Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    then engaging with the police while the kid was there was even crazier. thats why i said it makes no difference
    Hi Abby,

    What you said was: It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. if the kid could have remembered anything that could bust Dahmer like leading the police back to his place, than surely walking up to the police while he was there would have busted him immediately.

    Why would walking up to the police while Konarak was there have busted him immediately? Yes, the boy had the presence of mind to escape and run to the first people he saw, but it seems it was clear that he wouldn’t be able to say anything then that would have had Dahmer immediately busted. Besides, Dahmer arrived before the police did, so in reality he walked up to a couple of girls, who – unbeknownst to him - had already called the police when he arrived.


    Staying away from the situation would have left everything out of Dahmer’s control with the very real possibility that the police would come knocking at his door sooner or later, while using his psychopath traits on the girls to get the boy away from them would leave him in control. Unless it would have been a given for Dahmer that the boy would never be able to tell the police anything and that the police, with the boy in their hands and help from the girls and perhaps others, wouldn't be able to get anywhere, I wouldn’t call that absolutely no difference whatsoever.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      hi jeff
      nope, any way you slice it there behavior is fundamentally the same. id say agree to disagreeat this point but since i know im right im not. so we just disagree, but your wrong.
      ha ha! There's nothing like confidence. Interestingly, I think the same thing, only our roles are reversed. I think the problem Dahmer had to solve is a different one than the problem to be solved in Buck's Row, hence the decision process will differ. You are comparing the behavioural similarities, in that Dahmer interacted with people and Cross/Lechmere interacted with people. I'm looking at the situation and problem that had to be solved that led to the decision to interact, and Dahmer's choice to interact comes from a different set of circumstances, and so the decisions that lead to "interact" being his solution is different from the decisions that Nichols' killer would have to make. I cannot see Nichols' killer, given the situation, would have made the same decisions that Dahmer did because Nichols' killer had to decide to be or not to be identified, with no risk to himself if he leaves. Dahmer had to decide how to negate the fact he was effectively "caught" if the police get a chance to interview Konerak because as far as Dahmer knew, Konerak was capable of telling them everything (sure, we might now know that wasn't the case, but all Dahmer knew was that he was capable of escaping and therefore would believe he was capable of leading the police right to him). Therefore, Dahmer would believe he was caught if he didn't interact. That's not the situation in Buck's Row, it's the polar opposite, and as such, you cannot be correct when you say they are the same situation, no matter how confident you are in that belief.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • On the subject of Dahmer, and I will also use Nilsen as an example too, is these were both psychopaths who were intent on upping their sensory levels, just to feel something. Sensation-seeking is a huge motivator for psychopathic serial lust killers. These men were not stupid men, they were just as thrilled by the excitement of almost being caught as much as they committing their acts on their victims.

        Do not rule out the potential of self-sabotage as another form of sensation-seeking.
        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
          On the subject of Dahmer, and I will also use Nilsen as an example too, is these were both psychopaths who were intent on upping their sensory levels, just to feel something. Sensation-seeking is a huge motivator for psychopathic serial lust killers. These men were not stupid men, they were just as thrilled by the excitement of almost being caught as much as they committing their acts on their victims.

          Do not rule out the potential of self-sabotage as another form of sensation-seeking.
          Hi erobitha,

          Of course, anything is possible. For my own view, what I'm suggesting is just an opinion based upon the evaluation of the situations, which I've outlined my reasoning above. If it turned out Cross/Lechmere is JtR, then clearly I'm wrong, he did stick around, and my suggestion that would be an unlikely choice for even a psychopathic killer to make, sometimes unlikely things happen (unlikely isn't impossible after all). But, if Cross/Lechmere is not JtR, then either JtR spotted Cross/Lechmere and decided to leave the scene as I suggest, or he had already left by the time Cross/Lechmere shows up. So, if he is JtR, your suggestion he stuck it out as a form of sensation-seeking would be a viable explanation for his choice (we'll never know if you're right, of course, but it would make sense of his choice). At the moment, I don't see any real evidence that Cross/Lechmere is involved though, but that's not a universally held view.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            Hi erobitha,

            Of course, anything is possible. For my own view, what I'm suggesting is just an opinion based upon the evaluation of the situations, which I've outlined my reasoning above. If it turned out Cross/Lechmere is JtR, then clearly I'm wrong, he did stick around, and my suggestion that would be an unlikely choice for even a psychopathic killer to make, sometimes unlikely things happen (unlikely isn't impossible after all). But, if Cross/Lechmere is not JtR, then either JtR spotted Cross/Lechmere and decided to leave the scene as I suggest, or he had already left by the time Cross/Lechmere shows up. So, if he is JtR, your suggestion he stuck it out as a form of sensation-seeking would be a viable explanation for his choice (we'll never know if you're right, of course, but it would make sense of his choice). At the moment, I don't see any real evidence that Cross/Lechmere is involved though, but that's not a universally held view.

            - Jeff
            My point Jeff was more to Abby than yourself. I like you do not believe there is any evidence that Cross was a psychopath in anyway. Abby’s example of Dahmler to me is an act of self-sabotage. As was Nilson putting body parts down the lavatory. FrankO may have been alluding to this point also.

            No-one has presented any evidence that promotes Lechmere as being anything more than the first to discover the body of Nichols, or that he acted in a contradictory way anyone else would in that scenario would have acted. I cannot see anything strange here at all.
            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

              My point Jeff was more to Abby than yourself. I like you do not believe there is any evidence that Cross was a psychopath in anyway. Abby’s example of Dahmler to me is an act of self-sabotage. As was Nilson putting body parts down the lavatory. FrankO may have been alluding to this point also.

              No-one has presented any evidence that promotes Lechmere as being anything more than the first to discover the body of Nichols, or that he acted in a contradictory way anyone else would in that scenario would have acted. I cannot see anything strange here at all.
              Hi erobitha,

              Ok, but as we don't know who JtR was, and my disbelief in Cross/Letchmere isn't proof he wasn't, it occurred to me that self sabotage would explain a guilty Cross/Letchmere's choice not to get out when it was clearly safe to do so. However, like you I don't see anything that is truly evidence of guilt, only things presented under the presumption of guilt. That actually suggests he is not guilty, in which case it is quite possible the real JtR acted as I suggest, or was already gone of course.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • if dahmer had never been caught, you all would be saying his actions were consistant with an innocent man. he engaged with the women, he engaged with police, led police to his apartment. surely a guilty man would do none of these things.

                *cue meaningless minutia, semantics mongering and knee jerk lech denial.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                  On the subject of Dahmer, and I will also use Nilsen as an example too, is these were both psychopaths who were intent on upping their sensory levels, just to feel something. Sensation-seeking is a huge motivator for psychopathic serial lust killers. These men were not stupid men, they were just as thrilled by the excitement of almost being caught as much as they committing their acts on their victims.

                  Do not rule out the potential of self-sabotage as another form of sensation-seeking.
                  a very real possibility. so why not lech too (if guilty).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    ha ha! There's nothing like confidence. Interestingly, I think the same thing, only our roles are reversed. I think the problem Dahmer had to solve is a different one than the problem to be solved in Buck's Row, hence the decision process will differ. You are comparing the behavioural similarities, in that Dahmer interacted with people and Cross/Lechmere interacted with people. I'm looking at the situation and problem that had to be solved that led to the decision to interact, and Dahmer's choice to interact comes from a different set of circumstances, and so the decisions that lead to "interact" being his solution is different from the decisions that Nichols' killer would have to make. I cannot see Nichols' killer, given the situation, would have made the same decisions that Dahmer did because Nichols' killer had to decide to be or not to be identified, with no risk to himself if he leaves. Dahmer had to decide how to negate the fact he was effectively "caught" if the police get a chance to interview Konerak because as far as Dahmer knew, Konerak was capable of telling them everything (sure, we might now know that wasn't the case, but all Dahmer knew was that he was capable of escaping and therefore would believe he was capable of leading the police right to him). Therefore, Dahmer would believe he was caught if he didn't interact. That's not the situation in Buck's Row, it's the polar opposite, and as such, you cannot be correct when you say they are the same situation, no matter how confident you are in that belief.

                    - Jeff
                    hi jeff
                    as someone who is always basing analysis on facts and rightly so, im very surprised at your continued obstinant stance that dahmer was effectively caught. the fact is he wasnt. and you saying he couldnt know that the boy wasnt able to implicate him is mere speculation.
                    i have facts on my side and you have speculation. i win. sorry, end of debate.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      if dahmer had never been caught, you all would be saying his actions were consistant with an innocent man. he engaged with the women, he engaged with police, led police to his apartment. surely a guilty man would do none of these things.

                      *cue meaningless minutia, semantics mongering and knee jerk lech denial.
                      You can do better than that, Abby. It's a facile argument.

                      First of all, if a man was found dazed and bleeding anally only to be ushered away by his boyfriend, it would definitely raise alarm bells. It certainly did with the witnesses at the time. Sadly for Konerak, his salvation lied in the hands of a couple of homophobe donut cops.

                      Where are the red flags in Lechmere's behaviour? He approached the next witness on the scene and drew his attention to the victim.

                      There is obviously an element of risk to any serial killing, and some killers live more dangerously than others, but Lechmere's behaviour defies sense when framing him as the murderer.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                        You can do better than that, Abby. It's a facile argument.

                        First of all, if a man was found dazed and bleeding anally only to be ushered away by his boyfriend, it would definitely raise alarm bells. It certainly did with the witnesses at the time. Sadly for Konerak, his salvation lied in the hands of a couple of homophobe donut cops.

                        Where are the red flags in Lechmere's behaviour? He approached the next witness on the scene and drew his attention to the victim.

                        There is obviously an element of risk to any serial killing, and some killers live more dangerously than others, but Lechmere's behaviour defies sense when framing him as the murderer.
                        Hi Harry (and Jeff)
                        This whole part of the debate started when Jeff asked if there are other examples of killers who did something similar to what lech did (if guilty). I gave examples-including Dahmer, who is IMHO one of the strongest examples. thats it. and I am one hundred percent correct in that comparison.

                        And actually there is another example, a suspect in the ripper case itself no less, who also did something similar. surprisingly, or not, nobody has picked up on it. Bury, after murdering Ellen, walked right into the teeth of the police in an attempt to get away with her murder. BAM!

                        **cue meaningless minutia, semantics mongering and knee jerk lech denial.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          Hi Harry (and Jeff)
                          This whole part of the debate started when Jeff asked if there are other examples of killers who did something similar to what lech did (if guilty). I gave examples-including Dahmer, who is IMHO one of the strongest examples. thats it. and I am one hundred percent correct in that comparison.
                          Jeff has already dissected how Dahmer is not comparable to the Lechmere hypothesis.

                          Dahmer's victim was loose. He had two choices: try to control the situation and get his prey back, or take the risk of letting the victim get away and potentially leading the cops back to Dahmer's hell house. And I already stated, Dahmer's actions may have also been triggered by his separation anxiety.

                          What was Lechmere's dilemma? Someone saw him standing next to something shrouded in darkness? The person did not want to interact with Lechmere and had no idea there was a murder victim in the street?

                          There was nothing about Nichols murder that could be traced back to Lechmere.

                          But Lechmere decides to collar the passer-by and direct him to the victim?

                          Find me a serial killer who's done that Abby, and we'll talk.

                          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          And actually there is another example, a suspect in the ripper case itself no less, who also did something similar. surprisingly, or not, nobody has picked up on it. Bury, after murdering Ellen, walked right into the teeth of the police in an attempt to get away with her murder. BAM!
                          Again, another false comparison. Bury murdered his wife, in his own home. He was far from home and had no outs. He most likely felt trapped when he weighed up his options. Try to dispose of the body, go on the run (basically a confession), or tell the police it was an accident, and that's without factoring in the effect his alcoholism had on his decision-making.

                          Also, that same behaviour from Bury has often been used to discredit him as a serial killer.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                            Jeff has already dissected how Dahmer is not comparable to the Lechmere hypothesis.

                            Dahmer's victim was loose. He had two choices: try to control the situation and get his prey back, or take the risk of letting the victim get away and potentially leading the cops back to Dahmer's hell house. And I already stated, Dahmer's actions may have also been triggered by his separation anxiety.

                            What was Lechmere's dilemma? Someone saw him standing next to something shrouded in darkness? The person did not want to interact with Lechmere and had no idea there was a murder victim in the street?

                            There was nothing about Nichols murder that could be traced back to Lechmere.

                            But Lechmere decides to collar the passer-by and direct him to the victim?

                            Find me a serial killer who's done that Abby, and we'll talk.



                            Again, another false comparison. Bury murdered his wife, in his own home. He was far from home and had no outs. He most likely felt trapped when he weighed up his options. Try to dispose of the body, go on the run (basically a confession), or tell the police it was an accident, and that's without factoring in the effect his alcoholism had on his decision-making.

                            Also, that same behaviour from Bury has often been used to discredit him as a serial killer.
                            jeff dissected nothing. you jeff and others did nothing but base your arguments on speculation on what you think someone was thinking, or what they knew, or should have done or not done, whereas i based my argument on fact. dahmer wasnt caught. FACT. end of. And neither was bury. he had alot of other options.. he could have disposed of her body, fled with it or fled himself yet he went right to police in an attempt to ruse himself out of the situation. FACT. another Direct comparison to Lech (if guilty).

                            And with your alls type of reasoning nothing can be compared because you can always find some meaningless difference. nah were through talking.
                            Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-14-2021, 02:08 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                              jeff dissected nothing. you jeff and others did nothing but base your arguments on speculation on what you think someone was thinking, or what they knew, or should have done or not done, whereas i based my argument on fact. dahmer wasnt caught. FACT. end of. And neither was bury. he had alot of other options.. he could have disposed of her body, fled with it or fled himself yet he went right to police in an attempt to ruse himself out of the situation. FACT. another Direct comparison to Lech (if guilty).

                              And with your alls type of reasoning nothing can be compared because you can always find some meaningless difference. nah were through talking.
                              Hi Abby,

                              You are presuming Dahmer knew Konerak was incapable of leading the police back to him. Even we do not know that, as we do not know the extent of the damage done to his brain, and he may have recovered quite a bit of function had he been rescued. He no doubt would have had impairments as a result of what Dahmer did to him, but he was able to get out of the apartment and seek help. People have had very severe injuries to the brain and yet still recover, sometimes fully. There's no way for us to know what would have eventuated for him had he been rescued - so there's no way for Dahmer to know that either. To suggest Dahmer somehow knew what he was capable of is to go against the facts of what Dahmer did know for sure, he escaped and was with people. Dahmer wouldn't know if he was talking or not, or what he was saying if he was, etc. I'm not speculating on what Dahmer knew, I'm just looking at the facts that Dahmer had in front of him and what those facts would tell him based upon the information content of those facts. His victim was capable of doing things he hadn't expected - Dahmer didn't expect him to escape after all. So Dahmer had to decide how to fix this situation, which involved his victim clearly going to be lost to him, and that would put him at an extreme risk of being caught. He either let's that play out, or he tries to end it, regain his victim and reduce the chance of him getting caught. Dahmer's also trying to prevent the discovery that there even was a crime, while in Buck's Row, a dead body with their throat cut and abdomen mutilated, is not exactly easily explained.

                              And that is what makes the situations different, what Dahmer had in front of him was information that would put him in a "fix the situation or get caught" decision. You can't base the argument about what decision Dahmer had to make based upon the fact Dahmer wasn't caught, he had to make the decision before that information even existed. He didn't know he wasn't going to be caught, at the time he didn't even know the police had been called. It's possible that had he known the police were going to be coming he may have avoided getting involved in the whole situation, but we don't know.

                              And yes, things can be compared. As I say, the situation we're looking for are examples of serial killers, at the crime scene, who spot someone coming towards them at a distance and therefore have to choose between fleeing or sticking around to interact with that person. I don't think examples of "contacting the police as helper" type interactions are the same situation (inserting themselves into the investigation is often how that is referred to) as they're not at the crime scene and the decision there is about how to get information concerning how well the investigation is going. Nor is the "staging the discovery" the same thing because again, there the decision is about trying to establish that "I didn't know until they were found". Similarly, Dahmer's choice was quite different from the decision in Buck's Row, and we need to find examples of a similar nature.

                              In one sense the decision Dahmer had to make is similar to Buck's Row, in that Dahmer made the choice that leads to attempt to reduce the risk he is in, only in Dahmer's situation that required interacting, while in Buck's Row interacting would be the high risk option (Dahmer just letting it play out would be his high risk option - what others might have done is flee town and go on the run, an option Dahmer must have decided against or never considered). But I think the situations are too different to use for our purposes. I'm also not sure about situations where someone seen already fleeing the scene yells out to people who spot him fleeing, like Berkowitz who was seen running from a scene (by a dog walker I think), although at the time the dog walker didn't know about the shootings. Those might be interesting to look at though, and will probably be easier to find because in cases that we're looking for, in all situations where the killer chooses to flee, we will only be able to document the ones in which they were also spotted fleeing (or later testified to, such as in the Sutcliff case; and we must remember, these guys aren't exactly known for telling the truth).

                              Research, which is what I'm talking about in this last bit, is really hard. One can't just throw in a jumble of widely different situations that involve widely different decisions being made. It is critically important to thoroughly examine the situation to be explained, which has been done, and then look for other examples of where the key similarities occur (1) killer at the scene, 2) not yet spotted, 3) potential witness approaching towards them at a distance where flight is an option: I've underlined that last bit as I'm not sure I would want to include that as a criterion now that I write it. My reasoning for concern is that it may bias the data selection, if they didn't flee one argues "well, that distance clearly wasn't big enough for this killer to think they could flee..." etc. I think it's better to ignore that as a selection criterion, and if enough cases are found, one can look to see if the choice to flee or not to flee (my apologies to Shakespeare there) changes as a function of that distance. That, to me, would be a very interesting study, and the results would provide us with information directly relevant to the Buck's Row situation; At 130 yards, the "Flee:Not Flee odds are X:Y", at 100 yards they are "X:Y" and so forth. Basically, that would give us an empirical foundation to make claims about whether sticking around or fleeing is indeed the more likely option. Right now, we're all speculating on what those odds would be.

                              - Jeff
                              Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-14-2021, 06:36 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                jeff dissected nothing. you jeff and others did nothing but base your arguments on speculation on what you think someone was thinking, or what they knew, or should have done or not done, whereas i based my argument on fact.
                                Nope. We base our argument on two easily graspable things.

                                One: that the police, with the kid in their hands, could eventually find out where the boy had escaped from.
                                Two: that Dahmer was capable of realizing/getting this, as it’s no rocket science.

                                If you know facts that tell us that either one or both of these two things can’t be or aren’t true or why it is that neither should apply, then let us know. Or, if that’s easier, let us know why you think Dahmer took this brazen action just because he felt like it/just because he could/for the fun of it/for kicks. And please include the facts you base your view/belief on. At least show us that courtesy.

                                Just saying we’ve only found some meaningless difference while stamping your feet in frustration makes neither a good impression, nor does it convince.
                                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X