Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere The Psychopath

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lechmere The Psychopath

    Was Lechmere a psychopath?

    In an earlier thread (Lechmere a witness to the killer, # 18) Fisherman wrote to me:

    To my mind, only a psychopath would have done what I suggest that Lechmere did. So the psychopathy is secondary - but is is tied to the case as a demand.

    If Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer and I am all wrong about this.
    If Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer, according to Fisherman

    OK, I will make this easy and try some simple article from Psychology today.

    (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...s-psychopath-0)

    A psychopath is for example:

    Uncaring
    Irresponsable
    Selfish
    Inable to plan for the future
    Violent

    Now, let´s apply this on what I have heard about Lechmere:

    Uncaring - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

    Conclusion: Lechmere was not uncaring.

    Irresponsable - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

    Conclusion: Lechmere was not irresponsable.

    Selfish - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

    Conclusion: Lechmere was not selfish.

    Inable to plan for the future - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

    Conclusion: Lechmere was not inable to plan for the future.

    Violent - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

    Conclusion: There are no sources found showing that Lechmere was violent.

    Summing up: Lechmere was not a psychopath and therefore, according to Fisherman, Lechmere was not Jack the Ripper.

    Pierre

  • #2
    The photograph was enough for me. The man's as guilty as sin.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      A psychopath is for example:

      Uncaring
      Irresponsable
      Selfish
      Inable to plan for the future
      Violent
      My dear boy, how charming of you to omit some from the list, but what do you have to say about:

      Shallow emotions
      Insincere speech
      Overconfidence
      Narrowing of attention

      Do you think these might be characteristic of him, my dear boy?

      Lechmere I mean, not Fisherman.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        My dear boy, how charming of you to omit some from the list, but what do you have to say about:

        Shallow emotions
        Insincere speech
        Overconfidence
        Narrowing of attention

        Do you think these might be characteristic of him, my dear boy?

        Lechmere I mean, not Fisherman.
        We have no sources for those dimensions so I can not hypothesize.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
          We have no sources for those dimensions so I can not hypothesize.
          Oh my dear dear boy, what about his inquest testimony?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            Oh my dear dear boy, what about his inquest testimony?
            Yes, what about it David?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pierre View Post
              Yes, what about it David?
              My dear boy, does his speech strike you as insincere? Does he show overconfidence? Did his attention narrow? And what about his emotions towards the woman lying on the ground that his testimony revealed?

              I'm sure your analysis of these factors will be much welcomed my dear boy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                Summing up: Lechmere was not a psychopath and therefore, according to Fisherman, Lechmere was not Jack the Ripper.

                Pierre

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thank you Pierre, for this latest of many, many demonstrations that you are not unduly obsessed with the Lechmere theory, due to having solved the case yourself using internal and external source criticism applied academically to sources found in The Archives.

                  Very good. Carry on.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I've made this exact argument for years. So, I know where this is headed. We will get examples of serial killers who were married (although, I've yet be provided an example of one who was married for fifty years, to the same woman). Examples of serial killers who had kids (although, I'm not sure I've gotten an example of one who had 11 kids, all with the same woman). We'll get examples of serial killers who maintained steady employment (although, I'm not sure we'll see one who managed it in a time a place when so many tried and failed to do so).

                    In the end, its a pretty simple equation: Fisherman himself tells us that in order to have been Jack the Ripper Charles Lechmere HAD to have been a psychopath. Okay. So. Do we have any evidence that Lechmere WAS a psychopath? Anything? Anything at all? No? Alright. Then we have our answer. Charles Lechmere was NOT Jack the Ripper.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      IMHO
                      I don't think anything that's been discussed about Lechmere dismisses him for being the ripper. not this psychopath argument, or the blood evidence or the timing issues. Now , obviously Fish has not proved all the three above from his view. conversely, while others have pointed to the above as having holes, nothing yet rules him out, like say Ostrog.

                      we still have the name discrepancy, and the fact that he is the only witness/suspect that is seen near the dead victim before rising any alarm. we also know his work route brought him near the murder scenes around TOD and the mothers house connection near Berner street.
                      Hes also one of the few suspects that actually has any physical ties to the case.

                      Sure, probably just a witness, but at this point he cant be ruled out-far from it.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        we also know his work route brought him near the murder scenes around TOD
                        We only know that for definite for the Nichols murder; although even here, as we've seen, the TOD could have been 20 minutes before Cross arrived in Bucks Row.

                        With regard to the other murders, he could have taken different routes, worked different hours, or was otherwise indisposed on one, more, or every such occasion.

                        As with much else, it's only conjecture that places him in the line of fire.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          IMHO
                          I don't think anything that's been discussed about Lechmere dismisses him for being the ripper. not this psychopath argument, or the blood evidence or the timing issues. Now , obviously Fish has not proved all the three above from his view. conversely, while others have pointed to the above as having holes, nothing yet rules him out, like say Ostrog.

                          we still have the name discrepancy, and the fact that he is the only witness/suspect that is seen near the dead victim before rising any alarm. we also know his work route brought him near the murder scenes around TOD and the mothers house connection near Berner street.
                          Hes also one of the few suspects that actually has any physical ties to the case.

                          Sure, probably just a witness, but at this point he cant be ruled out-far from it.
                          Abby,

                          First, let's not focus on the fact that Lechmere hasn't been "dismissed" as the Ripper. That's a near impossible metric. Unless we have documentary evidence that said suspect was locked away, dead, or far, far away, that person CAN (and probably WILL at some point) be put forward as Jack the Ripper and no one can conclusively "dismiss" him as such. One could pull the census records, finger a name, and say (to coin a phrase), "I think I have found him!" How can we prove otherwise? Lacking contradictory evidence, we CANNOT. Thus, we can only apply common sense, reason. We should ask questions like this: "Based on what information I have, do I think its PLAUSIBLE that this man was Jack the Ripper?"

                          Second, I'm struggling with your referring to Lechmere as "the only witness/suspect that is seen near the dead victim before rising any alarm".

                          Let's start with this: What response should we have expected? We know that Robert Paul stood inches from Nichols and noticed no injuries. We know that Neil saw nothing until he trained his lantern to light the scene. So, clearly it was dark and Nichols' injuries weren't apparent. Should we have expected Lechmere, upon finding a woman lying on the pavement at 3:45am to instantly begin screaming, "MURDER! MURDER!" at the top of his lungs? Should he have begun pounding on doors and windows, screaming for help? We KNOW Nichols was dead. Lechmere did not. And there were many reasons - all of which Mr. Lechmere was well aware and other than her having been a Ripper victim - that she may have been lying there.

                          Today, in 2017, people walk past bodies on the street (or doing laps on subway cars) without doing as much as we know that Lechmere did that night in Buck's Row. It's as true today as it was then: Most of these bodies are people very much alive. They're asleep, passed out drunk, on drugs. Some prove do prove to be dead. Very few of those prove to have been the victims of murder.

                          Further, I suggest that Lechmere's reaction was almost identical the reaction Diemshutz had upon finding Stride in Dutfield's Yard. He struck a match and it was blown out. But he saw enough by it's light to determine that a woman was lying there. What did he do? Did be begin screaming for help? Of course not. He went to the club and told his wife and others what he'd found. And guess what he told them specifically? That he found a woman lying in the yard but he could not tell if she was "dead or drunk". Sound familiar?

                          Going further still...this term, "raising the alarm". I struggle with it. I suppose that it can describe any number of reactions. Alas, the reaction really depends on the information the alarm raiser has at the time he or she raises the alarm. I'd suggest both Lechmere and Diemshutz "raised the alarm" in that they alerted others to what they'd found. Of course, Diemshutz returned to scene with a candle and saw Stride's injuries, saw she was dead. Paul and Lechmere had no candle. But, what did they do, even as they were still unsure if the woman was "drunk or dead"? They went to find a policeman. Which is exactly what Diemschutz and Kozebrodsky did. Only they WERE shouting now because they had information that Lechmere and Paul did not: They knew the woman was DEAD. They saw her injuries. Thus, the alarm they raised was appropriate based upon the information they had at THAT time. Just as the alarm Diemschutz raised moments earlier was appropriate based on the information he had when he entered the club to report what he'd seen, not certain that he'd found a dead woman. And just as Lechmere and Paul's alarm was appropriate based on the information they had as the exited Buck's Row together.
                          Last edited by Patrick S; 05-19-2017, 12:02 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi

                            I just find it difficult to believe that Jack the Ripper would commit a murder on his way to work?
                            a) he wouldn't have risked turning up for work spattered in blood (no matter how small an amount) when a murder had occurred on the very route that he'd taken to work.
                            b) he couldn't have known how long the murder would take to commit and we know how pushed for time he was. His main thought was not being late for work.
                            c) surely he took the same route to work every day and so it's likely that he'd seen Robert Paul before even if they'd never spoken. So if he knew that at least one other bloke walked along the same street at around the same time every day it would have deterred him.
                            d) I think that we would all think it was unlikely that Richardson would have killed Annie Chapman in his mother's back yard. Or that Reeve would have killed Tabram on a landing in the building where he lived. We don't know how intelligent Jack was but we can, at least, say that he was smart enough to avoid detection; would he really risk murdering a woman in a spot that he past every day on the way to work.
                            e) if he was guilty surely he'd more likely have just run when he heard Paul's footsteps around 40 yards away( a good head start )
                            f) he gave the police the name he used in speech every day. If he'd have called himself Lechmere people would be saying why didn't he use the name that he used every day (Cross)
                            g) he turned up to the inquest and gave a completely plausible account of his actions.

                            I, personally, can't see him as the ripper. I think the name thing has added mystery where none really exists.
                            Regards
                            HS
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              Hi

                              I just find it difficult to believe that Jack the Ripper would commit a murder on his way to work?
                              a) he wouldn't have risked turning up for work spattered in blood (no matter how small an amount) when a murder had occurred on the very route that he'd taken to work.
                              b) he couldn't have known how long the murder would take to commit and we know how pushed for time he was. His main thought was not being late for work.
                              c) surely he took the same route to work every day and so it's likely that he'd seen Robert Paul before even if they'd never spoken. So if he knew that at least one other bloke walked along the same street at around the same time every day it would have deterred him.
                              d) I think that we would all think it was unlikely that Richardson would have killed Annie Chapman in his mother's back yard. Or that Reeve would have killed Tabram on a landing in the building where he lived. We don't know how intelligent Jack was but we can, at least, say that he was smart enough to avoid detection; would he really risk murdering a woman in a spot that he past every day on the way to work.
                              e) if he was guilty surely he'd more likely have just run when he heard Paul's footsteps around 40 yards away( a good head start )
                              f) he gave the police the name he used in speech every day. If he'd have called himself Lechmere people would be saying why didn't he use the name that he used every day (Cross)
                              g) he turned up to the inquest and gave a completely plausible account of his actions.

                              I, personally, can't see him as the ripper. I think the name thing has added mystery where none really exists.
                              Regards
                              HS
                              Same here. That's always been one of my problems (among others!) when it comes to Lechmere as the Ripper.

                              Did a Ripper murder coincide with the route of a local carman, or did a local carman suddenly decide to kill on his route to work? I know which sounds more plausible to me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X