Tweet
Greg:
"No need for sarcasm master Fisherman"
Okay then - no need as such, but much cause. Then again, you only delivered a small portion of that cause, so itīs only fair to apologize. And I do so.
I was slightly annoyed by all the alternative explanations for Lechmereīs behaviour - some of them bordering on the ridiculous - that were coming my way as you posted. And you sort of provided the last drop with your apparent reluctance to accept a non-drunk killer.
If you want to think that the killer must have been drunk, that is of course your prerogative. Once again sorry, therefore!
Myself, I donīt think this must (or even would) have applied at all. Just as there would have been serialists that have used alcohol to fuel their behavior, others will not have drunk. And in Lechmereīs case, the more credible thing is that he went to work after killing Nichols, so he would arguably have been sober.
"I think it unlikely the killer would be standing over the victim as another
approached."
That has been discussed in depth in this thread, so if you need some views on it, you know where to find it!
"although I doubt the killer to be covered in blood I would expect
some blood "
The same thing goes for this. You will find that Lechmere (the poster, that is) has thrown forward a suggestion that the killer used the raised clothing as a shield, for example.
" You would think Paul or Mizen would notice something or have the idea that perhaps this fellow was the perp. Neither did."
Well, if the intimidation Paul felt was coupled to Lechmere, then he DID feel something. And at the end of the day, we donīt know if he suspected Lechmere - we only know that he did not say so.
And Mizen? I think he is often hard done by. It was understandable to let the men pass, I think. Reasoning, on Mizenīs behalf, that they were perhaps killers who had sought out a PC...? Nah.
"I'm not suggesting any of this is evidence obviously except perhaps the evidence of common sense."
With heaps of respect, Greg, I have heard the weirdest things called "common sense" on these boards. More so than in any other aspect of my life, I can safely say. As you will know, I think that Lechmere in the killerīs role makes perfect sense, whereas I think dismissing him makes for no sense at all.
"And although you name other serial killers that were family men or went long periods without evidence of crime, it's highly unlikely that the family carman ripper wouldn't eventually hang himself after 30 years (figuratively), these types nearly always do..."
Nearly always? Then you will have a good deal of examples, yes? I am not in any way convinced that this is so, you see. People like the Columbine killers will of course more often than not take their lives, but that is in the direct aftermath of their deeds. People who have hung on - like Rader, like Ridgway and others - for a good many years makes for totally different animals.
Fisherman
unsarcastically
"No need for sarcasm master Fisherman"
Okay then - no need as such, but much cause. Then again, you only delivered a small portion of that cause, so itīs only fair to apologize. And I do so.
I was slightly annoyed by all the alternative explanations for Lechmereīs behaviour - some of them bordering on the ridiculous - that were coming my way as you posted. And you sort of provided the last drop with your apparent reluctance to accept a non-drunk killer.
If you want to think that the killer must have been drunk, that is of course your prerogative. Once again sorry, therefore!
Myself, I donīt think this must (or even would) have applied at all. Just as there would have been serialists that have used alcohol to fuel their behavior, others will not have drunk. And in Lechmereīs case, the more credible thing is that he went to work after killing Nichols, so he would arguably have been sober.
"I think it unlikely the killer would be standing over the victim as another
approached."
That has been discussed in depth in this thread, so if you need some views on it, you know where to find it!
"although I doubt the killer to be covered in blood I would expect
some blood "
The same thing goes for this. You will find that Lechmere (the poster, that is) has thrown forward a suggestion that the killer used the raised clothing as a shield, for example.
" You would think Paul or Mizen would notice something or have the idea that perhaps this fellow was the perp. Neither did."
Well, if the intimidation Paul felt was coupled to Lechmere, then he DID feel something. And at the end of the day, we donīt know if he suspected Lechmere - we only know that he did not say so.
And Mizen? I think he is often hard done by. It was understandable to let the men pass, I think. Reasoning, on Mizenīs behalf, that they were perhaps killers who had sought out a PC...? Nah.
"I'm not suggesting any of this is evidence obviously except perhaps the evidence of common sense."
With heaps of respect, Greg, I have heard the weirdest things called "common sense" on these boards. More so than in any other aspect of my life, I can safely say. As you will know, I think that Lechmere in the killerīs role makes perfect sense, whereas I think dismissing him makes for no sense at all.
"And although you name other serial killers that were family men or went long periods without evidence of crime, it's highly unlikely that the family carman ripper wouldn't eventually hang himself after 30 years (figuratively), these types nearly always do..."
Nearly always? Then you will have a good deal of examples, yes? I am not in any way convinced that this is so, you see. People like the Columbine killers will of course more often than not take their lives, but that is in the direct aftermath of their deeds. People who have hung on - like Rader, like Ridgway and others - for a good many years makes for totally different animals.
Fisherman
unsarcastically
Comment