Lechmere The Psychopath

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: So, the overarching point here, Christer, is that Llewellyn was not incorrect, wrong, mistaken, confused, or slightly off-base. Thus, he joins Mizen among the competent, good, and honest people who must be trusted at all times because they would never tell a lie and performed their work marvelously.

No, Patrick. It is up to each and every one to make their own calls. There are no "musts" here.
I base my own choices on how I find it more likely that a medico is right than wrong, especially when commenting on basic matters.
If somebody finds it more likely that a qualified medico will get basic matters wrong, then they are free to do so, you included.

As for Mizen, I am inclined to think that a PC with a good service record is likely to be trustworthy, not least since we can see that his ensuing actions are in line with having been lied to.
But of course, if somebody wants to think that he is more likely to be a liar, then there is precious little I can do about it.

To me, the overriding issue is that I want it to be recognized that I am not saying that somebody is infallible or cannot lie or make mistakes. That is something that others ascribe to me, and I consider it a great shame.
I happen to think that LLewellyn is more likely to be correct than wrong - much more likely, in fact - and I consider that is my prerogative to think this was so.
Similarly, I think that Mizen must have felt that he had been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row, and to me, a lie on behalf of Lechmere is more likely than a mishearing or misunderstanding on Mizens behalf. Once again, I feel it is my prerogative to make that call.

On the other hand, we must view poor Robert Paul as either a liar or a dupe, a grandstander, or a police hater. Perhaps he was all of those things. You've intimated he was each over the years. Just as we must dismiss Harriet Lilley as a liar, a crackpot....probably both.

Once more, you "must" do nothing at all. I donīt and canīt demand such a thing, I can only give my opinion. As for Lilley, I have never called her a crackpot, as far as I can tell, and I certainly donīt think she was one. But IF I had thought so, then I would add that notion to the formerly mentioned prerogatives.

So what are all these "musts" about, Patrick? Are you feeling bullied? Are you afraid to speak your mind? Have you misunderstood what I am saying altogether? Or is it about something else?

You also, instruct us as to which newspaper accounts are accurate, which witnesses knew the exact time and which didn't, ensuring we get the proper picture (the one you were so intimidated by near the end of your "docu").

No, that is just as untrue. I may very well say that I think that an article is accurate, but I never instruct you to think the same. I may obviously disagree with you if you think the same article is inaccurate, but that only amounts to both of us disagreeing. And I certainly donīt go around yelling that you are instructing me to think something I disagree with, do I? So why do you do just that?

And when it still doesn't add up, when there are still too many twists and turns, too many dependencies, too many things that cannot be explained rationally...you move onto the next bit of minutia that you claim is another coincidence that points to "the carman", yet another point that fails to "rule him out"....and you tell us we're one step closer to hanging your "suspect". Of course, you discard anything that points away from Cross. Any report, time, witness, or statement is assailed, dismissed, judged incorrect.

Once more, I am in no position to judge for others. I give my view, and I criticise others when I think they have gotten it wrong. Then again, what are you doing right now if not criticizing me?
What IS your problem, Patrick? Am I too confident? Should I concede one point for every point I win? Or what? What is this about?

Anyway, I think it's clear for everyone to see. I just felt compelled to pop in here and point it out for those who may have been distracted, thinking you were advocating for Llewellyn for some non-"Lechmere" related reasons.

And you end in the same vein as usual - by implying that I am n ever considering the facts and that I have no honest intentions whatsoever with my research. Instead, I am only about twisting each and every fact into part of my theory.
That is a sad and deplorable things you are engaging in.

I always look at whether the facts of the case may work together with my theory or if they speak against it. So far, I have not found one single obstacle that tells me that I am probably wrong.

Of course, you may use that to say that this is because I am so marinated in my own thinking that I cannot see clearly. That is YOUR prerogative. Use if if you feel it is a fair and recommendable approach.

But please stop telling me that I impose any form of rules about what people may or may not think. That is a outrigh falsehood. You are just as guilty of disagreeing with me as I am of disagreeing with you. Donīt you see that? The only difference is that you misrepresent me as a result of your frustration over it.

Sorry, but it had to be said, Patrick.

Interesting you used the term "great shame". That's precisely what Robert Paul said about Mizen's action once he'd been told that Nichols "was dead". Freudian slip, I suppose.

There are no falsehoods in my post, Christer, outright or otherwise. It's simple reality. I don't say that you impose rules. That's hyperbole and you know it. We both know you're not in a position to impose anything. So, let's deal with what's real.

Your theory, however, does REQUIRE one to believe certain things, certain people. When presented with options - who/what to believe - you choose to present as likely (far different from "imposing") the option that most serves your theory. And that's fine. Almost all of those with theories to sell do likewise.

As always, there is a fair amount of indignation and silliness in your response - some idea that I feel "bullied" and am thus acting out. That's fine too. One day we'll meet, have a chat, and you can tell me if you think I'm the kind of man who's bullied. Until then.....Hopefully readers can discern a red herring from a valid point.

In the end, readers of this thread can decided if they think I'm right, or if I'm wrong. And if they think I'm wrong and that you weigh all of the sources equally based upon their merits and still arrive at Lechmere the Ripper.....then...well.....then the world keeps on spinning and you have a new recruit. And you win and I lose and....... It's not the end of the world for anyone.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Interesting you used the term "great shame". That's precisely what Robert Paul said about Mizen's action once he'd been told that Nichols "was dead". Freudian slip, I suppose.

Suppose away. As far as Iīm concerned, itīs a common enough expression, and Freud will not play a role whenever it is used.

There are no falsehoods in my post, Christer, outright or otherwise. It's simple reality. I don't say that you impose rules. That's hyperbole and you know it. We both know you're not in a position to impose anything. So, let's deal with what's real.

You DO say, though, that people MUST be trusted, that Paul MUST have been a liar, etcetera, and I am calmly telling you that this is not so. Think what you will.

Your theory, however, does REQUIRE one to believe certain things, certain people.

All theories do, as I gather you will be aware.

When presented with options - who/what to believe - you choose to present as likely (far different from "imposing") the option that most serves your theory. And that's fine. Almost all of those with theories to sell do likewise.

Itīs fine? Wow. Thatīs progress. I would like to add that if the only option that "serves my theory" is a weak one, I would not "choose to believe it", provided that there was another option that was much more likely.

As always, there is a fair amount of indignation and silliness in your response - some idea that I feel "bullied" and am thus acting out. That's fine too. One day we'll meet, have a chat, and you can tell me if you think I'm the kind of man who's bullied. Until then.....Hopefully readers can discern a red herring from a valid point.

I harbour the exact same hope, because I feel that I am wading in the stuff up to my knees by now.
I would like to say that there is to my mind no sillyness at all involved in what I say - you were the one presenting a post full of indignation about how I do my ripperology, and so whatever silliness I can find is not on my behalf.

In the end, readers of this thread can decided if they think I'm right, or if I'm wrong.

In the end? It has already happened, Patrick.

And if they think I'm wrong and that you weigh all of the sources equally based upon their merits and still arrive at Lechmere the Ripper.....then...well.....then the world keeps on spinning and you have a new recruit. And you win and I lose and....... It's not the end of the world for anyone.

Indeed it isnīt. Which is why I do not cherish the idea of having people telling me that I do not allow for any other thinking than the type that "serves my theory". Never have, never will.

So in the end, what was your aim with your former post? To tell me that either way, it is not the end of the world?

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Interesting you used the term "great shame". That's precisely what Robert Paul said about Mizen's action once he'd been told that Nichols "was dead". Freudian slip, I suppose.

Suppose away. As far as Iīm concerned, itīs a common enough expression, and Freud will not play a role whenever it is used.

There are no falsehoods in my post, Christer, outright or otherwise. It's simple reality. I don't say that you impose rules. That's hyperbole and you know it. We both know you're not in a position to impose anything. So, let's deal with what's real.

You DO say, though, that people MUST be trusted, that Paul MUST have been a liar, etcetera, and I am calmly telling you that this is not so. Think what you will.

Your theory, however, does REQUIRE one to believe certain things, certain people.

All theories do, as I gather you will be aware.

When presented with options - who/what to believe - you choose to present as likely (far different from "imposing") the option that most serves your theory. And that's fine. Almost all of those with theories to sell do likewise.

Itīs fine? Wow. Thatīs progress. I would like to add that if the only option that "serves my theory" is a weak one, I would not "choose to believe it", provided that there was another option that was much more likely.

As always, there is a fair amount of indignation and silliness in your response - some idea that I feel "bullied" and am thus acting out. That's fine too. One day we'll meet, have a chat, and you can tell me if you think I'm the kind of man who's bullied. Until then.....Hopefully readers can discern a red herring from a valid point.

I harbour the exact same hope, because I feel that I am wading in the stuff up to my knees by now.
I would like to say that there is to my mind no sillyness at all involved in what I say - you were the one presenting a post full of indignation about how I do my ripperology, and so whatever silliness I can find is not on my behalf.

In the end, readers of this thread can decided if they think I'm right, or if I'm wrong.

In the end? It has already happened, Patrick.

And if they think I'm wrong and that you weigh all of the sources equally based upon their merits and still arrive at Lechmere the Ripper.....then...well.....then the world keeps on spinning and you have a new recruit. And you win and I lose and....... It's not the end of the world for anyone.

Indeed it isnīt. Which is why I do not cherish the idea of having people telling me that I do not allow for any other thinking than the type that "serves my theory". Never have, never will.

So in the end, what was your aim with your former post? To tell me that either way, it is not the end of the world?

My aim? Oh, I've achieved my aim. Thank you.

[Joshua Rogan]

Joshua!

Since we spoke about it yesterday, I found that it is said in the Abberline/Swanson report of the 19:th of September that the cuts to Nicholsī abdomen would kill instantly.

That of course precedes the coroners summing up, where he shares the same message.

All we need to do now is to find out WHY they would kill instantly.

Thanks Fish. I was beginning to doubt that the report existed, but I've finally found it (in the Chapman section of the Ultimate JTR Companion).
Must admit, I'm struggling to understand what sort of wound to the abdomen could be instantly fatal....everyone knows that if you want an instant kill you go for the neck or heart; a belly wound is a slow kill, and a slow kill may have enough left in him to kill you before he dies....

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hold on a minute, Fish. Surely the prime suspect for Jack the Ripper is much more likely to be someone whose priority was to get away from one of his earliest crime scenes, if not the earliest, unseen and unidentified, so he could go on to kill again and again, with no risk of being stopped, searched and taken down the cop shop for questioning on any of these subsequent occasions and the police going: "Hold on a minute, fella. Charles Cross of Doveton Street, and carman at Pickfords, you say?? Are you having a hat and scarf? Being found with one freshly killed corpse is bad luck; being found in the immediate vicinity of another one is seriously bad judgement, my old son. You're nicked." Unless of course, by a stroke of good fortune, it was good old cuddly old PC Mizen who stopped him, in which case he'd just say: "All right, so sorry I mistook you for someone else" and carry on knocking up.

Do you not think a serial killer, just beginning to act out his murderous urges, would do anything in his power to keep well out of the spotlight at this early stage of the game, to pave the way for a long career in bloody encounters? Has there ever been a case of one deliberately and needlessly involving himself in the inquest of one of his earliest victims, knowing that he could never again afford to be seen with or near a future victim? And did the ripper take every precaution in this regard? Apparently not, if he was seen either talking to Chapman, manhandling Stride, canoodling with Eddowes or sharing a joke or a pot of ale with Kelly. None of them could realistically have been Cross, could they?

Now to another question I've been meaning to ask. Given that the killer knew the extent of the damage he had just inflicted on Nichols [but presumably couldn't see much of it himself in the darkness], and given that he was unlikely to have been an expert on breathing and bleedin' times, how many precious seconds would Cross have needed to spend at the scene after making his final cut, to try and assess in the darkness how much of that damage would be immediately apparent to the first witness to come past and be escorted over to the woman to take a closer look at her? The damage would either not be readily apparent at all, and she could have appeared drunk rather than dead [to a fellow carman such as Robert Paul], in which case Cross the psychopath could have walked calmly away immediately after the last cut and disposed of his knife before anyone realised a violent crime had been committed and the alarm could be raised; or it would be obvious [to a PC with a lantern such as PC Neil] that she had been horribly butchered, in which case even the most daring psychopath would have had his work cut out, trying to bluff his way out of that one, bloody knife still on his person.

So what I don't get is why any killer with two brain cells to rub together would have hung around for two seconds after that final cut, whether it was to assess how 'murdered' she looked or, leaving that to chance, to relish the whole prospect of being there when the first witness arrived, whoever that person happened to be and whatever they might find.

Is the explanation that Cross simply didn't have those vital few seconds to assess the visibility of his handiwork, before becoming aware of someone's approach [Robert Paul as it turned out, not the beat copper - phew!], and having to conceal the weapon and move to the middle of the road without delay? Did he have to trust his powers of manipulation to press Paul to help him examine the woman, while trusting to luck that this stranger wouldn't actually be able to see any of the horrific injuries he had only just finished inflicting?

How does this theory even have legs, never mind make Cross the prime suspect?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I've emboldened 2 parts of your post.

Fish's reasoning, apparently supported by Andy Griffiths, is that, mystically they know exactly how CL would be thinking. That he was a psychopath and would have wanted to 'brazen it out.' Walk away to absolute freedom or remain and call someone over (potentially with blood on him; definitely with a large, bloodstained knife on him!) then walk off to find a Constable. Then turn up at the Inquest to say that he'd found the body. Is this remotely believable? Of course it isn't. But nothing about this theory is.

Caz, you ask how this theory has legs? You know the answer to that one...it doesn't.

I think that we should award it The Sir Douglas Bader Award for Ripperology.

Regards
Herlock

[Fisherman]

My aim? Oh, I've achieved my aim. Thank you.

Always happy to oblige, Patrick.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=caz;421272]

Hold on a minute, Fish. Surely the prime suspect for Jack the Ripper is much more likely to be someone whose priority was to get away from one of his earliest crime scenes, if not the earliest, unseen and unidentified, so he could go on to kill again and again, with no risk of being stopped, searched and taken down the cop shop for questioning on any of these subsequent occasions and the police going: "Hold on a minute, fella. Charles Cross of Doveton Street, and carman at Pickfords, you say?? Are you having a hat and scarf? Being found with one freshly killed corpse is bad luck; being found in the immediate vicinity of another one is seriously bad judgement, my old son. You're nicked." Unless of course, by a stroke of good fortune, it was good old cuddly old PC Mizen who stopped him, in which case he'd just say: "All right, so sorry I mistook you for someone else" and carry on knocking up.

Do you not think a serial killer, just beginning to act out his murderous urges, would do anything in his power to keep well out of the spotlight at this early stage of the game, to pave the way for a long career in bloody encounters? Has there ever been a case of one deliberately and needlessly involving himself in the inquest of one of his earliest victims, knowing that he could never again afford to be seen with or near a future victim? And did the ripper take every precaution in this regard? Apparently not, if he was seen either talking to Chapman, manhandling Stride, canoodling with Eddowes or sharing a joke or a pot of ale with Kelly. None of them could realistically have been Cross, could they?

Indeed. Serial killers as described by Fisherman are psychopaths who do not experience fear.

But are they extensively stupid?

Cheers, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish. I was beginning to doubt that the report existed, but I've finally found it (in the Chapman section of the Ultimate JTR Companion).
Must admit, I'm struggling to understand what sort of wound to the abdomen could be instantly fatal....everyone knows that if you want an instant kill you go for the neck or heart; a belly wound is a slow kill, and a slow kill may have enough left in him to kill you before he dies....

Well, for starters, there is no method that will kill immediately, unless we speak of nuclear bombs blowing a person to smithereens or something such. Otherwise, the heart will beat for some little time, the brain will shut down over a miniscule period of seconds - at least.

I donīt think we should take the expression too literally, but instead see it as an implication of a method of killing that would ensure a swift death.

If we allow for that, we can see that for example a severed aorta would fall into this category - a brisk pressure fall ensuring unconsciousness followed by the heart stopping when it runs out of fuel, if there is not an even faster heart attack...

That sort of thing.

Strictly speaking, it would be more or less the exact same story as a cut neck would result in.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;421273

A cut to a single carotid was not judged sufficient to ensure a lack of suffering and distress.

Hi Steve,

Does that concept of lack of suffering and distress applied to a murder case like this one include a risk of the murder victim crying out?

If so, what are the arguments for strangulation first?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: Hi Caz,

I've emboldened 2 parts of your post.

Fish's reasoning, apparently supported by Andy Griffiths, is that, mystically they know exactly how CL would be thinking.

Once again, no. Nobody knows how Lechmere was thinking, Herlock, not you, not I - and certainly not Caz. all we can offer is suggestions.

That he was a psychopath and would have wanted to 'brazen it out.' Walk away to absolute freedom or remain and call someone over (potentially with blood on him; definitely with a large, bloodstained knife on him!) then walk off to find a Constable. Then turn up at the Inquest to say that he'd found the body. Is this remotely believable? Of course it isn't. But nothing about this theory is.

That is your interpretation. Andy Griffiths differed - he found the suggestion a very likely one.

So lets ask a question in your vein: Is it even remotely likely that you will be the better judge? Of course not.

Caz, you ask how this theory has legs? You know the answer to that one...it doesn't.

I think that we should award it The Sir Douglas Bader Award for Ripperology.

Weīve already received lots of positive response, but a prize or two to add to it is of course always welcome. Thanks for the generous suggestion!

[John G]

This is pure gold, since this clearly shows how you work. "who wasnīt utilized subsequently in the investigation".

Which doctors were? Phillips was chosen to be the overseer, and no other doctor was therefore "utilized subsequently" in the investigation. But you try to paint a picture where it was decided that Llewellyn was not good enough to be employed as some sort of advisor, and that really is not going to work.

Itīs a bit shameful when posters go to such lenghts, I find, and I am happy to be able to offer the completer picture.

The same of course goes for "clearly no forensic specialist": A/ We donīt know to which degree he was forensically interested/versed and B/ why would he need to be? He had certainly seen sharp violence before - unless you object to that? - and he had trained as a surgeon and worked as one. That should suffice to make his word a valid one.

You begin by writing "Isnīt it earlier to conclude...", and that makes me think that you may not be any specialist in the field of writing. Did you mean "isnīt it likelier", perhaps?

The answer to that question is of course no, it is not likelier to conclude that LLewellyn made a mistake. It is highly unlikely, but not impossible. The character of the question is of a kind where a mistake of the magnitude suggested - that LLewellyn may not have known that a cut to the omentum would not kill immediately - is nigh on impossible.

He was a surgeon. He would have cut through the omentum of many a patient, to reach the underlying organs. I donīt think he was amazed every time his patients survived that cut, instead of perishing instantly.

Do you?

I meant, of course, "isn't it easier to conclude." It was a predictive text error, which I would have thought you would have realized considering you seem to frequently make them yourself.

Your argument that Dr Phillips was merely an "overseer" is somewhat bizarre, considering that he was integral to the investigation and actually examined the last 4 canonical victims. Were you unaware of this?

Your veneration of Dr Llewellyn is touching. However, you should know that even modern forensic experts frequently disagree on important points, so I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in the infallibility of a Victorian GP. And by the way, what precisely was his surgical experience?

His comments that the cuts to the abdomen would kill instantly are questionable to say the least. In fact, even you're perplexed on this point: "All we need to do now is to find out why they would kill instantly." Well, as I opined before, good luck with that one.

[Patrick S]

Herlock Sholmes: Hi Caz,

I've emboldened 2 parts of your post.

Fish's reasoning, apparently supported by Andy Griffiths, is that, mystically they know exactly how CL would be thinking.

Once again, no. Nobody knows how Lechmere was thinking, Herlock, not you, not I - and certainly not Caz. all we can offer is suggestions.

Ah! No one knows what "the carman" was thinking. But "the carman" knew what everyone else was thinking, what they'd say, what they'd do, and how it would all turn out. For if he did not, he'd have never undertaken the folly he chose to avoid detection, capture, and death.

After killing Nichols and hearing someone approach he chose not to walk into the darkness, hide in the shadows, or bluff that the woman on the ground was his beloved wife, the worse for drink again. Instead he chose...to take a few steps back, and WAIT for the man to arrive. In doing so, "the carman" KNEW that the man wasn't a policeman, former policeman, or night watchman, who may suspect him. He KNEW that he'd be able to bluff his way through because he KNEW the man didn't have a lantern, or even a match with which to light the scene, and reveal the injuries we're told he was so desperate to hide that he refused to move Nichols, KNOWING he had no blood on his person he'd have to explain later. Oh! We know that Paul tried to avoid "the carman". Yet, our man KNEW that he'd be perfectly safe in forcing the man to "come see this woman". He KNEW the man would fall in line and allow himself to be controlled, duped. He KNEW the man wouldn't cry "MURDER!" in the streets. He KNEW the man wouldn't immediately search his ("the carman's) person and find the murder weapon hidden there. He KNEW it was safe go have a look at the woman. He KNEW they'd not be joined in short order by a PC (even though Neil happened along seconds later). He KNEW that no one would emerge from the surrounding buildings with a torch and "raise" the proverbial "alarm". And he knew that accompanying the man through the streets and telling a PC about it would turn out just fine because he KNEW that Paul would allow him the space and time he needed to perform his Mizen Scam. And he KNEW that Mizen would let him go. He KNEW he wouldn't say "SHOW ME!" and drag him back into Buck's Row. He also KNEW that Mizen wouldn't inspect his person, ask his name, or suspect him in any way. He KNEW he'd allow him on his merry way. Just as he KNEW that turning up at the inquest the following day would turn out. He KNEW getting on the stand to tell lies about a PC would turn out just fine, too. He KNEW giving an "alternate" name but his real address and employer would help him escape justice, even though his actions tell us he seems to have had little interest in escaping justice in that he kept submitting himself to it. Still, it all worked out. Because he KNEW it would. And because he was a psychopath. But not a dumb one. A brilliant one. Who apparently knew the future.

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;421273



Hi Steve,

Does that concept of lack of suffering and distress applied to a murder case like this one include a risk of the murder victim crying out?

If so, what are the arguments for strangulation first?

Pierre

Good point, I was not as clear as I could be.

Lack of suffering and distress were the legal requirement we worked to.
It can be translated as speed. One carotid does not kill as fast as both. And of course cutting the windpipe stops any chance of crying out.

So the cut to the throat especially the double cuts used by the killer show a need to cut all the vessels and the windpipe. All the "vital parts".

The result of such cuts is immediate prevention of sound from the victim and unconsciousness in about 30 seconds.

Strangulation would obviously mean crying out was not an issue and the victim would be unconscious or nearly so, depending on the degree of strangulation.
It would also mean that the killer could position himself so as to minimise and blood flow onto his person from a neck cut


Steve

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Ah! No one knows what "the carman" was thinking. But "the carman" knew what everyone else was thinking, what they'd say, what they'd do, and how it would all turn out. For if he did not, he'd have never undertaken the folly he chose to avoid detection, capture, and death.

Eh - no. It does not work that way, Patrick. A good many psychopathic serialists have been caught when they have grown overconfident, so we really cannot say that Lechmere - if a psychopath - would not take any risks.

Of course, I have explained all of this before. Many times. But it seems people are unable to take it in.

And it of course goes without saying that Lechmere cannot possibly have known what everyone else was thinking. That would be more like a Kosminsky thing, if you take my meaning

There really is no magical thinking involved anywhere in all of this, and I would really appreciate if you understood that instead of making things out as if there was. It is a very trivial thing, and quite, quite usual amongs psychopaths - they feel they are on top of things, they are quite often narcissists who feel superior to others, and so they beleive they will be able to pull things off easily.

After killing Nichols and hearing someone approach he chose not to walk into the darkness, hide in the shadows, or bluff that the woman on the ground was his beloved wife, the worse for drink again. Instead he chose...to take a few steps back, and WAIT for the man to arrive. In doing so, "the carman" KNEW that the man wasn't a policeman, former policeman, or night watchman, who may suspect him. He KNEW that he'd be able to bluff his way through because he KNEW the man didn't have a lantern, or even a match with which to light the scene, and reveal the injuries we're told he was so desperate to hide that he refused to move Nichols, KNOWING he had no blood on his person he'd have to explain later. Oh! We know that Paul tried to avoid "the carman". Yet, our man KNEW that he'd be perfectly safe in forcing the man to "come see this woman". He KNEW the man would fall in line and allow himself to be controlled, duped. He KNEW the man wouldn't cry "MURDER!" in the streets. He KNEW the man wouldn't immediately search his ("the carman's) person and find the murder weapon hidden there. He KNEW it was safe go have a look at the woman. He KNEW they'd not be joined in short order by a PC (even though Neil happened along seconds later). He KNEW that no one would emerge from the surrounding buildings with a torch and "raise" the proverbial "alarm". And he knew that accompanying the man through the streets and telling a PC about it would turn out just fine because he KNEW that Paul would allow him the space and time he needed to perform his Mizen Scam. And he KNEW that Mizen would let him go. He KNEW he wouldn't say "SHOW ME!" and drag him back into Buck's Row. He also KNEW that Mizen wouldn't inspect his person, ask his name, or suspect him in any way. He KNEW he'd allow him on his merry way. Just as he KNEW that turning up at the inquest the following day would turn out. He KNEW getting on the stand to tell lies about a PC would turn out just fine, too. He KNEW giving an "alternate" name but his real address and employer would help him escape justice, even though his actions tell us he seems to have had little interest in escaping justice in that he kept submitting himself to it. Still, it all worked out. Because he KNEW it would. And because he was a psychopath. But not a dumb one. A brilliant one. Who apparently knew the future.

More of the same, and all of it along the same lines as always. I cannot see why I would answer it, to be frank - I already have, dozens of times.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Ah! No one knows what "the carman" was thinking. But "the carman" knew what everyone else was thinking, what they'd say, what they'd do, and how it would all turn out. For if he did not, he'd have never undertaken the folly he chose to avoid detection, capture, and death.

Eh - no. It does not work that way, Patrick. A good many psychopathic serialists have been caught when they have grown overconfident, so we really cannot say that Lechmere - if a psychopath - would not take any risks.

Of course, I have explained all of this before. Many times. But it seems people are unable to take it in.

And it of course goes without saying that Lechmere cannot possibly have known what everyone else was thinking. That would be more like a Kosminsky thing, if you take my meaning

There really is no magical thinking involved anywhere in all of this, and I would really appreciate if you understood that instead of making things out as if there was. It is a very trivial thing, and quite, quite usual amongs psychopaths - they feel they are on top of things, they are quite often narcissists who feel superior to others, and so they beleive they will be able to pull things off easily.

After killing Nichols and hearing someone approach he chose not to walk into the darkness, hide in the shadows, or bluff that the woman on the ground was his beloved wife, the worse for drink again. Instead he chose...to take a few steps back, and WAIT for the man to arrive. In doing so, "the carman" KNEW that the man wasn't a policeman, former policeman, or night watchman, who may suspect him. He KNEW that he'd be able to bluff his way through because he KNEW the man didn't have a lantern, or even a match with which to light the scene, and reveal the injuries we're told he was so desperate to hide that he refused to move Nichols, KNOWING he had no blood on his person he'd have to explain later. Oh! We know that Paul tried to avoid "the carman". Yet, our man KNEW that he'd be perfectly safe in forcing the man to "come see this woman". He KNEW the man would fall in line and allow himself to be controlled, duped. He KNEW the man wouldn't cry "MURDER!" in the streets. He KNEW the man wouldn't immediately search his ("the carman's) person and find the murder weapon hidden there. He KNEW it was safe go have a look at the woman. He KNEW they'd not be joined in short order by a PC (even though Neil happened along seconds later). He KNEW that no one would emerge from the surrounding buildings with a torch and "raise" the proverbial "alarm". And he knew that accompanying the man through the streets and telling a PC about it would turn out just fine because he KNEW that Paul would allow him the space and time he needed to perform his Mizen Scam. And he KNEW that Mizen would let him go. He KNEW he wouldn't say "SHOW ME!" and drag him back into Buck's Row. He also KNEW that Mizen wouldn't inspect his person, ask his name, or suspect him in any way. He KNEW he'd allow him on his merry way. Just as he KNEW that turning up at the inquest the following day would turn out. He KNEW getting on the stand to tell lies about a PC would turn out just fine, too. He KNEW giving an "alternate" name but his real address and employer would help him escape justice, even though his actions tell us he seems to have had little interest in escaping justice in that he kept submitting himself to it. Still, it all worked out. Because he KNEW it would. And because he was a psychopath. But not a dumb one. A brilliant one. Who apparently knew the future.

More of the same, and all of it along the same lines as always. I cannot see why I would answer it, to be frank - I already have, dozens of times.

Actually, I think you might be right. I don't think I understand how psychopaths think. They take risks. Thanks for explaining it. My bad. Oh. Sorry. One last question. We know "the carman" was a psychopath....how?