Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Mizen testified to two things. Both are features of your Mizen Scam: 1. That he was wanted in Buck's Row. 2. That a woman was "lying" in Buck's Row (NOT that the woman was dead or dying). I hope others can understand the point that's being made because I think you may be willfully ignoring it: Both Paul and Cross said Mizen was told Nichols was dead. Mizen said he as NOT told she was dead. Neither Cross nor Paul corroborate Mizen's claim that he was told he was wanted by another PC in Buck's Row. Mizen is alone on both points. And both points explain his lack of urgency: He was NOT told she was dead, and that the situation was IN HAND in Buck's Row. If Mizen was told only that a woman was lying in Bucks Row and we both agree that he felt it likely she was drunk rather than dead and that another PC was already on the scene why in the world WOULD HE rush off to Buck's Row?

I donīt find it at all likely that he would make such a choice if he had not even seen the woman. He could not possibly bank on her NOT being dead/dying, and therefore he had all the reason in the world to rush off.

If a PC is told "Either the bank is being robbed in the next street, or itīs a movie being made", would he opt for the movie bid and just leave it be?

Your is not a very good suggestion, therefore, And that is putting it rather mildly, Patrick.

If you refuse to comprehend this, that's fine.

You cannot "refuse to comprehend". You can comprehend and try to make it sees as if you donīt. I have no problems comprehending your suggestion at all. I think it is not a good one, thatīs all.

Let's leave it. It's enough that it's here for others who will clearly understand the point, which further damages the theory, I think.

There is no damage at all to the theory, Iīm afraid. All there is, is alternative innocent explanations, some of them not all that bad, some of them far worse. But there is not and there never was any real damage. Damage is not made up of people saying "That was the dumbest thing Iīve heard", it takes facts and evidence.

[Fisherman]

I think this give and take illustrates very clearly what I've been saying for some time: One must choose a very specific path to Cross the Ripper. This is more of that. Mizen's risk is absurd, not work taking. Because he was a good cop who did good work. Cross' many risks are plausible and understandable because he was a psychopath.

Mizens risk would be a very obvious one, and he would stand very little chance to survive it.
Lechmereīs risktaking was breathtaking, but that is more or less to be expected from a cornered psychopath.

The two cannot and should not be compared, not if Lechmere was a killer and a psychopath who risked hanging if found out. it stands to reason that he would be immeasurably more willing to take any kind of risk. Plus, he may have enjoyed it as long as it payed off.

[Jon Guy]

It's slightly OT for this post, but the placing of two body parts under her head?
Unless they were simply placed on the bed like the other parts, and at some point the body got shifted to make his 'work' easier, and what was left of the head ended up on those parts inadvertently. That would of course be the opposite of 'theatrical'.

There was a time when I thought the bits placed under head were a deliberate attempt at grotesqueness on the killers part, or maybe to prop the head up looking towards the door ?
But, as we know that the body was shifted at some point to the middle of the bed and I do wonder if they just ended up there.

[Patrick S]

There is no damage at all to the theory, Iīm afraid. All there is, is alternative innocent explanations, some of them not all that bad, some of them far worse. But there is not and there never was any real damage. Damage is not made up of people saying "That was the dumbest thing Iīve heard", it takes facts and evidence.

Great. I agree completely. First, let's have all the facts and evidence you have that Cross was a psychopath. Then let's have all the facts and evidence you have that Mizen told the truth, even though neither of the other two men who took the stand corroborate what he said. It's troubling that you develop scenarios completely lacking facts only demand facts and evidence from those who refute it. Again, I'm happy to let others digest statements like this one. Quite useful. Thanks.

[Fisherman]

There was a time when I thought the bits placed under head were a deliberate attempt at grotesqueness on the killers part, or maybe to prop the head up looking towards the door ?
But, as we know that the body was shifted at some point to the middle of the bed I do wonder if they just ended up there.

I donīt wonder about that at all. In my world, it was part of the ritual the killer subjected Kelly to, and he had a very clear and identifiable reason for doing it.

[Jon Guy]

Tell me something I did not know already, Jon ...

Yes, I know, I know :-)

So turn it around and ask yourself "which murder had the largest degree of grotesquely exhibited details"?

Well, I could argue that it was Eddowes, as she was grotesquely exhibited in a public place. But I get what you mean.

[Fisherman]

Great. I agree completely. First, let's have all the facts and evidence you have that Cross was a psychopath. Then let's have all the facts and evidence you have that Mizen told the truth, even though neither of the other two men who took the stand corroborate what he said. It's troubling that you develop scenarios completely lacking facts only demand facts and evidence from those who refute it. Again, I'm happy to let others digest statements like this one. Quite useful. Thanks.

That was not what we were speaking of. And I never said that I have turned the theory into proven facts. It is a theory building on circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.

So I am not obliged to provide any facts at all.

Your case is another matter - you claim that the theory has been damaged, but you have no facts to support the notion if I understand you correctly. it therefore applies that the theory, far from having been damaged, has been CRITICIZED only.

And whether that critique is valid and viable or not is another thing that can only be approached by means of interpretation.

[Patrick S]

Mizens risk would be a very obvious one, and he would stand very little chance to survive it.
Lechmereīs risktaking was breathtaking, but that is more or less to be expected from a cornered psychopath.

The two cannot and should not be compared, not if Lechmere was a killer and a psychopath who risked hanging if found out. it stands to reason that he would be immeasurably more willing to take any kind of risk. Plus, he may have enjoyed it as long as it payed off.

I'm sorry. Actually laughed out loud reading this. Lechmere's lies and scams makes sense because he's a psychopath. And we know he's a psychopath because he was Jack the Ripper. Yeah. Facts and Evidence. Indeed.

[Jon Guy]

I donīt wonder about that at all. In my world, it was part of the ritual the killer subjected Kelly to, and he had a very clear and identifiable reason for doing it.

I agree with the ritual element, as it occurs throughout the series.
In Kelly`s case more so, as the killer had privacy, and we can see clear escalation of the mutilations in the series.

But what reason do you have in mind ?

[Fisherman]

Now, Iīve had just about as much as I can digest for an afternoon, so I will leave you for now. I entertain a hope that whatever surfaces will revolve more around the case and less about me...

[Fisherman]

I agree with the ritual element, as it occurs throughout the series.
In Kelly`s case more so, as the killer had privacy, and we can see clear escalation of the mutilations in the series.

But what reason do you have in mind ?

Just a quicke before I go - one that I will not name, but also one that ties mainly the 1873 torso case, the Chapman case, the Eddowes case, the Kelly case and the Jackson case closely together. These cases all exhibit elements of the same ritual, derived from the same experience in the killerīs past.
To my feeble mind, that is!

[Patrick S]

That was not what we were speaking of. And I never said that I have turned the theory into proven facts. It is a theory building on circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.

So I am not obliged to provide any facts at all.

Your case is another matter - you claim that the theory has been damaged, but you have no facts to support the notion if I understand you correctly. it therefore applies that the theory, far from having been damaged, has been CRITICIZED only.

And whether that critique is valid and viable or not is another thing that can only be approached by means of interpretation.

Fair enough. You are "not obliged to provide any facts at all!" But all those who wish to challenge you must present FACTS and hard EVIDENCE, lest they be shamed by the attempt!

Am I the only one who thinks this may not be Christer's finest hour? Again, going 'round with Christer accomplishes only so much. Others should weigh in at this point.

[Patrick S]

Just a quicke before I go!

Lucky bastard. I love quickies.

[Jon Guy]

Just a quicke before I go - one that I will not name, but also one that ties mainly the 1873 torso case, the Chapman case, the Eddowes case, the Kelly case and the Jackson case closely together. These cases all exhibit elements of the same ritual, derived from the same experience in the killerīs past.
To my feeble mind, that is!

Thanks Christer, I am intrigued, and will now have to investigate further.

[Pierre]

Just a quicke before I go - one that I will not name, but also one that ties mainly the 1873 torso case, the Chapman case, the Eddowes case, the Kelly case and the Jackson case closely together. These cases all exhibit elements of the same ritual, derived from the same experience in the killerīs past.
To my feeble mind, that is!

Cats meat?