So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

I was thinking about the would Lechmere run scenario, and it reminded me a little of the William Grant arrest.
I can`t find a detailed enough account of Grants arrest, but it may help you with your argument, as I don`t think Grant made much of an effort to escape.
He seems to have been found by approaching policemen stooping over the body of Alice Graham. What was Grant`s reaction to the approaching policemen ?

[Sam Flynn]

I have waved farewell to the ones discussing the connection between the Torso and Ripper cases by claiming that the Torso series did not involve the taking out of Jacksons uterus, that she never had any gash cut from breastbone to pubes, that no eviscerations were included in the Torso series... and that the Torso man was certainly no mutilator.

Can't remember any of those being claimed on the torso threads. It is possible to make statements without misrepresentation, exaggeration or spin, you know.

[Fisherman]

Three posts to answer here, and they are all very consistent with what these posters have produced over the years out here.

I will answer these sad three posts and then I will make it a point to do better things in days to come - the quality of these boards must be high enough to warrant me spending time out here, and if it is not, I will do something else for some time, until the time comes that an intelligent discussion can be had.

Letīs begin with Caz, who has a newsflash, no less, to offer: She has counted out, after years of efforts, that Andy Griffiths "was talking about the risks involved in running, in Lechmere's supposed situation, if he was the killer."

Bravo, Caz, bravo bravissimo! And to think, it only took you three years to understand it!

Yes indeed, Griffiths was talking about EXACTLY that and nothing else.

Now, letīs look at a few parameters that will influence the value of what Griffiths said. Letīs remember that we have had scores of people out here saying that Lechmere would, even must, have run if he was the killer, and so Griffithsī bid has always been a bugger for them. Ingenuity on their behalf has produced the suggestion that Griffiths and Scobie were both lied to and misled, and that this is what made Griffiths say things that they did not want to hear themselves. When up against a wall, we do what we can, and this level of discussion is what this kind of sad people are able to sustain, nothing much more.

Now, those parameters!

1. Was Griffiths familiar with the mental state of Charles Lechmere? No, he was not. It therefore applies that Griffiths was not saying "Lechmere was a psychopath, so he would not have run". He could not possibly know if Lechmere was a psychopath or not, just as nobody else can. In conclusion, we can safely rule out that this was why Griffiths said "he would never have run."

2. So if Griffiths was not speaking of Lechmere, then who was the "he" that he claimed would not have run? Well, that of course was the killer. Admittedly, this killer was represented as Lechmere, and just as Caz says, Griffiths was saying NOT that Lechmere was the killer, but that IF he was the killer, then he would not have run.

3. Relating to the above, it applies that Griffiths was ascribing a mentality to the killer that would have prevented him from running. It is not as if Griffiths was in any way unaware that killers may well run, and do so all the time. This was not what he said "he" would never have run" - it was not a case of Griffiths believing that all killers will always stay put at the murder site, come what may.

4. So why did he ascribe a mental state on behalf of the killer? Well, reasonably because he had at this stage aquired information about both the character of the deeds, performed out on the open streets and very gruesome, seemingly disregarding the huge risks involved, and about the details pertaining to Lechmere and his role in the sage. Griffiths knew that Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest (and that this was in conflict with his normal behavior), he knew that Mizen had said that Lechmere had spoekn of another PC having the situation in hand in Bucks Row, he knew how Lechmere seemingly arrived a good deal too late in Bucks Row, going on when he said he had left, he know about the clothing that covered the wounds and so on. So he had formed an idea of the killers psyche, if that killer was Lechmere, and FROM THAT IDEA, he would have concluded that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was not the kind of man who would be in any way likely to run.

Where does all of this leave us, then? Well, it leaves us in the exact same spot as I have pointed out for years - IF Lechmere was the killer, he acted with extreme coolness and a total lack of respect for his fellow people, he was not given to panic, but was in stead able to think on his feet and present very convincing lies to get himself out of a tricky situation.

So the real newsflash is that there is absolutely nothing new to see here, only more of Cazī s trademark confused posts and useless fantasizing.

Surprise, surprise.

Next up is Trevor, who says that he knows" Scobie QC was not given the full facts" - which in a way is true. Not that Trevor knows anything at all about what Scobie was given, but it of course applies that nobody could take in and keep track of all the facts surrounding then case. It is impossible.
Then again, Paul Begg (another of Trevors admirers) has long since pointed out that when a barrister is asked to see if a case can be made against a suspect that is good enough to make a trial, then he is not supposed to have all the facts presented to him. He is supposed to have the facts pointing to guilt presented, nothing else unless there is something that will decisively mean that the accusations will not hold up.
And letīs be frank, there is absolutely nothing at all in the way of evidence that comes even close to exonerating the carman, just as there is absolutely nothing at all that could be used against any other suspect in a trial. Meaning that Scobie assessed exactly what he was supposed to assess and on exactly the material he should use. And he reached the conclusion that Lechmere was the probable culprit and that a trial that suggested that he was the killer would be warranted.
He also said that ift would be up to Lechmere to give answers to the questions that pointed to his guilt in such a manner so as to free himself, and maybe he could have done so. He may have been in the Bahamas as the other women were killed, in which case he should be set free. But as long as we have no exonerating information, it must stand that Lechmeres behavior points to him as the killer, and that a trial in which no defence was given from his side, he could well have been convicted and sent to the gallows on the existing circumstantial evidence.
This, however, is a side issue, because what Trevor is after is to imply that the film crew lied to Scobie and feed him faulty material, as implicateed by how he carries on his post:
"...also, so whats the possibility of other "experts" used in the making of the program being misled also?"
Apart from the construction being wrong with the two "alsos", it of course also (just the one time in my case) applies that the accusation Trevor produces here is mindbogglingly, stinkingly, nauseatingly and unforgivably foul - not to mention wrong; Scobie makes it clear what he grounds his take on, so there was never any question of that.
It is when putrid slime like this is produced by feculent thinking that I find the time has come to point it out and then give it a rest. John Wheat is just as guilty, by making the same sort of deplorable effort.

One thing about Trevor that is interesting is that it has not been more than a few days since he recommended all posters to freeze me out and leave my posts uncommented on, so that the boards could dispose of me and my theories altogether.
Not only do I think that the administrators would not look very favourably on posters who suggest such things, but I cannot help finding it beyond hilarious that once he has made that recommendation, he himself cannot help but to comment on Lechmere threads.

Brilliant, Trevor - good going. One can always rely on you to broaden the horizons for all of us, opening up new paths of thinking that the fewest would have thought of themselves.

Now I have grown tired of all of this, as I more and more often do. I have waved farewell to the ones discussing the connection between the Torso and Ripper cases by claiming that the Torso series did not involve the taking out of Jacksons uterus, that she never had any gash cut from breastbone to pubes, that no eviscerations were included in the Torso series (where a uterus a heart and a pair of lungs were cut out with gusto) and that the Torso man - who cut the face from one victim and chopped limbs and heads off his victims - was certainly no mutilator.

That is the quality of discussion that is to be had out here. My apologies to the ones who have spent time and effort to read up on the case and who make sensible and well weighed posts, some agreeing with me, some not - it is not you I cannot abide by - and you will be aware of this, I trust - itīs the likes of the posters mentioned and dealt with in this post.

[John Wheat]

And we know Scobie QC was not given the full facts also, so whats the possibility of other "experts" used in the making of the program being misled also?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The liklihood is they were all mislead.

[Trevor Marriott]

I guess Griffiths was a total imbecile who could only go with "what he was given" and never learned anything on his own about the case.

And we know Scobie QC was not given the full facts also, so whats the possibility of other "experts" used in the making of the program being misled also?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Going back a bit...

I fully agree that under normal circumstances a killer will flee the scene if he has the chance. I am even willing to say that I think that this will apply in at least 90 per cent of the cases.

But in the Lechmere case, I think we have a case derived from the remaining percentage. Bear in mind what Andy Griffiths said: There was never a chance that Lechmere would run.

He wasnīt speaking about the general picture. He would in all probability say what I say - at least 90 per cent will run.

But in cases like the Lechmere one, it seems he is of the meaning that ten out of ten will stay! He would NEVER have run, according to Griffiths.

You were quite correct, Fish. Griffiths was not speaking about the 'general picture'. He was talking about the risks involved in running, in Lechmere's supposed situation, if he was the killer. That was Griffiths's reasoning. He didn't rate the chances of a killer – any killer – in that situation being able to get away safely. In short, the killer would never have taken such a risk.

There is nothing here about Lechmere choosing to stay because he was a psychopath, with no panic response, abnormal flight reflexes and a penchant for just this kind of challenge, which no other type of killer would have tried, or hoped to pull off. Where does that leave Griffiths's ten out of ten killers who would have stayed? Was he only talking about psychopathic killers? There is also no suggestion here that the killer might still have chosen to stay if he'd had a chance to go. So Griffiths was surely talking about the situation, using his expertise in that regard and relying on the accuracy of his information, while you talk of the killer's supposed behavioural traits. Yet you cling on to what Griffiths said, so you can argue that because Lechmere didn't run, he is perfectly in line with the ten out of ten killers who would never have run either.

Newsflash - because Lechmere didn't run, his behaviour is just as perfectly in line with any number of innocent witnesses who would have stayed put and sought assistance from the next passer-by. What Griffiths said about the situation – as he understood it - does not make Lechmere any more likely to have been the killer than an innocent witness coming upon the killer's victim. Because Lechmere didn't run, he also conformed to the behaviour of ten out of ten lampposts. But we don't need an expert to tell us any of this. Your mantra: "Well he wouldn't have run, because we are told by an expert that no killer ever would" is where it becomes horribly circular and pointless, because it depends entirely on Lechmere staying put because he was a serial killer – and a psychopathic one in your view - which you have not even begun to establish.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...I believe that a psychopath may well actively choose bluffing over running even if there is ample time to run...

...I think there is a VERY good reason to think they would choose a bluff - psychopathy and narcissism in combination, making the perp somebody who really wants to "show off".

Griffiths apparently believes that Lechmere would 'never' have run if he was the killer, because of the risks involved - not because he would have preferred the challenge of bluffing or really wanted to show off.

Griffiths apparently believes that Lechmere would have had no time to get away safely, and therefore would never have tried. Do you agree with him or not, Fish?

...it would seem that a seasoned ex-murder squad leader agrees with me on this score... Griffiths said that he would never have run, as you know.

But you have both given very different reasons for believing this! Griffiths's killer would have known it was too risky to run; yours would not have run because he had no panic response and positively lapped up the challenge involved in staying.

Once again, we should not mistake psychopaths for ordinary people, with ordinary nerves and ordinary flight reflexes.

So do you believe Lechmere's abnormal flight reflexes dictated his decision to stay, even though Griffiths was adamant that the risks involved in fleeing would have dictated that decision?

There is a magical formula to which all killers, psychopaths as well as non-psychopaths will answer?

Apparently Griffiths thinks so, if he really did say that a killer in Lechmere's position would 'never' have risked running.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

You might think that, Abby. I could not possibly comment.

Love,

Frances Urquhart
X

lol.ok ok!

[caz]

I guess Griffiths was a total imbecile who could only go with "what he was given" and never learned anything on his own about the case.

You might think that, Abby. I could not possibly comment.

Love,

Frances Urquhart
X

[caz]

If Lechmere was the killer, then we have an extremely quickly conceived solution to the problem of passing the police, just as we have him deliberately choosing to stay put at the murder site and bluff his way out. No other character than a psychopath would be able to pull that off - or even choose to try it.

An interesting factor about the full-blown psychopath Ted Bundy is how he took care of his own defence in court, putting on quite a show, impressing the judge even.
THAT is how a psychopath/narcissist works, that is the kind of challenge that makes him tick.

Compare, if you will, how Lechmere freely searched out the police and inquest. Then try and add two and two, Trevor.

... and a Happy New Year too!

And yet, Fish, according to you, Griffiths was adamant that a serial killer in Lechmere's position would have stayed put because of the risks involved in trying to leg it. He must have seen staying put as the less risky option - why is still not clear.

This is not how you see it though. The risk factor could have had nothing to do with it, if it was the psychopath in Lechmere which tempted him into staying put, relishing the challenge involved in doing so - the kind that made him tick. Only a psychopath could have pulled it off, you say; only a psychopath would even have chosen to try it. Other types of killer need not apply. They would never have attempted it. So what could they have done instead? According to Griffiths, they would never have legged it either - too risky.

Do you not see how incompatible Griffith's position is with your own?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I guess Griffiths was a total imbecile who could only go with "what he was given" and never learned anything on his own about the case.

Sticking to your briefing material doesn't imply imbecility.

[Abby Normal]

I guess Griffiths was a total imbecile who could only go with "what he was given" and never learned anything on his own about the case.

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed, Caz. Good call, Trevor.

[caz]

That makes sense, Trev. I can't accept that someone like Griffiths would have used a word like 'never', when asked if a serial killer in Lechmere's position would have legged it, unless he was given a misleading impression of that position, which led him to think the risks involved would have been greater than staying there, bloody knife on him, not having the foggiest idea who was approaching or how they might react to the murder scene, and nearly decapitated victim.

Nor can I reconcile the reasons Fish has given for a psychopathic Lechmere choosing to hang around to polish up his bluffing skills, with Griffith's 'adamant' view that the only other option - to scarper - was so risky that a serial killer would 'never' have taken it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Once again, Fish, I would ask you how this opinion of Griffiths equates to your own position, that Lechmere would not have run because if he was the killer he must have been a non-panicking psychopath?

Did you only ask Griffiths about Lechmere 'running' from the scene? Or did you also ask if he could not simply have 'walked' away, swiftly but calmly, without involving much risk at all, if any?

Griffiths seemed to be saying the risks of running from the scene would have scared Lechmere into staying put instead, to bluff his way out. Or do you think he meant something else entirely?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I suspect Griffiths was among those who were not given the full facts, and surmise that what he was given was the belief that Lechmere was actually standing crouching over the body when Paul came along and came upon him, thus giving him no time to run, that scenario would be more in line with trying to interpret why Griffith would make the statement he did.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk