Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

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

Yes, there are VERY large differences. I fully agree. And I think the division works to my advantage, more so on account of my experience of how murder cases are covered in the press than on account of you having excelled in the topic of evidence evaluation.

But we can go on to gab about for this for years and it will get us no further. If you think that a journalist cannot evaluate evidence, I can offer a number of examples to the contrary.

[Elamarna]

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.


complete denial of logic and facts, the point is not there is no evidence; its there is No Evidence to counter tge evidence which already exists


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.


Talking about yourself again i see. I only question evidence when the is other evidence to counter it. And only reject evidence when the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming as in this vase.


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.

Itīs tiresome.

Iit is indeed tiresome to see the same unsupported theories posted time after time, theories which either ignore the weight of evidence, mistrepsent it blatantly or which simply are factual wrong.

[Fisherman]

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.

I know a few things about self-deceiving, Steve. Much thanks to you.

What I said you treat as a fact in spite of how it is not possible to do so, is how you say that it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

Both of us know what a fact is - or should know it - and if you are stating that I have claimed a time as a fact that cannot be established as a fact, then please produce it.

And itīs possibilities, not possabilities, Steve. I donīt think I have ever seen you get that right, so I decided to help out. Please donīt think it is evil spirited, itīs just that Iīve grown tired of it.

I am actually growing tired of a lot when it comes to you.

[Elamarna]

Yes, there are VERY large differences. I fully agree. And I think the division works to my advantage, more so on account of my experience of how murder cases are covered in the press than on account of you having excelled in the topic of evidence evaluation.

But we can go on to gab about for this for years and it will get us no further. If you think that a journalist cannot evaluate evidence, I can offer a number of examples to the contrary.

Its not that journalists cannot evalute evidence, such a general claim would be laughable, its that they have a different objective and criteria for there work.
What is acceptable in journalism is not so in science.

[Fisherman]

Steve: "I only question evidence when the is other evidence to counter it. And only reject evidence when the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming as in this vase."

So suddenly there IS evidence to the contrary?

How things change.

A few posts back, there was no such evidence-

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, Steve. If we ever meet, I will explain the term to you.

Goodbye for now.

[Abby Normal]

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

None? Not that I really care because I see Paul as basically irrelevant, but I think your getting a bit carried away el. They could have both approached Mizen,Paul could have spoken to him and then left, and then lech could have said his thing.

The basic gist of all the reports is that lech was the main one, took the lead and did the talking etc. there is also the fact that at least one report has mizen saying that a man approached him and spoke to him. One.

Now all that being said, it does seem the weight of it all is that the both approached spoke and left mizen together, but surely at some point Paul could have been out of ear shot..it’s not impossible el, I think your letting your opposition to fish get the better of you.

[Elamarna]

I know a few things about self-deceiving, Steve. Much thanks to you.

What I said you treat as a fact in spite of how it is not possible to do so, is how you say that it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

There is no evidence he was out of earshot, there is evidence that he was not. With the lack of any evidence to the contrary the pro evidence must stand, to suggest there is any other option possable is not valid with out evidence. Its wish fulfilment as you well know

Both of us know what a fact is - or should know it - and if you are stating that I have claimed a time as a fact that cannot be established as a fact, then please produce it.

I see worried about the 3.45 in Lloyds, dont think i have mentioned any other time have I?

And itīs possibilities, not possabilities, Steve. I donīt think I have ever seen you get that right, so I decided to help out. Please donīt think it is evil spirited, itīs just that Iīve grown tired of it.

I am actually growing tired of a lot when it comes to you.

when we resort to pointing out spelling errors, we know the argument is weak.
Growing tired of me? Shame live with it.

[Elamarna]

Steve: "I only question evidence when the is other evidence to counter it. And only reject evidence when the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming as in this vase."

So suddenly there IS evidence to the contrary?

How things change.

A few posts back, there was no such evidence-

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, Steve. If we ever meet, I will explain the term to you.

Goodbye for now.

What on earth are you talking about?

I think you have seriously misread my most.

The evidence is that of Lechmere and Paul.

I would only question that if there is contary evidence, and ONLY reject it if that contrary evidence is overwhelming.

Thrre is no Contrary Evidence to Lechmere and Paul, so I do not qusetion it.


That seems clear to me

[Elamarna]

Abby, firstly appologies for the slow reply, my battery died

None? Not that I really care because I see Paul as basically irrelevant, but I think your getting a bit carried away el. They could have both approached Mizen,Paul could have spoken to him and then left, and then lech could have said his thing.

If we had no evidence to the contrary i would agree, or if we had something from Mizen which supported such a possibility again would agree.


The basic gist of all the reports is that lech was the main one, took the lead and did the talking etc. there is also the fact that at least one report has mizen saying that a man approached him and spoke to him. One.

Which if we read Lechmere's account has the ring of truth. Lechmere appears to engage Mizen in a brief conversation, while Paul seems to just make odd comments. In such a case there is no reason for Mizen to respond.

Now all that being said, it does seem the weight of it all is that the both approached spoke and left mizen together, but surely at some point Paul could have been out of ear shot..it’s not impossible el, I think your letting your opposition to fish get the better of you.[/QUOTE]

Here we have the issue do we not Abby, what is impossible?

If i had one bit of evidence for and one against i would say it is possible.

If i had two for and 1 against i would still say possible, but unless descrepences can be shown in the two, it would be very unlikely.

Here we have 3 lines of evident, None of which support the idea. That for me rules it not unlikely but impossible, if there was a viable counter argument from the sources i would say possible, we just don't have that.

Now some may view that approach as being over the top, but surely there has to be a point in any case where we say the weight of evidence, and the total lack of counter evidence must mean any unsupported option needs to be viewed as impossible as it stands, further evidence may change that of course. Which is what i have been saying all along.

This is one of the serious issues with Ripperology, theories are put forward with no sources to support them, with the argument that it's not impossible, so it must be possible.


Now if on reading my upcoming take on the scam, the majority reject that idea and do so with evidence, i will happily revert to the misunderstanding scernero, the idea is not that precious to me and has in my view little bearing on the actual murder. I could be wrong.

Am I letting my opposition to Fish get the better or me?
I would like to think not.
I would not, I hope, post something I did not beleive.


Not sure that answers you very sensible post, but its where i stand, if i am wrong so be it.



Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Its rather like your mantra of ‘if its not completely impossible then we can use it against CL.’

In other threads you often use ‘likelihoods,’ and so:

The likelihood is that a guilty CL wouldnt have deliberately put himself in a position to be caught by not fleeing the scene when he had ample chance.

The likelihood is that a killer wouldnt kill on his way to work leaving himself 10 or 15 minutes to get in on time and with nomchance to clean up.

The likelihood is that a killer wouldnt kill at a spot that he (and possibly only one other person) passed 6 days a week at the same time.

The likelihood is that if a killer gave a false name to the police to avoid capture he might have sussed that giving his true address at the same time might not be the best idea ever.

These likelihoods point to the unlikelihood of CL being the ripper.

Take away the fact that CL was at the crime scene and the fact that he cannot be eliminated on geography and there really is nothing else to incriminate him.

Overconfidence reigns here along with a willingness to try anything to make CL fit. Even Steve, one of the calmest and most reasonable posters on the threads, is begining to sound like a man who is losing the will to live.

I know he he feels (and i suspect that Gareth does to.)

[Pcdunn]

Anticipating with interest...

Fully interactive Ebook. Approx 1/3 discussion and analysis, 2/3 resources.
Date, in the next few months. It was meant to be March, but these things happen.
Self publishing so no deadlines to work to. When i am happy with it, its out. Also being in this format, any future updates or amendments will be availble at no additional charge after purchase.
I will anounch it when done.

Steve

I am looking forward to this, Steve! When I joined Casebook in late 2014, the shawl business was finishing up, and the Lechmere identification was breaking, so I spent a lot of my time on threads for the latter (it was at least a year later before the TV documentary showed over here), so I feel invested in the topic.

Good luck with the project, very interested in seeing your results.

[Pcdunn]

And hours were loooong and the work often exhausting in those days. Most working family men would simply not have had the spare time, let alone the energy and the luxury to even think about squeezing in some killing for pleasure. [...]

Love,

Caz
X

I said as much quite a while ago on one of Fish's threads, and he shredded me and supplied examples of married 20th century serial killers (I suppose now the Golden State/ East Area Rapist will join them) who didn't seem too tired to go out murdering.

Sigh... Anyway, I agree with you!

[Elamarna]

I am looking forward to this, Steve! When I joined Casebook in late 2014, the shawl business was finishing up, and the Lechmere identification was breaking, so I spent a lot of my time on threads for the latter (it was at least a year later before the TV documentary showed over here), so I feel invested in the topic.

Good luck with the project, very interested in seeing your results.

Thanks Pat,

It will be nothing like any other Ripper book i have ever seen before, one of the reasons it is behind schedule.
Fully embracing modern Technology.
Links to website's and online articles and maps.
I am also considering linking it to any reviews, both Pro and anti.
The really good think is that if there are faults factually these will be corrected immediatly.


Steve .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Pat,

It will be nothing like any other Ripper book i have ever seen before, one of the reasons it is behind schedule.
Fully embracing modern Technology.
Links to website's and online articles and maps.
I am also considering linking it to any reviews, both Pro and anti.
The really good think is that if there are faults factually these will be corrected immediatly.


Steve .

The only down side is that we wont be able to get a signed copy

[Elamarna]

The only down side is that we wont be able to get a signed copy

Not so.
You will be able to get it signed. scanned signature and message avaliable

Steve