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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 21 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 24 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by DJA 48 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 49 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 52 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by Herlock Sholmes 54 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (66 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (4 posts)
General Discussion: The man who named JtR! - (1 posts)
Research Related: Henry Kelly - (1 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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
  #981  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:52 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

If people out here should be interested in psychopathy and what it is, I can recommend this recent article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/0...-can-spot-one/
Not only is it very instructive and useful, but it also introduces Robert Hare, who is the perhaps foremost expert on the topic.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #982  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:08 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Where I think Christer has his work cut out is the business of voluntarily coming forward to the Inquest. I've never been fully convinced a guilty Cross would've felt a pressing need to take that risk.

On one level, we agree on this matter, Henry - both of us think that Lehmere, if guilty, would not want to take unneccesary risks.

But you identify coming forward to the inquest as such a risk, whereas I think that Lechmere would have regarded not coming forward as a larger risk.

If he did not come forward, he would no doubt become the prime suspect of the case. It would ensure that the focus of the investigation would be to find him, and when found, he would doubtlessly have been subjected to very intense scrutiny.

By coming forward, he effectively cleared these things away.

And a psychopath would not feel fear for coming forward like this - he could (and would) weigh the risks up and find that it was not worth it, and then he could stay away for that reason. But he would not stay away on account of feeling afraid.

In this case, I would suggest that it boiled down to him asking himself "will coming forward be advantageous or disadvantageous to me?". And he would see that he would get a chance to influence the proceedings and paint an innocent picture of himself by doing so. He would also be aware that Mizen and Paul would both be able to ID him, so if he did not come forward, he would run an immense risk of getting caught anyway. Pickfords would perhaps be able to tell the police that a carman passing through Bucks Row at 3.45 could well be him.
Moving away would involve the same type of risks.

So it hinged on whether he thought himself able to con the inquest. And if you read the article I just posted, you will realize from the Hare criteria that there is every chance that the idea that he could be found out may not even have seemed realistic to him.

The bottom line in what I am trying to tell you here is that if you think he would feel afraid about coming forward to the inquest, you are simply wrong. He would never be afraid.

He may, though, have made the calculation that it was less profitable to do so. If so, he would have stayed away.

That is how you should look at a psychopaths manner of weighing things up.

Im perfectly fine with how your gut feeling looks on this matter, but I am also eager to point out the possible cul-de-sacs of reasoning about psychopaths in terms of fear on their behalf.

PS. As you may already know, or as you will gather from the article, there are levels of psychopathy, and thus what I say will apply to a smaller or larger degree. But maybe we should not try and establish the exact level of psychopathy in Lechmere before we have established that he was a psychopath.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-29-2017 at 11:13 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #983  
Old 06-30-2017, 12:18 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
On one level, we agree on this matter, Henry - both of us think that Lehmere, if guilty, would not want to take unneccesary risks.

But you identify coming forward to the inquest as such a risk, whereas I think that Lechmere would have regarded not coming forward as a larger risk.

If he did not come forward, he would no doubt become the prime suspect of the case. It would ensure that the focus of the investigation would be to find him, and when found, he would doubtlessly have been subjected to very intense scrutiny.

By coming forward, he effectively cleared these things away.

And a psychopath would not feel fear for coming forward like this - he could (and would) weigh the risks up and find that it was not worth it, and then he could stay away for that reason. But he would not stay away on account of feeling afraid.

In this case, I would suggest that it boiled down to him asking himself "will coming forward be advantageous or disadvantageous to me?". And he would see that he would get a chance to influence the proceedings and paint an innocent picture of himself by doing so. He would also be aware that Mizen and Paul would both be able to ID him, so if he did not come forward, he would run an immense risk of getting caught anyway. Pickfords would perhaps be able to tell the police that a carman passing through Bucks Row at 3.45 could well be him.
Moving away would involve the same type of risks.

So it hinged on whether he thought himself able to con the inquest. And if you read the article I just posted, you will realize from the Hare criteria that there is every chance that the idea that he could be found out may not even have seemed realistic to him.

The bottom line in what I am trying to tell you here is that if you think he would feel afraid about coming forward to the inquest, you are simply wrong. He would never be afraid.

He may, though, have made the calculation that it was less profitable to do so. If so, he would have stayed away.

That is how you should look at a psychopaths manner of weighing things up.

Im perfectly fine with how your gut feeling looks on this matter, but I am also eager to point out the possible cul-de-sacs of reasoning about psychopaths in terms of fear on their behalf.

PS. As you may already know, or as you will gather from the article, there are levels of psychopathy, and thus what I say will apply to a smaller or larger degree. But maybe we should not try and establish the exact level of psychopathy in Lechmere before we have established that he was a psychopath.
I suppose that he may have been reasonably confident of appearing at the Inquest free from all bloodstains, at any rate

Your reasoning is not in question, to my mind, Christer; it's just that it all hinges on whether or not he killed her. You've built a very tempting little funhouse here, if only we could be certain the foundations weren't made of sand.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #984  
Old 06-30-2017, 12:55 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I was hoping that you would be a bit more willing to take in what I am saying when I speak in general terms. A deep wound is more likely to set off blood on a person than a shallow one because the hand of the perpetrator will travel closer to the victims body.


No nesseciraly

After that, yes a cut vessel will play a role. But they are not placed in the skin layer, are they? They are instead normally placed... yes...wait for it... DEEP inside the body.

All the vessels in the skin and underlying tissue, before when penetrates the body wall will bleed, given the pattern of cuts it is highly possible that blood could have got onto the hands. Such of course is particularly true if a flap had been opened.


Can you see now what I am saying? Or is it still "a rot"?
I See what you are say but I disagree.

However, in the spirit of recent exchanges I will replace utter rot with you are incorrect.



Cheers


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 06-30-2017 at 01:11 AM. Reason: typos oh to be on a pc
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #985  
Old 06-30-2017, 01:00 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
I suppose that he may have been reasonably confident of appearing at the Inquest free from all bloodstains, at any rate

Your reasoning is not in question, to my mind, Christer; it's just that it all hinges on whether or not he killed her. You've built a very tempting little funhouse here, if only we could be certain the foundations weren't made of sand.
Once we are, we have found our man. If that ever happens.

As for the foundations, I would describe them as a mixture of concrete and sand right now; sadly, the proportions are not correct to allow for all and sundry to move in just yet. Of course, I sleep fearlessly in the house every night myself, but the building council bureaucrats wont allow me to run a full hotel service for some reason.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-30-2017 at 01:04 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #986  
Old 06-30-2017, 01:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I Ser what you are say but I disagree.

However, in the spirit of recent exchanges I will replace utter rot with you are incorrect.



Cheers


Steve
So you disagree with deep wounds being more likely to set off blood on a cutters hand than shallow ones? Have I got that correct?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #987  
Old 06-30-2017, 01:06 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Given that Nichols had had her neck severed down to the bone and her abdomen cut very severely, so severely as to make Llewellyn say that it was enough to kill immediately - can we reason that Nichols would possibly have gone on breating for a couple of minutes? Or even a minute? Are there any examples of people with this kind of extensive damage doing that? Would not the cut off air supply to the brain ensure that we are looking at a very short period of breathing indeed?

If people with this kind of damage CAN breathe for a couple of minutes or so - is that something that is mostly an offhand possibility or is it more like a general rule that they do? Can something - anything - be said about the general possibilities that there will be this kind of breathing with these kinds of victims?

What I am asking is whether you can offer any idea of your own about how long you personally would think it likely that Nichols would have breathed. Even if you are prepared to allow for a couple of minutes, would you think it the more likely thing? If you find that a question you rather not would answer, I am fine with that.

Please note that I am not expressing an opposite view here - I am genuinely interested in finding out as much as I can, thats all.

Hi Fish, a figure would have been nice I agree, however I am not surprised by Paul's replies.it's what I suggested to you, inconclusive .

The issue, it's not a problem except to the like of us, who would love fixed figures; is nature does not work to fixed timetables.

It will be interesting to see if Paul responds to your questions.

Cheers


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #988  
Old 06-30-2017, 01:16 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
So you disagree with deep wounds being more likely to set off blood on a cutters hand than shallow ones? Have I got that correct?
It really all depends on the circumstances, and here the circumstances do not back the view you expressed.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #989  
Old 06-30-2017, 01:29 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Hi Fish, a figure would have been nice I agree, however I am not surprised by Paul's replies.it's what I suggested to you, inconclusive .

The issue, it's not a problem except to the like of us, who would love fixed figures; is nature does not work to fixed timetables.

It will be interesting to see if Paul responds to your questions.

Cheers


Steve
Hi Steve. Hypothetical question. Given what we have as approximate timings of Lech, Paul, and the descriptions by Paul of what he saw / felt, let me ask you: yes, we all expected an inconclusive answer to the forensic question. That was inevitable. But what answer (if any) would it take to convince you that Lech might just be the man? My thinking is as follows:

If death were very fast, say within a minute, it would have been something that I think might have caught Paul's attention as he approached. I would expect at least 20 seconds of gurgling, coughing blood, gasping through the throat wound. I'm thinking of the horrific sounds I can never forget from one of those repugnant ISIS videos. I couldn't watch it and averted my eyes, but the sounds were terrible enough. However, maybe the one I endured documented a noisier death than others. I'm so sick of all these variables!

So I suspect that if she's died recently enough to land Lechmere well and truly in the frame then Paul is going to have noticed more than he did. One possible feint chest movement suggests to me she's not been sliced within the past minute.

But as you say, this isn't an exact science. Maybe she could show almost no sign or sound of life "almost instantaneously". If the blood had not coagulated then that gives me pause.

So I'm asking, given all the known factors and timings, is there a biological answer that might've caused you to think, "Hello, this is maybe worth a very close look"?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #990  
Old 06-30-2017, 01:39 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Hi Fish, a figure would have been nice I agree, however I am not surprised by Paul's replies.it's what I suggested to you, inconclusive .

The issue, it's not a problem except to the like of us, who would love fixed figures; is nature does not work to fixed timetables.

It will be interesting to see if Paul responds to your questions.

Cheers


Steve
Well, Steve, Im quite aware that we must be dealing with a spectre of times, and that it can never be established what applied to Nichols. However, if Paul can make some general outlining about it all, that would be very interesting to hear.
Jason Payne-James was always very careful in his way of expressing matters and he always allowed for this kind of spectre, and when he said what he did about bleeding times, it was in reply to my question. He would of course never claim that there is a timetable with exact bleeding times. It all boils down to many years of experience and a rational guess based on that experience, and that is about as much we can hope to get from Paul.
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 04:38 PM.


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