjoyable as discussions about the duration for which nearly decapitated women can continue breathing can be, I think this really is the core of what's wrong with "the case" against "the carman".

We must begin with an assumption: that Charles Cross killed Mary Ann Nichols. We must then move to another assumption, one that it completely dependent upon the first: that Charles Cross was a psychopath - because whoever killed Nichols was Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a psychopath. Seems somewhat circular, but, let's press on.

It seems as if this all began with a notable discovery, and - of course - an assumption. The discovery, of course, is that fact that Charles Cross' given name was Charles Lechmere. The following assumption is that he gave the name Cross because - and this will sound familiar - he killed Polly Nichols. And was Jack the Ripper. And was, therefore, a psychopath.

And then, of course, we move on to a few more assumptions. Since we know that "the carman" lived past his 70th birthday, dying in 1920, and because we know that it's highly unlikely that a successful, psychopathic serial killer will simply and freely top killing, especially one that's remained uncaught and unsuspected for decades, we must assume that he didn't stop. He simply changed. He stopped being Jack the Ripper and became the Torso Killer, maybe a few others.

So then we take a closer look at the man. We find he was married to the same woman for 50+ years, raised 10 children, maintained employment at Pickfords for 20+ years, became a business owner in his retirement, and left his wife a comfortable sum upon his death. Of course, none of this is assumption. We KNOW these things as they're part of the historical record. What we do not find in the historical record is any evidence of violence, incarceration, arrest, commitment. It could be argued - and I have - that the content of the KNOWN historical record indicates that one doesn't find arrest records, etc., because they do not exist. And based upon what we KNOW, the absence of such records makes perfect sense.

Still, let's look closely, and more specifically, at the night of Nichols' murder. Let's look at what we KNOW of this man's behavior in (and beyond) Bucks Row. But, let's stay at a very high level and avoid stating the man's motivations in order to avoid MORE assumption, shall we?

We know he called Paul's attention to Nichols body. We know he went with Paul and found PC Mizen. We know he appeared at the inquest and offered testimony. One might interpret these high level actions as those of a man who found a woman in the street, and told others what he'd found. His actions are consistent with that. His actions are consistent with what most "normal" people would do. Unless of course he wasn't normal at all......and here we go again, that circle Sam mentioned, he killed Nichols, and was Jack the Ripper, because he was a psychopath.

And round and round we go.

Nicely put.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;419942]

Please just let me clarify, Payne-James had full documentation include the testimony of Dr Llewellyn.

And yet there is no reference to the suggestion that abdominal wounds may have been the cause of death.

Surely the suggestion was in his notes?

Why then not at least mention it as a possible cause of death?

Hi Steve,

Fisherman has said:

In Nicholsī case, we must also weigh in how Llewellyn opted for the neck being cut AFTER the damage was done to the abdomen, lethal damage as it were.

(Fisherman: Lechmere The Psychopath #992)

This sort of talk is typical for Fisherman. "How Llewellyn opted for...".

And of course he must know the sources for this idea.

And he must know if he has presented sources to people when he asked them about the specific case of the Nichols murder.

But I have not seen any such sources, and he does not answer my questions.

And I think he has no reliable sources.

Now, the only original police source that I know of which says anything about the order of the damage, about death and Lewellyn is this, and I also quote it:

Metropolitan Police J Division 31 August 1888:

“the Dr.”… "stated that her throat had been cut from left to right, two disti[nct] cuts being on left side. The windp[ipe] gullet and spinal cord being cut through, a bruise appearantly, of a th[umb] being on right lower jaw, also one o[n] left cheek, the abdomen had been [cut] open from center of bottom of ribs a[long] right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jag[ged], the omentium [sic], or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places, and tw[o] small stabs on private parts, appearantly done with a strong bladed knife, supposed to have been done by some le[ft] handed person, death being almost instantaneous."

J. Spratling Inspr., J. Keating Supt.

Comment: This is a reference to the statements of the doctor and not his own direct words. The chronological description is for the throat first and secondly the abdomen.

A later source from Scotland Yard 19th October 1888 gives the same chronology but does not at all mention “death”.

Thereafter we depend on the newspapers. And here is one early example:

Llewellyn…”maintains his opinion that the first wounds where those in the throat…”

London Evening Standard - Monday 03 September 1888

Now, what are the sources for the idea of Fisherman that Llewellyn "opted for the neck being cut AFTER the damage was done to the abdomen..."?

Cheers, Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

Hm. But you donīt seem to regard "freshly killed" as part of a sketch...? You seem to think it is not funny at all?

Forget the Dead Parrot Sketch. You're more like Mr Logic from Viz.

I trust you can see where I am coming from.

I knew precisely what your game was from the outset. Mine was an entirely throwaway phrase, which I explained fully when Abby questioned me about it, and re-explained to you subsequently, together with other phrases to illustrate my point... and a very minor point it was.

In contrast, your favourite phrase "Lechmere was found next to a freshly-killed victim" - which you've repeatedly used - is in an entirely different league. It is not only inaccurate, but demonstrably paints Lechmere in a more sinister light than the evidence permits.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Points noted.

What I find fascinating is that Payne-James, whom Christer uses for much of his medical "evidence" actually ignores the view that the abdomenial was first and the cause of death.
I wonder why?
I have asked but not got a reply to that point.


Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

Points noted.

What I find fascinating is that Payne-James, whom Christer uses for much of his medical "evidence" actually ignores the view that the abdomenial was first and the cause of death.
I wonder why?
I have asked but not got a reply to that point.

Steve

Steve,

I think the answer to that question is simple:

You can not determine the order of cutting wounds and the cause of death for Polly Nichols using newspaper articles.

Payne-James knows this.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Excellent post, Patrick.

The you should go back and read, and you will be very pleased. It is the same post every time.

[Pierre]

Steve!

I find the current matter you are going on about a very useless matter by now. If you knew all the time that Payne-James had access to Llewellyns testimony, why question if he did?

Can we do less of these things and more of productive debate?

Which sources exactly did he have access to?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Can only assume that you have not read correctly what I have been posting.
I asked why he had not mentioned the abdomenial wounds, and could think of only two reasons:
A. He was not aware of them (highly unlikely, given he was there to give his professional view on the wounds).

B. He didn't mention them because He did not accept them or considered them unimportant and unsupported.

You have now given a 3rd reason, the comments may have been cut, like some of Scobie's were when he sneered at the theory.

It is highly productive, and certainly not useless, to ask why Payne-James does not mention Llewellyn' s view on the abdomenial wounds.

Of course I could be cynical and say I believe you have fully read and understood what has been posted but just do not want to address it!

However I am nice so I won't.

Steve

Payne-James did not mention the abdominal wounds? Thatīs new to me. He mentioned them and was aware that they were severe. None of us knows exactly how severe, so that was about all he could do.

Taking up more space with this seems a bad idea to me.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

I think the answer to that question is simple:

You can not determine the order of cutting wounds and the cause of death for Polly Nichols using newspaper articles.

Payne-James knows this.

Pierre

I think you may be right.


Steve