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

[Fisherman]

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

Thanks for that timely post!

Of course, the problem is that we donīt know what Lechmere was about. That we donīt know whether he was an accomplished liar or not. That we donīt know the man intimately at all.
If Gary Ridgway, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, John Armstrong, Russel Edwards et al had stayed uncaught, and somebody a hundred years from now had said "that does not sound like them" when lying and cheating and such things were suggested, we would be very wrong to accept that as a true indicator of innocence. These men were pillars of society, high ranking militaries, men spoken about by top politicians as "coming men". That is a kind of background we often enough see in serial killers, and that will - if my guess is on the money - owe to how these men are often narcissists, aspiring people with a drive to get recognized. And THAT kind of psychopathic serial killer will NOT be likely to have difficulties holding down a job - it is instead the drifters, the hobo serialists who have that problem, the Ottis Tooles, the Henry Lee Lucases, the Danny Rollings.

A merry X-mas to you too!

[Fisherman]

See consecutive posts #793, #794 and #795. I don't know how much clearer you expected me to make it, Fish. In #793 you quoted my post about the video link you had recommended. In #794 I quoted your response on the same subject. In post #795 you quoted my response - again on the subject of your video link. But then you responded out of left field, lashing out at me with some drivel about me lowering myself to any depth and 'the stinking underbelly of ripperology in its worst form'!



Now that's better. You could have said that and left out the personal insults. In future, perhaps you will continue to concede the point your chosen expert made about psychopaths tending to have "very inconsistent work histories - because they are not able to hold a job", in which case Lechmere would be an example who completely and utterly bucked that trend, if he was a psychopath, by holding down the same job for some two decades.



Nitpicking, is it? Really? For me to quote an expert in psychopathy, who would see Lechmere's admirably consistent work history as a positive point against him being a psychopath? I thought it was absolutely essential for your theory to demonstrate the opposite.

Love,

Caz
X

I have demonstrated that the opposite many times applies. It only a question of reading it or not.

[rjpalmer]

"they have a tendency to lie, cheat and steal and they tend to have very inconsistent work histories"

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

[caz]

Not a iot, and if you had been able to make that clear what you posted it about, it would have been awfully nice. But itīs standard procedure - you seem unable to make a sound point no matter how you try.

See consecutive posts #793, #794 and #795. I don't know how much clearer you expected me to make it, Fish. In #793 you quoted my post about the video link you had recommended. In #794 I quoted your response on the same subject. In post #795 you quoted my response - again on the subject of your video link. But then you responded out of left field, lashing out at me with some drivel about me lowering myself to any depth and 'the stinking underbelly of ripperology in its worst form'!

The video about psychopathy was a useful one, and I am not arguing against it, simple as that. Psychopaths often DO have trouble holding down a job, but it is NOT a rule - there are many exceptions, and if you had taken the trouble to read the examples I posted, you would know that.

Now that's better. You could have said that and left out the personal insults. In future, perhaps you will continue to concede the point your chosen expert made about psychopaths tending to have "very inconsistent work histories - because they are not able to hold a job", in which case Lechmere would be an example who completely and utterly bucked that trend, if he was a psychopath, by holding down the same job for some two decades.

Instead of nitpicking about things like these, you would do well to take in the overall information from the video. But thatīs not what you want to do, is it?

Nitpicking, is it? Really? For me to quote an expert in psychopathy, who would see Lechmere's admirably consistent work history as a positive point against him being a psychopath? I thought it was absolutely essential for your theory to demonstrate the opposite.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I have no idea what you are going on about, Fishsticks.

I was commenting on the 'expert' in the link you supplied in the following post:



'All we need to know about psychopathy.'

'Take twelve minutes and wise up, people...'

That's why I posted this:



Do you get it now?

You were arguing against the female psychopathy expert you advised us to listen to in that video. What does senior policeman Andy Griffiths got to do with what she was saying?

Love,

Caz
X

Not a iot, and if you had been able to make that clear what you posted it about, it would have been awfully nice. But itīs standard procedure - you seem unable to make a sound point no matter how you try.

The video about psychopathy was a useful one, and I am not arguing against it, simple as that. Psychopaths often DO have trouble holding down a job, but it is NOT a rule - there are many exceptions, and if you had taken the trouble to read the examples I posted, you would know that.

Instead of nitpicking about things like these, you would do well to take in the overall information from the video. But thatīs not what you want to do, is it?

[caz]

A very good example of how you are willing to lower yourself to any depth, Caz. Nobody recommended an expert who "did not know what she or he was talking about", of course. It is only when you twist things beyond recognition that such a thing can be suggested.
What I recommended was a senior policeman with great insight into different murder cases, and that was precisely what I got too.
I furthermore did not want him to be a student of the Ripper case, since I wanted him to comment from an unbiased base.

I think that there is no way that anybody can get a more competent judge, and I pity you who choose to do everything in your power to try and not only nullify the judgement of Andy Griffiths but who also have nothing at all against trying to ridicule him on a totally unsound basis.

This is the stinking underbelly of ripperology in its worst form. Congratulations, Caz.

I have no idea what you are going on about, Fishsticks.

I was commenting on the 'expert' in the link you supplied in the following post:

Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I honestly tried to work up the will to answer the old "He would not have run", "He seems to have been honest" and "Serial killers donīt make children" arguments, but I really couldnīt make myself do it.

Caz dislikes hearing about psychopaths, so letīs ruin her day while at the same time offer the ones who do not know how these people work get educated. This is a very comprehensive video that basically explains all we need to know about psychopathy. Take twelve minutes and wise up, people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dv8...&feature=share

Letīs hope that Caz understands who is the real twit after having watched it...

Thatīs all from me for today.

'All we need to know about psychopathy.'

'Take twelve minutes and wise up, people...'

That's why I posted this:

Originally Posted by caz View Post
Just watched the video you recommended, Fish. At around 8 minutes in, I'm told by the expert that psychopaths often don't think in terms of consequences, so they have a tendency to lie, cheat and steal and they tend to have very inconsistent work histories - because they are not able to hold a job.

So much for ruining my day, eh Fishy?

So who is the real twit?

Love,

Caz
X

Do you get it now?

You were arguing against the female psychopathy expert you advised us to listen to in that video. What does senior policeman Andy Griffiths got to do with what she was saying?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

So why did you recommend, as an expert on the subject, somebody who is, according to you, a twit who doesn't actually know what she's talking about??

Hilarious.

Love,

Caz
X

A very good example of how you are willing to lower yourself to any depth, Caz. Nobody recommended an expert who "did not know what she or he was talking about", of course. It is only when you twist things beyond recognition that such a thing can be suggested.
What I recommended was a senior policeman with great insight into different murder cases, and that was precisely what I got too.
I furthermore did not want him to be a student of the Ripper case, since I wanted him to comment from an unbiased base.

I think that there is no way that anybody can get a more competent judge, and I pity you who choose to do everything in your power to try and not only nullify the judgement of Andy Griffiths but who also have nothing at all against trying to ridicule him on a totally unsound basis.

This is the stinking underbelly of ripperology in its worst form. Congratulations, Caz.

[caz]

Ridgway. Armstrong. Gacy. Rader. Chikatilo. Edwards. Yates.

Need I go on?

Serial killers can have problems to adjust to a normal role in society, and they can have problems holding down a job. Many are drifters, like Toole, Lucas, Rolling... But a large amount of them have no problems at all in this respect. Indeed, we have Robert Ressler telling us that the archetype serial killer is a family man in his thirties with wife and family and a steady job.

And if that makes somebody a twit, then it sure isnīt me. Itīs more likely to be somebody who is not aquainted with the topic he or she speaks about.

So why did you recommend, as an expert on the subject, somebody who is, according to you, a twit who doesn't actually know what she's talking about??

Hilarious.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Just watched the video you recommended, Fish. At around 8 minutes in, I'm told by the expert that psychopaths often don't think in terms of consequences, so they have a tendency to lie, cheat and steal and they tend to have very inconsistent work histories - because they are not able to hold a job.

So much for ruining my day, eh Fishy?

So who is the real twit?

Love,

Caz
X

Ridgway. Armstrong. Gacy. Rader. Chikatilo. Edwards. Yates.

Need I go on?

Serial killers can have problems to adjust to a normal role in society, and they can have problems holding down a job. Many are drifters, like Toole, Lucas, Rolling... But a large amount of them have no problems at all in this respect. Indeed, we have Robert Ressler telling us that the archetype serial killer is a family man in his thirties with wife and family and a steady job.

And if that makes somebody a twit, then it sure isnīt me. Itīs more likely to be somebody who is not aquainted with the topic he or she speaks about.

[Fisherman]

Right, so remind me of Andy Griffiths's reasoning on this one, Fish. When he said he was 'adamant' that a serial killer in Lechmere's position would 'never' have run away [this assumes of course that Lechmere was indeed a serial killer, and not just an innocent witness who stayed to ask the next passer-by to assist], was this not because the killer would have feared the consequences of running and possibly being caught as a result? How would that fit with your ripper being a psychopath?

Caz
X

I donīt know which picture Griffiths had of Lechmere. He would certainly know that more than 90 per cent of the serial killers are psychopaths, and so the logical guess is that Lechmere would have been of this ilk to, if he was the killer.

As I have stated before, psychopaths are not given to panic. They do not even have the same reflexes as normal people have. And on a general level, they enjoy playing games with people, conning them. They are, generally speaking, good liars.

You now reason that if he stayed put, he would have done so out of a fear of being caught, and the reasoning on your behalf goes like this:

Fisherman says that psychopaths are fearless.

Lechmere feared getting caught.

Therefore, he cannot have been a psychopath.

And you probably congratulate yourself on being very clever.

Hereīs the problem: The only alternative to staying put is running.

And running is what you do on account of fearing to get caught.

So it seems that both alternatives become examples of fear in your able hands.

If there is no way to be fearless left to Lechmere at all, then maybe, just maybe, you need to rethink things, Caz.

[Fisherman]

And that's why I doubt the police would have confronted Lechmere immediately, had they checked up on him and discovered his name wasn't really Cross, and that he used Lechmere on every occasion except when finding murdered women in the street. That would be evidence of deliberate deception, but not enough to hold him on suspicion of anything worse. He was bound to have an 'innocent' explanation for the name change, whether he was genuinely innocent, or a criminal with something to hide, so there would have been little to gain from asking the question and alerting him to the fact that he was in their sights as more than just an honest witness. And Lechmere would have had no opportunity to explain himself - yet.

If and when he put another foot wrong, however, the police could have been ready and waiting, for all he knew. How much harder would it then have been to find a second or a third 'innocent' explanation, when combined with his one-off use of a different name? For starters, there was the apparent lie he told PC Mizen on the night of the murder, and the apparent lie he told under oath at the inquest, using the wrong name, when he contradicted Mizen's version of their conversation. He had no way of knowing if the police were making careful notes and adding them to concerns they already had about him. He really would have been operating in the dark to pick up Annie Chapman so soon afterwards. Lucky old Lech!

Love,

Caz
X

He would NEVER be able to know that the police did not nurture suspicions against him according to this scheme of yours. Not one week after, not one month or one year after.
So when WOULD he kill again? Pray tell us! Where goes the vital boundary in these errands? And how is the order kept by those who have executive authority of matters of law? Do they explicitly forbid serial killers to strike until after a fortnight, perhaps?

Exactly how does this work, Caz?

[Fisherman]

Even by 1888 you needed more than just circumstantial evidence for homicide convictions. You couldn't even hold people for very long without evidence, if at all. Witnesses who directly identified someone were the strongest evidence they had outside of being caught red-handed and it is often these types of convictions that are not always sound.

Were you not some sort of a biologist? Or are you in fact a barrister? If you are going to challenge Scobie on this matter, that is what it takes. If he says there is a prima faciae case suggesting that Lechmere was the killer, then that is arguably based on better insight into matters of law than what can be offered by a biologist.

Correct me if Iīm wrong.

[Sam Flynn]

psychopaths... tend to have very inconsistent work histories - because they are not able to hold a job.

Mind you, twenty years of delivering goods of various kinds must be enough to tip anyone over the edge

[Michael W Richards]

Mine too, etenguy. I would imagine he was at the very least comfortable with approaching, or being approached by his victim type, and not appearing to them like a fish out of water.

Which makes the point Ive raised a thousand times here more pertinent...just how many victims can we be sure were soliciting when they met their killer. The answer is 2. We have statements that Polly and Annie admitted to their activities to confidantes. That's it.

Serial killing seems like a hobby far more suited to those with too much time on their hands and nobody to answer to - which might explain the explosion over the next century, as working hours became fewer and more flexible, and conditions less harsh, and families became much smaller, lessening financial responsibilities and increasing personal freedom.

I realize that 2 murders can constitute a "series", but the way I see the outdoor killings could easily have been done on the way to, or from, work. Particularly if the work involved blood of some sort.

I would imagine unless he changed his appearance often, he wouldn't have been someone that the streetwalkers knew, before the first killing anyway.

[caz]

Tumbletwat... the most incompetent Ripper suspect of them all.

That's a tall story, Gareth.

Love,

Caz
X