Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - by Harmonica 38 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by Michael W Richards 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by Michael W Richards 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Sam Flynn 5 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by Simon Wood 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - (8 posts)
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - (4 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (3 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: "Prey Time" - (1 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #791  
Old 11-25-2018, 01:10 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
And that's why I doubt the police would have confronted Lechmere immediately, had they checked up on him and discovered his name wasn't really Cross, and that he used Lechmere on every occasion except when finding murdered women in the street. That would be evidence of deliberate deception, but not enough to hold him on suspicion of anything worse. He was bound to have an 'innocent' explanation for the name change, whether he was genuinely innocent, or a criminal with something to hide, so there would have been little to gain from asking the question and alerting him to the fact that he was in their sights as more than just an honest witness. And Lechmere would have had no opportunity to explain himself - yet.

If and when he put another foot wrong, however, the police could have been ready and waiting, for all he knew. How much harder would it then have been to find a second or a third 'innocent' explanation, when combined with his one-off use of a different name? For starters, there was the apparent lie he told PC Mizen on the night of the murder, and the apparent lie he told under oath at the inquest, using the wrong name, when he contradicted Mizen's version of their conversation. He had no way of knowing if the police were making careful notes and adding them to concerns they already had about him. He really would have been operating in the dark to pick up Annie Chapman so soon afterwards. Lucky old Lech!

Love,

Caz
X
He would NEVER be able to know that the police did not nurture suspicions against him according to this scheme of yours. Not one week after, not one month or one year after.
So when WOULD he kill again? Pray tell us! Where goes the vital boundary in these errands? And how is the order kept by those who have executive authority of matters of law? Do they explicitly forbid serial killers to strike until after a fortnight, perhaps?

Exactly how does this work, Caz?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 11-25-2018, 01:17 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Right, so remind me of Andy Griffiths's reasoning on this one, Fish. When he said he was 'adamant' that a serial killer in Lechmere's position would 'never' have run away [this assumes of course that Lechmere was indeed a serial killer, and not just an innocent witness who stayed to ask the next passer-by to assist], was this not because the killer would have feared the consequences of running and possibly being caught as a result? How would that fit with your ripper being a psychopath?

Caz
X
I donīt know which picture Griffiths had of Lechmere. He would certainly know that more than 90 per cent of the serial killers are psychopaths, and so the logical guess is that Lechmere would have been of this ilk to, if he was the killer.

As I have stated before, psychopaths are not given to panic. They do not even have the same reflexes as normal people have. And on a general level, they enjoy playing games with people, conning them. They are, generally speaking, good liars.

You now reason that if he stayed put, he would have done so out of a fear of being caught, and the reasoning on your behalf goes like this:

Fisherman says that psychopaths are fearless.

Lechmere feared getting caught.

Therefore, he cannot have been a psychopath.

And you probably congratulate yourself on being very clever.

Hereīs the problem: The only alternative to staying put is running.

And running is what you do on account of fearing to get caught.

So it seems that both alternatives become examples of fear in your able hands.

If there is no way to be fearless left to Lechmere at all, then maybe, just maybe, you need to rethink things, Caz.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-25-2018 at 01:36 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 11-25-2018, 01:25 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
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
Ridgway. Armstrong. Gacy. Rader. Chikatilo. Edwards. Yates.

Need I go on?

Serial killers can have problems to adjust to a normal role in society, and they can have problems holding down a job. Many are drifters, like Toole, Lucas, Rolling... But a large amount of them have no problems at all in this respect. Indeed, we have Robert Ressler telling us that the archetype serial killer is a family man in his thirties with wife and family and a steady job.

And if that makes somebody a twit, then it sure isnīt me. Itīs more likely to be somebody who is not aquainted with the topic he or she speaks about.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-25-2018 at 01:38 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 11-30-2018, 08:55 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Ridgway. Armstrong. Gacy. Rader. Chikatilo. Edwards. Yates.

Need I go on?

Serial killers can have problems to adjust to a normal role in society, and they can have problems holding down a job. Many are drifters, like Toole, Lucas, Rolling... But a large amount of them have no problems at all in this respect. Indeed, we have Robert Ressler telling us that the archetype serial killer is a family man in his thirties with wife and family and a steady job.

And if that makes somebody a twit, then it sure isnīt me. Itīs more likely to be somebody who is not aquainted with the topic he or she speaks about.
So why did you recommend, as an expert on the subject, somebody who is, according to you, a twit who doesn't actually know what she's talking about??

Hilarious.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 12-16-2018, 12:41 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
So why did you recommend, as an expert on the subject, somebody who is, according to you, a twit who doesn't actually know what she's talking about??

Hilarious.

Love,

Caz
X
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:13 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 12-18-2018, 02:10 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
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?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 12-18-2018, 06:13 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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'!

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 12-18-2018, 07:17 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
"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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 12-18-2018, 07:59 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.