Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main

Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by TomTomKent 47 minutes ago.
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by TomTomKent 57 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Darryl Kenyon 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - (8 posts)
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 01-10-2019, 10:42 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,417

Going back a bit...

Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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 wasn´t 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.


"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov

Last edited by caz : 01-10-2019 at 10:44 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.