Tweet
Hello all......
New poster and all and I'm hoping a few of you will be kind enough to point me in the right direction. But the question comes at the end and before that would like to offer a philosophical argument.....
I'll open with this: much of what we believe is an illusion. We can easily be led astray as impression is not the same as experience - such as placing a hand in a fire - what you think it may be like will not be what it is like - you could never appreciate the pain until you actually experience it. Experience is everything - which has important implications for what the facts may or might not have been and how they are viewed from someone who was not in that situation.
Similarly - the reason why there are so many theories and so much disagreement is simply because we see the world from different points of view and driven by varying circumstances - the fact that we see the world differently doesn't mean there are two worlds. And this has important implications - that being that we must stay as close as possible to fact; anything less is illusory. It also suggests that a person/witness could quite easily be inaccurate without deliberately lying.
I was reading the Liz Stride thread with interest. I don't know any of you - but I've spent the last weak reading this board and really enjoyed myself. I thought Tom (forget second name) was the most convincing - not because he knew more than others - but because he stuck pretty much to what is reasonable - and that's the best we can do because anything less is to be easily led astray. This means that while Perry Mason and Tom - using these as an example as they were the two I was reading last night - may have both done extensive research I feel it is wise to stay closer to Tom purely because he stays closer to what is known.
To illustrate: I'd say that the door at Miller's Court is utterly irrelevant. It is surely possible that anyone with half a brain could have locked the door behind him. Therefore - what is the point in making an issue out of something which isn't really unusual?
But what I find unusual is this: why were the 5 murders all Thursday to Sunday? I'm a historian - not a mathematician - but I suppose the odds are that there is a reason for this. My question is this: I'm sure there has been some research undertaken...has anyone turned up anything interesting with regard to the pattern of the days of the murders? This to me is as interesting as anything else in tha case.
I'd like to add something else. I read the thread about withheld information. I believe that the withheld information was that Lawende did get a good look at the killer.
New poster and all and I'm hoping a few of you will be kind enough to point me in the right direction. But the question comes at the end and before that would like to offer a philosophical argument.....
I'll open with this: much of what we believe is an illusion. We can easily be led astray as impression is not the same as experience - such as placing a hand in a fire - what you think it may be like will not be what it is like - you could never appreciate the pain until you actually experience it. Experience is everything - which has important implications for what the facts may or might not have been and how they are viewed from someone who was not in that situation.
Similarly - the reason why there are so many theories and so much disagreement is simply because we see the world from different points of view and driven by varying circumstances - the fact that we see the world differently doesn't mean there are two worlds. And this has important implications - that being that we must stay as close as possible to fact; anything less is illusory. It also suggests that a person/witness could quite easily be inaccurate without deliberately lying.
I was reading the Liz Stride thread with interest. I don't know any of you - but I've spent the last weak reading this board and really enjoyed myself. I thought Tom (forget second name) was the most convincing - not because he knew more than others - but because he stuck pretty much to what is reasonable - and that's the best we can do because anything less is to be easily led astray. This means that while Perry Mason and Tom - using these as an example as they were the two I was reading last night - may have both done extensive research I feel it is wise to stay closer to Tom purely because he stays closer to what is known.
To illustrate: I'd say that the door at Miller's Court is utterly irrelevant. It is surely possible that anyone with half a brain could have locked the door behind him. Therefore - what is the point in making an issue out of something which isn't really unusual?
But what I find unusual is this: why were the 5 murders all Thursday to Sunday? I'm a historian - not a mathematician - but I suppose the odds are that there is a reason for this. My question is this: I'm sure there has been some research undertaken...has anyone turned up anything interesting with regard to the pattern of the days of the murders? This to me is as interesting as anything else in tha case.
I'd like to add something else. I read the thread about withheld information. I believe that the withheld information was that Lawende did get a good look at the killer.
Comment