The Nature of Evidence

[Fisherman]

Not at all Fish, it was one of the points I started this thread on.
Here I say tactics, one could use method. It the approach used of x cannot be disproved rather than x is proven. Such an approach while never establishing points as historical facts, is very effective at leaving the possibility open.
Hence why I said to Herlock it is impossible to disprove Lechmere did not leave home earlier than 3.20
It is certainly not about if the poster believes in something or not.

I did talk about it in post#1.


Steve

If I may, I´d request you to stick with approach or method. Tactic is another matter entirely to me, where an honest approach (!) can succumb to a will to deceive.

[Elamarna]

If I may, I´d request you to stick with approach or method. Tactic is another matter entirely to me, where an honest approach (!) can succumb to a will to deceive.

Fisherman,

a quick search of the net gives the following meanings:

"an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end."

"a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result."


in the way i used it the aim is to say something is possible(Lechmere leaving earlier than claimed) because it cannot be shown to be untrue (there is no evidence known to exist).

The word is used in many walks of life: business, protest, military as well as sports such as chess, football, cycling and Cricket.

Indeed I use a tactic of not posting my full views on Bucks Row , until I have gathered what I consider to be the fullest information possible, there is no attempt to deceive.

There is nothing to suggest that Tactic means what you suggest above. its just your unfortunate take on it.


Tactic is a legitimate word to use in the context of the post and I am most sorry but I will not be told what non-offensive words may or may not be used.

We see again the resort to semantics, another tactic? or just a misunderstanding of the language, lets opt for the later.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;423827]

The points you make about Lechmere wanting to maintain a status quo are excellent, and I agree all over.

I have also pointed out that there are many examples of serialists who have been good providers and caring family men.

Methodology, Fisherman. You should study some methodology.

1. You can not generalize to serial killers from family providers.

Being a good provider and caring family man is not an indication for being a serial killer or any other type of criminal.

One cannot work from the assumption that they will be evil in all contacts with other people - if they were, they would be easily caught.

2. "Being evil" has no correlation with your Lechmere. "The evil ones" were evil but there is no indication that Lechmere was "evil".

And also the problem of deduction. The "evil ones" were very seldom serialists.

You ask for examples of other killers, killing in the line of work, so to speak. I would point to some of the so called highway killers, some of whom were truck drivers and used their travelling to procure victims.

And I think Gacy had his victims work for him. But this is deduction from known cases in our time. And any deduction from the type of "serialists killing in the line of work" is impossible, since it can not establish a connection between Lechmere and serialists. The ONLY connection you get is that people have been in the line of work. Lechmere was. But not therefore in the line of being a serial killer.

I believe many serialists are opportunistic and will make use of whatever comes their way. In that respect, I believe that if a serialist is offered a job that involves the opportunities to kill, he will gladly accept that job.

Was the real motive in the past of Lechmere working for the sake of killing?

You go from "a serialist" who is "offered a job" to a carman who has a job in 1888 (and before and after, you have constructed a long time period).

In Lechmere´s case, he was at work on daytime and at home on nighttime. That makes for poor hunting grounds timewise.

What he would have been looking for if he was a serialist, would have been time on his own, preferably during hours when he stood a good chance of killing undetected.

Now you have specified and attached a motive to a dead man for whom there are no sources indicating what you say here.

What do you mean? Do you mean that we shall think that Lechmere was a killer for decades since he worked normal working hours?

In that respect, the one and only opportunity that offers itself up is his trek to work. Some competition can be offered by when he was on his delivery rounds, but in that case, his employers would know where he went and what time he could be expected to return back.

So actually, if I was to vote for the likeliest period of time of killing, I would cast my vote on his trek to work.

It is like painting a horse yellow and calling it a chicken.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Henry Flower: Fish, that's SUCH a classic example of purely circular reasoning I'm genuinely surprised you're letting yourself post it.

I disagree, actually - although I can see what point you are trying to make. In many respects, it resembles the psychopathy parameter: if Lechmere was the killer, then he will have been a psychopath. Some call that circuar reasoning too, but it is instead a posited prerequisite: For the theory to work, Lechmere must have been a psychopath.

The same applies here. I am not saying that Lechmere must have been the killer since he had no blood on him. I am saying that he arguably could not have blood in him if he was the killer, because that would have gotten him caught. It is therefore a case of either
A/ Lechmere being able to get rid of whatever obvious blood he had on bis person, or
B/ him being innocent.

There is nothing circular about that. Compare to a case where the victim has her feet painted red. It then applies that the killer must have had access to red colour. If he did not have such access, then he was not the killer. The red colour becomes a prerequisite for an identification of the suspect as the probable/possible killer, just like how it becomes a prerequisite for Lechmere to have been the probable/possible killer that he was able to get rid of the blood.

Or else he arguably did go to work after arguably not killing anyone that night.

Exactly so - either or.

When you say 'shielding himself', are you suggesting that he had some cloak of invisibility?

I was actually much more thinking like gloves or something such.

Did Paul note that the other carman was carrying a change of clothes with him?

I suspect many men carried a bag with lunch to work.

And now you're suggesting he earned enough as a carman that he had a little pied-a-terre where he changed into his work clothes after his murders? This, from a guy who coined the phrase 'phantom killer' about the idea that anyone other than Lechmere may have killed Nichols?

I am actually exploring the possibilities for him having been able to arrive at work unbloodied or to wash up there, since the theory hinges to a degree on this. To that purpose, the possibility of a place to change clothes cannot be excluded. It need not be a castle or a bungalow, though, it could just as well be a place where he tended to lodgings in the absense of the lodger, who could have gone away for some time or gone to hospital or something such. There are many possibilities for him to have had that kind of access to a bolthole that cost nothing at all.
As for the carman´s wages, I think there is a possibility that Lechmere had access to more money than that. He was able to open a shop, he clad his kids nicely, and so there may have been money to be used. On the other site, Gary Barnett has presented the fact that Lechmere´s grandfather, Thomas Roulson, left a substantial sum when he died, for example.
This, however, can only be speculated about. What I am doing is - as I said - to explore in which ways Lechmere can have handled problems with blood on his person.
And I stand by the expression phantom killer, by the way...

Easier to imagine that the killer slunk quickly back to his room via the shortest possible route through nearly deserted streets, blood unnoticed, than that he cheerfully turned up to work ten minutes later.

It´s actually always easier to imagine that people are not serial killers, on the whole.
Some nevertheless are. And some of them are quite resourceful people.

I don't imagine Peter Sutcliffe ever turned up to his truck depot covered in blood. He killed when he had plenty of time, not when he was on his way to work and was expected not to be late.

Lechmere may have afforded himself plenty of time. And he may not have turned up to his depot covered in blood. Watch out, or you will make yourself guilty of circular reasoning...

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

a quick search of the net gives the following meanings:

"an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end."

"a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result."


in the way i used it the aim is to say something is possible(Lechmere leaving earlier than claimed) because it cannot be shown to be untrue (there is no evidence known to exist).

The word is used in many walks of life: business, protest, military as well as sports such as chess, football, cycling and Cricket.

Indeed I use a tactic of not posting my full views on Bucks Row , until I have gathered what I consider to be the fullest information possible, there is no attempt to deceive.

There is nothing to suggest that Tactic means what you suggest above. its just your unfortunate take on it.


Tactic is a legitimate word to use in the context of the post and I am most sorry but I will not be told what non-offensive words may or may not be used.

We see again the resort to semantics, another tactic? or just a misunderstanding of the language, lets opt for the later.


Steve

"It´s just tactics".

Ever heard the expression?

[Elamarna]

"It´s just tactics".

Ever heard the expression?

So sorry not playing this game of semantics.

Steve

[Fisherman]

So sorry not playing this game of semantics.

Steve

It is quite a feat on your behalf to first introduce semantics in a sly manner, and then pretend that I am the one playing the semantic game.

So let me rephrase myself!

I am very uneasy about the phrase tactics, and I therefore kindly ask you not to use it about my work with the Lechmere theory. Just like you say, there are the two words method and approach that can be used instead, and I would be grateful if you could find it in your heart to do me this favour.

To me, it would feel like an effort on your behalf not to inflame the discussion.

The reason for my feeling uneasy can be seen by looking up how political tactics are described, as per wikipedia:

1 Types

1.1 Censorship
1.2 Compromise
1.3 Discrediting
1.4 Divide and conquer
1.5 Extortion
1.6 Fear mongering
1.7 Heroism
1.8 Kinetic force
1.9 Lying
1.10 Obstructionism
1.10.1 Filibuster
1.11 Passing the buck
1.12 Placating
1.13 Plausible deniability
1.14 Religion-based strategies
1.15 Sabotage
1.16 Smear campaign
1.17 Others

[Elamarna]

It is quite a feat on your behalf to first introduce semantics in a sly manner, and then pretend that I am the one playing the semantic game.

So let me rephrase myself!

I am very uneasy about the phrase tactics, and I therefore kindly ask you not to use it about my work with the Lechmere theory. Just like you say, there are the two words method and approach that can be used instead, and I would be grateful if you could find it in your heart to do me this favour.

To me, it would feel like an effort on your behalf not to inflame the discussion.

The reason for my feeling uneasy can be seen by looking up how political tactics are described, as per wikipedia:

1 Types

1.1 Censorship
1.2 Compromise
1.3 Discrediting
1.4 Divide and conquer
1.5 Extortion
1.6 Fear mongering
1.7 Heroism
1.8 Kinetic force
1.9 Lying
1.10 Obstructionism
1.10.1 Filibuster
1.11 Passing the buck
1.12 Placating
1.13 Plausible deniability
1.14 Religion-based strategies
1.15 Sabotage
1.16 Smear campaign
1.17 Others

Should one even bother to reply to such a post?


I have not introduced semantics in any way, shape or form.
You are the one objecting to a particular English word.
To suggest I have and have done so in a sly way says so much about you Christer and your perceptions of others.

There is nothing wrong with the word "tactic" or "tactics".
It is not considered by the vast majority of people to be a derogatory word.

Your list is not a list of definitions of the word, rather it is a list of political actions and has nothing to do with my posting at all.

If admin tell us we may not use certain words that is of course their right and we must comply. We all know that racist and sexual terms are not acceptable. However we really cannot have a situation where individual posters say which words may not be used if those words are not shall we say on the "Naughty List.

The alternative is that we end up with lists of perscribed words which may not be used to certain posters, that is not practical or to me acceptable

I am very much afraid that is all I am prepared to say on this matter. It is not a matter of debate.

Steve

[John G]

It is quite a feat on your behalf to first introduce semantics in a sly manner, and then pretend that I am the one playing the semantic game.

So let me rephrase myself!

I am very uneasy about the phrase tactics, and I therefore kindly ask you not to use it about my work with the Lechmere theory. Just like you say, there are the two words method and approach that can be used instead, and I would be grateful if you could find it in your heart to do me this favour.

To me, it would feel like an effort on your behalf not to inflame the discussion.

The reason for my feeling uneasy can be seen by looking up how political tactics are described, as per wikipedia:

1 Types

1.1 Censorship
1.2 Compromise
1.3 Discrediting
1.4 Divide and conquer
1.5 Extortion
1.6 Fear mongering
1.7 Heroism
1.8 Kinetic force
1.9 Lying
1.10 Obstructionism
1.10.1 Filibuster
1.11 Passing the buck
1.12 Placating
1.13 Plausible deniability
1.14 Religion-based strategies
1.15 Sabotage
1.16 Smear campaign
1.17 Others

This is a bit PC and, ironically, probably falls within category 1, censorship. By the way, speaking of PC would you prefer to be henceforth addressed as Fisherperson?

[Fisherman]

Should one even bother to reply to such a post?


I have not introduced semantics in any way, shape or form.
You are the one objecting to a particular English word.
To suggest I have and have done so in a sly way says so much about you Christer and your perceptions of others.

There is nothing wrong with the word "tactic" or "tactics".
It is not considered by the vast majority of people to be a derogatory word.

Your list is not a list of definitions of the word, rather it is a list of political actions and has nothing to do with my posting at all.

If admin tell us we may not use certain words that is of course their right and we must comply. We all know that racist and sexual terms are not acceptable. However we really cannot have a situation where individual posters say which words may not be used if those words are not shall we say on the "Naughty List.

The alternative is that we end up with lists of perscribed words which may not be used to certain posters, that is not practical or to me acceptable

I am very much afraid that is all I am prepared to say on this matter. It is not a matter of debate.

Steve

It is considered by me to be a derogatory word. I was hoping that would be enough for you to do the decent thing and abstain from it. I´m sure that intellectually, you can manage to do so if you have the inclination. Nota bene that I am not telling anybody anything - I am asking.

If not, then that is of course a clear answer too. And one I shall keep in mind.

[Fisherman]

This is a bit PC and, ironically, probably falls within category 1, censorship. By the way, speaking of PC would you prefer to be henceforth addressed as Fisherperson?

No, John, I would not. I prefer to be called Fisherman or Christer. Why do you ask? And why do you prefer this topic to the one you were so very interested in before, the one about killing en route to work?

That, as opposed to this, is a REAL topic of interest and one that should concern everybody. And I took the time to give you a long answer in post 446. Why not debate that instead, and leave this to me and Steve?

It´s a funny old world, the world of Ripperology. With funny people in it.

[Henry Flower]

It is considered by me to be a derogatory word. I was hoping that would be enough for you to do the decent thing and abstain from it.

That's a dangerous path to start following, don't you think? If we all get to decide which words we find personally derogatory and then expect others to refrain from using them, this place will become as dry as my old nana's rusty hinge.

Speaking on behalf of myself, but others may agree, it's a shame this thread has degenerated into rounds of "You said this" - "No I didn't" - "Yes, you did, in post #234" - "Well it didn't mean then what you think it does now, because you hadn't introduced the idea of *#@%£ until post #456" etc etc. And now this argument over the word tactics. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering how a thread that promised so much has come to this.

But to be fair I can see both sides. "Tactics" is not derogatory, and that's that. It has a broad range of meanings. But if someone were highly sensitive I can see how they might choose to infer from its use an accusation of calculation, perhaps even underhanded calculation. Unfortunately it's a word from which meanings can be inferred by the reader that were never intentionally implied by the writer.

And in any case, Christer, though I am a man of impeccable and exemplary good manners and courtesy myself (Pierre, please, just humor me here!) so what if Steve is using a word that can be construed to be slightly derogatory? We've all done that. Even you have. There is a fair amount of knock-about language on the boards, and you've never been shy of giving it out yourself.

So please, would it be possible to discuss the nature of the evidence?

I'd enjoy that. I was learning a great deal. Thanks

[Elamarna]

It is considered by me to be a derogatory word. I was hoping that would be enough for you to do the decent thing and abstain from it. I´m sure that intellectually, you can manage to do so if you have the inclination.

If not, then that is of course a clear answer too. And one I shall keep in mind.

Actually intellectually I can't. It amounts to accepting a form of mild censorship.

That really is my last comment on this.


Steve

[Elamarna]

That's a dangerous path to start following, don't you think? If we all get to decide which words we find personally derogatory and then expect others to refrain from using them, this place will become as dry as my old nana's rusty hinge.

Speaking on behalf of myself, but others may agree, it's a shame this thread has degenerated into rounds of "You said this" - "No I didn't" - "Yes, you did, in post #234" - "Well it didn't mean then what you think it does now, because you hadn't introduced the idea of *#@%£ until post #456" etc etc. And now this argument over the word tactics. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering how a thread that promised so much has come to this.

But to be fair I can see both sides. "Tactics" is not derogatory, and that's that. It has a broad range of meanings. But if someone were highly sensitive I can see how they might choose to infer from its use an accusation of calculation, perhaps even underhanded calculation. Unfortunately it's a word from which meanings can be inferred by the reader that were never intentionally implied by the writer.

And in any case, Christer, though I am a man of impeccable and exemplary good manners and courtesy myself (Pierre, please, just humor me here!) so what if Steve is using a word that can be construed to be slightly derogatory? We've all done that. Even you have. There is a fair amount of knock-about language on the boards, and you've never been shy of giving it out yourself.

So please, would it be possible to discuss the nature of the evidence?

I'd enjoy that. I was learning a great deal. Thanks

I accept your criticism of how the thread as gone the last few days. Not a single persons fault, it takes two to tango as they say.

Let's move on. My apologies.

Steve

[Fisherman]

So please, would it be possible to discuss the nature of the evidence?

I'd enjoy that. I was learning a great deal. Thanks

Go right ahead. You can start with my answer to your former post, Henry. I am always happy to discuss the facts and the nature of the evidence, whereas I agree with you that it is always sad to see a thread go down the drain on behalf of other choices made by various participants.

I am going to start a new thread shortly on Lechmere, based on some interesting facts, and being the naive man I am, I hope to see it generate some useful discussion. Since I am also a seasoned man, having seen more than I wish to out here in the way of worthless arguing, I am not holding my breath...