Conjecture vs 'evidence'

[Paul Sutton]

This is a very clever post, Paul, as it illustrates what we should all know if we allowed ourselves to grasp it - namely, that no candidate exists for which there is uncontested evidence, and no eyewitness account which is beyond equivocation on some grounds or other.

Of course, James Maybrick is slightly unusual in that there are at least two sources of physical evidence pointing directly at his guilt, neither of which are uncontested (if they weren't, we'd all accept the mystery was solved already). Other than Maybrick, there is no evidence whatsoever which could be said to incontrovertibly point towards anyone as the criminal. If the DNA analysis on the shawl had been applied correctly, there could have been something against someone, but that one fell well short of incontrovertible, as we all know.

It makes you wonder whether there is any point whatsoever in even discussing the case at all?

Ike

Many thanks Ike - I'll immediately break my rule and respond, since it's on the purpose, not on the questions I pose!

The point of my post wasn't - exactly - to make your last point. But subconsciously, that's what I'm probably alluding to. I'd love to be wrong. Shoot me down (not you, but the forensics crowd).

It's all good fun (up to a point) but does need shaking up. In science, it's the norm for people to constantly ask - 'What's the point of this?'

I'm a lover of pointless activities, relish them. It's when they pretend to be serious (and moralistic) that I start to worry. I participate in numerous discussions on the Sherlock Holmes Canon - which exist in the Holmes' world, and treat it as reality. They get heated, but it's within accepted limits of absurdity. Ditto for discussions on sport.

I think the entire point of this is to make conjectures - the original Ripperology. No doubt it was frequently absurd, but it's more honest than the current 'evidence-based' charade. This fits with the wider discourse we're in - the managerialist mindset - which pretends issues can only be discussed if the discussion is 'evidence based.'

It's not for me to suggest how others spend their time. But I can make observations.

Do the few who stick their necks out get decapitated, not because of what they say, but because they say it at all?

[Iconoclast]

This is a very clever post, Paul, as it illustrates what we should all know if we allowed ourselves to grasp it - namely, that no candidate exists for which there is uncontested evidence, and no eyewitness account which is beyond equivocation on some grounds or other.

Of course, James Maybrick is slightly unusual in that there are at least two sources of physical evidence pointing directly at his guilt, neither of which are uncontested (if they weren't, we'd all accept the mystery was solved already). Other than Maybrick, there is no evidence whatsoever which could be said to incontrovertibly point towards anyone as the criminal. If the DNA analysis on the shawl had been applied correctly, there could have been something against someone, but that one fell well short of incontrovertible, as we all know.

It makes you wonder whether there is any point whatsoever in even discussing the case at all?

Ike

[Paul Sutton]

I use quote marks to capture the sense that (concerning suspects) there's no evidence that hasn't been questioned/torn to shreds- especially for witness statements. It seems to be the main activity here.

1. Could anyone point me to a thread where this led anywhere. For example, where even a vague consensus has been reached, that a certain suspect becomes more likely?

2. Can anyone point me to a thread where cherry-picking of 'experts' isn't done. Or perhaps, where there's some consensus on an expert opinion, and one which makes a specific suspect more likely

I'll qualify that: it's of course not wrong to question experts, who can be highly misleading - not deliberately, but a recent example makes the point. In the Jill Dando case, the experts on the fragment found on Barry Bulsara's coat completely misstated the statistical argument, to the later astonishment of many statisticians, which may have led to him being wrongly freed. There's no space here, but it's very well summarised in Nick Ross' blog.

In short, they ignored Bayes' Theorem, on how prior events affect probability. Ross makes the good point that expertise can be very narrow, and there's specific judicial warning about experts deliberating on areas outside their expertise - how this is dangerous, since we punters may get clobbered with 'that's what the experts say' when they're not speaking from their expertise.

Still, it strikes me that too much debate is people googling and trading expert opinion, without the necessary background. I'm not really interested in a debate about what that constitutes, of course it's arguable.

3. This is a big ask. Could someone provide a list of what they see as the best evidence for each of these, following? Obviously people can debate what they like, but I'm not asking for some pile-on about how so-and-so is worthless of consideration, only a moon-calf would consider them, how one needs to discuss bloody rags at all hours for twenty years before having the temerity to do this, etc:

1. William Bury
2. Montague Druitt
3. George Chapman
4. Francis Thompson
5. Charles Lechmere
6. Jimmy Savile

4. For any candidate, can someone provide a piece of witness evidence that seems beyond any dispute. Again, I'm not asking for a reprise of the debate on how unreliable such evidence inherently is.

5. Can someone use all of the above to give their full conjecture on a suspect. Again, a huge ask.

I realise that would seem a horror to some, and risky. I was struck by one vociferous poster who admitted to having a name but being unwilling to share it. It does seem to me that this one creates outrage and triggers the full assassination routine, almost by default.

And this may seem like me 'setting a task'; if so just ignore it. And it may seem lazy (or welcome) but I'm not intending to participate - I'll leave it to the experts.

Thanks,

Paul