Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[Pierre]

If they are friends, there is a good chance they have similar tastes and have been to that restaurant before, either singly or together, which would lessen the coincidence.

Conversely, if two unrelated strangers met at the restaurant by chance and got talking, and found both had the surname Lechmere - now THAT would be a coincidence. No more, no less.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

So I guess you are saying that we can not establish or refute a "coincidence" if we have not studied the context of the event. Yes, this is important. And if the data for the context is pore? Is it better to use a probability?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

for example. Arthur Leigh, as a Zodiac suspect, lived less than 100 yards from where the first victim, a waitress, was working.

It doesn't prove anything, but it creates cause for investigation.

Maybe I'm interpreting circumstantial evidence wrong, I see it as something that it's worth looking into.

Hi,

do you mean that this single "fact" is enough to start an investigation? A lot of people lived less than 100 yards from where she was working I guess - or was he the only one living there? And why exactly 100 yards, why not 99 or 101?

I am not the right person to say that your interpretation is "wrong". I find it interesting, and worth looking into (!).

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

When I read that I found some syncronicity with my own perspective on some of the Canonical murders.

Perhaps one or more had to be eliminated coincidentally while someone else was committing random murders.

Hi,

That sounds interesting, could you please elaborate a bit on it?

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

But to become "evidence" it has to have a high probability and that probability must be connected to some important event in the life of the "suspect".

This isn't true.

No idea where you get such a notion from.

[David Orsam]

Coincidence is not by definition unintentional.

This isn't true at all.

Again, I have no idea where you have picked up such an idea.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Errata;374048]

But the meeting is unintentional. Neither went to the restaurant in the hopes of running into their acquaintance, so running into that acquaintance is a coincidence. Unplanned, unintentional, unforeseen.

Hi Errata,

Meetings donīt have intentions...

But jokes aside now, a coincidence (co-incidence) is built on two elements which are seemingly connected to each other. The problem is that WE are making the connection.

One thing I see fairly often is something along the lines of, What are the odds that Lechmere was going to find Nichol's body that morning? Isn't that a coincidence?

The mathematical calculation of odds is not relevant in this context.

Had he previously found another mutilated woman, then it would be a coincidence that a guy who found a mutilated body found another mutilated body.

But of course believing that he is the killer means it wasn't a coincidence, so therefore that particular term gets taken off the table.

This coincidence is functionally the same as all coincidences:

"Two events seem to be connected".

In Fishermanīs theory the two events are:

Event 1: Lechmere stands in the street where a body lies.
Event 2: Lechmere murdered Polly Nichols.

There are many problems with this set of events. Firstly, the problem of coincidence itself. Did Event 1 follow after Event 2? Or did 1 follow after Event 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10?

But a coincidence is a specific thing. It is two or more uninfluenced and often unintentional choices with no causal connection whatsoever resulting in something remarkable.

A guy gets shot twice on two separate occasions by a guy dressed as a clown is a coincidence. Unless he going around pissing off clowns, at which point it isn't. No causal connection, coincidence. Causal connection, just odd.

Well, it is in the eye of the beholder. That is why we must use source criticism.

King regards, Pierre

[GUT]

This isn't true.

No idea where you get such a notion from.

Nor do I.

But remember Pierre recently said, he doesn't need to be right.


Evidence is evidence some good some pretty much worthless.

[David Orsam]

That is why we must use source criticism.

How many criminal trials are you aware of, Pierre, which use "source criticism" to reach a verdict?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;374065]This isn't true.
QUOTE]

Hi David,

So you have an opinion. But no one understands why, since you simply say "this isnīt true".

Can you elaborate on this?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

How many criminal trials are you aware of, Pierre, which use "source criticism" to reach a verdict?

This is not a criminal trial.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

This is not a criminal trial.

I'm aware of that Pierre, but surely the evidential standards for proving that someone committed these murders are the same, or similar, no?

[John G]

In my opinion, this mystery will never be solved by recourse to probability theory: there are far too many variables to account for.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

So you have an opinion. But no one understands why, since you simply say "this isnīt true".

Can you elaborate on this?

I'm happy enough with my post as it is Pierre.

[Pierre]

I'm aware of that Pierre, but surely the evidential standards for proving that someone committed these murders are the same, or similar, no?

The evidential standards are twice as high since you first have to analyse rather old primary historical sources and then connect a killer in the past to the contents of them. But there can be no trial. So I do not use words from the legal system.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I'm happy enough with my post as it is Pierre.

I am not, and since you will not explain your motivations, I think that you are not able to argue for your idea.

Regards, Pierre