Knowing

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;415184]

(Oh my dear boy, none of the riddles in which you charmingly speak can hide the fact that)

as soon as I provide you with sufficient information or evidence about my crimes, so that you "know" I committed them,

Sufficient information for my own knowledge is not sufficient information for the court to charge me.

you can, at that point, notify the police, thus ensuring that you will not be charged with misprision of felony (let alone convicted of it).

And you are almost sure that I will not do it.

You might even receive a reward too my dear boy.

Oh no. It would just make things worse. Much worse.

[David Orsam]

And that is why you can say that you didnīt: people did not understand it. That was your plan.

Oh my dear boy, none of the riddles in which you charmingly speak can hide the fact that as soon as I provide you with sufficient information or evidence about my crimes, so that you "know" I committed them, you can, at that point, notify the police, thus ensuring that you will not be charged with misprision of felony (let alone convicted of it).

You might even receive a reward too my dear boy.

[Pierre]

I did no such thing my dear boy.

And that is why you can say that you didnīt: people did not understand it. That was your plan.

[David Orsam]

But you created pieces of evidence for my knowledge and saw to it that other people could see it but not understand it.

I did no such thing my dear boy.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;414971]

What I'm saying my dear boy is that your supposed knowledge of the murders only comes from what I told you. You know that and I know that.

This charming new factor that you have introduced into the scenario that somehow you think I have proof of your knowledge makes no sense in circumstances where you are also telling me that you don't believe me.

But you created pieces of evidence for my knowledge and saw to it that other people could see it but not understand it.

[David Orsam]

Of course it does not seem to be a terrible alternative to you. You are not a serial killer in 1888.

I thought I was my dear boy.

Please don't depart from your character in mid-conversation. It's very unprofessional.

[David Orsam]

"But I believe that you have proof that I knew about every murder."

What I'm saying my dear boy is that your supposed knowledge of the murders only comes from what I told you. You know that and I know that.

This charming new factor that you have introduced into the scenario that somehow you think I have proof of your knowledge makes no sense in circumstances where you are also telling me that you don't believe me.

I mean, even you don't have proof of your knowledge!

So the story has gone wrong somewhere.

[Pierre]

The alternative seems to me to be not to tell you that I have committed murder which does not seem all that terrible an alternative to me.

Of course it does not seem to be a terrible alternative to you. You are not a serial killer in 1888.

[Pierre]

Oh no, my dear boy, that's not right, you must be getting confused.

Perhaps you have forgotten that I asked you in #4: "What do you mean by "knew about the murders committed by him" my dear boy?"

And in your charming way you replied in #5: "I knew it, because you told me."

Then more recently you told me the scenario is as follows:

"you were a killer and I told you I donīt believe you, and you desperately wanted me to believe you "

So I know that your only knowledge comes from what I have told you but you have told me you didn't believe me. So I can't possibly believe that you have proof that you knew about every murder.

Please do keep up with the story my dear boy.

No, David, it is you who are confused now. I wrote to you:

"But I believe that you have proof that I knew about every murder."

But you wrote here above:

"...I can't possibly believe that you have proof that you knew about every murder."

I wrote that I believe, not you.

[David Orsam]

Not as terrible as the alternative.

The alternative seems to me to be not to tell you that I have committed murder which does not seem all that terrible an alternative to me.

[David Orsam]

But I believe that you have proof that I knew about every murder.

Oh no, my dear boy, that's not right, you must be getting confused.

Perhaps you have forgotten that I asked you in #4: "What do you mean by "knew about the murders committed by him" my dear boy?"

And in your charming way you replied in #5: "I knew it, because you told me."

Then more recently you told me the scenario is as follows:

"you were a killer and I told you I donīt believe you, and you desperately wanted me to believe you "

So I know that your only knowledge comes from what I have told you but you have told me you didn't believe me. So I can't possibly believe that you have proof that you knew about every murder.

Please do keep up with the story my dear boy.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;414957]

Yes, indeed, my dear boy, thus meaning that you can't be convicted of misprision of felony because you knew nothing.

But I believe that you have proof that I knew about every murder.

But the problem for me, my dear boy, is that as soon as I prove to you that I am the killer you can then go to the police, safe in the knowledge that by doing so you can't possibly be charged with any crime.

That depends on the character of the proof, indeed.

So my dear boy why have I told you that I am the killer and, worse, why I am trying to prove to you that I am the killer when I'm not entirely sure if you won't go to the police.

You are never sure, that is your weakness.

Yes you are right my dear boy, if I'm not sure. So also a terrible idea to tell you anything in the first place, no?

Not as terrible as the alternative.

[David Orsam]

No, David, thatīs not the point. You did give me proof for each murder but you did it because I refuse to acknowledge you as the murderer.

Yes, indeed, my dear boy, thus meaning that you can't be convicted of misprision of felony because you knew nothing.

The problem for me is that as soon as I do not go to the police they can make an example of me.

But the problem for me, my dear boy, is that as soon as I prove to you that I am the killer you can then go to the police, safe in the knowledge that by doing so you can't possibly be charged with any crime.

You are rather sure that I will not go to the police. But you can never be totally sure, that is your problem.

So my dear boy why have I told you that I am the killer and, worse, why I am trying to prove to you that I am the killer when I'm not entirely sure if you won't go to the police.

Since you are not sure, it is a terrible idea.

Yes you are right my dear boy, if I'm not sure. So also a terrible idea to tell you anything in the first place, no?

[Pierre]

But oh my dear boy I thought the scenario was that I had terrified you so much that you wouldn't go to the police. Because if I'm convicted of murder you would be convicted of misprision of felony. Isn't that right?

And if I was so concerned about you going to the police why have I told you that I am the killer in the first place?

This post of yours is an interesting conclusion of our hypothetical situation.

You are the cat and I am the rat.

From my perspective.

For you it is the opposite.

[Pierre]

Or murder you my dear boy.

Much easier I think.

Although if you are such a big problem for me, I'm rather baffled as to why I told you about those murders in the first place.

It is not an option.

You are baffled but your life depends on it.