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

[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!

[Fisherman]

But, Fish, if you interpret ‘gingerly’ to mean ‘carrotily’, a world of possibilities opens up.😉

Now, WHY did I not think of that myself...? It´s a blotch on my insights.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear !!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE=Fisherman;466789]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Thanks for that, Jon. It is all a very complex business, and when investigating a case where it is suggested that a suspect may have lied his way out of a murder accusation, we cannot possibly work from a position where we simply accept as gospel that everything is what it seems to be!

It poses a problem when it comes to matters like Lechmeres interactions with Nichols after Pauls arrival. I have no problems at all accepting that he did a number of things that all seem in line with helping out, but once we accept that these actions were genuine, we automatically clear the carman from any suspicion.

The whole history of ripperology is fraught with such risks. Read Sugden and you will find that he says that the two carmen "gingerly" approached the shape lying on the sidewalk - and BOOOM, you have absolved Lechmere from his suspect status, because if he really DID approach Nichols gingerly, then he could of course not be the villain of the piece!
So much has been said and written over the years that strengthens Lechmere´s veracity in an unsound way, and before we can see this clearly, we cannot judge his case from an unbiased position. I know quite well that many people say that whatever bias there is, is all mine, but once you try to look at things from this angle, you may see that this is not entirely true - there is a bias working FOR Lechmere in these types of details, saying that he walked gingerly towards the body, saying that he went out of his way to help, saying that he did what a good samaritan would have done, basically.

Anyways, I believe we have come as far as we can on this for now, and so I thank you for taking the time to listening to my view of it all!

But, Fish, if you interpret ‘gingerly’ to mean ‘carrotily’, a world of possibilities opens up.😉

[FrankO]

In order to be sure that Nichols was dead and could not communicate, he slit her throat...

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?

[Fisherman]

Yes, yes. I understand Christer

Thanks for that, Jon. It is all a very complex business, and when investigating a case where it is suggested that a suspect may have lied his way out of a murder accusation, we cannot possibly work from a position where we simply accept as gospel that everything is what it seems to be!

It poses a problem when it comes to matters like Lechmeres interactions with Nichols after Pauls arrival. I have no problems at all accepting that he did a number of things that all seem in line with helping out, but once we accept that these actions were genuine, we automatically clear the carman from any suspicion.

The whole history of ripperology is fraught with such risks. Read Sugden and you will find that he says that the two carmen "gingerly" approached the shape lying on the sidewalk - and BOOOM, you have absolved Lechmere from his suspect status, because if he really DID approach Nichols gingerly, then he could of course not be the villain of the piece!
So much has been said and written over the years that strengthens Lechmere´s veracity in an unsound way, and before we can see this clearly, we cannot judge his case from an unbiased position. I know quite well that many people say that whatever bias there is, is all mine, but once you try to look at things from this angle, you may see that this is not entirely true - there is a bias working FOR Lechmere in these types of details, saying that he walked gingerly towards the body, saying that he went out of his way to help, saying that he did what a good samaritan would have done, basically.

Anyways, I believe we have come as far as we can on this for now, and so I thank you for taking the time to listening to my view of it all!

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: But he didn't need to even put himself in a situation where he had to feign. He on hearing the approaching footsteps, or even seeing Paul coming he could have made good his escape, he had ample time, you have to accept that !

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.

You are relying to much on what Griffiths said, and if he did say it in the way you suggest, you should have taken steps to get him to expand further on that comment, because I cannot see anyone as experienced as him simply making that comment in the way you have interpreted it.

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.
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?

Do a survey ask 100 people what they would do in that same situation run or stay ! when you get the answer then you will see that Griffiths comments are unsafe.

Trevor, Trevor... Have you not read the boards on this issue? Have you not noticed that I ALWAYS say that running is what you and I and any normally thinking person would prioritize? I am perfectly aware that it is the normal choice for somebody at peril to be revealed as a killer.
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.
So to get a sound outcome, we would have to ask a hundred psychopaths what THEY would have done, if THEY would have panicked, if THEY would have scuttled off.
And to be frank, not even that would be a surefire way to go abut it, because psychopathy comes in a large number of degrees - some have a few traits of psychopathy, others have them all, and that is a matter that would have a very large influence on the case. Furthermore, once we find ourselves a hundred psychopaths with the same disposition that the killer had, then we also need to ensure that they all had the same amount of killing experience as our man had.
Once we find ourselves a hundred such men, the time has come to put the question to them - and hope that they give a truthful answer. You see, a thoroughbred psychopath is a fierce liar.

Maybe you can now begin to see the uselessness of your proposition, Trevor? Asking a hundred people, chosen at random, if they would have run or not would be like asking Carl Panzram to take you out for a nice picnic in some remote forest.
What we get always boils down to who we ask! The sooner you realize that, the better.

[Trevor Marriott]

You seem to think that theorising that he was the killer is disallowed to do? And accordingly, since I am not allowed to do that, I am not allowed to point out that what seemed to be helpfulness could be something feigned?

My whole theory hinges on how Lechmere would have been feigning a whole lot IF HE WAS THE KILLER (there, I said it again).

But he didn't need to even put himself in a situation where he had to feign. He on hearing the approaching footsteps, or even seeing Paul coming he could have made good his escape, he had ample time, you have to accept that !

You are relying to much on what Griffiths said, and if he did say it in the way you suggest, you should have taken steps to get him to expand further on that comment, because I cannot see anyone as experienced as him simply making that comment in the way you have interpreted it.

Do a survey ask 100 people what they would do in that same situation run or stay ! when you get the answer then you will see that Griffiths comments are unsafe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

The correct wording should be:

You are convinced that Lechmere was the Ripper.

If Lechmere was the Ripper, then you are convinced that he must have been a psychopath, going on how he acted after the murder.

So ... to you, Lechmere was in all probability a psychopath.

Subtle differences? My whole credibility hinges on them, Jon. They are absolutely vital to me, and they mark the difference between a discerning reasoning and one that cannot be regarded as credible at all.

I want your understanding on that point for Christmas!

Yes, yes. I understand Christer