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:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - by harry 23 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - by c.d. 47 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - by c.d. 50 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - by Batman 58 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: So what happened to that femur...? - by kjab3112 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - by kjab3112 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - (46 posts)
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - (12 posts)
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: So what happened to that femur...? - (7 posts)
General Discussion: Eddowes' Shawl - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (2 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
  #1861  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:31 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,262
Default

Sam Flynn: Indeed, but the overwhelming majority of men of all kinds are ordinary also. To make up some figures by way of illustration, let's say that 99% of "ordinary men" are not murderers, 0.8% are murders, and 0.2% are serial killers. Given that Lechmere appeared to be an "ordinary man", which part of this imaginary Venn Diagram would he most likely have occupied - the 99% segment, the 0.8% segment or the 0.2% bit?

That will depend on the circumstances surrounding the murder, as you well know, Gareth.

Isolating the question, there is no doubt that people with works and families and where we have no record of criminality, are almost always not killers. That goes without saying, but since you bring the topic up, I thought Iīd give you my take on it, so that I am not brought into doubt on the score - I donīt rule out that this could happen. As I believe you know, these boards could well turn up a poster or two who is willing to say "Fisherman thinks having a steady job and a family equals being a serial killer". The quality of the ciriticsm of the theory would easily harbour such a statement.

But if we were to make a REAL disucssion of the matter, I could say that people with steady jobs and families who are found alone close to murder victims killed in a space of time that roughly coincides with the presence of the family man/steady worker on the murder site, are much, much more likley to be killers than family men with steady jobs and families who are NOT found in such circumstances.

Similarly, people with steady jobs and families who do not state the name they are registered by and that they always otherwise use in authority contacts as they are questioned in a murder case where they have been found alone close to the body of the victim, are much more likely to be killers than those who state the name they are registered by and use in other authority contacts.

So the question is a much more difficult one than what you seem to be leading on.

If you disagree with any of these two points I made, Iīd be interested to hear how that works.

This is just one example of where justifying an argument by appealing to "criminal profiling" is nowhere near as useful as we might think it is.

To be frank, neither of us can establish how useful it is. If Lechmere WAS the killer, it is 100 per cent useful. If he was not, it was 100 per cent useless, other than from a pedagogical point of view.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1862  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:37 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Sam Flynn: Indeed, but the overwhelming majority of men of all kinds are ordinary also. To make up some figures by way of illustration, let's say that 99% of "ordinary men" are not murderers, 0.8% are murders, and 0.2% are serial killers. Given that Lechmere appeared to be an "ordinary man", which part of this imaginary Venn Diagram would he most likely have occupied - the 99% segment, the 0.8% segment or the 0.2% bit?

That will depend on the circumstances surrounding the murder, as you well know, Gareth.
No, it won't. If those are the stats, those are the stats, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding a given murder. If you want to put Lechmere in the 0.2% segment, you need to find firm evidence other than his "ordinariness" in order to place him there.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 07-16-2017 at 02:42 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1863  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:39 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
If Steve thinks that I am overrating the evidence and feels that honesty is the remedy for that particular illness, then there can be little doubt that he does not feel that honesty and thinking the Lechmere case is a strong one works together.

It is not a very hard matter to see, Gareth.

I of course appreciate that he may be reasoning "honestly, I donīt think the case is at all strong", but that was not how he worded himself.

Plus letīs not forget that we are dealing with a poster who saw his way through to claiming that I am willing to put a figure to how often doctors make mistakes. How is THAT for generalizing from a very specific statement about how a doctor will recognize a damaged inner organ for a damaged inner organ?
First point.

Try as much as you like Fisherman. I was not calling you dishonest, the a
Wording used is very clear:

"Let's all try and be honest here. Much of that circumstantial "evidence" is either highly debated or very far from strong".


It really does seem that you can view anything posted which disagrees with you view as an attack.

Second point on the figures.

There is no question that what I quoted was the words you posted. If it was misunderstood it was because it was poorly worded by yourself in the first place.
You were not misrepresented.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1864  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:41 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,262
Default

Sam Flynn: No it isn't - it's consistent with being human.

It is ALSO potentially consistent with being human, yes. But that does not rule out how it is consistent with psychopathy too, if he was the killer.

Not all psychopaths do risky things and many non-psychopaths are capable of doing very risky things.

But the overall rule is that generally speaking, a psychopath is infinitely more willing to take risks. And that owes to how he will not panick - he canīt, simple as that. And psychopaths are generally very accomplished liars, who LIKE to lie and deceive their fellow men.

No talking about how we cannot look at all psychopaths as being totally similar changes that.

This is yet another case whereby argument-from-profiling proves to be a useless diagnostic tool; see my post above about the "ordinary men" Venn Diagram for the rationale.

So you are first telling me that we must allow for differences - and then you provide a diagramme to establish how these things work? Oh, the irony!

I am not saying anything at all that is in any way controversial. if Lechmere was the killer, he must with a very near certainty have been a psychopath. That does not equal saying "because this is how all psychopaths work". It is instead a way of saying that the cool behaviour he exhibited after Paul surfaced can be explained by psychopathy if he was the killer. Nothing more, nothing less. You are the one dragging in diagrammes and stuff that are utterly worthless, other than to establish what we already knew - that most people who seem not to be killers are not killers.


I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in that particular argument. Don't take things so personally.

When you say that MY argument is flawed, you ARE being personal. Not least since it is NOT flawed other than if we allow you to represent me as having said and meant something I have neither said nor meant. When that happens, seriousness tumbles down into sillyness, reason stops playing a role and a farce is made of the whole matter.
Donīt take that personally, though, Gareth.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1865  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:43 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Not at all. I said let's all be honest. Meaning let's all face up to the facts, me, you, everyone.
If you take it another way, that is your choice and is not the intention.



Yes I have no issue with admitting one man's view, a view question by at least one other poster who claims to have discussed the issues with James Scobie. Now let me be clear not know the content of that debate it cannot be used in any way at all, however the point remains such has been raised by another poster.

The main issue is that Scobie's comments were and remain the view of one agreed highly experienced man, But just one man none the less.


The ONLY things not debated are where he lived, where he worked, what time he started work, his age, his date of death, his step fathers name and his mother's address. Yes those issue are firm and strong.




That is not my view.
We know he took one route on the day of the Nichols murder.
We can assume he took the same for Chapman and Kelly however the times of death are debated in both cases and CANNOT at present be fitted to Lechmere.

For all other murders there is no evidence that Lechmere took a route close to those murder sites, yes there is supposition but that is all.



No it would not have the same implications at all.
It is certainly not not picking, it is a statement which gives a truly misleading impression.

It give the impression the the "Police" officially accepted Mizen's account and rejected that of Lechmere. Has you are well aware there is no evidence to back that up.
Before you suggest he was not disciplined and therefore the "police" accepted his view in that light, it is just as likely that like many they accepted it as a misunderstanding.

I am not in the slightest surprised you have no desire to debate what is clearly a questionable statement.

Let me assure you none of the comments you make have any serious bearing on the arguments I make. I base those on sources and the analysis of such, not on pure speculation.

Steve
There is nothing much to comment on here for me. Itīs all VERY old hat.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1866  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:44 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I'd emphasise that my illustrative figures aren't meant to be correct, as it's clearly not the case that fully 1% of all "ordinary men" have committed one or more murders! In reality, the "murderer" and "serial-killer" parts of the Venn Diagram would be significantly smaller, and the "non-killer" segment will be bigger still.
I would not worry about that for a second, Gareth. Nobody out here will question figures given by an anti-Lechmereian. Regardless.

And I certainly have no problems discussing things from this kind of a perspective, without trying to crucify people for making generalistic statements - it is sometimes useful.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1867  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:49 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
No, it won't. If those are the stats, those are the stats, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding a given murder. If you want to put Lechmere in the 0.2% segment, you need to find firm evidence other than his "ordinariness" in order to place him there.
So if a person is standing with a smoking gun over a person with a fresh bullet hole in the forehead, the caliber of the hole corresponding to the smokoing gun, that circumstance has nothing to do with how we should place the holder of the gun in the 0,2% segment?

That is another discussion?

If so, Iīd be happy to alter my take on things to: Yes, your figures are correct, but they do not involve and consider the surrounding circumstances.

Iīm quite flexible, as long as we get it right.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1868  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:50 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
First point.

Try as much as you like Fisherman. I was not calling you dishonest, the a
Wording used is very clear:

"Let's all try and be honest here. Much of that circumstantial "evidence" is either highly debated or very far from strong".


It really does seem that you can view anything posted which disagrees with you view as an attack.

Second point on the figures.

There is no question that what I quoted was the words you posted. If it was misunderstood it was because it was poorly worded by yourself in the first place.
You were not misrepresented.

Steve
And an even OLDER hat. Amazing.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1869  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:55 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
There is nothing much to comment on here for me. Itīs all VERY old hat.
Always clear when you struggle to answer, it always this is "very old hat" or something similar.
Well it's not! And all can see that is the case. Particularly the issue over the statement that the Police disagreed with Lechmere which is has far as we know untrue.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1870  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:57 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
And an even OLDER hat. Amazing.


Really are struggling it seems . Not amazing at all.

Steve
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 05:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.