Going back a bit...
Originally Posted by Fisherman
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.