So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[caz]

[COLOR="Red"]I have not "interpreted" what he said, I have stated it the way he said it. When we spoke about how Lechmere could have stayed put, I said that it was a common thing among those studying the case to think that he would have run, and Griffiths replied by saying that no, he would never have run given the risks it would have involved.

Once again, Fish, I would ask you how this opinion of Griffiths equates to your own position, that Lechmere would not have run because if he was the killer he must have been a non-panicking psychopath?

Did you only ask Griffiths about Lechmere 'running' from the scene? Or did you also ask if he could not simply have 'walked' away, swiftly but calmly, without involving much risk at all, if any?

Griffiths seemed to be saying the risks of running from the scene would have scared Lechmere into staying put instead, to bluff his way out. Or do you think he meant something else entirely?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Originally Posted by caz View Post
It was merely the suggestion that if someone is always known at his place of work as Cross, it would make sense to use that name when requesting absence from work to attend an inquest as the person who found a body on the way to work.

How is that so implausible?

How is it implausible that he called himself Cross at work and that he was an innocent finder of the body, you ask.

To begin with, have I said that it IS implausible? Or is it just your way of wording it?

No, Fish, I asked the question I asked [see above]; not what you chose to reword in your own way and change into a completely different question.

Let's try again, shall we? I'll try to be clearer this time.

My suggestion is that if someone [anyone, guilty or innocent] is always known at his place of work as Mister X, it would make sense to me for him to use that name when requesting absence from work to attend an inquest.

You seemed to think this was implausible for some reason. I asked you why. I didn't ask you how it was implausible that Lechmere called himself Cross at work and was innocent. I would hope we both know it isn't implausible.

These matters can be either way, and there has never been any bones about that from my side. BUT! It is NOT a common thing to use one name in all other contacts with authorities but the police! If he was Lechmere officially, then he was so with the police too. It MAY be that he wanted to protect the name from publicity or that he was afraid of the Ripper, but all things considered, we have an anomaly nevertheless.

Only if you can show it was a different Pickfords carman calling himself Charles Cross, who was involved in that fatal accident twelve years previously, in the course of his work.

Ergo, it is possible that he used one name at work and another officially, and that he on this occasion only decided to use is work name with the authorities (can you see the anomaly?), but it is a tortured suggestion.

Tortured suggestion? See above. Hardly as tortured as it would be to conclude there were two Pickfords carmen who used the name Charles Cross, just so you can continue to insist 'we have an anomaly' with Lechmere using it in 1888.

As for being innocent, yes, he MAY have been - but isn´t it a coincidence that one out of six bodies had the wounds hidden, and that one victim just happened to be Nichols?

Yes, probably.

Isn´t it a coincidence that Mizen just happened to lie or misreport?

But he wouldn't have 'just happened' to lie or misreport, if he did either. There would have been reasons, which have been explored at length. If we knew that Mizen had reported his encounter with the carmen promptly, before Paul's account appeared in print, I'd be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it seems he said not a word about it until Paul forced his hand.

Isn´t it a coincidence that PC and witness should disagree at all?

Yes, probably. I imagine it happens rather a lot.

Isn´t it a coincidence that Lechmere happened upon the body as it was still bleeding?

Yes, probably. Most if not all the victims left in a public place were discovered very quickly. Par for the course in an overcrowded part of London where people came and went at all hours. Lechmere may well have disturbed the killer, just as Stride's killer may have been disturbed a month later.

Isn´t it a coincidence that Paul arrived just in time to get Lechmere off the hook?

Yes, of course it was a coincidence that two local carmen were walking to work at a similar hour of the morning. That would be true, whether Lechmere stopped to kill Nichols en route, or because she was already dead. But I don't understand your 'just in time' remark. If Paul hadn't arrived when he did, Lechmere would not have been on the hook at all, would he? Any later, and Lechmere could have left the scene, either to escape or to alert a policeman. Any earlier, and the killer - whoever he was - may have had to abandon his plans or kill Paul too.

Isn´t it a coincidence that Lechmere passed through the killing zone?

Yes, just as every other witness involved in the case must have passed through at least one murder location.

Isn´t it a coincidence that he had links to St Georges and the Mitre Street area?

Yes, probably. Many, many men, who had business, family, friends or lodgings in the area must have had similar links.

Isn't it a coincidence that Paul was just a little bit too late to have found Nichols himself, before the next man arrived? A coincidence, that Lechmere was there before Paul, with the result that you and others choose to ride roughshod over his right to the presumption of innocence?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Frank O: Hi Christer,

First of all, the very best wishes for 2019! And sorry for the delay in responding; I was in Italy for the holidays...

Never make any excuses about having gone to Italy - I can think of few saner and better things to do.

I’m convinced that even a super psychopath of a serial killer would flee/walk away if he thought he had enough time, instead of waiting & trying to bluff his way out of things.

I´m not. In fact, I think the MORE of a "super psychopath" somebody is, the larger the possibility that he will feel self-secure enough to bluff things out. Regardless of who is right or wrong - or whether there IS a right and wrong - it will always apply that we do not know when Lechmere became aware of Paul approaching. It may have been instrumental, at least to you - less so to me, of course, since I believe that a psychopath may well actively choose bluffing over running even if there is ample time to run.

There’s no good reason to think that they would come out of the woodwork to bluff their way out or play games, unless they fear they’d become serious suspects if they wouldn’t come out of the woodwork and take action.

On the contrary, I think there is a VERY good reason to think they would choose a bluff - psychopathy and narcissism in combination, making the perp somebody who really wants to "show off".

In this situation Lechmere would have had enough time to get a good distance away before Paul would even arrive at the crime spot, rendering the possibility that he would have stayed to bluff it out non-viable. At least, as far as I’m concerned.

But NOT as far as I´m concerned - and it would seem that a seasoned ex-murder squad leader agrees with me on this score. Not that this must colour you own take on things, but it may be good to keep it in mind when we are discussing the matter; Griffiths said that he would never have run, as you know.

Obviously, we can’t establish the real distances & timings.

Even if we could, Frank, how would we gauge the exact distance where a psychopath would have run/stayed put? With a measuring tape? A chronometer? Is there a panicometer that works for psychopaths? Does it take into account the relevant degree of psychopathy on every occasion?
We differ here in that you cannot accept that a killer who CAN run will not run, whereas I am more than ready to accept that this can be so.

What we can do, though, is at least look at the 2 extremes and form an opinion about them.

So let´s!

The 2 extremes being:
1. where Lechmere had inflicted the abdominal wounds when he heard Paul enter Buck’s Row from Brady Street.
2. where Lechmere heard Paul when he was already so close to him that he just had enough time to cut the throat, cover the wounds and move back to the middle of the street (in which case Paul would be at a distance of some 60-65 meters).

As written above, number 1 is non-viable as far as I’m concerned.

And that´s where we part. Why would a person who cannot even feel panick run? Why would a person who finds playing games and lying not take the opportunity to do so? If he had beforehand decided that whatever happened, he would not run on account of the risk of getting caught, and if he was as cool as psychopaths generally are in such situations, I really cannot see why he would have altered that decision. If he had NOT decided it beforehand, why would he not come up with the exact same decision if he was not on any way given to panic?
Once again, we should not mistake psychopaths for ordinary people, with ordinary nerves and ordinary flight reflexes. They are a totally different breed. And if Lechmere was not a psychopath, then I find it unlikely in the extreme that he was the killer. It´s not either or, it´s the full package or nothing.

And as I’ve written once or twice before, I find it very unlikely that Lechmere, who would have had every reason to listen for sounds, would not have heard Paul until he had covered about half of the distance between Brady Street and the crime spot. Especially when we know Neil heard Thain 120 meters away. I find number 2 a little less unlikely than number 1.

These are - once again - unknown factors, Frank. We cannot use them as established matters. We do´t know to what degree his focus on Nichols could have made him disregardful of all other things. We don´t even know how well he heard! It is useless to say "He MUST have heard Paul from a distance of XXXXX + yards, and he MUST have run because killers who hear oncoming men from distances of XXXXX + yards or more always do.
Every case is unique. And few people are AS unique as psychopaths.
It seems to me that all you have achieved is to have persuaded yourself into how there are facts enough to conclude that Lechmere cannot have killed Nichols because he would have run if he did. If you are fine with that reasoning, congratulations - you have pulled the Lechmere thorn out of your hide.
Mine sits deeper.

Perhaps I would be a little less uninclined to believe the possibility in which Lechmere had not done any or all abdominal cutting yet when he heard Paul enter Buck’s Row from Brady Street. I could perhaps imagine him being all ready to get started and then being so bent on it that he commenced/continued cutting the abdomen even though he knew Paul had entered Buck’s Row. Not that I find this a likely scenario, but a little less unlikely than the 2 extremes.

More of the same, is it not? There is a magical formula to which all killers, psychopaths as well as non-psychopaths will answer?

Obviously, very much would depend on when he heard Paul. If he heard him enter Buck’s Row, then he would have had half a minute at least to do this pulling down. But that’s a very long time… Besides, it doesn’t seem to have taken Paul more than a couple of seconds (at most) to pull them (further) down to just above the knees. So, if Paul could, why wouldn’t Lechmere have been able and done so, especially if pulling them down as much as he could was so important to him?

The timings are unknown, let´s begin by admitting that! I think that Nichols lay on her clothing in a fashion that disenabled Lechmere to get the dress all the way down, something he will reasonably have tried and failed at. He goth the clothing down to over the wounds and in line with the hips, basically.
Paul then pulled the clothes further down, which I imagine will have taken some strain and time if Lechmere couldn´t get them any further than he did - but then again Paul was not under any time pressure, was he? This is how I see it.

I agree with the discussing in infinitum, but not the rest. Like I said in my previous post, there’s no reason to believe it would have taken more than a second or two to pull the skirts down to where Paul found it. And pulling them down to where Paul found them would, perhaps, not be ideal, but enough nonetheless.

It would have been enough - and a prerequisite, perhaps, for pulling the bluff off. As I said above, I think that Paul spent some time pulling the clothes all the way down to the knee region, but the timings are not there for us to see. We can only guess, and my guess can be found above.

You take it as a given that it was pulled down by the killer just before he left, but I don’t.

No, I don´t. I don´t think the killer left at all.

It could have happened that way, but not necessarily. The evidence suggests that it wasn’t easy to pull the skirts down, as Paul only pulled the dress down as far as just above the knees. The dress seems to have been stuck in such a way under Nichols’s body that it couldn’t be easily moved downwards. But what if, for the same reason, it hadn’t been easy to moved it upward to begin with, either?

What if? There is always "what if". I am looking at a logical line of reasoning, and there IS a logical chain suggested by the events:
Lechmere decides to bluff.
To be able to bluff, he must hide the wounds.
He pulls the dress over the wounds.
Paul arrives and is bluffed.

It is all very logical and straightforward. Nichols is unique in having this trait. What I ask myself is why a man who gives a name he otherwise does not use with authorities, a man who has seemingly taken a lot longer to reach Bucks Row than he should have, a man who disagrees with the police, a man who walks right past the killing zone, a man with ties to St Georges and the Mitre Square area just happens to stumble on the one and only victim who had her wounds hidden...?
Why did he not find one of the other victims? Why did this poor sod have all of this rotten luck?
Why did he not arrive at the spot after the blood had stopped running?
Why did he not have Paul close enough to see how innocent he was?

Why does it all fit with him being the killer? Why does every single factor allow for it?

And why does this result in people saying "It does not count, cause he WOULD have run!"?

Have a good 2019, Frank. See you out there.

[FrankO]

Hi Christer,

First of all, the very best wishes for 2019! And sorry for the delay in responding; I was in Italy for the holidays...

So we agree that time need not have been a negative factor - good. But I sense from your choice of wording that you have some sort of beef with the suggestion of him bluffing it out anyway...?

I’m convinced that even a super psychopath of a serial killer would flee/walk away if he thought he had enough time, instead of waiting & trying to bluff his way out of things. There’s no good reason to think that they would come out of the woodwork to bluff their way out or play games, unless they fear they’d become serious suspects if they wouldn’t come out of the woodwork and take action. In this situation Lechmere would have had enough time to get a good distance away before Paul would even arrive at the crime spot, rendering the possibility that he would have stayed to bluff it out non-viable. At least, as far as I’m concerned.

Yes, it would change. But there is a large number of time spaces afforded between that scenario and the former one. Lechmere could have had nigh on a minute or so and he could have had seconds only and that of course must have an influence. But how do we establish which distances and timings are the real ones?

Obviously, we can’t establish the real distances & timings. What we can do, though, is at least look at the 2 extremes and form an opinion about them.
The 2 extremes being:
1. where Lechmere had inflicted the abdominal wounds when he heard Paul enter Buck’s Row from Brady Street.
2. where Lechmere heard Paul when he was already so close to him that he just had enough time to cut the throat, cover the wounds and move back to the middle of the street (in which case Paul would be at a distance of some 60-65 meters).

As written above, number 1 is non-viable as far as I’m concerned. And as I’ve written once or twice before, I find it very unlikely that Lechmere, who would have had every reason to listen for sounds, would not have heard Paul until he had covered about half of the distance between Brady Street and the crime spot. Especially when we know Neil heard Thain 120 meters away. I find number 2 a little less unlikely than number 1.

Perhaps I would be a little less uninclined to believe the possibility in which Lechmere had not done any or all abdominal cutting yet when he heard Paul enter Buck’s Row from Brady Street. I could perhaps imagine him being all ready to get started and then being so bent on it that he commenced/continued cutting the abdomen even though he knew Paul had entered Buck’s Row. Not that I find this a likely scenario, but a little less unlikely than the 2 extremes.

I agree that it is hard to guess the exact timings of all of this. Personally, I think that he would have tried to get the clothing all the way down, since that would be the best way to make Nichols look as inconspicious as possible, and he would probably have worked a whole lot with it, only resigning to having to leave the clothing up at the hips when he had spent many a second on trying to get it all the way down.

Obviously, very much would depend on when he heard Paul. If he heard him enter Buck’s Row, then he would have had half a minute at least to do this pulling down. But that’s a very long time… Besides, it doesn’t seem to have taken Paul more than a couple of seconds (at most) to pull them (further) down to just above the knees. So, if Paul could, why wouldn’t Lechmere have been able and done so, especially if pulling them down as much as he could was so important to him?

However, that is just my guess. Otherwsie, I still think it sounds like a more timeconsuming thing to do than to add a swift cut, but that can of course be discussed in infinitum.
We can at any rate say that in combination with the extra cut, we would be looking at a prolonged time.

I agree with the discussing in infinitum, but not the rest. Like I said in my previous post, there’s no reason to believe it would have taken more than a second or two to pull the skirts down to where Paul found it. And pulling them down to where Paul found them would, perhaps, not be ideal, but enough nonetheless.

And, not least, we can say that pulling the clothing down seems to agree with a decision having been made to stay put and bluff it out, something that tells the measure very much apart from the extra cut.

You take it as a given that it was pulled down by the killer just before he left, but I don’t. It could have happened that way, but not necessarily. The evidence suggests that it wasn’t easy to pull the skirts down, as Paul only pulled the dress down as far as just above the knees. The dress seems to have been stuck in such a way under Nichols’s body that it couldn’t be easily moved downwards. But what if, for the same reason, it hadn’t been easy to moved it upward to begin with, either?

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

FrankO: If you answer my question with a situation in mind where Lechmere the killer cuts Nichols’ throat seconds after hearing Paul enter Buck’s Row from Brady Street, then you’d have a point with what you’ve written, Fish. In that situation & at that point he could even have cut her throat six times just to be really, really sure. Even really, really, really sure.

And then he'd still have had enough time to go to the middle of the street and smoke a quick fag before Paul would see him standing there. Or to walk to the corner of the board school, then back to the crime scene and then to the corner of the board school again.

So we agree that time need not have been a negative factor - good. But I sense from your choice of wording that you have some sort of beef with the suggestion of him bluffing it out anyway...?

But things would change if you’d answer my question with the situation in mind where Lechmere cuts her throat when Paul is only some 50 meters away from him, wouldn’t it?
At that point it should be clear that every second counted, don’t you agree? In that situation, cutting a throat as quick as you can twice isn’t really comparable with whacking someone twice over the head with a lead pipe, or, for that matter, stabbing someone twice in the heart.

Yes, it would change. But there is a large number of time spaces afforded between that scenario and the former one. Lechmere could have had nigh on a minute or so and he could have had seconds only and that of course must have an influence. But how do we establish which distances and timings are the real ones?


Come to think of it, the latter would be a much more logical thing to finish someone off, especially if one’s inclined to believe Tabram was killed by the same man.

It would be a more logical thing to expect, yes - unless the Tabram murder gave him reason to feel he needed a better method of killing and silencing. Maybe Tabram gave away some sound as he dealt with her? Maybe that was what made him come up with the idea of cutting the neck instead of stabbing the heart? Maybe he had a blade he didn´t rely on to be able to pierce Nichols´ sternum? It is hard to see all possible angles. On the surface of things, you are absolutely correct, though - going for the heart would be the more expected thing once we know he did opt for that method earlier. If, that is, he was Tabrams killer. I think he was, some agree, some don´t.

And, out of curiosity, how do you know that pulling her dress down over the wounds to the abdomen was a much more time-consuming matter than adding a quick slit with the knife? Why do you think that this would have taken more than 1 second, let alone 2, 3 or even 4? Judging by the fact that Paul couldn’t get it down further than to just above the knees, I can see how it would have taken the murderer some time to get it far enough up, but I don’t see any reason to think it would have been time-consuming to get it down again to where it was when Paul examined her. As far as I can see, this could be done in 1 second, 2 at worst. And covering the abdominal wounds would have been necessary, whilst a second cut wouldn’t. Certainly not if that would have been the smaller, 4-inch cut.

I agree that it is hard to guess the exact timings of all of this. Personally, I think that he would have tried to get the clothing all the way down, since that would be the best way to make Nichols look as inconspicious as possible, and he would probably have worked a whole lot with it, only resigning to having to leave the clothing up at the hips when he had spent many a second on trying to get it all the way down.
However, that is just my guess. Otherwsie, I still think it sounds like a more timeconsuming thing to do than to add a swift cut, but that can of course be discussed in infinitum.
We can at any rate say that in combination with the extra cut, we would be looking at a prolonged time.
And, not least, we can say that pulling the clothing down seems to agree with a decision having been made to stay put and bluff it out, something that tells the measure very much apart from the extra cut.

Then, as to what I make of the double cuts: very little. The only thing I can make of it is that he made the smaller cut first to get the blood pressure off with the blood flow or spray directed away from him and the cut from ear to ear to either make sure that his victims were dead or, perhaps in a more ritualistic/symbolic sense, that they could not speak to or offend him any longer. But that’s just guessing.

I could have been the one writing that myself, so we make the same kind of guess here it would seem.

[FrankO]

Why do people who want to kill somebody whack them over the head with a lead pipe not once but twice? Or thrice? Because, perhaps, they want to make really, really sure?

As such, let´s not forget that if he was the killer, he did not only take the time to cut twice - he also took the time to pull the clothes down over the wounds to the abdomen, a much more timeconsuming detail than adding a quick slit with the knife.

The reoccurring double cuts to the ne..., sorry throat ( ), are interesting. What do you make of them yourself?

Anyway, he must always have known that he had time to get away, regardless of the number of cuts to the ne ... did it again, throat, and so we must accept that if he was the killer, he decided to stay put regardless of how he could have chosen flight. Which brings us full circle back to Andy Griffiths...

If you answer my question with a situation in mind where Lechmere the killer cuts Nichols’ throat seconds after hearing Paul enter Buck’s Row from Brady Street, then you’d have a point with what you’ve written, Fish. In that situation & at that point he could even have cut her throat six times just to be really, really sure. Even really, really, really sure.

And then he'd still have had enough time to go to the middle of the street and smoke a quick fag before Paul would see him standing there. Or to walk to the corner of the board school, then back to the crime scene and then to the corner of the board school again.

But things would change if you’d answer my question with the situation in mind where Lechmere cuts her throat when Paul is only some 50 meters away from him, wouldn’t it? At that point it should be clear that every second counted, don’t you agree? In that situation, cutting a throat as quick as you can twice isn’t really comparable with whacking someone twice over the head with a lead pipe, or, for that matter, stabbing someone twice in the heart. Come to think of it, the latter would be a much more logical thing to finish someone off, especially if one’s inclined to believe Tabram was killed by the same man.

And, out of curiosity, how do you know that pulling her dress down over the wounds to the abdomen was a much more time-consuming matter than adding a quick slit with the knife? Why do you think that this would have taken more than 1 second, let alone 2, 3 or even 4? Judging by the fact that Paul couldn’t get it down further than to just above the knees, I can see how it would have taken the murderer some time to get it far enough up, but I don’t see any reason to think it would have been time-consuming to get it down again to where it was when Paul examined her. As far as I can see, this could be done in 1 second, 2 at worst. And covering the abdominal wounds would have been necessary, whilst a second cut wouldn’t. Certainly not if that would have been the smaller, 4-inch cut.

Then, as to what I make of the double cuts: very little. The only thing I can make of it is that he made the smaller cut first to get the blood pressure off with the blood flow or spray directed away from him and the cut from ear to ear to either make sure that his victims were dead or, perhaps in a more ritualistic/symbolic sense, that they could not speak to or offend him any longer. But that’s just guessing.

Have a wonderful Christmas, Christer,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Merry Christmas to you, Fisherman.

No; Hare doesn’t mention theft, but I think this is because it is a specific act and falls under the general umbrella of “juvenile delinquency” or “criminal versatility,” whereas he is interested in listing more general qualities: charm, callousness, promiscuity, etc.

It seems we have very different ideas of what constitutes a psychopath. You seem to put great emphasis on “charm,” “manipulativeness,” etc., while I am more interested in the other aspect: impulsivity and criminality.

Whether it jives with the textbooks or not, Ted Bundy was a burglar in his young adulthood. Peter Kurten committed dozens of burglaries. Neville Heath passed bogus cheques.

Also note that Kurten set dozens of fires. How does arson involve personal interaction, Fish?—it is done in secret—yet Kurten obviously had the imagination to know it would spark fear, pain, and outrage, so he did it. And if the Vampire of Dusseldorf wasn’t a psychopath, then nobody was.

And please note something else Hare wrote:

“Moreover, their egocentricity, grandiosity, sense of entitlement, impulsivity, general lack of behavior inhibitions, and need for power and control constitute what might be described as the perfect prescription for anti-social and criminal acts.”

Criminal acts. Note this is NOT limited to criminal acts involving personal contact. Thieving, embezzling, arson, etc, have nothing to do with charm or an ability to interact socially, but they DO involve the “other” aspects of the psychopath: his lack of societal inhibitions, impulsivity, and the need for power.

Enjoy your holidays.

I cannot for the life of me see that we would have much different ideas of what is psychopathy. What you describe here - the thefts of Kurten, Bundy etc - you yourself explain as linked to a need to spark fear, pain and outrage. If that isn´t part of interacting with other people and society on the whole, then what is?
The Ripper mirrors this in how he left his victims on display after having been subjected to unimaginably gruesome violence. The agony he to a degree saved his victims from by killing them swiftly is handed down to society. The exact same applies for how he drifted the body parts down the Thames and placed them in the cellar vault of Scotland Yard and in Percy Bysshe Shelley´s house - it is the exact same thing; a victim is stretched to it´s optimal ability to strike fear into the hearts of people. It is the same man, thinking in the same way, making the same sort of decisions.
And it is very much what I mean when I say that there is an element of interaction in all a psychopath does, and that interaction is what gives him away.

"Grandiosity", "sense of entitlement", these things are all measured in relation to OTHER PEOPLE. If there were no other people around, how could anybody be grandiose? Or have a sense of entitlement?

The full picture of a psychopath involves charm, manipulation, glibness, impulsivity and the need for power and control alike. These are not matters that are mutually excluding each other, they work in coalition and the more of them there are in a single human being, the more of a psychopath he is.

Charm and manipulativeness are not what I stress as the dominating psychopathic traits. They can dominate in some psychopaths, whereas others can be the other way around. You name Kürten as the archetypical psychopath. He could actually be both charming and manipulative. I can add Panzram - and he was not about charm and manipulativeness at all, was he? The brew differs from case to case, making anybody who opts for one side only wrong sooner or later.

Far from being a long way from each other, I think we are quite close. Quibbling over where theft fits in on the list of psychopathical traits does not change that, unless we allow it to.

[rjpalmer]

Merry Christmas to you, Fisherman.

No; Hare doesn’t mention theft, but I think this is because it is a specific act and falls under the general umbrella of “juvenile delinquency” or “criminal versatility,” whereas he is interested in listing more general qualities: charm, callousness, promiscuity, etc.

It seems we have very different ideas of what constitutes a psychopath. You seem to put great emphasis on “charm,” “manipulativeness,” etc., while I am more interested in the other aspect: impulsivity and criminality.

Whether it jives with the textbooks or not, Ted Bundy was a burglar in his young adulthood. Peter Kurten committed dozens of burglaries. Neville Heath passed bogus cheques.

Also note that Kurten set dozens of fires. How does arson involve personal interaction, Fish?—it is done in secret—yet Kurten obviously had the imagination to know it would spark fear, pain, and outrage, so he did it. And if the Vampire of Dusseldorf wasn’t a psychopath, then nobody was.

And please note something else Hare wrote:

“Moreover, their egocentricity, grandiosity, sense of entitlement, impulsivity, general lack of behavior inhibitions, and need for power and control constitute what might be described as the perfect prescription for anti-social and criminal acts.”

Criminal acts. Note this is NOT limited to criminal acts involving personal contact. Thieving, embezzling, arson, etc, have nothing to do with charm or an ability to interact socially, but they DO involve the “other” aspects of the psychopath: his lack of societal inhibitions, impulsivity, and the need for power.

Enjoy your holidays.

[Fisherman]

"Lack of remorse or guilt", "early behavior problems", "poor behavioral control", "irresponsibility" and "criminal versatility" - to name but some of the above - would feature in many a thief or murderer's makeup, and many of the others could too.

This is one of the problems with "recipe-book" psychology; you can't just pick a DSM or Wiki definition and expect to understand the complexities of human behaviour.

Quite so, Gareth. But the more of these markers there are in one individual, the clearer a case we will get. It takes a number of hits before we can begin to speak of psychopathy.

Once we have all markers in place, we are dealing with a monster.

[Fisherman]

..combinations of...

How about a psychopath with misogynist inclinations set off by a catathymic impulse (where an underlying emotional conflict creates an enormous amount of tension released through a violent act.)

This is precipitated by the streetwalker's behavior, something she says or gestures to the Ripper. The ripper may have had countless encounters with unfortunates, but for some reason these women (C-5?) set him off.

It´s anybodys bartendership - blend away. I tend to think that the quick manner in which the victims were despatched could perhaps imply something else than misoginy, but I can see the allure of suggesting it...

[Scott Nelson]

..combinations of...

How about a psychopath with misogynist inclinations set off by a catathymic impulse (where an underlying emotional conflict creates an enormous amount of tension released through a violent act.)

This is precipitated by the streetwalker's behavior, something she says or gestures to the Ripper. The ripper may have had countless encounters with unfortunates, but for some reason these women (C-5?) set him off.

[Sam Flynn]

Speaking about Hare, here are his twenty points that define psychopathy:

glib and superficial charm
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
need for stimulation
pathological lying
cunning and manipulativeness
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
callousness and lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
sexual promiscuity
early behavior problems
lack of realistic long-term goals
impulsivity
irresponsibility
failure to accept responsibility for own actions
many short-term marital relationships
juvenile delinquency
revocation of conditional release
criminal versatility

Can you find "stealing" or "theft" here? Nor can I. Then again, I can´t find "murder" either.

"Lack of remorse or guilt", "early behavior problems", "poor behavioral control", "irresponsibility" and "criminal versatility" - to name but some of the above - would feature in many a thief or murderer's makeup, and many of the others could too.

This is one of the problems with "recipe-book" psychology; you can't just pick a DSM or Wiki definition and expect to understand the complexities of human behaviour.

[Fisherman]

Before we move on, R J, I would like to say that there was never any suggestion from my side that a psychopath could or would not steal. What I objected about was that you described lying, cheating and stealing as the cornerstones of psychopathy, and much as I agree that lying and cheating belongs to the basics of the condition, I disagree that stealing does.

I tried to find your original post, but got tired and let it be. However, I did stumble over this passage of yours:
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.

And THAT is something I agree with totally. Lying, cheating, manipulating - that´s what psychopathy is about.

And stealing? You found me a Hare dissertation that touched on stealing, and you quoted this:

Abstract. Although previous research has demonstrated a link between personality and thieving, research has not yet considered individual differences in impulsivity and the Dark Triad (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) and commonplace, low-level thefts. In this on-line questionnaire study (N = 254) we examined how the Dark Triad traits and dysfunctional and functional impulsivity provide insights into individual differences in petty theft. Those who admitted having stolen something in their lifetime were higher on primary and secondary psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and dysfunctional impulsivity than those who had not stolen anything. In addition, secondary psychopathy predicted stealing from a wider range of targets than primary psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. We discussed the results in relation to how psychopathy may be part of an adaptive suite of traits that enable a “cheater” strategy.

Note how it all ends in how it is said that the traits that are discussed - and that means different forms of stealing - were discussed (and possibly looked upon) as an adaptive suite of traits that enable a "cheater" strategy.
This seems to be in sync with what I say: Stealing by psychopaths can be seen as how they allow themselves to take possesion over another persons belongings, and as such, that can bee seen as cheating that other person. And THEN we are arriving at the psychopathy station! Interaction, cheating, deceiving, lying...all of those things that are true markers of the condition.

It is not as if we should expect the person behind a headline like "threehundred bottles of wine stolen" to be a psychopath. It is not the kind of headline that makes us think there is a psychopath on the loose. But when we read "eleventh woman found battered to death outside Ipswhich", the suspicion will in all probability be a warranted one.

So! I do not in any way exclude that a psychopath can steal.
Nor do I exclude that the theft can have a psychopathic reason.
But I do dismiss the notion that theft would be some sort of cornerstone of psychopathy.

Thanks for the exchange so far - and if we don´t hear from each other the nearest few days, I wish you a Merry Christmas!

[Fisherman]

There are many such works. Robert Hare even wrote an entire book about it.

Journal of Individual Differences (2015), 36, pp. 215-220, © 2015 Hogrefe Publishing.

Dark Triad, Tramps, and Thieves
Psychopathy Predicts a Diverse Range of Theft-Related Attitudes and Behaviors


Minna Lyons
University of Liverpool,
UK

Peter K. Jonason
University of Western Sydney,
Australia

Abstract. Although previous research has demonstrated a link between personality and thieving, research has not yet considered individual differences in impulsivity and the Dark Triad (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) and commonplace, low-level thefts. In this on-line questionnaire study (N = 254) we examined how the Dark Triad traits and dysfunctional and functional impulsivity provide insights into individual differences in petty theft. Those who admitted having stolen something in their lifetime were higher on primary and secondary psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and dysfunctional impulsivity than those who had not stolen anything. In addition, secondary psychopathy predicted stealing from a wider range of targets than primary psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. We discussed the results in relation to how psychopathy may be part of an adaptive suite of traits that enable a “cheater” strategy.



I am baffled, Fisherman, why you think that a person prone to lying and cheating, would not be prone to theft. They are peas in the same pod.

I am not saying that a liar and cheater would not steal so there is no need for you to be baffled. I am saying that psychopathy is something that predisposes an interaction between people. That is where it can be read and recognized.
Theft is a deviation from normal social behavior and a psychopath is always willing to deviate from the norms. However, theft is not any of the typically psychopathic crimes since it is more often than not a solitary act. Robbing somebody is more of a psychopathic crime, for example, because it contains controlling and deciding over other people.

If you think that I reason that a psychopath will not steal, you have misunderstood me. As I said before, a psychopath can engage in all sorts of crime, but some types of crime will be more telling than others when it comes to giving away psychopathy.

If we have a rape, a shooting, a person kicked to death and a theft occurring in the same town, my money would NOT be on the thief being the one most likely to be a psychopath. Perhaps you´d agree with that?

Speaking about Hare, here are his twenty points that define psychopathy:

glib and superficial charm
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
need for stimulation
pathological lying
cunning and manipulativeness
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
callousness and lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
sexual promiscuity
early behavior problems
lack of realistic long-term goals
impulsivity
irresponsibility
failure to accept responsibility for own actions
many short-term marital relationships
juvenile delinquency
revocation of conditional release
criminal versatility

Can you find "stealing" or "theft" here? Nor can I. Then again, I can´t find "murder" either. That is because psychopaths can engage in - as I say - all sorts of crime. But it is primarily in the types of crime that involve an interaction between people that they excel, if you will allow the term. And stealing is not that type of crime - it is an antisocial thing, and thus it is on the list of possible deeds, but it ranks lower as a marker for psychopathy than the kinds of deeds where callousness and indifference for other people is more obvious - like for example killing women and cutting their innards out.

[Fisherman]

The only way these traits can be determined is when the person is arrested and subjected to medical and psychological examinations. To suggest JTR had these traits is pure speculation, especially if you have more than one killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How would you know - you, who suggested that Bundy was not a psychopath?

If Lechmere was the killer, then we have an extremely quickly conceived solution to the problem of passing the police, just as we have him deliberately choosing to stay put at the murder site and bluff his way out. No other character than a psychopath would be able to pull that off - or even choose to try it.

An interesting factor about the full-blown psychopath Ted Bundy is how he took care of his own defence in court, putting on quite a show, impressing the judge even.
THAT is how a psychopath/narcissist works, that is the kind of challenge that makes him tick.

Compare, if you will, how Lechmere freely searched out the police and inquest. Then try and add two and two, Trevor.

... and a Happy New Year too!