Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[Hercule Poirot]

[quote=GUT;374949]

That s not a case with which I am familiar, however the philosophy is.

Lechmere would obviuosly flunk the test, don't you think?

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Hercule Poirot;374944]

This is one excellent definition offered by a Canadian court of appeal:


I believe we don't have a lot of Ripper suspects we have seen respecting this rule.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

That s not a case with which I am familiar, however the philosophy is.

[Hercule Poirot]

[quote=Mayerling;374882]

What is that comment by Henry Thoreau? "There is some circumstantial evidence that is too hard to deny, like the trout found in the chowder"?

Jeff

This is one excellent definition offered by a Canadian court of appeal:

In the absence of direct evidence, the case must rest, on the circumstantial evidence alone, and the general rule is that to amount to proof such evidence must be not merely consistent with guilt but inconsistent with innocence, R v McEwan

I believe we don't have a lot of Ripper suspects we have seen respecting this rule.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Hercule Poirot;374802]

Agree.
Hercule Poirot

What is that comment by Henry Thoreau? "There is some circumstantial evidence that is too hard to deny, like the trout found in the chowder"?

Jeff

[Hercule Poirot]

[quote=GUT;374801]

Yes people are convicted on circumstantial (as opposed to coincident) evidence, but it's neither as simple or common, as many here seem to think. And judges need to give very specific directions to juries when a case is based on circumstantial evidence.

People are also wrongly invited, and wrongly acquitted, more often than we would like.

Agree.
Hercule Poirot

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Hercule Poirot;374800]

What I meant to say was that many court decisions came to the conclusion that an alledged culprit was found guilty beyond a reasonnble doubt based simply on converging coincidences. In other words, courts do not consider the existence of a hierarchised difference between the terms coincidence, possibility and probability, evidence (direct, indirect or circumstantial) being the basic elements.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Yes people are convicted on circumstantial (as opposed to coincident) evidence, but it's neither as simple or common, as many here seem to think. And judges need to give very specific directions to juries when a case is based on circumstantial evidence.

People are also wrongly convicted, and wrongly acquitted, more often than we would like.

[Hercule Poirot]

[quote=GUT;374798]

I'm not sure what standard of proof (in legal terms) is represented by "more than reasonable doubt" unless it's an acquittal.

What I meant to say was that many court decisions came to the conclusion that an alledged culprit was found guilty beyond a reasonnble doubt based simply on converging coincidences. In other words, courts do not consider the existence of a hierarchised difference between the terms coincidence, possibility and probability, evidence (direct, indirect or circumstantial) being the basic elements.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[GUT]

Pierre,

1. I find posts all in bold objectionable. I won't be replying to further posts directed at me, which are all in bold.

2. I'm not doing your research for you. There's abundant cases of overlapping time/locations for serial killers in those states. If you care to look.

As you're the one claiming overlap means they must have known each other, I believe the onus is on you to back that claim up with some kind of functioning reason.

All Pierre's posts are in bold, maybe he has vision problems, or just can't turn bold off.

As for doing his research, you may not be aware that when he first arrived he told us he never reads "ripperoligists" (with total disdain) however as I've commented a few times lately he has taken to quoting Skinner and Evans a lot lately (apparently they weren't Ripperoligists poor Stewart, after all those years) and dissertations.

And in spite of arriving on these boards telling all that he had cracked the case using his "data" not one new piece of information, nor naming his suspect has followed.

Just to fill you in a little more.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Hercule Poirot;374796]

Sorry for responding so late, no internet access for the past two weeks.

With all due respect, I believe you make no difference between scientific and legal proof. Many court decisions have used a series of coincidences converging in a single direction resulting in a more than reasonnable doubt against an alleged culprit. The same goes with possibilities and probabilties.

Humbly,
Hercule Poirot

I'm not sure what standard of proof (in legal terms) is represented by "more than reasonable doubt" unless it's an acquittal.

[Hercule Poirot]

[quote=Pierre;374202]

What is it that you understand, Steve? Do you for instance understand the extremely unnecessary and meaningless mission to try and build a case on coincidences, possibilities and probabilities? Or do you honestly think that it has any advances? If you do, how far does building a case with these concepts take us and which ones would be the most promising ones?

Also, I wonder what your understanding of the difficulty of solving an old murder case would be, considering that we do not only have to deal with the inherent problems of the three concepts above, but with aspects both of classical juridical proof and of scientific evidence?

Regards, Pierre

Sorry for responding so late, no internet access for the past two weeks.

With all due respect, I believe you make no difference between scientific and legal proof. Many court decisions have used a series of coincidences converging in a single direction resulting in a more than reasonnable doubt against an alleged culprit. The same goes with possibilities and probabilties.

Humbly,
Hercule Poirot

[Ausgirl]

So:

1. What is the evidence for at least two different serial killers for the C-5?

2. What are the specific examples in California and Texas that you deduce
from?

3. On what specific grounds (MO? Signature? Other?) do you deduce from those serial killers?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

1. I find posts all in bold objectionable. I won't be replying to further posts directed at me, which are all in bold.

2. I'm not doing your research for you. There's abundant cases of overlapping time/locations for serial killers in those states. If you care to look.

As you're the one claiming overlap means they must have known each other, I believe the onus is on you to back that claim up with some kind of functioning reason.

[Pierre]

What are you actually saying here, Pierre? Is it that, given the small geographical area of Whitechapel/Spitalfielfields, the probability is that Jack and Torso killer were acquaintances but knew nothing of each other's activities? Or are you going further and saying that they probably knew that the other was a killer?

Hi Rosella,

No, I havenīt been discussing the dismemberment victims at all in this thread.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

No, I'm saying your claim that "the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time" is blatant nonsense.

As has been abundantly proven by veritable throngs of serial killers in California and - thank you, E - Texas. Among other locations, but those are good 'uns.

So:

1. What is the evidence for at least two different serial killers for the C-5?

2. What are the specific examples in California and Texas that you deduce
from?

3. On what specific grounds (MO? Signature? Other?) do you deduce from those serial killers?

Regards, Pierre

[Ausgirl]

So do you want to say that Jack the Ripper is a national or a transnational serial killer?

No, I'm saying your claim that "the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time" is blatant nonsense.

As has been abundantly proven by veritable throngs of serial killers in California and - thank you, E - Texas. Among other locations, but those are good 'uns.

[Rosella]

What are you actually saying here, Pierre? Is it that, given the small geographical area of Whitechapel/Spitalfielfields, the probability is that Jack and Torso killer were acquaintances but knew nothing of each other's activities? Or are you going further and saying that they probably knew that the other was a killer?