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.
On free fire zones Vietam: If they run, they're VC, if they don't run, they're well disciplined VC. -- Michael Herr, Dispatches
According to the Pall Mall Gazette account of his arrest;
"Police-constable Fraser related that at two in the morning on February 10 he was in Butler-street, Spitalfields, and heard a moaning. He went to the bottom of the street, and in Tenter-street found the woman Graham lying on the pavement, bleeding. The prisoner was stooping over her, and another constable was approaching from the other end of the street, blocking the prisoner's egress. On seeing Fraser, prisoner stood up and stepped away a few feet."
With a PC bearing down on him from each end of the street, he didn't really have the option of slipping away unseen.
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.
Let´s 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, let´s look at a few parameters that will influence the value of what Griffiths said. Let´s 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 Griffiths´ 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.
Right, so let's get this clear once and for all.
Andy Griffiths was talking about the risks involved in running, if Lechmere was the killer. Fish kindly confirmed this:
Yes indeed, Griffiths was talking about EXACTLY that and nothing else.
In short, Andy Griffiths believed that IF Lechmere was the killer, he would 'never' have attempted to run/walk/otherwise leave the scene before Paul arrived, because of the risks involved in doing so. Lechmere would have completely ruled out this option, and instead waited near the corpse and attempted to bluff it out with whoever he might meet as a result.
Andy Griffiths was also not 'familiar with the mental state of Charles Lechmere'. So he was not saying "Lechmere was a psychopath, so he would not have run", because 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."
[The above was a redundant observation by Fish, since he had previously confirmed that Andy Griffiths was ONLY talking about the risks involved in running and nothing else. Psychopath or no, Lechmere would 'never' have run and would therefore have had to try and bluff his way out of trouble.]
And yet 'the risks involved in running' don't appear to figure in Fish's own reasoning at all: '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 instead able to think on his feet and present very convincing lies to get himself out of a tricky situation'. Nothing here about running being the trickier proposition for any type of killer - presumably because even Fish would struggle with why Griffiths thought that would have been the case.
In fact, Fish said in a previous post that killers who are not psychopaths would never choose to stay and attempt to lie their way out of such a tricky situation. Only a psychopath could handle it. Only a psychopath would stay in Lechmere's situation, IF he was the killer. Any other killer would have run [and bugger the risks involved, as referred to by Griffiths].
It comes as little surprise that Fish never seems to address what 'risks' Griffiths was talking about, and why these risks would not apply equally to killers of all types. Fish appears to think the risks would not deter any non-psychopathic killer from running, while only a psychopathic one might choose not to run.
This totally contradicts and undermines Griffiths's opinion, that a killer in Lechmere's situation would 'never' have run because of the risks involved in doing so. No exceptions for all the non-psychopathic killers out there, who, according to Fish, would never have stayed.
It's a mess.
__________________ "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov