Evidence of innocence

[Harry D]

Why would you ascribe other posters claims and suggestions as "my way", Harry? I can defend their right to have a useful discussion instead of being ridiculed without necessarily agreeing with them all over, can´t I?

You’re a true champion of the people, Fisherman.

Excuse me while I shed a tear.

[rjpalmer]

Now, that post 2952? If you please?

Hi Fish, as an aside, I noticed sometime ago that there is a strange glitch on this website, but have never figured-out why it happens.

The post to which you refer comes up as post No. 2801 on my screen, but if I came back later tonight it will probably show up as #2952. Why this happens I cannot say. The numbers seem to play musical chairs at times.

Either way, here's my response:

Two questions, R J, if you don´t much mind?

1. Has it to the best of your mind been suggested anywhere that psychopaths will "invariably" try to bluff their way out of trouble? If it has, I would be very interested to be pointed to it.

2. Are you suggesting that attacking bystanders and giving chase is what psychopaths will invariably do?

Thanking you in advance for your answers. Oh, and a third question, while I am at it:

3. "Your" psychopath, who was in the midst of raping and murdering a victim as that "arriving bystander" appeared - had he stepped back from his victim when it happened, so that the "arriving bystander" was not able to tell who had been doing the raping/murdering? Or was it apparent to the psychopath that the "arriving bystander" had seen what he was up to?

1. Sort of. It's been my impression that your consulting psychologist has implied that, faced with the same dilemma as Lechmere (presuming that Lechmere was a psychopath and the killer) he would bluff his way out rather than flee or fight. But psychopathy is on a spectrum, and includes many different personality types, so it's not that simple. I don't think anyone is in a position to state this. Further, we all know the drill. Few fields of study are as contentious as human psychology, and we've all seen examples of prosecutors bringing in a psychologist to give an expert opinion, and then the defense bringing in another who gives the polar opposite opinion. All I am expressing is doubt that there could be any certainty on this point; the bigger issue is that I am unconvinced that Lechmere's behavior in Buck's Row was inconsistent with the actions of an innocent bystander.

2. No. But there are cases where they have done so. My position is that if Lechmere had so little emotive control that he murdered and mutilated a woman on his way to work, he was too erratic not to have left some indication of his volatile personality. I don't "buy" the Dennis Rader argument, of a "normal" hardworking family man who hacks up women in his spare time. Most killers of this sort have a long arrest record, and even serial-killers, if you want to use that term, are on a spectrum. Rader did not randomly attack people in the street and pull out their intestines. That behavior is more in-line with psychosis than with psychopathy. There are enough so-called 'serial killers' in the literature that one can pick & chose which behavior one wants to showcase; Robert House, in his Kosminski study, used schizophrenic killers, but since Lechmere led an entirely outwardly life, you naturally avoid these types and focus on the small percentage of family men without known criminal records. But what's the ratio, Fish? For every serial-killer who is a hardworking family man, how many hardworking family men are NOT serial-killers? 5,000,000? More?

3. No. The two cases are not entirely analogous. Neither is the O.J. Simpson case, but he did decide to violently murder a late arrival at the scene. No doubt you will argue--probably correctly--that Simpson, being recognizable by his build, had not choice but to attack rather than to flee or bluff his way out. Still, different people will react differently.

[rjpalmer]

Do you think it is possible that people are projecting their own modern values of social decorum and their own sense of what constitutes proper 'body space' onto Charles Allen Cross (birthname Lechmere)?

Is the fact that he tapped Paul on the shoulder really all that odd or even 'aggressive,' or is this a misinterpretation?

From people I know who have spent time in India, it is a very 'touchy feelie' sort of society. You can't go out in public without people touching you or grabbing you by the arm...and I refer to complete strangers.

It has to do with people growing up in very crowded environments and having a different sense of self. St. George-in-the-East was one of the most crowded districts in the western hemisphere, and there are estimates that the population density was as high as 2 people per room.

I can't prove it was the norm, but it was a different time & place, and 'aggression' doesn't strike me as a good interpretation. He tapped him on the shoulder. Full-stop. Nothing to see here whatsoever.

[Fisherman]

You’re a true champion of the people, Fisherman.

Excuse me while I shed a tear.

Gee shucks, Harry! You are making me blush all over!

Here I was, seniding out what I considered a fairly trivial message - don´t use posters who are new to the boards as spitting cups - and now I am suddenly a regular knight in shining armor!

Thank you kindly, Sir!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish, as an aside, I noticed sometime ago that there is a strange glitch on this website, but have never figured-out why it happens.

The post to which you refer comes up as post No. 2801 on my screen, but if I came back later tonight it will probably show up as #2952. Why this happens I cannot say. The numbers seem to play musical chairs at times.

I am having some issues with how the boards are refreshed myself, so I am not unfamiliar with such problems, R J.

Either way, here's my response:


1. Sort of. It's been my impression that your consulting psychologist has implied that, faced with the same dilemma as Lechmere (presuming that Lechmere was a psychopath and the killer) he would bluff his way out rather than flee or fight. But psychopathy is on a spectrum, and includes many different personality types, so it's not that simple. I don't think anyone is in a position to state this. Further, we all know the drill. Few fields of study are as contentious as human psychology, and we've all seen examples of prosecutors bringing in a psychologist to give an expert opinion, and then the defense bringing in another who gives the polar opposite opinion. All I am expressing is doubt that there could be any certainty on this point; the bigger issue is that I am unconvinced that Lechmere's behavior in Buck's Row was inconsistent with the actions of an innocent bystander.

We have lots of examples of psychopaths who have taken the fight when revealed at crime sites, and so it should be perfectly evident that they do not all choose bluffing things out. What you need to do is to change your perspective: while un-psychopathic criminals will regularly choose flight over bluff, that is no given thing at all when dealing with psychopaths.
There WAS a murder, linked to a series. That series suggests extremely clearly that the perpetraor was of a psychopathic nature. And so choosing bluff over flight is no unlikely thing at all.
Once you have satisfied yourself that Lechmere´s behavior could be consistent with that of an innocent bystander, what you need to do is to check further parameters; are there any inconsistencies, how does his likely geographical pattern fit with the suggestion of guilt, did he disagree with one or more of the other actors of the drama?
That´s how it´s done. Not by isolating what he did in Bucks Row after Paul arrived, because that would be actions that were extremely unlikely to suggest guilt.
For the record: Any idea that I would think that all psychopaths will invariably bluff it out is nuts.

2. No. But there are cases where they have done so.

That is not much of a surprise, though, is it?

My position is that if Lechmere had so little emotive control that he murdered and mutilated a woman on his way to work, he was too erratic not to have left some indication of his volatile personality.

That only works if we insist on how it is erratic to kill and mutilate en route to work. If we instead imagine a very self-secure person of a psychopathic nature, who feels that he can kill ANYWHERE without getting caught, another picture emerges.

I don't "buy" the Dennis Rader argument, of a "normal" hardworking family man who hacks up women in his spare time.

It´s facade, of course. But it is there. And it need not have been intended as a facade from the outset. Some killers marry with the best of intentions, and suceed to keep their inner demons at bay for some time.

Most killers of this sort have a long arrest record, and even serial-killers, if you want to use that term, are on a spectrum.

If you get caught, you get a record. If you don´t get caught, you don´t get a record. Where is the "long arrest record" of Joseph DeAngelo, for example?

Rader did not randomly attack people in the street and pull out their intestines.

No, he did not handle the intestines at all. He strangled in relatively safe surroundings. Making him another kind of creature than the Ripper.

That behavior is more in-line with psychosis than with psychopathy.

It excludes neither of the two.

There are enough so-called 'serial killers' in the literature that one can pick & chose which behavior one wants to showcase; Robert House, in his Kosminski study, used schizophrenic killers, but since Lechmere led an entirely outwardly life, you naturally avoid these types and focus on the small percentage of family men without known criminal records. But what's the ratio, Fish? For every serial-killer who is a hardworking family man, how many hardworking family men are NOT serial-killers? 5,000,000? More?

It matters not. They exist, and so they cannot be discarded on account of their rarity. Just because we accept that serial killers are rare, we can´t claim that they are non-existent.

3. No. The two cases are not entirely analogous. Neither is the O.J. Simpson case, but he did decide to violently murder a late arrival at the scene. No doubt you will argue--probably correctly--that Simpson, being recognizable by his build, had not choice but to attack rather than to flee or bluff his way out. Still, different people will react differently.

The two cases are anything but analogous, R J. But you are correct, different people will react differently. And the scope of likely actions and reactions differs a lot inbetween psychopaths and us.

[Harry D]

Not particularly, no, but he comes across as rather lacking in emotion - any emotion - as though it was a tarpaulin he had found on the street. I do find the initial interaction between the two men strange under the circumstances also - I would expect the finder of a body to wait to speak to the approaching person expectantly, even speaking before the second person fully arrived at the scene, but Lechmere chose to wait until they were side by side and felt the need to touch Paul making the contact between them very up close and personal. Maybe Lechmere still hadn't quite decided his next step ...

I still don't know what particular emotions you're looking for from Lechmere. At this point, as far as we know, Lechmere stopped thinking he saw a tarpaulin, which turned out to be a woman lying in the street. He doesn't know she's dead, and there was no 'Jack the Ripper' at this point for him to assume she was a gruesome murder victim. We know that Buck's Row was a sketchy stretch of street. Perhaps Lechmere wanted to weigh up Paul's movements before approaching him. When he realised Paul was simply trying to pass by, he decided to make contact.

[MrBarnett]

I still don't know what particular emotions you're looking for from Lechmere. At this point, as far as we know, Lechmere stopped thinking he saw a tarpaulin, which turned out to be a woman lying in the street. He doesn't know she's dead, and there was no 'Jack the Ripper' at this point for him to assume she was a gruesome murder victim. We know that Buck's Row was a sketchy stretch of street. Perhaps Lechmere wanted to weigh up Paul's movements before approaching him. When he realised Paul was simply trying to pass by, he decided to make contact.

Do you not think the Tabram murder might have crossed his mind? The inquest had only concluded the week before.

[Fisherman]

Do you think it is possible that people are projecting their own modern values of social decorum and their own sense of what constitutes proper 'body space' onto Charles Allen Cross (birthname Lechmere)?

Is the fact that he tapped Paul on the shoulder really all that odd or even 'aggressive,' or is this a misinterpretation?

From people I know who have spent time in India, it is a very 'touchy feelie' sort of society. You can't go out in public without people touching you or grabbing you by the arm...and I refer to complete strangers.

It has to do with people growing up in very crowded environments and having a different sense of self. St. George-in-the-East was one of the most crowded districts in the western hemisphere, and there are estimates that the population density was as high as 2 people per room.

I can't prove it was the norm, but it was a different time & place, and 'aggression' doesn't strike me as a good interpretation. He tapped him on the shoulder. Full-stop. Nothing to see here whatsoever.

There´s such a thing as social distances, relating to where we come from. As a Swede, I will be one of the people who employs the largest distance to others in conversations and such things. Other nationalities will lean very much into each other when interacting socially. There are scientific papers on the phenomenon.

Tapping someone on the shoulder is not something that makes me think that something is amiss. But I would say that the normal - if something is "normal" in this context - thing to do when contacting a stranger will not involve physical contact in our part of the world. Typically, we (Brits and Swedes alike) will make the first contact verbally with strangers. My own feeling about Lechmere´s tapping Paul on the shoulder - or placing his hand on Pauls shoulder - is that it is kind of odd that he did not contact him verbally instead. It makes me think that he may have been undecided to a degree about whether or not to let Paul pass. He then decides to stop Paul and sets out for the northern pavement, whereupon Paul veers off to his left and almost succeeds to pass Lechmere, who at that stage has made his mind up that he wants Paul to be part of the drama. However, if Paul would not stop on Lechmeres speaking to him, the opportunity would be lost - and so Lechmere actively secures Pauls presence by laying his hand on his shoulder and stopping him.
That is how I feel about it, but of course, it is nothing more than so. I´m sure it can be read in many ways. And just like you say, R J, it is hard to know which social rules applied in 1888. Presumably, the sparse elbow room in places like Whitechapel would have made physical contact a rather trivial matter.

[MrBarnett]

Jostling other people in a busy street market is one thing - approaching and touching another (unknown) person on a dark East End street is altogether different. Then as now.

As for 2 people per room, I feel a Monty Python moment coming on - luxury!!!

We know that the Lechmere family had the run of 6 rooms in 1887 and were described as ‘V. Decent’ - a very rare description in the Booth STGITE notebooks.

[rjpalmer]

Jostling other people in a busy street market is one thing - approaching and touching another (unknown) person on a dark East End street is altogether different.

Who said anything about "jostling people in a busy market?" A little cliché, don't you think? People in India literally walk up to you and grab you by the elbow. It's a different society.

Why India remains a 'touchy-feely' society (dailyo.in)

And did Lechmere "approach" Paul, or did he merely try to get his attention?

As for 2 people per room, I feel a Monty Python moment coming on - luxury!!!

The number struck me as small, as well, but it comes from the research of Helena Wojtczak, who some here will remember. If you have another number, by all means post it.

29 Hanbury Street isn't in SGE, but there were nine rooms and 17 people living there, so that equates to less than 2 per room. But, like the Lechmere household, it's merely anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't necessarily wish to equate 'decent' with the number of tenants.

[rjpalmer]

The point is that the Lechmere theory is based almost entirely on personal interpretation.

I can see a man touching someone's shoulder in a dark street as he says, 'look over here, mate,' as a gesture of reassurance.

Others see it as nefarious.

[MrBarnett]

Who said anything about "jostling people in a busy market?" A little cliché, don't you think? People in India literally walk up to you and grab you by the elbow. It's a different society.

Why India remains a 'touchy-feely' society (dailyo.in)

And did Lechmere "approach" Paul, or did he merely try to get his attention?



The number struck me as small, as well, but it comes from the research of Helena Wojtczak, who some here will remember. If you have another number, by all means post it.

29 Hanbury Street isn't in SGE, but there were nine rooms and 17 people living there, so that equates to less than 2 per room. But, like the Lechmere household, it's merely anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't necessarily wish to equate 'decent' with the number of tenants.

Does Helena provide a source for the household density of STGITE in the 1860s/70s? I’d like to see that.

[MrBarnett]

Does Helena provide a source for the household density of STGITE in the 1860s/70s? I’d like to see that.

Excuse my curiosity - STGITE is my particular ‘thing’.

[MrBarnett]

It’s an interesting idea that Charles Allen Lechmere, the son of Maria Sophia Roulson, was brought up in such cramped conditions that it came naturally to him to accost strange men on dark streets - just as the Indian poor do today. Very interesting…

And the idea is supported by research undertaken by Helena Wojtczac - so we should pause we before we completely dissolve into hysterical laughter.

Not for long though.

[harry]

Now neither Paul nor Cross.when they set out to find a policeman,knew that a crime had been committed.That is clear,but the fact they thought it should be reported,leads me to believe her condition,as it appeared to them,was more serious than drunkeness,and Mizen,whatever he was told,believed it was serious enough to go to Bucks Row.Would he have gone if they had just reported a drunk lying there? I do not think so.So Cross and Paul must have conveyed to Mizen a condition worse than drunkeness,and it's not unbelievable that at least one of them remarked she could be dead.
Two civic minded carmen,doing what responsible and innocent people do.