Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Sam Flynn]

He did not use an alias, like Lechmere did.

He used his stepfather's name, "Cross", and there is some evidence that suggests he was using this name as a Pickford's employee some 12 years previously. A "proper" alias would have been to call himself "John Smith" or similar, not give his full - and distinctive - first two names followed by his stepfather's surname. In alias terms, that's about as useful as trying to hide behind a glass door.

[Fisherman]

He used his stepfather's name, "Cross", and there is some evidence that suggests he was using this name as a Pickford's employee some 12 years previously. A "proper" alias would have been to call himself "John Smith" or similar, not give his full - and distinctive - first two names followed by his stepfather's surname. In alias terms, that's about as useful as trying to hide behind a glass door.

Once more - he used an alias, he otherwise did not do so with authorities as far as we know.

And so it remains an anomaly evoking suspicion.

[caz]

Body temperature is normally around 36,5-38 degrees celsius. Once we die, it normally subsides by a degree and a half per hour during the first twelve hours, regardelss if we pop out to use the privy or not.

Annie Chapman was cold but for a little remaining heat under the intestines. She was no longer 36,5-38 degrees celsius and had not been so for the longest time. Going inside will not raise or lower our body temperature. Otherwise, we would catch a fever when going to the pub and sitting by the fire.

Oh blimey, Fish.

People don't 'normally' spend the early hours of a cool September morning exposed to the elements, when they are seriously malnourished and sick unto death. That is a measure of just how desperate Chapman was and how sad her story. The body, when reasonably healthy and in normal circumstances, can use its energy stores to regulate its core temperature, depending on how warm or cold the surrounding environment is.

"Forget about the multiple factors"? Why on earth would I do that? What possible reason could I have? And why would I think "multiple variations" when the medical factors disallow for it?

What 'medical factors' disallowed multiple potential variations in Chapman's case? The traumatic nature of her death alone allowed for them, without considering anything else. Phillips was apparently unaware of this at the time, unless you think he knew all about it but modestly kept quiet until future scientists caught up!

It matters very little that the factors are, ehrm, "inherently unreliable" (which is a bit thick), since our troubles are over when we DO have multiple factors that are in sync. Once that happens, there is no reason at all not to accept their indications.

But it's the 'indications' that have a big fat question mark over them, Fish. Doctors know better now than to assume anything concrete from such indications, especially in the complete absence of the right kind of supporting evidence - such as Chapman's movements and activities in the final hours before she was found mutilated.

Doctors in 1888 who thought they knew, didn't know any better.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

It is true that most people who have a family, kids and a work are "good" people, in the sense that they are not serial killers.
But it is not true that they are not serial killers ON ACCOUNT of having a family, kids and a work.

Is that what I argued? Is that what ANYONE argued. Of course not.


Instead, having a family, kids and work is something that often serves as a platform for serial killers. The late Robert Ressler, who would be better suited than any of us to know about these things, said that the typical serial killer is a man in his thirties with a family, kids and a steady work.
Examples that leap to mind are Armstrong, Ridgway, Rader, DeAngelo...it is a common thing that serial killers have this background.
Saying that family men with kids and a steady job are normally not serial killers is therefore true only on a statistical level, and that level is useless since no matter which parameter we use, just about, we will get the same result. Sailors, school teachers and painters are normally not serial killers either, although each of these categories have produced serialists.

We all knew these examples were coming. It's like clockwork. And - again - no one is arguing that these are not examples of "family men" who were "serialists". Yet... we know something about these man that we don't know about Lechmere, don't we? Therefore we have reason to suspect, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were using their status as "family men" - to use your words - "as a platform for" serial murder.... We KNOW that they were - in fact - SERIAL MURDERERS. Your man managed to live an entire life without ever having been arrested for or suspected of... anything. Again, if you cannot see the fallacy in your approach here, nothing that I or anyone can say will do much for it. Instructive for others to read, however.

So we can see that you are not informed about what a serial killer is, or may be. You are instead leaning against misinformation.

Insulting. And false. I didn't propose anything like what you pretend I proposed. You twist words to fit meanings... either that or you're genuinely incapable of understanding them. Again, that's for those reading to decide.

This leads us over to step two in a very pedagogical manner - your saying that I suffer from confirmation bias.

Let´s look at what confirmation bias looks like along the above suggested model:

-People with families, kids and a steady job are good people.

False. Absurd. Silly. Neither I nor anyone else has said this.

-Lechmere had a family, kids and a steady job.

All true. I'll just leave it at that. I'll leave it to you to cite Robert Ressler in order to further feed your confirmation bias that these facts are somehow an indictment of a man... all because he shares traits with men who were later proven (or admitted to being) serial murders. Which is the one crucial fact you cannot apply to Lechmere, isn't it.

-Lechmere was a good man.

I've no idea if Charles Lechmere was a good person. He may have been an awful person. They're everywhere and probably always have been. I'll I know is that I've not seen any evidence that he was a criminal, mentally, unsound, ill-tempered, and no fun at parties.

That is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

Wonderful. Let's let those reading decide. You're really making this rather easy.

Now, what applies in MY case, do I suffer from confirmation bias?

To begin with, we must ask ourselves a question: What is it that is supposedly confirmed by my suggested bias? Well, it can be one of two things - or both of them:

-Lechmere was a psychopath.

-Lechmere was the killer.

Now, much as I am suggesting that both things may have applied, and much as I suggest that the former must follow if the latter is correct, it does not mean that I am saying that either matter is a proven thing.

Accordingly, I cannot have made myself guilty of any confirmation bias.

I see. So you maintain that because you've stated only that BELIEVE Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and stated that in your internationally sent documentary but allow some small chance that he was not... that you cannot be guilty of confirmation bias. Perfect!

This takes us over to the third and final step: So why am I speaking of psychopathy? And should my doing so be ruled out of the debate, as confirmation bias?

I have never said psychopathy should be ruled out of anything? Again, you're either pretending you cannot understand or you're incapable of understanding. In order to explain Lechmere's behavior as something other than the behavior of an innocent man then you must have him as a psychopath because you MUST have him as Jack the Ripper. Only then would he have so coolly performed the bluffs and scams that led to his going unsuspected for a century.

Well, that brings us back to point one: understanding what a serial killer is or may be. One main reason for my speaking of psychopathy is on account of how it is being said, for example, that family men with kids and a work are no likely serial killers.
This is true on a statistical level, but once we add the ingredient of psychopathy - and that ingredient is there in around 90 per cent of the serial killers - we get another picture.

Still don't get it? Aside from your idea that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper we have no reason to believe he was a psychopath. This leads us back to your idea that we must view this thing with "idea of Lechmere being guilty". It doesn't work. You'll never see that, clearly. I'm confident others will.

It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would have run. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not so for a psychopath. They will not panick, and they very often enjoy playing games.

I completely understand this. I'll say this again, but not for you because you cannot get it: A man happened upon his body on his way to work would not have run either. You have him staying put because you need him to be Jack the Ripper and thus you need him to be psychopath.

It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would never have gone to the police. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not necessarily so for a psychopath. Such a personality may welcome an opportunity to pull the wool over our eyes, and they are often narcissists who cannot see any danger in it. They consider themselves so superior that they cannot be outsmarted.

A man who found a body on his way to work would have gone to the police also. Outside of the fantasy, we've no evidence he was a psychopath. Now clue, hint, suggestion. We have you needing him to be psychopath because you need him to be Jack the Ripper. You can't turn back now. I understand that.

Now the risk we need to avoid here is you saying: "Look, you cannot say that Lechmere was such a man!".

And why must we avoid that? We must avoid it because it is not true. I am not saying that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath. I am saying that it would be dangerous to rule him out on uninformed grounds.
Let´s not put more fire on the "confirmation bias" fire since it would be very wrong.

Good lord. We've all said this: We cannot RULE MUCH OF ANYONE OUT now, can we? Unless someone was dead, can be proven to have been out of the area with no change of having been at the scene of a crime at the time it was committed... can they be RULED OUT? If that's the metric you want... congratulations. You've done it. All I can say is that Lechmere is one of dozens, hundreds of people apparently ruled out 130 years ago. And while he can't be ruled out, there's not much there for us to suspect him.

Incidentally, this was the second fault I alluded to in the quotation we started out with.

I believe that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper. When somebody says that a man like Lechmere would not be the killer and that a man like Lechmere would not have done this or that, I am perfectly entitled to point out A/ that the reasoning is based on misconceptions and B/that Lechmere may well have been the killer, because the behaviour he showcased after the murder is entirely consistent with a condition that is present with the absolute majority of serial killers - psychopathy.

.

Above bold.

[Fisherman]

The point is, Fish, as Herlock has already mentioned, digestion will slow down or speed up depending on a whole variety of different circumstances. And Phillips didn't know all the circumstances!

Chapman was found to be 'far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain' and there were 'signs of great deprivation' and having been 'badly fed'. One unknown factor was how long she had been exposed to the night air before her killer struck; another, how mobile she had been during that unknown period of time. Had she found somewhere to doze for a while, or had she kept on the move the whole time?

Digestion uses up energy, just like any other bodily function. With limited energy resources, there would have been a battle royal going on in her poor worn-out body, over the energy needed to fully digest her last bit of food [before it could release more energy], and the energy needed immediately to keep her core temperature up and prevent hypothermia kicking in. The digestive process could have become a lot slower and less efficient if energy had to be constantly diverted to keep her warm enough to survive the night outdoors.

What I doubt very much Phillips could have known in Chapman's case was how one factor - maintaining body temperature - had influenced the other - the rate of digestion. He didn't know how much energy had been used up to regulate her temperature [in either direction, if you think she could have had a fever], so he didn't know what energy had been available for the digestive process.

As for the rigor question, you have already been advised that there is no magic formula and that a traumatic death, such as a cut throat, might affect the onset to an unpredictable degree. It was not Phillips's fault that he didn't have enough information at his fingertips when giving his opinion. Nobody would have done.

Love,

Caz
X

And so you try to establish that Phillips didn´t have enough information at his fingertips when giving his opinion.

As if that was the truth.

It is not. Chapman was so recently dead that he had quite enough information. Plus he had more parameters that were in sync, so there never was any problem at all.

I want your explanation to WHY the fact that these parameter were in sync should not be taken as an extremely good indicator that Phillips was correct.

Let´s see, she was really warm, but Phillips failed to notice that. And then she had had a further potato somewhere along that evening. And then she displayed cadaveric spasms that Phillips mistook for rigor.

Can you not see how extremely contrived all of this has to get to allow for your idea?

Can you not see that if we - wisely - disallow it, all parameters are in sync?

Why would we throw that out? Because we have three totally unreliable witnesses suggesting it?

In the Ripper case, people queued up, more or less, to get a share of the fame connected to having played whatever small role they could lay their hands on. In Millers Court, heaps of women testified about the "Murder" cry, none of them having the same time for it.

It is not very unexpected that a small collection of attentionseekers would latch on to the same victim for their share. The failing schedule logic and Richardsons varying versions of his doings bear witness to how there is every reason not to invest too much in them. Phillips is by far the better bet, and it is time that is accepted.

[Patrick S]

And just how likely do you think it is that a schizophrenic or psychotic killer will pull of a series of murders with total stealth, killing silently outside of open windows? Just how likely is it that such a man will escape the sites when the risk gets too high, leaving no trace whatsoever behind?

I can give my answer: it is totally unlikely.

I can't say because I don't know who killed the victims. I don't even know if one man killed all the victims. Do you think that schitzophrenics and psychotics aren't capable of such things? I'm certain you do because I think we can reasonably suggest that Lechmere was not schizophrenic or psychotic, based on what we know of his life. So... of course you'll suggest that people suffering these illnesses cannot have committed any of these crimes... because Lechmere cannot have been schizophrenic or psychotic.

[rjpalmer]

Caz - Many if not most of Fisherman's arguments were voiced by Wolf Vanderlinden in an article that appeared in Ripper Notes 12 or 14 years ago:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

Maybe you'll be convinced hearing them from someone else? I seem to recall that Martin Fido was impressed by this line of argument and I have at least one "Ripperological" friend that also believes that Annie Chapman was murdered in the dead of night.

I don't share their opinion, but then I have a soft spot for circumstantial evidence, particularly when the "science" (?) is vague.

An interesting and key point, seldom considered, concerns the clock house of Truman's Brewery. What do we actually know about the clock's chimes or gongs? I've found nothing definitive, but someone must know. Whether we believe Long's estimate of the time is greatly dependent on what she would have heard at either 5.15 or 5.30. Best wishes.

[caz]

In all fairness, Lechmere may well have been the last man NOT to have been seen with a still living Nichols.

The fact that Chapman was killed in a backyard may or may not be testimony to an increased level of safety thinking on the killers behalf. We don´t know who suggested the venue, but it was likely Chapman in my eyes. And safe it was not - it was something of a cul-de-sac, and there were windows open that overlooked the area.

Surely Lechmere would have realised just how precarious it was, uniquely for him, if he had killed Nichols only the week before, and was now known by the authorities to have 'discovered' her body? What if he'd bumped into Robert Paul or a beat copper as he left the yard and re-entered Hanbury Street? Once the alarm was raised, he could easily have been tracked down from the information he had freely given about himself as a witness in Buck's Row.

No bluffing his way out a second time. Even crazed psychopaths would tend to lie low and give themselves a decent interval after such a close call. Isn't that the usual reason given for Hutchinson not showing his hand and committing more murders for a good long while after Mary Kelly?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

He DID come under some sort of suspicion. He was sent to fetch the knife on account of how he confessed to having been alone at the murder site.

But as the investigation progressed we have no evidence that either Lechmere or Richardson were looked at in term of being a suspect. Doesn’t this at least suggest that, as Lechmere was alone with a corpse and Richardson might be argued to have been in the same position, that the police must have felt that they had good reason to exonerate both men?

However, that was at a time that deviates from the estimate given by Phillips, something that may show us that Phillips was held high in regard for his professionalism.

I’d suggest the all doctors used by the police would have been held in high regard by the police or else they would not have been used. We have to repeat of course estimating TOD’s left a wide margin for error due to many outside factors.

Moreover, another similarity with Lechmere is that both men freely contacted the police and told them about their roles in the murder dramas, and just as that may have gotten Lechmere off the hook, the same may apply with Richardson.

Well we know that Lechmere had met Paul but we can’t know that Richardson came forward for any ulterior motive. He might have suspected that he’d been seen by someone but we can’t be certain of that.

We know that he lived in John Street, quite close to the Chapman murder site, and so we cannot say that we know that he had reason to pass the other sites, least of all the Eddowes and Stride sites.

I still maintain that having family nearby is not reason to be at the site of the murders. It means of course that he would have known the area which is in his favour but in the wee small hours it wouldn’t be very convincing if stopped to say you were visiting family.

He was apparently normally not out on the streets at around 2-4 am - he at least had no professional reason to be.

Can we be certain of that Fish? He did work for his mother and also worked on the market which is an early start.

He did not use an alias, like Lechmere did.

As Gareth has pointed out Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street is not an alias. Frederick Thomas Wilkinson of 37 Batty Street would have been an alias.

There was not the matter of hidden wounds, that tends to make Lechmere attract suspicion.

The neck wounds weren’t hidden.

He did not openly disagree with the police about what was said between him and them.

He also wasn’t alone in disagreeing with what Mizen said.

For starters.

Otherwise, John Richardson, being the dodgy witness that he is and living in the district as he did, is not a half bad suspect, and there are those who point a finger at him. Much less points to him than to Lechmere, though.

He’s equally unlikely

Now, lets try Diemschitz again, yeah?

What about Dr Llewelyn? He lived locally, would have had local knowledge, he had medical/anatomical knowledge, he would have been trusted by the police and so less likely to come under scrutiny, he would have had reason to be out at all hours, he might have been able to explain any blood on his clothes. Plus, we cannot categorically disprove him.

Once a suspect has been named he cannot be unnamed and if they cannot be categorically ruled out (like Cream and Prince Eddy for example) they will endure to some extent. I’d suggest that some kind of case can be put forward for almost anyone around at the time as long as they had some kind of connection. If Robert Mann can be a suspect I’d suggest that almost anyone could be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Once more - he used an alias, he otherwise did not do so with authorities as far as we know.

And so it remains an anomaly evoking suspicion.

You keep saying ‘with authorities.’

Another way of saying this is ‘in official, written form’

Simply being asked “name please” he would have seen nothing amiss by using a name that he did in everyday life. The name of his stepfather.

[Fisherman]

It is true that most people who have a family, kids and a work are "good" people, in the sense that they are not serial killers.
But it is not true that they are not serial killers ON ACCOUNT of having a family, kids and a work.

Is that what I argued? Is that what ANYONE argued. Of course not.

Then why oh why have you, over and over again, spoken of how we should not expect a family man with kids and a steady job to be a killer? Why mention it at all if it is of no relevance at all? Any explanation to that?

Instead, having a family, kids and work is something that often serves as a platform for serial killers. The late Robert Ressler, who would be better suited than any of us to know about these things, said that the typical serial killer is a man in his thirties with a family, kids and a steady work.
Examples that leap to mind are Armstrong, Ridgway, Rader, DeAngelo...it is a common thing that serial killers have this background.
Saying that family men with kids and a steady job are normally not serial killers is therefore true only on a statistical level, and that level is useless since no matter which parameter we use, just about, we will get the same result. Sailors, school teachers and painters are normally not serial killers either, although each of these categories have produced serialists.

We all knew these examples were coming. It's like clockwork. And - again - no one is arguing that these are not examples of "family men" who were "serialists". Yet... we know something about these man that we don't know about Lechmere, don't we? Therefore we have reason to suspect, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were using their status as "family men" - to use your words - "as a platform for" serial murder.... We KNOW that they were - in fact - SERIAL MURDERERS. Your man managed to live an entire life without ever having been arrested for or suspected of... anything. Again, if you cannot see the fallacy in your approach here, nothing that I or anyone can say will do much for it. Instructive for others to read, however.


Why should these examples NOT come as clockwork, considering how you always point out that Lechmere was a family man with kids and a steady job? They come as clockwork in response to that point.
Now you try the somewhat exotic angle that Lechmere must have differed since he did not get caught...? That´s poppycock. He differed in not being caught, but NOT necessarily in being another and better sort of family man. The argument is absurd.


So we can see that you are not informed about what a serial killer is, or may be. You are instead leaning against misinformation.

Insulting. And false. I didn't propose anything like what you pretend I proposed. You twist words to fit meanings... either that or you're genuinely incapable of understanding them. Again, that's for those reading to decide.


And yet, just a few lines back, you say that Lechmere differed from the ones who had used the family man disguise - since he was not caught! So uncaught family men are good family men, apparently. How´s that for desperation in the confirmation bias field?
And yet, you bring the matter of his status as a family man up over and over again, in spite of how you know profess to know that family men can and sometimes will be serialists. And you accuse ME of insulting? It´s completley disingenious.
It was time that part of your arguments was disclosed for what it is - a misconception that has no place out here.
This leads us over to step two in a very pedagogical manner - your saying that I suffer from confirmation bias.

Let´s look at what confirmation bias looks like along the above suggested model:

-People with families, kids and a steady job are good people.

False. Absurd. Silly. Neither I nor anyone else has said this.

You have presented it as such, though, clearly trying to make it a counterweight. It didn´t work.

-Lechmere had a family, kids and a steady job.

All true. I'll just leave it at that. I'll leave it to you to cite Robert Ressler in order to further feed your confirmation bias that these facts are somehow an indictment of a man... all because he shares traits with men who were later proven (or admitted to being) serial murders. Which is the one crucial fact you cannot apply to Lechmere, isn't it.


You have the audacity to lead on that the Ressler quotation makes me think that Lechmere must have been a serialist. That is an utter delusion or a lie, I´m afraid. Resslers words point to how family men can be serial killers and how that platform has been used to obscure that matter in many cases. That does not mean in any shape or form that it allows for using it aas anaccusation act against Lechmere, something I am not doing either. V´Can we have some honesty here, please?

-Lechmere was a good man.

I've no idea if Charles Lechmere was a good person. He may have been an awful person. They're everywhere and probably always have been. I'll I know is that I've not seen any evidence that he was a criminal, mentally, unsound, ill-tempered, and no fun at parties.

And all I know is that you have seen no evidence that he wasn´t either. The whole discussion ground of good and bad relating to the family status is a deranged one. It is a non-issue. It is irrelevant. It is uninteresting in factual terms.
We don´t know. Can we please accept that and move on WITHOUT leading on that family men are always good men?

That is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

Wonderful. Let's let those reading decide. You're really making this rather easy.


Oh, how you rally to try and win disciples, Patrick. Let´s hope they can see what you are about before they latch on.
It´s typical you to try and turn a question of factual matters to one based on personality. It´s not the thing to do on these boards, let´s just say that.


Now, what applies in MY case, do I suffer from confirmation bias?

To begin with, we must ask ourselves a question: What is it that is supposedly confirmed by my suggested bias? Well, it can be one of two things - or both of them:

-Lechmere was a psychopath.

-Lechmere was the killer.

Now, much as I am suggesting that both things may have applied, and much as I suggest that the former must follow if the latter is correct, it does not mean that I am saying that either matter is a proven thing.

Accordingly, I cannot have made myself guilty of any confirmation bias.

I see. So you maintain that because you've stated only that BELIEVE Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and stated that in your internationally sent documentary but allow some small chance that he was not... that you cannot be guilty of confirmation bias. Perfect!

Yes, it is perfect. I am perfectly free to think that he was the killer, there is nothing you can do about it. I am perfectly free to reason that the killer will have been a psychopath, there is nothing you can do about that either. No wait, there IS something you can do - you can lead on that I only say that because I am biased.
And my do you try that angle!
In a sense we can all be described as biased, I´m sure. But simply saying that the acts of the killer bore psychopathic traits is fact-based, not bias-based and untrue. And saying that it may be wise to see if a suspect may fit that profile is working according to the facts. It has a whole lot to do with how investigative work must be conducted and nothihg at all to do with any confirmation bias. Such a bias comes into play, however, when you try to deny that it is a useful way to go about it.


This takes us over to the third and final step: So why am I speaking of psychopathy? And should my doing so be ruled out of the debate, as confirmation bias?

I have never said psychopathy should be ruled out of anything? Again, you're either pretending you cannot understand or you're incapable of understanding. In order to explain Lechmere's behavior as something other than the behavior of an innocent man then you must have him as a psychopath because you MUST have him as Jack the Ripper. Only then would he have so coolly performed the bluffs and scams that led to his going unsuspected for a century.


I must not have Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. My life revolves around other matters. But I am not willing to disallow speculating along logical lines when it comes to researching him or to have people shouting CONFIRMATION BIAS when I do - which is what you do on faulty grounds.
My gifts of comprehension are in no way inferior to your ditto, Patrick. Least of all because you say so. It says more about your shortcomings than of mine, I´m afraid.

Well, that brings us back to point one: understanding what a serial killer is or may be. One main reason for my speaking of psychopathy is on account of how it is being said, for example, that family men with kids and a work are no likely serial killers.
This is true on a statistical level, but once we add the ingredient of psychopathy - and that ingredient is there in around 90 per cent of the serial killers - we get another picture.

Still don't get it? Aside from your idea that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper we have no reason to believe he was a psychopath. This leads us back to your idea that we must view this thing with "idea of Lechmere being guilty". It doesn't work. You'll never see that, clearly. I'm confident others will.


It was never about having to believe that Lechmere was a psycopath. It was always about how he will have been one IF HE WAS THE KILLER.
I noted before that this was always too subtle a distinctin for you to understand it. That stands. And once again, you want to refer the matter to a popularity contest. Sooooooo you, Patrick.

It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would have run. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not so for a psychopath. They will not panick, and they very often enjoy playing games.

I completely understand this. I'll say this again, but not for you because you cannot get it: A man happened upon his body on his way to work would not have run either. You have him staying put because you need him to be Jack the Ripper and thus you need him to be psychopath.


No, I have the psychopathy angle mentioned because people very often voice the idea that if he was the killer, he MUST have run. I am pointing to how there is a trait - psychopathy - that is very common in serial killers and how that allows dor accepthing how he may have chosen to stay put. That does not equal that I need Lechmere to be Jack the Ripper. Frankly, any half-witted person would recognize that. It is nowhere near a subtle argument.

It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would never have gone to the police. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not necessarily so for a psychopath. Such a personality may welcome an opportunity to pull the wool over our eyes, and they are often narcissists who cannot see any danger in it. They consider themselves so superior that they cannot be outsmarted.

A man who found a body on his way to work would have gone to the police also. Outside of the fantasy, we've no evidence he was a psychopath. Now clue, hint, suggestion. We have you needing him to be psychopath because you need him to be Jack the Ripper. You can't turn back now. I understand that.


See the above. Same miscomprehension or misleading on your behalf, same answer on my.

Now the risk we need to avoid here is you saying: "Look, you cannot say that Lechmere was such a man!".

And why must we avoid that? We must avoid it because it is not true. I am not saying that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath. I am saying that it would be dangerous to rule him out on uninformed grounds.
Let´s not put more fire on the "confirmation bias" fire since it would be very wrong.

Good lord. We've all said this: We cannot RULE MUCH OF ANYONE OUT now, can we? Unless someone was dead, can be proven to have been out of the area with no change of having been at the scene of a crime at the time it was committed... can they be RULED OUT? If that's the metric you want... congratulations. You've done it. All I can say is that Lechmere is one of dozens, hundreds of people apparently ruled out 130 years ago. And while he can't be ruled out, there's not much there for us to suspect him.


I disagree. There are many factors that should make us suspect him, and most of all there are too many such factors involved for us not to suspect him. Claiming that I am wrong on that does not make you right. It only makes you look a tad silly.

Incidentally, this was the second fault I alluded to in the quotation we started out with.

I believe that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper. When somebody says that a man like Lechmere would not be the killer and that a man like Lechmere would not have done this or that, I am perfectly entitled to point out A/ that the reasoning is based on misconceptions and B/that Lechmere may well have been the killer, because the behaviour he showcased after the murder is entirely consistent with a condition that is present with the absolute majority of serial killers - psychopathy.

My hope and assumption is that regardless of how you answer this post, the issue of the good family man has now been laid to rest. And with it the issue of the good never caught family man...

Oh, and please try to stand for what you say yourself without leading on how people would cheer you if they only had the chance. It´s that issue of a million flies not being able to be wrong all over again ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

And so you try to establish that Phillips didn´t have enough information at his fingertips when giving his opinion.

As if that was the truth.

It is not. Chapman was so recently dead that he had quite enough information. Plus he had more parameters that were in sync, so there never was any problem at all.

I want your explanation to WHY the fact that these parameter were in sync should not be taken as an extremely good indicator that Phillips was correct.

Let´s see, she was really warm, but Phillips failed to notice that. And then she had had a further potato somewhere along that evening. And then she displayed cadaveric spasms that Phillips mistook for rigor.

Can you not see how extremely contrived all of this has to get to allow for your idea?

Can you not see that if we - wisely - disallow it, all parameters are in sync?

Why would we throw that out? Because we have three totally unreliable witnesses suggesting it?

In the Ripper case, people queued up, more or less, to get a share of the fame connected to having played whatever small role they could lay their hands on. In Millers Court, heaps of women testified about the "Murder" cry, none of them having the same time for it.

It is not very unexpected that a small collection of attentionseekers would latch on to the same victim for their share. The failing schedule logic and Richardsons varying versions of his doings bear witness to how there is every reason not to invest too much in them. Phillips is by far the better bet, and it is time that is accepted.

“But from their first use, the Pathologist’s three standard timepieces have proved unreliable, plagued as they are by death’s infinite variations. Age, body size, health, manner of death, ambient temperature, air movement, even something seemingly ineffable as the agony of the victim’s final moments has been found to skew the body’s post-mortem changes beyond predictability.”

No apologies for repetition.

In what alternative universe does a Journalist and researcher know more on this subject than medical experts?!

Let it go Fish.

TOD’s could be wildly inaccurate. Especially in Victorian times. Phillips could have been the finest doctor on the planet and still have green considerably in error. Just wishing that this wasn’t true will not make it untrue.

[caz]

Chapman was so recently dead that he had quite enough information.

Eh??

I want your explanation to WHY the fact that these parameter were in sync should not be taken as an extremely good indicator that Phillips was correct.

Sorry, Fish, if you would stop talking in riddles I might be able to understand what you want me to explain - beyond the FACT that TOD is now known to be much, much harder to estimate accurately than was once thought by the best doctors of Phillips's era - let alone establish with any degree of certainty, when there are unknown factors that would need to be known and taken into account, even assuming the effects and implications would be fully understood today and allow for the calculation to be made.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I can't say because I don't know who killed the victims. I don't even know if one man killed all the victims. Do you think that schitzophrenics and psychotics aren't capable of such things? I'm certain you do because I think we can reasonably suggest that Lechmere was not schizophrenic or psychotic, based on what we know of his life. So... of course you'll suggest that people suffering these illnesses cannot have committed any of these crimes... because Lechmere cannot have been schizophrenic or psychotic.

So let me help you along a little. Think "How many serial killers are diagnosed as pychopaths?" The think "How many serial killers are diagnosed as scizophrenics and/or psychotic".

Then ask yourself "How many schizophrenic and/or psychotic murders are quiet affairs, leaving no traces?"

Then, once you have the numbers, you do the math.

Yes, the Ropper COULD potentially be a schizophrenic and/or psychotic.

And yes, Chapman may have developed rigor in no time at all.

But no, none of these reasonings are logical and truly fact-based.

[Patrick S]

It is true that most people who have a family, kids and a work are "good" people, in the sense that they are not serial killers.
But it is not true that they are not serial killers ON ACCOUNT of having a family, kids and a work.

Is that what I argued? Is that what ANYONE argued. Of course not.

Then why oh why have you, over and over again, spoken of how we should not expect a family man with kids and a steady job to be a killer? Why mention it at all if it is of no relevance at all? Any explanation to that?

Instead, having a family, kids and work is something that often serves as a platform for serial killers. The late Robert Ressler, who would be better suited than any of us to know about these things, said that the typical serial killer is a man in his thirties with a family, kids and a steady work.
Examples that leap to mind are Armstrong, Ridgway, Rader, DeAngelo...it is a common thing that serial killers have this background.
Saying that family men with kids and a steady job are normally not serial killers is therefore true only on a statistical level, and that level is useless since no matter which parameter we use, just about, we will get the same result. Sailors, school teachers and painters are normally not serial killers either, although each of these categories have produced serialists.

We all knew these examples were coming. It's like clockwork. And - again - no one is arguing that these are not examples of "family men" who were "serialists". Yet... we know something about these man that we don't know about Lechmere, don't we? Therefore we have reason to suspect, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were using their status as "family men" - to use your words - "as a platform for" serial murder.... We KNOW that they were - in fact - SERIAL MURDERERS. Your man managed to live an entire life without ever having been arrested for or suspected of... anything. Again, if you cannot see the fallacy in your approach here, nothing that I or anyone can say will do much for it. Instructive for others to read, however.


Why should these examples NOT come as clockwork, considering how you always point out that Lechmere was a family man with kids and a steady job? They come as clockwork in response to that point.
Now you try the somewhat exotic angle that Lechmere must have differed since he did not get caught...? That´s poppycock. He differed in not being caught, but NOT necessarily in being another and better sort of family man. The argument is absurd.


So we can see that you are not informed about what a serial killer is, or may be. You are instead leaning against misinformation.

Insulting. And false. I didn't propose anything like what you pretend I proposed. You twist words to fit meanings... either that or you're genuinely incapable of understanding them. Again, that's for those reading to decide.


And yet, just a few lines back, you say that Lechmere differed from the ones who had used the family man disguise - since he was not caught! So uncaught family men are good family men, apparently. How´s that for desperation in the confirmation bias field?
And yet, you bring the matter of his status as a family man up over and over again, in spite of how you know profess to know that family men can and sometimes will be serialists. And you accuse ME of insulting? It´s completley disingenious.
It was time that part of your arguments was disclosed for what it is - a misconception that has no place out here.
This leads us over to step two in a very pedagogical manner - your saying that I suffer from confirmation bias.

Let´s look at what confirmation bias looks like along the above suggested model:

-People with families, kids and a steady job are good people.

False. Absurd. Silly. Neither I nor anyone else has said this.

You have presented it as such, though, clearly trying to make it a counterweight. It didn´t work.

-Lechmere had a family, kids and a steady job.

All true. I'll just leave it at that. I'll leave it to you to cite Robert Ressler in order to further feed your confirmation bias that these facts are somehow an indictment of a man... all because he shares traits with men who were later proven (or admitted to being) serial murders. Which is the one crucial fact you cannot apply to Lechmere, isn't it.


You have the audacity to lead on that the Ressler quotation makes me think that Lechmere must have been a serialist. That is an utter delusion or a lie, I´m afraid. Resslers words point to how family men can be serial killers and how that platform has been used to obscure that matter in many cases. That does not mean in any shape or form that it allows for using it aas anaccusation act against Lechmere, something I am not doing either. V´Can we have some honesty here, please?

-Lechmere was a good man.

I've no idea if Charles Lechmere was a good person. He may have been an awful person. They're everywhere and probably always have been. I'll I know is that I've not seen any evidence that he was a criminal, mentally, unsound, ill-tempered, and no fun at parties.

And all I know is that you have seen no evidence that he wasn´t either. The whole discussion ground of good and bad relating to the family status is a deranged one. It is a non-issue. It is irrelevant. It is uninteresting in factual terms.
We don´t know. Can we please accept that and move on WITHOUT leading on that family men are always good men?

That is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

Wonderful. Let's let those reading decide. You're really making this rather easy.


Oh, how you rally to try and win disciples, Patrick. Let´s hope they can see what you are about before they latch on.
It´s typical you to try and turn a question of factual matters to one based on personality. It´s not the thing to do on these boards, let´s just say that.


Now, what applies in MY case, do I suffer from confirmation bias?

To begin with, we must ask ourselves a question: What is it that is supposedly confirmed by my suggested bias? Well, it can be one of two things - or both of them:

-Lechmere was a psychopath.

-Lechmere was the killer.

Now, much as I am suggesting that both things may have applied, and much as I suggest that the former must follow if the latter is correct, it does not mean that I am saying that either matter is a proven thing.

Accordingly, I cannot have made myself guilty of any confirmation bias.

I see. So you maintain that because you've stated only that BELIEVE Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and stated that in your internationally sent documentary but allow some small chance that he was not... that you cannot be guilty of confirmation bias. Perfect!

Yes, it is perfect. I am perfectly free to think that he was the killer, there is nothing you can do about it. I am perfectly free to reason that the killer will have been a psychopath, there is nothing you can do about that either. No wait, there IS something you can do - you can lead on that I only say that because I am biased.
And my do you try that angle!
In a sense we can all be described as biased, I´m sure. But simply saying that the acts of the killer bore psychopathic traits is fact-based, not bias-based and untrue. And saying that it may be wise to see if a suspect may fit that profile is working according to the facts. It has a whole lot to do with how investigative work must be conducted and nothihg at all to do with any confirmation bias. Such a bias comes into play, however, when you try to deny that it is a useful way to go about it.


This takes us over to the third and final step: So why am I speaking of psychopathy? And should my doing so be ruled out of the debate, as confirmation bias?

I have never said psychopathy should be ruled out of anything? Again, you're either pretending you cannot understand or you're incapable of understanding. In order to explain Lechmere's behavior as something other than the behavior of an innocent man then you must have him as a psychopath because you MUST have him as Jack the Ripper. Only then would he have so coolly performed the bluffs and scams that led to his going unsuspected for a century.


I must not have Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. My life revolves around other matters. But I am not willing to disallow speculating along logical lines when it comes to researching him or to have people shouting CONFIRMATION BIAS when I do - which is what you do on faulty grounds.
My gifts of comprehension are in no way inferior to your ditto, Patrick. Least of all because you say so. It says more about your shortcomings than of mine, I´m afraid.

Well, that brings us back to point one: understanding what a serial killer is or may be. One main reason for my speaking of psychopathy is on account of how it is being said, for example, that family men with kids and a work are no likely serial killers.
This is true on a statistical level, but once we add the ingredient of psychopathy - and that ingredient is there in around 90 per cent of the serial killers - we get another picture.

Still don't get it? Aside from your idea that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper we have no reason to believe he was a psychopath. This leads us back to your idea that we must view this thing with "idea of Lechmere being guilty". It doesn't work. You'll never see that, clearly. I'm confident others will.


It was never about having to believe that Lechmere was a psycopath. It was always about how he will have been one IF HE WAS THE KILLER.
I noted before that this was always too subtle a distinctin for you to understand it. That stands. And once again, you want to refer the matter to a popularity contest. Sooooooo you, Patrick.

It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would have run. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not so for a psychopath. They will not panick, and they very often enjoy playing games.

I completely understand this. I'll say this again, but not for you because you cannot get it: A man happened upon his body on his way to work would not have run either. You have him staying put because you need him to be Jack the Ripper and thus you need him to be psychopath.


No, I have the psychopathy angle mentioned because people very often voice the idea that if he was the killer, he MUST have run. I am pointing to how there is a trait - psychopathy - that is very common in serial killers and how that allows dor accepthing how he may have chosen to stay put. That does not equal that I need Lechmere to be Jack the Ripper. Frankly, any half-witted person would recognize that. It is nowhere near a subtle argument.

It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would never have gone to the police. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not necessarily so for a psychopath. Such a personality may welcome an opportunity to pull the wool over our eyes, and they are often narcissists who cannot see any danger in it. They consider themselves so superior that they cannot be outsmarted.

A man who found a body on his way to work would have gone to the police also. Outside of the fantasy, we've no evidence he was a psychopath. Now clue, hint, suggestion. We have you needing him to be psychopath because you need him to be Jack the Ripper. You can't turn back now. I understand that.


See the above. Same miscomprehension or misleading on your behalf, same answer on my.

Now the risk we need to avoid here is you saying: "Look, you cannot say that Lechmere was such a man!".

And why must we avoid that? We must avoid it because it is not true. I am not saying that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath. I am saying that it would be dangerous to rule him out on uninformed grounds.
Let´s not put more fire on the "confirmation bias" fire since it would be very wrong.

Good lord. We've all said this: We cannot RULE MUCH OF ANYONE OUT now, can we? Unless someone was dead, can be proven to have been out of the area with no change of having been at the scene of a crime at the time it was committed... can they be RULED OUT? If that's the metric you want... congratulations. You've done it. All I can say is that Lechmere is one of dozens, hundreds of people apparently ruled out 130 years ago. And while he can't be ruled out, there's not much there for us to suspect him.


I disagree. There are many factors that should make us suspect him, and most of all there are too many such factors involved for us not to suspect him. Claiming that I am wrong on that does not make you right. It only makes you look a tad silly.

Incidentally, this was the second fault I alluded to in the quotation we started out with.

I believe that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper. When somebody says that a man like Lechmere would not be the killer and that a man like Lechmere would not have done this or that, I am perfectly entitled to point out A/ that the reasoning is based on misconceptions and B/that Lechmere may well have been the killer, because the behaviour he showcased after the murder is entirely consistent with a condition that is present with the absolute majority of serial killers - psychopathy.

My hope and assumption is that regardless of how you answer this post, the issue of the good family man has now been laid to rest. And with it the issue of the good never caught family man...

Oh, and please try to stand for what you say yourself without leading on how people would cheer you if they only had the chance. It´s that issue of a million flies not being able to be wrong all over again ...

Quite a rant. Same old stuff, though. Again... If others find it reasonable, good for you. The only thing interesting here is this:

"Oh, how you rally to try and win disciples, Patrick. Let´s hope they can see what you are about before they latch on."

My question is this: What do you think I'm about?