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

[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!

[Trevor Marriott]

One for Trevor, who wrote:

Not every serial killer is a psychopath - Ted Bundy was an educated well organized, and meticulous serial killer
[/I]
Which of these traits is it you think is incompatible with psychopathy, Trevor? I can assure you that psychopaths can be extremely well educated, that they can be highly organized and that they can be meticulous in the extreme.
While I am at it, let´s also inform you that Ted Bundy was indeed a clear-cut psychopath. I will leave you with seasons greetings and a quote from Psychology Today, a useful net resource:

Psychopathy is the most dangerous of all antisocial personality disorders because of the way psychopaths dissociate emotionally from their actions, regardless of how terrible those actions may be. Many prolific and notorious serial killers, including the late Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, and the incarcerated Dennis Rader ("Bind, Torture, Kill" or BTK) are unremorseful psychopaths. Psychopathic killers view their innocent victims as inhuman objects to be tormented and exterminated for their own amusement or even sexual gratification.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

How many essays have been written on the correlation between theft and psychopathy? And why is it that there are no such works?

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.

[Fisherman]

One for Trevor, who wrote:

Not every serial killer is a psychopath - Ted Bundy was an educated well organized, and meticulous serial killer
[/I]
Which of these traits is it you think is incompatible with psychopathy, Trevor? I can assure you that psychopaths can be extremely well educated, that they can be highly organized and that they can be meticulous in the extreme.
While I am at it, let´s also inform you that Ted Bundy was indeed a clear-cut psychopath. I will leave you with seasons greetings and a quote from Psychology Today, a useful net resource:

Psychopathy is the most dangerous of all antisocial personality disorders because of the way psychopaths dissociate emotionally from their actions, regardless of how terrible those actions may be. Many prolific and notorious serial killers, including the late Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, and the incarcerated Dennis Rader ("Bind, Torture, Kill" or BTK) are unremorseful psychopaths. Psychopathic killers view their innocent victims as inhuman objects to be tormented and exterminated for their own amusement or even sexual gratification.

[Fisherman]

But why waste precious time by cutting her throat not once but twice, Christer? That doesn't make sense at all. It would only make sense if he knew he had enough time. But if he knew he had enough time, why not get away?

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...

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;466800]Oh dear !!!!!!!!!

Yes and no, Trevor. The simple fact is that we do not know how much time he had. We don´t know how far off Paul was wen Lechmere noted him. It is t as if we can measure an amount of time and say "He had ample time" the way you do.
That said, my own take on things is that he certainly could have chosen to run - it seems clear, at the very least, that he could have taken off before Paul could see him in the darkness. That much I accept, and not only that: I suggest that this was so.

He clearly had plenty of time to run. If you look at who saw who first, Paul is walking down the road on his way to work. Lechmere is standing in the middle of the road, not even near the body, inquest testimony

"as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway"

If he had time to stand in the road waiting for Paul to get closer, then he had time to run and if he had been the killer no one would have been any the wiser.

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.
That is not something I am interpreting. Furthermore, you are perfectly correct in saying that I am relying too much on Griffiths - but only if he was wrong. If he was right, then YOU are not relying so much in him as you ought to.

But Griffiths comments could be as a result of him not being give the full facts on the case, which is what happened with Scobie, and that his comment was based on misrepresentation of the true facts.

He is a very competent and seasoned man, and although I am prepared to listen to what anybody has to say, I am less prepared to have people who do not have his experience and knowledge advicing me not to listen to him, Trevor. Surely you can realize that?

Experience counts for nothing when you are simply giving an opinion which cannot be corroborated. Because there are always others who are equally experienced who might give a different opinion.

But I am of the opinion that the killer was in all probability a psychopath - the way more than 90 per cent of serial killers are.

Again it is your opinion and it counts for nothing as you are not an expert in this field.

Not every serial killer is a psychopath Ted Bundy was an educated well organized, and meticulous serial killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Merry Christmas, Trevor!