Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

[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;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

[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=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

[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=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;374950]

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

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Something I have tried to explain to his proponents many times, and I am somewhat surprised the learned QC didn't refer to.

[Ausgirl]

you may not be aware that when he first arrived he told us he never reads "ripperoligists" (with total disdain)

It's nothing to do with Ripperologists. The research in question is to do with overlapping territories and chronology for serial killers (who didn't blimmin' well know each other) in California (and Texas).

[Ausgirl]

[QUOTE=GUT;374801]

and wrongly acquitted

Reading the murder acquittals in the Old Bailey records is enough to curl one's hair. "Yes, I stabbed my wife in the eyeball with a bayonet.. But she was shouting at me in a most unreasonable manner for coming home drunk, your honour. And then assaulted me with a loaf of bread." ~ "Ah, clearly the woman was a terrible shrew, who drove you to a state of temporary madness which obviously was completely cured upon her cessation. Acquitted!"

Paraphrasing of course, but not far off.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Ausgirl;374794]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.

In areas as small as the area for the C-5?

And at the same time in a time frame as small as 4 months?

Do you you have some example(s)?

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.

I have never claimed any overlap. What gave you that idea? You are the one who is saying that the C-5 could be a result of more than one killer. So it is up to you to defend that claim.

Regards, Pierre