John G: Yes, I would agree that JtR would, in that situation, be relatively unconcerned about Paul. However, if he just walks calmly away then how much of a risk is he taking?
We donīt know, do we? It all hinges on circumstances beyond his control, that is what we can say; will Paul check the body? Will he see it? Will he sound the alarm? Will there be a PC around?
Thatīs part of the answer to your question. The other part lies in how we canīt tell to which - if any - degree Lechmere would have actually liked the idea of conning Paul.
However, by deciding to brazen it out by approaching Paul he is allowing himself to be identified. In fact, he is now very much in the public domain, even to the extent of having to reveal his name and give evidence at a public inquest.
True - but being identified as a benevolent witness trumps being identified as a guy running from a murder site every day in the week, John.
The second option, therefore, doesn't seem to me to amount to a very wise choice.
It would have had itīs advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage would be that he would no longer be an unwritten card, he would become part of the public domain. The advantages would be that if he pulled it off, he would be able to leave the spot in company with another man (less conspicious) and he would be in the clear if he pulled things off.
Remember that we must not work from the assumption that he freely accepted to contact the police and go to the inquest - his first intention may have been simply to fool Paul and then drift off into obscurity. He could not know that Paul would suggest finding a PC, could he?
Things will have escalated in that department from a position of a minimal exposure (only to Paul) into one with maximum exposure (police, inquest), and that will have been something he could not know from the outset.
Anyways, again it applies that all you have is your own thinking and your own conviction. Mine is different, and it has the support of Andy Griffiths, who should know a thing or two about these things.
He may well have chosen to stay. That is established and it will not go away. It is not the more common choice, as I freely admit, but the circumstances point to how it seems to be what did happen.
In the end, it is meaningless to push the idea that he MUST have fled, that he could NOT have chosen to bluff it out. You cannot prove such a thing and you cannot quantify in any shape or from how likely/unlikely it is.
Maybe the time has come to drop that part and try and find other angles, John?
We donīt know, do we? It all hinges on circumstances beyond his control, that is what we can say; will Paul check the body? Will he see it? Will he sound the alarm? Will there be a PC around?
Thatīs part of the answer to your question. The other part lies in how we canīt tell to which - if any - degree Lechmere would have actually liked the idea of conning Paul.
However, by deciding to brazen it out by approaching Paul he is allowing himself to be identified. In fact, he is now very much in the public domain, even to the extent of having to reveal his name and give evidence at a public inquest.
True - but being identified as a benevolent witness trumps being identified as a guy running from a murder site every day in the week, John.
The second option, therefore, doesn't seem to me to amount to a very wise choice.
It would have had itīs advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage would be that he would no longer be an unwritten card, he would become part of the public domain. The advantages would be that if he pulled it off, he would be able to leave the spot in company with another man (less conspicious) and he would be in the clear if he pulled things off.
Remember that we must not work from the assumption that he freely accepted to contact the police and go to the inquest - his first intention may have been simply to fool Paul and then drift off into obscurity. He could not know that Paul would suggest finding a PC, could he?
Things will have escalated in that department from a position of a minimal exposure (only to Paul) into one with maximum exposure (police, inquest), and that will have been something he could not know from the outset.
Anyways, again it applies that all you have is your own thinking and your own conviction. Mine is different, and it has the support of Andy Griffiths, who should know a thing or two about these things.
He may well have chosen to stay. That is established and it will not go away. It is not the more common choice, as I freely admit, but the circumstances point to how it seems to be what did happen.
In the end, it is meaningless to push the idea that he MUST have fled, that he could NOT have chosen to bluff it out. You cannot prove such a thing and you cannot quantify in any shape or from how likely/unlikely it is.
Maybe the time has come to drop that part and try and find other angles, John?
Comment