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

[Fisherman]

To properly establish whether Charles Lechmere was a psychopath or not, we would need to have extensive records of how he interacted with other people.

We do not have that, and the inevitable result is that we will not be able to evaluate him from this particular angle.

The psychopathy part is nevertheless relevant to the discussion because there can be little or no doubt that the Rippar WAS a psychopath. It therefore follows that regardless of who we name a suspect, we must accept that this suspect will have been psychopath IF he was the killer.

Much was said before (and is strangely still said) about how the a killer who COULD run, WOULD run after a murder. It was in response to this rather limited insight into the complexity of human nature I originally pointed out that Lechmere may have stayed put IF he was a psychopath.

I have never said that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath, I have said that reasoning that he was the killer predisposes that we accept that he must have been a psychopath if the reasoning is ā pointe.

How this is reshaped to become a guarantee that Lechmere is not a viable suspect since we cannot prove that he was a psychopath is beyond me. It is an antiintellectual stance as far as Iīm concerned.

[Abby Normal]

If you're a psychopath at night, you're also a psychopath at the breakfast table.

It's hard-wired; you can't turn it on and off like a hot water tap.

So, it seems to me, if you want to argue your suspect is a psychopath, then you need to show some empirical evidence for it--a history of violent, criminal, or irrational and antisocial behavior.

Anything. Even a whisper.

Since you can't do this, Fish, you respond by saying that he was 'successfully sinister.' He stayed below the radar. He was never identified as this lying, cheating, person.

So, in other words, you have nothing to distinguish him from M.J. Druitt, Sir William Gull, Booth, Barnett, Maybrick, the local Vicar, Frederick Charrington, etc etc, or any other random person that we can similarly claim was a psychopath but who 'stayed below the radar.'

Ripperologists love to name this or that person as 'the Ripper.' Few like to actually point to people with a known history of psychopathic behavior, be it Ostrog, Deeming, Cream, Tumblety, etc.

theyve all been ruled out except tumble buns

[Fisherman]

rjpalmer: If you're a psychopath at night, you're also a psychopath at the breakfast table.

It's hard-wired; you can't turn it on and off like a hot water tap.

Yes! But do psychopathic serial killers murder the ones they have breakfast with?
Psychopath killers - at least some of them - can be very charming people at times, and they can be masterful liars.

So, it seems to me, if you want to argue your suspect is a psychopath, then you need to show some empirical evidence for it--a history of violent, criminal, or irrational and antisocial behavior.

Not at all - that only applies if I want to PROVE it. Because many serial killers who are psychopaths have NO history of violence. Take Joel Rifkin, for example. A meek guy, not looked upon as a violent man at all.
And THAT is just about as far as it goes. How on earth are we to say that Lechmere did not give examples of "irrational or antisocial" behavior - 130 years down the line? Isnīt that asking a bit much?
You must have noticed how many people in close proximity to disclosed serial killers have gone "WHAT!!!!???" Why do you think that is? Because they knew the person in question to be violent or criminal, irrational and antisocial? Or because they knew the person in question as a normal member of society?
Anything. Even a whisper.

A whisper that can be heard from 130 years away?

Since you can't do this, Fish, you respond by saying that he was 'successfully sinister.' He stayed below the radar. He was never identified as this lying, cheating, person.

If he was the killer, then yes, to us it would seem he stayed under the radar - as does ANY killer as long as he stays unsuspected and uncaught.

So, in other words, you have nothing to distinguish him from M.J. Druitt, Sir William Gull, Booth, Barnett, Maybrick, the local Vicar, Frederick Charrington, etc etc, or any other random person that we can similarly claim was a psychopath but who 'stayed below the radar.'

Oh yes - I distinguish him from those men by having been found alone with a Riper victim that was still bleeding. He is a REAL suspect in terms of police investigation work. The rest are not. None of them are disclosed as psychopaths. Any of them who was the Ripper WAS a psychopath, though.

Ripperologists love to name this or that person as 'the Ripper.' Few like to actually point to people with a known history of psychopathic behavior, be it Ostrog, Deeming, Cream, Tumblety, etc.

I would positively love to point to any psychopath who had as much going for him practically as Lechmere has. I have nothing at all against psychopathic suspects but I want them to be practically and physically linked to the case.

[Fisherman]

Were you talking about Anderson's suspect or your own, Fish?

Love,

Caz
X

Thatīs it, Caz. You just disqualified yourself from any right to any sort of respect. What a moronic thing to say.

[Fisherman]

Fortunately, I wouldn't know, Fish. I don't have your experience as I don't swim in the same bowl.

Going through the motions...



Possibly, but it would only be related to your overly complicated idea of what idea I was trying to get away with. 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?



Now that is funny, considering your own admitted failure to comprehend my 'little plays'.

Love,

Caz
X

This post is of no interest but for one small thing:

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?

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.
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.
As for being innocent, yes, he MAY have been - but isnīt it a coincidence that one out of six bodies had the wounds hidden, and that one victim just happened to be Nichols? Isnīt it a coincidence that Mizen just happened to lie or misreport? Isnīt it a coincidence that PC and witness should disagree at all? Isnīt it a coincidence that Lechmere happened upon the body as it was still bleeding? Isnīt it a coincidence that Paul arrived just in time to get Lechmere off the hook? Isnīt it a coincidence that Lechmere passed through the killing zone? Isnīt it a coincidence that he had links to St Georges and the Mitre Street area?
There is a name for people in murder cases who have so many coincidences attaching to themselves: killer.
So that is why it is implausible that he was innocent. He MAY have been, but if he was, he sure had a nasty habit of amassing coincidences.

[caz]

Itīs La-La Land. Nothing will ever come of it and as a lead in the case it is 100 per cent worthless until more evidence can be added. And letīs face it, that is not going to happen some time soon.

Were you talking about Anderson's suspect or your own, Fish?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

If you're a psychopath at night, you're also a psychopath at the breakfast table.

It's hard-wired; you can't turn it on and off like a hot water tap.

So, it seems to me, if you want to argue your suspect is a psychopath, then you need to show some empirical evidence for it--a history of violent, criminal, or irrational and antisocial behavior.

Anything. Even a whisper.

Since you can't do this, Fish, you respond by saying that he was 'successfully sinister.' He stayed below the radar. He was never identified as this lying, cheating, person.

So, in other words, you have nothing to distinguish him from M.J. Druitt, Sir William Gull, Booth, Barnett, Maybrick, the local Vicar, Frederick Charrington, etc etc, or any other random person that we can similarly claim was a psychopath but who 'stayed below the radar.'

Ripperologists love to name this or that person as 'the Ripper.' Few like to actually point to people with a known history of psychopathic behavior, be it Ostrog, Deeming, Cream, Tumblety, etc.

[Fisherman]

We can stop there really.

How was he going to be 'named' as anything, had he not attended? Mr Unknown Prime Suspect? That's about the worst name he could have been saddled with.

Just like the previous man to see Nichols, whoever that was, and whether or not he killed her.

Love,

Caz
X

His REAL name would not be known, but he would nevertheless be the prime suspect. That is no anomaly at all; many people whose names we do not have have been crowned the prime suspect in many a case.

Trying to make a meal out of how his name would no be known is not the way to go about things, Caz. Not that I am surprised - it is in perfect line with your normal debating technique - but it is nevertheless dumb.

He was known by sight by Paul and Mizen, and he would be sought for as the probable killer if he did NOT report in at the cop shop.

Keep in mind that all the information about when he left home, when Paul arrived, how close they were in time and so on was NOT known until Lechmere supplied that (in all probability false) information. So the police would have a man on their hands who had been found alone with the victim at a remove in time that was consistent with being her killer and for all the police knew, he could have been alone with her for half an hour.

[caz]

1. He would have gone to the inquest in order not to be named the prime suspect.

We can stop there really.

How was he going to be 'named' as anything, had he not attended? Mr Unknown Prime Suspect? That's about the worst name he could have been saddled with.

Just like the previous man to see Nichols, whoever that was, and whether or not he killed her.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why is it that I never find any logical line in your posts that I can criticize? Itīs like swimming in a diarrhea.

Fortunately, I wouldn't know, Fish. I don't have your experience as I don't swim in the same bowl.

Going through the motions...

And you always write little plays with funny characters saying stupid things that are totally unrelated to what I have stated.

Somehow, you are trying to get away with the idea that Charles Lechmere always had to think about how jobrelated a matter he commented on was before he could decide whether to think of himself as Charles Cross or Charles Lechmere.

I could write a REALLY funny sketch about that.

Possibly, but it would only be related to your overly complicated idea of what idea I was trying to get away with. 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?

But why would I? All the laughter it could bring down from the rest of the posters could never hide the fact that you - the target for the sketch - would probably not be able to understand it.

Now that is funny, considering your own admitted failure to comprehend my 'little plays'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

And there, in a nutshell, is the rub.

Once this unidentified 'man' had left Mizen behind, whether he lied to him or not, what could they have proved?

According to Fish: Nothing.

So remind me again why, if he was the killer, he would have felt either the need or desire to attend the inquest, with the additional burden of muddying the waters concerning his real surname, to try and pull the wool over the eyes of some nebulous, unspecified individuals who might otherwise become suspicious of him - and been able to prove what?

Love,

Caz
X

1. He would have gone to the inquest in order not to be named the prime suspect.

2. He would have had the aim to defuse whatever nefarious ideas about himself the police could have had.

It is dead easy, really - if, that is, you put your mind to it.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Fish, I'm still trying to catch up with some of the older posts to this thread.

I see what you are getting at here, but a better bet would have been not to come forward at all, knowing he'd find himself in this unenviable and complex situation you describe above, of trying to keep his identity as the finder of a dead prostitute out of the public domain, while at the same time giving the authorities no reason to question the identifying details he chose to give out. PC Mizen had only seen him briefly, before daylight, and Robert Paul had only described him in the newspaper as 'a man', while making his feelings about the police all too clear. How would anyone have had a prayer of tracking down Lechmere again, let alone confirmed he was the same man? In the vanishingly unlikely event that he came face to face with Mizen and a suddenly co-operative Paul, who both claimed to recognise him, he had only to sport his best psychopath hat and plead ignorance - a clear case of mistaken identity. Failing that, he'd only have been guilty of the same sin as his identifier Robert Paul - not coming forward voluntarily!



If the police had checked with Pickfords, and if there was no carman named Cross on their books, it wouldn't have mattered who Lechmere had or hadn't set out to deceive - the police or anyone else - or why. The deception itself would be what interested the police. That was my point.

I thought you had grasped why setting out to deceive the police in this way would have failed if a routine check had revealed his name as Lechmere, and I thought this was why you claimed the deception was not aimed at the police, but at certain people close to him, who might become suspicious if they saw his real name in the papers.

I really don't see what difference it makes either way. If the police had made enquiries and discovered his real name, which would have been with the assistance of Pickfords or Mrs Lechmere, at the addresses he had provided, the cat would have been out of the bag anyway - unless you wish to refine your argument again and claim the name deception was aimed at certain people other than the police; other than his wife; other than anyone at Pickfords.

Love,

Caz
X

Sorry, but I have given my answers in this division too many times to want to do it again. Letīs just say that "he would have run" is an outdated and stale argument since many years back.

[caz]

You HAVE overstrained yourself.

You see complications where there are none. Lechmere had not signed any paper telling the police that he was called Cross at Pickfords, Caz. All he needed to do would be to say that he sometimes used the name or that he simply did so to honour his old stepfather.

It was a risk that could/would involve further interest from the police, but what could they prove, once he had left Mizen behind after having lied to him?

Thatīs correct: Nothing.

And there, in a nutshell, is the rub.

Once this unidentified 'man' had left Mizen behind, whether he lied to him or not, what could they have proved?

According to Fish: Nothing.

So remind me again why, if he was the killer, he would have felt either the need or desire to attend the inquest, with the additional burden of muddying the waters concerning his real surname, to try and pull the wool over the eyes of some nebulous, unspecified individuals who might otherwise become suspicious of him - and been able to prove what?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No. It's YOU who's wrong on that score. There is zero certainty that Cross was anywhere near the other murder sites at the relevant times.

Wrong? ME? You are hallucinating, surely? The expression "some certainty" is of course not a good one since certainty is an absolute commodity. So letīs just say that we are speaking of a high degree of plausibility.

The case will not be solved by backing the wrong horses. Or ponies and carts, as the case may be.

That is absolutely true! Backing the correct horses and carts and cart drivers if essential!

[Sam Flynn]

So you understood that you were wrong about the "some certainty" matter? Good!

No. It's YOU who's wrong on that score. There is zero certainty that Cross was anywhere near the other murder sites at the relevant times.

Could it be that we are trying NOT to have the case solved?

The case will not be solved by backing the wrong horses. Or ponies and carts, as the case may be.