Lechmere validity

[Fisherman]

Started to read, could't be bothered to finish. Sorry Fisherman, just taking on board your previous replies to me when you avoided answering my questions pertaining to side trips, and asking for clarifications. Conversations are two way streets.

- Jeff

Then maybe they are also matters where it takes two listeners? I have very clearly clarified what I mean. I mean that much as I donīt personally THINK that the carmen made any side trips, there is no way that we can rule out that they may have done so. The wording "together" does not hinder it as such.
I really cant be any clearer than that.

[Fisherman]

OMG! I can't believe I almost overlooked this gem:

FISHERMAN: WHAT??? I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all!

So, the Lloyd's article, in which clearly you must believe Paul is doing nothing but telling porkies, you also, tooth and nail, insist that his word "exactly" is to be taken as gospel. I bow your chutzpah.

- Jeff

Can you be just a little bit less dramatic? I said that I donīt think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all. I didnīt say that he could not have done so. I do not insist on how "exactly" should be taken as gospel, I say that I think that it may well be the best and closest timing we have.

I donīt make myself a zealot. But you seem intent on it. For whatever reason.

[Fisherman]

The sarcasm, speaks volumes.

Its not shameful, because TWO of the Three protagonists say such happened, and yet you simply discount these comments because they do not fit.

What is shameful is to base a theory on semantics of a language, and to ignore the sources, as is done time after time.


Steve

Maybe this is the "historic" approach that you pride yourself on - to accept as fact what a man who is suggested to be the killer says. Becasue that is what you do, repeatedly: trust Lechmere and give his testimony the same credence as that of the other participants in the drama.

I am not saying that one should not look on matters like that. It is something that must be done. But equally, when somebody is suggested as a suspect in a murder case, one must look at the matter from an angle where the proposed killer is not given the same credence as the other participants, to see what picture emerges then. It is what the police do, for example. They allow themselves the freedom of thought that stems from looking at the overall picture with the idea that X was the killer.

I can understand if it does not sit well with a more academic approach, based on the belief that nobody should be treated as a suspect at any stage; it is only when a case is proven that we may look in the mirror and see how the new outcome fits the old thinking.

It is a very nice way to treat people, generally speaking, and a comfortable working ethic since if dissolves the idea that suspects exist.

On a more realistic level, though, I think that it is absolutely useless when it comes to trying to establish the validity of a suspicion.

In your cozy little world, it can always be yelled "BIAS!!" once we look at cases from an angle that explores the possible guilt of a suspect. In my world (which is also the world of the police in this respect), it is accepted that - sad though it sounds - some people are less useful members of society than others.

I am perfectly willing to be called biased if those are the grounds. I prefer a thorough quest for the truth to half-religious strivings for everybodyīs righ to be called innocent until proven guilty. You see it the other way around, although you are perfectly willing to accuse Mizen of lying on what will be circumstantial evidence only. Win a few, loose a few, eh?

[Fisherman]

I see, here we accept the word of a PC over a member of the public, Not based on the evidence supplied by the sources, but because he is a PC? It surely can't be because it fits our Theory of Fitting Lechmere up. Of course, we REJECT the word of the very same PC, over the very same individual, when it lets us use the time issue to fit the theory.


"I would not touch them with a pair of pliers myself"?????

Never heard that before, you do make me laugh sometimes.


Steve

What you see is how I say that it must be accepted that the PC in case may have told the truth. But you prefer to word it as if I am saying that we MUST believe the PC over the carman.
It is called misleading and it is closely linked to propaganda.

[Fisherman]

Hi Patrick S,

In fact, Fisherman now says that Paul didn't even speak to PC Mizen at all! See the bottom of the quoted section of post 159, where he's inserted his response into the quoted text just under my name and says "WHAT??? I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all!" So that makes not only what Paul claims to have said to PC Mizen a lie, but even his claim to have said anything at all to PC Mizen is a lie by Paul. Good thing he's honest and precise with his time though, eh?

- Jeff

Once again, I do not state that as a fact at all, I state it as something I believe is a likely thing. But of course, if it feels better to misrepresent what I say, go ahead. Itīs not the first time and it will not be the last.

Being able to see these not very subtle differences is something that tells a useful poster apart from one that will get things wrong - and brag about it.

[Fisherman]

Jeff,

that is the logical progression of Christer's theory, if Paul is not within earshot, how can he say anything to Mizen?


Of course what it demonstrates is the predetermination and bias present in the theory.

Paul needs to not hear what happens in the exchange between Mizen and Lechmere, otherwise the "Scam" needs, to evolve from just Lechmere, and to include Paul's active participation, and such has indeed been suggested as a possibility, has it not?

Equally, the corroboration between Paul and Lechmere, regarding Paul speaking to Mizen needs to be dismissed, either by going down the route above of complicity in the "Scam", or simply saying that Lechmere cannot corroborate, because he lies. He lies because he is the killer, and he is the killer because he lies, the ultimate circular argument.


The Timing issue has already mentioned, shows a tendency to pick from Lloyds, that which fits the Lechmere theory; and before I am accused of doing the same, I will state again that I only accept that statement, where it is corroborated by one or both of the other participants.

What we see employed here is the exact opposite, accept when there is no corroboration; dismiss when there is

When one finds an inconsistency, such as over the exchange, one needs to reach a probable conclusion based on actual evidence, not on what we would like the evidence to be.

And here I will highlight my work on the "Scam". I began by accepting all 3 accounts as being probably truthful in the main, and then came to the conclusion that the event never really occurred and was simply a misunderstanding. However, while researching another related point, I so the possibility that there was an alternative, which began as a simple mistake and indeed evolved into a "Scam" the Real Mizen Scam.

Further research and analysis then lead me to the conclusion reached in the work.


Steve

Again no, suggesting a theory is not being biased. There is no bias whatsoever in pointing to how Paul MAY have been out of earshot and how that means that the theory MAY be correct in this respect. It is the plain and simple truth that this may have been so. Claiming that pointing that out is biased is professing to not understanding the processes involved.

[Harry D]

Equally, the corroboration between Paul and Lechmere, regarding Paul speaking to Mizen needs to be dismissed, either by going down the route above of complicity in the "Scam", or simply saying that Lechmere cannot corroborate, because he lies. He lies because he is the killer, and he is the killer because he lies, the ultimate circular argument.

Yup, it's an exercise in futility. When Lechmere does anything remotely suspicious, it's because he's the killer. When he does anything perfectly innocent, it's because he's the killer. You simply can't have a rational debate with a suspect-based theorist. They are blinded by confirmation bias.

What do we think? That Fisherman is going to turnaround and proclaim "Damn, you've provided some strong and cogent arguments, perhaps I need to re-evaluate my convictions" or do we think he'll just double-down on the Lechmere as Ripper stuff?

[Fisherman]

"The Timing issue has already mentioned, shows a tendency to pick from Lloyds, that which fits the Lechmere theory; and before I am accused of doing the same, I will state again that I only accept that statement, where it is corroborated by one or both of the other participants."

This is an example of how you point out that you are working to an agenda where you are ready to accept what Paul says if it is corroborated by Charles Lechmere - who is the person scrutinized for quite possibly being the killer of Nichols and who may quite well have read the Lloyds article. If you say that it is a "historically correct" way of going about finding out who may have been guilty in a murder case, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that it could well be the exact opposite - a surefire way not to be able to find out what really happened.

To me, this is a classic example of square thinking, a ridiculous approach to a problem that needs to be looked at with an open eye for all possibilities. Locking oneself to a dogmatic rule thinking was never a good thing, and in my view, it can achieve one thing only: a certainty that the case will never be solved.

I am quite fine with you exploring this route to wisdom, Steve, but that is not in any way going to stop me from using other paths. And I do NOT appreciate being called biased for it, so I would very much like if you could accept that and let us both move on. In the end, I say let the results decide which is the better way. Results are hard to argue with.

[Elamarna]

Maybe this is the "historic" approach that you pride yourself on - to accept as fact what a man who is suggested to be the killer says. Becasue that is what you do, repeatedly: trust Lechmere and give his testimony the same credence as that of the other participants in the drama.

I am not saying that one should not look on matters like that. It is something that must be done. But equally, when somebody is suggested as a suspect in a murder case, one must look at the matter from an angle where the proposed killer is not given the same credence as the other participants, to see what picture emerges then. It is what the police do, for example. They allow themselves the freedom of thought that stems from looking at the overall picture with the idea that X was the killer.

The problem of course is that you start from suspecting him, and follow with somewhat circular argument, you do not trust him because you think he is the killer, and because he is the killer he cannot be trusted.

You see I do not just look at what Lechmere says, I compare it to the known evidence, rather than speculation, and see if it can be corroborated. Following that method I see No reason not to trust the majority of what Lechmere says.


[QUOTE=Fisherman;n709955]

I can understand if it does not sit well with a more academic approach, based on the belief that nobody should be treated as a suspect at any stage; it is only when a case is proven that we may look in the mirror and see how the new outcome fits the old thinking.

It is a very nice way to treat people, generally speaking, and a comfortable working ethic since if dissolves the idea that suspects exist.

On a more realistic level, though, I think that it is absolutely useless when it comes to trying to establish the validity of a suspicion.

In your cozy little world, it can always be yelled "BIAS!!" once we look at cases from an angle that explores the possible guilt of a suspect. In my world (which is also the world of the police in this respect), it is accepted that - sad though it sounds - some people are less useful members of society than others.

I am perfectly willing to be called biased if those are the grounds. I prefer a thorough quest for the truth to half-religious strivings for everybodyīs righ to be called innocent until proven guilty. You see it the other way around, although you are perfectly willing to accuse Mizen of lying on what will be circumstantial evidence only. Win a few, loose a few, eh?

My cosy world? You mean the one where theories have to be tested, and seen to stand or fall.

I believe there is ample non circumstantial evidence to suggest that Mizen is not telling a truthful account of what occurs from the moment he meets the Carmen until he meets Neil.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Yup, it's an exercise in futility. When Lechmere does anything remotely suspicious, it's because he's the killer. When he does anything perfectly innocent, it's because he's the killer. You simply can't have a rational debate with a suspect-based theorist. They are blinded by confirmation bias.

What do we think? That Fisherman is going to turnaround and proclaim "Damn, you've provided some strong and cogent arguments, perhaps I need to re-evaluate my convictions" or do we think he'll just double-down on the Lechmere as Ripper stuff?

I would once again like to point out that it is grossly unfair (and more than a tad dumb) to claim that my thinking goes along the axis "Lechmere is the killer, therefore this is suspicious". It goes along the line "This is suspicious, therefore it adds to the idea that Lechmere could be the killer". After all, that IS how a good case is built, and this is a good enough case to take to court, remember? If, that is, Scobie was able to produce some strong and cogent thinking.

If you like to point me to any of the "strong and cogent" arguments you seem to see for the carmans innocence, I would be happy to scrutinize them. Is it the "he would have run" argument again that you see as strong and cogent? If so, yes, he could have run but he must not have is my answer. Again.
Maybe that is not strong and cogent, though?

Do expand, Harry.

[Elamarna]

What you see is how I say that it must be accepted that the PC in case may have told the truth. But you prefer to word it as if I am saying that we MUST believe the PC over the carman.
It is called misleading and it is closely linked to propaganda.

So are you then not saying that any of the 3 participants could be telling the truth?

If so why would you accept the word of 1 over the other two, particularly when you have rejected that persons view over one of the other two on a related issue?

That you now suggest propaganda is being deployed is utterly astonishing, it speaks volumes about the mindset.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Again no, suggesting a theory is not being biased. There is no bias whatsoever in pointing to how Paul MAY have been out of earshot and how that means that the theory MAY be correct in this respect. It is the plain and simple truth that this may have been so. Claiming that pointing that out is biased is professing to not understanding the processes involved.

It is indeed bias when one ignores the sources, here that both Carmen claim they spoke to Mizen, in favour of the speculation and invention of Paul MAY have been out of earshot.

The problem is there is NO source to back this suggestion up, therefore it is based on belief, not fact, and is bias.


steve

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;n709961]

The problem of course is that you start from suspecting him, and follow with somewhat circular argument, you do not trust him because you think he is the killer, and because he is the killer he cannot be trusted.

You see I do not just look at what Lechmere says, I compare it to the known evidence, rather than speculation, and see if it can be corroborated. Following that method I see No reason not to trust the majority of what Lechmere says.

I can understand if it does not sit well with a more academic approach, based on the belief that nobody should be treated as a suspect at any stage; it is only when a case is proven that we may look in the mirror and see how the new outcome fits the old thinking.

It is a very nice way to treat people, generally speaking, and a comfortable working ethic since if dissolves the idea that suspects exist.

On a more realistic level, though, I think that it is absolutely useless when it comes to trying to establish the validity of a suspicion.


My cosy world? You mean the one where theories have to be tested, and seen to stand or fall.

I believe there is ample non circumstantial evidence to suggest that Mizen is not telling a truthful account of what occurs from the moment he meets the Carmen until he meets Neil.


Steve

Wrong again. I do NOT start from suspecting him, I start from finding that there is REASON to suspect him, and then I work from there. It is not, it has never been and it will never be a case of him having been plucked out of thin air for no reason at all. There are numerous elements that do not seem right, and THAT is what lies behind the suspicions I entertain. Once more, "he is somebody a jury would not like". And why is that? Scobie explains that too: "he is someone who is acting in a suspicious way".

You personally have managed to persuade yourself that there is nothing at all suspicious about him, and that is something I cannot alter, it would seem. But I CAN point out that it is a lie to say that I begin with suspecting Lechmere and then go looking for a reason to do so.

Your cozy little world is one where a person under suspicion of being a killer is allowed to free himself by saying that he is not. You choose to uncritically believe him, and that is the end of that.

Claiming that this is some sort of discerning approach to solving a murder case may tickle your own ego, but since it is useless in terms of investigative work and more likely than not an obstacle to understanding matters I really donīt buy into it at all. I of course realize that you will argue that I am ready and willing to remove anything that looks like an obstacle to my theory, but that was always to be expected. That is how you argue.

Me, Iīm done arguing for today.

[Elamarna]

"The Timing issue has already mentioned, shows a tendency to pick from Lloyds, that which fits the Lechmere theory; and before I am accused of doing the same, I will state again that I only accept that statement, where it is corroborated by one or both of the other participants."

This is an example of how you point out that you are working to an agenda where you are ready to accept what Paul says if it is corroborated by Charles Lechmere - who is the person scrutinized for quite possibly being the killer of Nichols and who may quite well have read the Lloyds article. If you say that it is a "historically correct" way of going about finding out who may have been guilty in a murder case, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that it could well be the exact opposite - a surefire way not to be able to find out what really happened.

How is there an agenda, I accept corroboration from either LECHMERE or MIZEN, not just one!. That is not bias, nor is it agenda driven.
Your argument is, and I repeat this, that you believe Lechmere is the killer, therefore he lies, and because he lies he is the killer.

Basically you reject all Lechmere says, that is AGENDA driven

To me, this is a classic example of square thinking, a ridiculous approach to a problem that needs to be looked at with an open eye for all possibilities. Locking oneself to a dogmatic rule thinking was never a good thing, and in my view, it can achieve one thing only: a certainty that the case will never be solved.

Where is the dogma?

The Lloyds account is highly problematic, either we apply criteria to it, to see if any sense can be made of it, by looking for corroboration for instance. Or we reject ALL of IT, including his description of what happened in BUCKS ROW and when.
Such would be a poor approach to research, but its better than just accepting what fits our own theories.

I am quite fine with you exploring this route to wisdom, Steve, but that is not in any way going to stop me from using other paths. And I do NOT appreciate being called biased for it, so I would very much like if you could accept that and let us both move on. In the end, I say let the results decide which is the better way. Results are hard to argue with.

Sorry, but I consider the approach taken to be highly bias, that is my honest opinion.


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n709966]

The problem of course is that you start from suspecting him, and follow with somewhat circular argument, you do not trust him because you think he is the killer, and because he is the killer he cannot be trusted.

You see I do not just look at what Lechmere says, I compare it to the known evidence, rather than speculation, and see if it can be corroborated. Following that method I see No reason not to trust the majority of what Lechmere says.




Wrong again. I do NOT start from suspecting him, I start from finding that there is REASON to suspect him, and then I work from there. It is not, it has never been and it will never be a case of him having been plucked out of thin air for no reason at all. There are numerous elements that do not seem right, and THAT is what lies behind the suspicions I entertain. Once more, "he is somebody a jury would not like". And why is that? Scobie explains that too: "he is someone who is acting in a suspicious way".

Please, do try to not be so disingenuous, and please stop quoting one QC as if their view is final.

You personally have managed to persuade yourself that there is nothing at all suspicious about him, and that is something I cannot alter, it would seem. But I CAN point out that it is a lie to say that I begin with suspecting Lechmere and then go looking for a reason to do so.

No I have looked at the evidence and concluded that although he remains a viable suspect, he is not strong and much of the arguments used against him are based on speculation and a misreading or misinterpretation of the evidence. the term over enthusiastic comes to mind.

Your cozy little world is one where a person under suspicion of being a killer is allowed to free himself by saying that he is not. You choose to uncritically believe him, and that is the end of that.

Not so I am afraid, , it has been said very clearly that I do not just accept, but compare and contrast, using the available evidence to reach a conclusion, on what to accept or what not to.

Claiming that this is some sort of discerning approach to solving a murder case may tickle your own ego, but since it is useless in terms of investigative work and more likely than not an obstacle to understanding matters I really donīt buy into it at all. I of course realize that you will argue that I am ready and willing to remove anything that looks like an obstacle to my theory, but that was always to be expected. That is how you argue.

Me, Iīm done arguing for today.

And One says it because it is the truth,




Steve