Favorite suspect/s?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, Gareth, when two people find a body and head off together to find a policeman, they tend to speak to that policeman together!

Abslutely! That is so insightful it makes my eyes fill up with tears. And we AGREE about it, even!!

The problem arises when you say that "there is no reason to think Paul and Lechmere did it differently".

Then it becomes a self-confirming matter, and you put the cart before the horse.

If you turn it around, we could say that when a policeman is approached by two men and spoken to by them, that policeman tends to say "two men spoke to me" afterwards, not "a man spoke to me".

Can you see how that works? It is an example of the exact same kind of logic you used in YOUR example.

Can you see how there is a glaring discrepancy here?

You say that it is evident that both men spoke to Mizen, but it is not. Nowhere does it say this. If it did, you would have a case, but what happens when it does not? Correct, you have no case at all.
As I keep saying - speaking to deaf or wilfully closed ears - when somebody asks about the England football team "Have they scored?", the question does not imply that the one who asks wants to know if every man of the squad has scored - he wants to know if the entity as a whole has.

The only ones reading too much into the evidence are the ones who fail to see that the two carmen may have been apart to some degree as Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

Who says that "A" man spoke to him, not "TWO" men.

Sure you guys can gather up and bully me, but you cannot bully the facts.

Live with it.

Not only do you have an idiosyncratic notion of ‘proof’ you appear to also have one on ‘facts’ too.

Did Mizen, in any way, state implicitly or even imply that Paul was out of earshot? The answer is a categorical no.

Is it impossible that he could have been out of earshot. No, not impossible.

But do all the facts point to the fact that they were together (considering their common purpose,) the fact that they left the crime scene together, the fact that they left Buck’s Row together, the fact that they found Mizen together, the fact that Paul’s statement to Lloyd’s shows him to be not the kind of guy to stay in the background, the statements that have Paul speaking to Mizen.

So what do you have on your side of the ‘debate?’

The fact that Mizen didnt specifically say that both men spoke to him and a very strong reason for wanting the ‘scam’ to be true.

Anyone unbiased can see this Fish.

Its almost as bad as the non-issue of the ‘name thing’ which is still shamefully used to try and incriminate CL.

Or the Barrister who is only fed one side of the debate to make an ‘informed’ judgement.

Or the Carman who appears to want to do everything in his power to drop himself right in the you-know-what.

Your theory is like a tramp.......it just doesnt wash.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Look, Fish, when two people find a body and head off together to find a policeman, they naturally tend to speak to the policeman together. That's what people do, and there's no reason to suppose that Paul and Cross did differently.

Apart from that we can see, from the few press accounts that we have, that Paul was in Cross's company when they met with Mizen, and that BOTH men told Mizen what THEY saw. When they did so, they didn't pop back and forth like Mrs Sun and Mr Rain in a bloody weather-clock now, did they?

It's painfully obvious to everyone here that you are so desperate to cling onto your idea of a "Mizen scam" that you are reading far more into this than the evidence, and common sense, permits.

The phrase ‘flogging a dead horse’ comes to mind Gareth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To propose that the carmen were not within earshot of each other is anything but a "wild idea". To say I disregard all the sources is wrong.

To try and tarnish another poster by spreading false information is distasteful.

Pot-kettle-black!

Yet again the same old reversal of whats actually going on on this thread.

[Elamarna]

To propose that the carmen were not within earshot of each other is anything but a "wild idea". To say I disregard all the sources is wrong.

To try and tarnish another poster by spreading false information is distasteful.

It is not backed by the sources. It is a unsupported piece of speculation, a wild idea.

You disregard the sources that do not support your line of thinking.

Hence you disbeleive Lechmere on every subject.
You only accept Paul on his entry into Bucks Row.
You use sources which have obvious mistakes such as the morning Advertiser 4th september stateing 4.20 and then suggest its wrong to say its factually inaccurate.
Again Morning Advertiser you select this with regards to the question asked of Mizen by Baxter over 4 other acvounts that strongly imply a word is missing from the Advertiser account.

Steve

[Elamarna]

This thread if nothing else has given me fresh insight into the classic "scam".
This has resulted in a rewriting of the chapter dealing with it in my work.
Previously i had mainly argued the case for the scernero i was proposing, with the "Classic scam" mentioned in some detail, but no prolonged argument against it provided.

Fish has however now provided more than i could ever have seriously want to demonstate the failings of The "Classic Scam" .


A big thank you is need.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Trying to twist and manipulate yet again.
My comment which you post was in response to this

"But isn´t that illegitimate? Steve tells us that his point is proven and that he cannot be wrong, so who am I to disagree with somebody who has a proven point and thus cannot be wrong?"

You insinuate i am saying something i am not.
Read what is written, rather than what you want to be written.

That is noone would ever rule out any possability if there was evidence to support such a possability, BUT there is No Evidence so there is No possability

If you produced evidence, which we both know you CANNOT do to challenge the carmen, we would have a possability, But in the absece of such the position is unchanged .

There is no possability at all given the evidence that Paul was out of earshot..

The post is deciectful and has no shame.

Yes, I know it is, but I am used to that when you post. However, the fewest are so honest about it, so kudos to you, Steve!

So "no evidence" equals "no possibility" now?

How very interesting!

So as long as there is no evidence against a suspect, there is no possibility that he is guilty?

I really marvel at how "genuine research" is done these days.

Do you not realize yourself how very far from logic you have strayed?

[Fisherman]

Yes it is.

The sources are all we have, if you prefer fiction go ahead.

It´s also a question of how we use the sources and which sources we put trust in, Steve.

When it comes to me, you seem to require that if I accept part of a dubious source, then I must accept all of it. Like how I must abandon the 3.45 timing in Pauls article if I abandon something else.

So now I suppose you have to ACCEPT the 3.45 timing?

[Fisherman]

A ludicrously desperate post.

If i went shopping with Gareth and we told you that we had been to various shops would you only believe that we’d entered the shops together if we phrased the statement like this: “Gareth and i went shopping together today. We both went into the butcher’s shop then we both went into the supermarket then we both went into the sporting goods shop then we both went into the bookshop.” Or would we be able to say with confidence: Gareth and i went shopping together today. We went in the butchers, the supermarket, the sports shop and the bookshop?”

The problem for me Fish is that your English is obviously very good. So its hard to believe that you cant grasp Gareths point and so im afraid that only leaves us with one alternative.

No, I would not only believe that you´d entered the shops together if you said explicitly that you did so.

I would in fact work from the assumption that you did enter the shops together anyway.

But if I was asked if I could guarantee it, I could not do so until I had it layed out in no uncertain terms.

And I would certainly not exclude the possibility that you had left Gareth behind in the supermarket, having told him that you were on your way to the sports shop, where he joined up with you later.

Can you explain to me how this would be in any way impossible?

You see, YOU may think that there is only one option, but once we look closer at things, we can easily see that this assumption is wrong.

And yes, I agree that people should use their language gifts when they have them. Or if.

[Fisherman]

Not only do you have an idiosyncratic notion of ‘proof’ you appear to also have one on ‘facts’ too.

Did Mizen, in any way, state implicitly or even imply that Paul was out of earshot? The answer is a categorical no.

Is it impossible that he could have been out of earshot. No, not impossible.

But do all the facts point to the fact that they were together (considering their common purpose,) the fact that they left the crime scene together, the fact that they left Buck’s Row together, the fact that they found Mizen together, the fact that Paul’s statement to Lloyd’s shows him to be not the kind of guy to stay in the background, the statements that have Paul speaking to Mizen.

So what do you have on your side of the ‘debate?’

The fact that Mizen didnt specifically say that both men spoke to him and a very strong reason for wanting the ‘scam’ to be true.

Anyone unbiased can see this Fish.

Its almost as bad as the non-issue of the ‘name thing’ which is still shamefully used to try and incriminate CL.

Or the Barrister who is only fed one side of the debate to make an ‘informed’ judgement.

Or the Carman who appears to want to do everything in his power to drop himself right in the you-know-what.

Your theory is like a tramp.......it just doesnt wash.

One important thing only: "Is it impossible that he could have been out of earshot. No, not impossible."

You disagree with Steve on that, by the way - he claimes that it IS impossible. So you are on different levels of denial, you being the sounder judge.

It is not a question of bias when you research a suspect - at least, it should not be.

As long as you say that there is no good suspect and that the case will remain unsolved, you can look at all possibilities and say "they may all be true - how wonderfully unbiased I am!"

And then you can say "Look at him - he points to one of the possibilties only - how devlishly biased he is!"

But I do not rule out that the options pointing AWAY from Lechmere can be true! What I am doing is to try and see if there is a path that can be walked by my suspect, where the suspicions may be pointing to the truth.

It is a very much narrower path to walk than being "unbiased", but it is not a path that should be criticized for a bias. It is instead looking at if there are obstacles that cannot be overcome - in which case the suspect must be dropped.

So far, no such obstacles have been identified in Lechmeres case, and so I merrily keep researching him and I reserve myself the right to believe that he WAS the killer.

After all, these are discussion boards.

[Fisherman]

It is not backed by the sources. It is a unsupported piece of speculation, a wild idea.

You disregard the sources that do not support your line of thinking.

Hence you disbeleive Lechmere on every subject.
You only accept Paul on his entry into Bucks Row.
You use sources which have obvious mistakes such as the morning Advertiser 4th september stateing 4.20 and then suggest its wrong to say its factually inaccurate.
Again Morning Advertiser you select this with regards to the question asked of Mizen by Baxter over 4 other acvounts that strongly imply a word is missing from the Advertiser account.

Steve

Read my post to Herlock and you may begin to see how I reason and work.
It does not include claiming things that cannot be proven to be facts, the way you do. That´s the bottom line.

[Fisherman]

This thread if nothing else has given me fresh insight into the classic "scam".
This has resulted in a rewriting of the chapter dealing with it in my work.
Previously i had mainly argued the case for the scernero i was proposing, with the "Classic scam" mentioned in some detail, but no prolonged argument against it provided.

Fish has however now provided more than i could ever have seriously want to demonstate the failings of The "Classic Scam" .


A big thank you is need.

Steve

You are most welcome! I will undoubtedly contribute more when you publish. And I am equally thankful to YOU for showing me how you evaluate evidence. It has been fascinating!

[Elamarna]

Yes, I know it is, but I am used to that when you post. However, the fewest are so honest about it, so kudos to you, Steve!


Very funny


So "no evidence" equals "no possibility" now?

How very interesting!

Game playing again i see.
When there is evidence of an event, in this case both Carmen speaking to Mizen and thus Both being within earshot, it requires other contradictory evidence to challenge that.
If the position cannot be challenged, and it seems it cannot legitimately be done, then any alternative suggestiin is not possible.
Now you know this, but you ignoring the position.

So as long as there is no evidence against a suspect, there is no possibility that he is guilty?
Not wha i am saying, see abouve, as you well know. Such posts are not clever, just stubboneanly arrogant.

I really marvel at how genuine research is done these days.

that is obvious to all.

Do you not realize yourself how very far from logic you have strayed?

Posting deliberate misrepresentations achieves nothing.
Given the evidence we have, (reports saying paul talks to Mizen, No reports saying he is apart from Lechmere) there is No possability that Paul was out of earshot.



Steve

[Elamarna]

You are most welcome! I will undoubtedly contribute more when you publish. And I am equally thankful to YOU for showing me how you evaluate evidence. It has been fascinating!

I evalute evidence as a scientist, you appear to keep to your training and do so as a journalist. There are significant and serious differences.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Posting deliberate misrepresentations achieves nothing.
Given the evidence we have, (reports saying paul talks to Mizen, No reports saying he is apart from Lechmere) there is No possability that Paul was out of earshot.



Steve

Even if you stubbornly claim that nothing points to the carmen splitting up at the stage when Mizen was approached (which is wrong), it STILL applies that they MAY have done so.

The only value of your thinking is to point out that if we only use the accounts and parts you favour, then it becomes more likely that the carmen never split up than that they did.

It is very much like Trevor Marriotts criticism of my theory: "If you are wrong, then your theory is useless".

Same kind of insightful thinking, same kind of contribution, the only difference being that you pat yourself on the shoulder and celebrate that you think you have followed the golden rules of research.

It´s tiresome.

[Elamarna]

Read my post to Herlock and you may begin to see how I reason and work.
It does not include claiming things that cannot be proven to be facts, the way you do. That´s the bottom line.

I have read it, the post is self deceiving.

I do not claim timings are facts, only indicators of various possabilities, broad guides so to speak.