So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

Fish - I'm not trying to be a wise-arse, but who is Russel(l) Edwards? The only Russell Edwards I've ever heard of is a Ripperologist. 'Naming Jack the Ripper' (2014).

The only 'serialist' named Edwards that I have studied was Ed Edwards and he had a long illustrious criminal career (armed robbery, jail break, fraud, etc etc) before he was identified as a murderer. Which goes entirely against your point.

Truly the man was a psychopath, and it showed long before he was arrested for a string of murders. All the best.

Got that wrong - Russell Williams is the name. Thanks for pointing out the error.

You will be able to find numerous examples of people who are in line with my point and who go against it. If we are to conclude on basis of statistics, then Lechmere was not the killer, simple as that. It takes for us to allow for deviations from statistics before a case can be made. But that was always so - serial killers are statistical anomalies from beginning to end.

[Fisherman]

But Fish, haven't you insisted that Lechmere had a choice, and chose - for reasons that remain unclear - not to leave the scene but to stay put and bluff his way out of any trouble? Just like an innocent witness would have had the choice to pass on by or wait for someone's assistance.

Yet you claimed that Griffiths was 'adamant' that a serial killer in those circumstances would 'never' have run away. In that case, how could Griffiths have agreed with you that it was a matter of choice, if he was adamant that all serial killers - every man Jack of them - would have done one thing and not the other? That's not a choice by any normal definition, is it? It would be akin to saying that people with a fear of heights have the choice to go to Beachy Head and jump off, but would never choose to do it. Except that all we are talking about here is the choice between two actions - to stay or to go - neither of which would be 100% risk free for a psychopathic killer with a knife and blood on his hands.

So who is right on this point, you or Griffiths? Or have you possibly misunderstood or misrepresented his position?

Love,

Caz
X

There WAS a choice, and both me and Andy Griffiths were mathematically able to see that. The choice was between running and not running.

Griffiths said that he would never run, meaning that he would make the choice to stay.

Isnīt it all very simple?

You are wasting time out here. And space.

[rjpalmer]

Fish - I'm not trying to be a wise-arse, but who is Russel(l) Edwards? The only Russell Edwards I've ever heard of is a Ripperologist. 'Naming Jack the Ripper' (2014).

The only 'serialist' named Edwards that I have studied was Ed Edwards and he had a long illustrious criminal career (armed robbery, jail break, fraud, etc etc) before he was identified as a murderer. Which goes entirely against your point.

Truly the man was a psychopath, and it showed long before he was arrested for a string of murders. All the best.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, Fish, so it's a shame for your theory that Lechmere tied himself to the case - and just the one case, the murder of Nichols - by volunteering his services as a witness, like everyone else who was first at the scene of one of the Whitechapel murders.

For all you know, the police may have taken an interest in his [and Robert Paul's] movements and found he had an alibi covering the entire period from when Chapman was last seen to when she was found dead. What you need to do is to tie him, without his full co-operation, to at least one of the other cases, otherwise your efforts are doomed to be a lost cause.

Love,

Caz
X

The only shame around here is linked to the inability to think a step further.

And "doomed to be a lost cause"? Because you entertain that hope? Dream on!

[Fisherman]

An exemplary, and very loooooong work record, even by today's standards.

I think Russel Edwards, Gary Ridgway, John Armstrong and a good many more could compete with him. They had looooong and exemplary records too.

But donīt let that worry you - Iīm sure you are correct in thinking that peope who seem to be good are always good. And that Santa Claus exists.

Lucky us!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

You directed the above at Batman, but it uncannily reflects your own very recent posting behaviour aimed in my direction.

Remind me what it is about Lechmere's known behaviour that indicates to you a psychopathic nature, now you have to concede that his exemplary work record doesn't count and would tend to indicate otherwise. Merely pointing out that examples exist which buck the trend is completely meaningless. You need your suspect's other character traits to be even stronger indicators to make up for this one not helping your cause.

Love,

Caz
X

Werewolf teeth? Killing toddlers and drinking their blood? Raping old ladies at will in the streets?
Yes, that would help my cause.
As it stands, I must make do with the excellent cause suggested by the Nichols murder case, where my suspect can be put on the spot at the correct time, where we know he used an alternative name, where the clothes had been pulled down, where he disagrees with the police in a way that is tailormade to take him past the police, where we have a working trek that will take him close to the other Spitalfields murder sites, where we have ties to St Georges...

Only a blind bat could miss the potential impact of these things. Sadly, there is the odd blind bat out here. No names necessary.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman-- I must correct you. Ted Bundy portrayed himself as a pillar of society. He had 'form.' He forged ski-lift tickets as a kid, stole cars, shoplifted, and engaged in exactly the kind of activity that a psychopath would engage in. That criminologists have merely focused on Bundy as a 'serial murderer' is their bad. He was a criminal regardless. Peter Kurten spent half his life in jail...not for killing, but for breaking and entering and arson.

What crimes did Lechmere commit? Druitt? Barnett? Maybrick?

Hutchinson was a choir boy down at the local church as far as anyone here knows. Quite possibly the blameless plumber that some think he was.

Not one of these popular suspects can be shown to be a psychopath or have committed any offense, not even jaywalking. Kosminski's great crime against humanity was forgetting to muzzle his dog.

NONE of the examples I posted were pillars of society. The whole point I am making is that they may well have been regarded as such pillars of society if they had not been caught, and if we allow for the same kind of erosion of information and memory that adhers to Lechmere.

What crimes did Lechmere committ? None - that we know of. Then again, we knew of no crimes on account of Chikatilo, of Armstrong, of Edwards, of Yates before they were revealed as serial killers. I am all for agreeing that we know of no criminal record for Lechmere, but totally against regarding that as proof that he never committed a crime.
I often quote Ressler, who said that a man in his late thirties, with a family, kids and a steady job is the archetypical serial killer. A pillar of society, in other words.

You feel that it is not a proven thing that he was a psychopath. Good! We agree. What I keep saying is not that he was a psychopath, but that the Ripper was - the character of his deeds display a total disregard for other human beings, and he seems to have regarded his victims as slabs of flesh for him to cut into.
And if the Ripper was a psychopath, then it applies that if - IF! - Lechmere was the killer, then he must have been a psychopath. The actions from the murder night and the inquest are certainly totally in line with the suggestion, for example the invention of the second PC, something he would have had minutes only to concoct on his feet - if he was the killer.

[rjpalmer]

Hi again, Fisherman. I am not familiar with all the cases you cite, and perhaps it is possible that we have a few 'serialists' who have managed to completely stay off the radar until capture, but most the cases I am familiar with suggest otherwise. But part of the problem I have with 'profilers' and those who yammer on endlessly about serial murder is that once they find out Citizen X is guilty of killing a string of victims--take your pick, Chikatilo, Gacy, Bundy, etc--the profilers seem to be only interested in those crimes and spend little or no time analyzing the other aspects of the murderer's life. But surely it is the other aspects of their personality that might offer us a clue as to the 'nature of the beast'? How are we suppose to recognize a 'serialist' when confronted with him, if the only clue is that he kills women?


In other words, perhaps a 'serialist' could live an otherwise blameless life, as you say, but if that were the case, then Druitt, Kosminski, Joe Barnett and any random dude living on Whitechapel Road are now back in the frame.

By contrast, it is much harder to image a 'psychopath' living a blameless life, because the entire nature of the psychopath is someone who lies, cheats, and manipulates others. Few suspects have left a trail of those particular behaviors.

All good wishes. I will give your points some more thought.

[caz]

I am saying that Griffiths thoughts are in line with my own thinking, and so it is him who agrees with me, itīs not the other way around.

But Fish, haven't you insisted that Lechmere had a choice, and chose - for reasons that remain unclear - not to leave the scene but to stay put and bluff his way out of any trouble? Just like an innocent witness would have had the choice to pass on by or wait for someone's assistance.

Yet you claimed that Griffiths was 'adamant' that a serial killer in those circumstances would 'never' have run away. In that case, how could Griffiths have agreed with you that it was a matter of choice, if he was adamant that all serial killers - every man Jack of them - would have done one thing and not the other? That's not a choice by any normal definition, is it? It would be akin to saying that people with a fear of heights have the choice to go to Beachy Head and jump off, but would never choose to do it. Except that all we are talking about here is the choice between two actions - to stay or to go - neither of which would be 100% risk free for a psychopathic killer with a knife and blood on his hands.

So who is right on this point, you or Griffiths? Or have you possibly misunderstood or misrepresented his position?

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

No; the way I look at it, the intelligentsia has found it much better to focus on local choir boys, random witnesses, and the odd Jewish lunatic who likes his daily bread out of the gutter.

What about a Jewish lunatic with a criminal record?

[caz]

The police and the judicial system need to tie him to the case. They must. It is the most vital of all parameters, not if you have shouted "death to fallen women" in the street.

Indeed, Fish, so it's a shame for your theory that Lechmere tied himself to the case - and just the one case, the murder of Nichols - by volunteering his services as a witness, like everyone else who was first at the scene of one of the Whitechapel murders.

For all you know, the police may have taken an interest in his [and Robert Paul's] movements and found he had an alibi covering the entire period from when Chapman was last seen to when she was found dead. What you need to do is to tie him, without his full co-operation, to at least one of the other cases, otherwise your efforts are doomed to be a lost cause.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

you have to concede that his exemplary work record doesn't count

An exemplary, and very loooooong work record, even by today's standards.

[caz]

I write the cheap insults up to a bitterness on your behalf on account of having been put on display, pants down. Some make that choice instead of the wiser option: "Oh, right, so I was wrong".

Hi Fish,

You directed the above at Batman, but it uncannily reflects your own very recent posting behaviour aimed in my direction.

Remind me what it is about Lechmere's known behaviour that indicates to you a psychopathic nature, now you have to concede that his exemplary work record doesn't count and would tend to indicate otherwise. Merely pointing out that examples exist which buck the trend is completely meaningless. You need your suspect's other character traits to be even stronger indicators to make up for this one not helping your cause.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fisherman-- I must correct you. Ted Bundy portrayed himself as a pillar of society. He had 'form.' He forged ski-lift tickets as a kid, stole cars, shoplifted, and engaged in exactly the kind of activity that a psychopath would engage in. That criminologists have merely focused on Bundy as a 'serial murderer' is their bad. He was a criminal regardless. Peter Kurten spent half his life in jail...not for killing, but for breaking and entering and arson.

What crimes did Lechmere commit? Druitt? Barnett? Maybrick?

Hutchinson was a choir boy down at the local church as far as anyone here knows. Quite possibly the blameless plumber that some think he was.

Not one of these popular suspects can be shown to be a psychopath or have committed any offense, not even jaywalking. Kosminski's great crime against humanity was forgetting to muzzle his dog.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz. Nope; you're right. That doesn't sound much like Charles Lechmere...nor Jimmy Maybrick.

Come to think of it, since when have Ripperologists ever been interested in actual liars, cheaters, or thieves with shoddy work histories?

Even before it was known that he was locked up in France, Michael Ostrog raised about as much interest around here as Lewis Carroll. Tumblety and Deeming didn't fare much better in the main.

No; the way I look at it, the intelligentsia has found it much better to focus on local choir boys, random witnesses, and the odd Jewish lunatic who likes his daily bread out of the gutter. Actual liars, cheaters, and thieves need not apply.

But, don't mind me. Carry on. And Seasons Greeting to you both. RP

hutch fits that bill to a t