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

[caz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thatīs all from me for today.

'All we need to know about psychopathy.'

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

That's why I posted this:

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

So much for ruining my day, eh Fishy?

So who is the real twit?

Love,

Caz
X

Do you get it now?

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

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

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

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



'All we need to know about psychopathy.'

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

That's why I posted this:



Do you get it now?

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

Love,

Caz
X

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

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

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

[caz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fisherman]

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



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



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

Love,

Caz
X

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

[Fisherman]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for that timely post!

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

A merry X-mas to you too!

[Abby Normal]

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

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

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

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

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

hutch fits that bill to a t

[rjpalmer]

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

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

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

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

[caz]

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

Hi Fish,

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

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

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

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

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

[caz]

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

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

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

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

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

What about a Jewish lunatic with a criminal record?

[caz]

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

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

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

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

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

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


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

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

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

[Fisherman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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