Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[caz]

An example:

Mr X wants to go to Restaurant A.

Mr Y wants to go to restaurant A.

At restaurant A, Mr X meets his friend Mr Y. and says:

- What a coincidence!

Both had intentions and the consequence of the intentions was a coincidence. They had not conspired to go to Restaurant A.

Regards, 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

[Pierre]

It can't, because coincidence is by definition unintentional, and circumstantial evidence is intentional or provable, merely inferential.

Coincedence in conspiracy theory (which this is) is like irony as defined by Alanis Morrisette. Which is to say, it mostly isn't.

Hi Errata,

Coincidence is not by definition unintentional.

An example:

Mr X wants to go to Restaurant A.

Mr Y wants to go to restaurant A.

At restaurant A, Mr X meets his friend Mr Y. and says:

- What a coincidence!

Both had intentions and the consequence of the intentions was a coincidence. They had not conspired to go to Restaurant A.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

When does a coincidence become circumstantial evidence?

Important question, Richard.

I would say that "the coincidence" has to be put into a chain of other coincidences first, thereby getting a position in a context.

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".

I hope others will respond to your question.

Regards, Pierre

[Richard Patterson]

I thought about this, and this is strange, but if it is probable that coincidence does indeed surround inference, then if one were a Miss Marple type then if one is investigating a possible crime, then just watch for the coincidences, which would alert you to the hidden inference, signposting the true circumstances.

[GUT]

The problem is that circumstantial evidence is, coincidentally, often surrounded by a sphere of coincidence.

That's probably possible anyway

[Richard Patterson]

The problem is that circumstantial evidence is, coincidentally, often surrounded by a sphere of coincidence.

[Errata]

When does a coincidence become circumstantial evidence?

It can't, because coincidence is by definition unintentional, and circumstantial evidence is intentional or provable, merely inferential.

Coincedence in conspiracy theory (which this is) is like irony as defined by Alanis Morrisette. Which is to say, it mostly isn't.

[Richard Patterson]

When does a coincidence become circumstantial evidence?

[Pierre]

coincidences are circumstantial evidences at best.

I like Lechmere as a potential suspect for Nichols, but does that make him JtR? no.

No, since many could be potential suspects. That is the first step to take. Step 1. The suspects pile up at this step. Is it a coincidence?

Regards, Pierre

[SirJohnFalstaff]

coincidences are circumstantial evidences at best.

I like Lechmere as a potential suspect for Nichols, but does that make him JtR? no.

[Pierre]

Hi,

These three dimension are often mentioned and sometimes discussed when ripperologists hypothesize and theorize about some suspect.

But are they applicable in the case of Jack the Ripper?

And if they are, why are they applicable, when and how?

For example, Fisherman presents a barrister in his documentary who says that "when the coincidences add up, mount up...they become one coincidence to many" and then the court has a powerful material.

Does this mean that the possibility OR the probability (which one, or both?) for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper increases?

Can you actually add coincidences and claim that the possibility of X being a serial killer increases, due to the coincidences?

On what grounds?

And could you actually speak of an "increasing probability"? Because then you must do at least some simple mathematics, donīt you?

So how would you elaborate on such a probability? For example, if event y happens - and this event is considered by the theorist to be an important dimension of the serial killerīs existence - and the event is only possible one time out of 365, could you say that the probability is less than 3 per thousand for the event to happen and therefore, the probability that X is a serial killer increases.


And what are the hypothetical connections of such a probability to the concept of "coincidence"?

Does is influence our interpretation of the probability, so that we would be prone to think that, given the very small probability of the event to happen and the fact that the event did happen, it is a "coincidence" which can not exist without having some connection to the serial killer? Does it become "one coincidence to many" if there are several - or does it become THE coincidence, on which you build the whole theory?

And also, a possibility is only a potential event that gives no evidence for a person being a serial killer. But it gives him a sort of "frame" as a theoretical construction, in which he is put as a "possible" suspect.

But how does this possibility of being a suspect connect to a row of "add-ups" consisting of coincidences or even probabilities?

As far as I am concerned, possibilities must be in place for a person to become a potential suspect. But they do not INDICATE guilt, they only INDICATE potentiality.

And coincidences, if they pile up, should be understood as a reason to investigate the person, but not a reason to call him a serial killer.

Finally, probabilities are more interesting and should be given some substantial significance, I think, since you can count the event as one out of x possible events and thereby get the simplest form of probability (not doing controls and not giving likelyhood).

The probability that the event would happen at the same time as it is clearly relevant for the serial killerīs life must be very low and it must be of explanatory nature.

But also, I would like to know the probability that a finder of a victim murdered by a serial killer at the same time would be the killer.

How many times in the past has a victim of a serial killer been found by the serial killer himself?

Because the probability for this must be very low.

BTW, this is NOT a thread about Lechmere. He is just one possible example.

Kind regards, Pierre