The Nature of Evidence

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry Fisherman but are you ever at fault. It's always other people's fault!

Herlock

I am sometimes at fault.

Other people are sometimes at fault.

If you suggest otherwise, you are at fault.

[Henry Flower]

wate a whil longer.

Gee! The standards of mis-spelling these days...

Damn.

[Sam Flynn]

if you only wait a whil longer....

wate a whil longer.

Gee! The standards of mis-spelling these days...

[Henry Flower]

you forgot the bloody knife, henry flower

if you only wait a whil longer....

[Herlock Sholmes]

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...

I'm sorry Fisherman but are you ever at fault. It's always other people's fault!

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Well said Henry.

This all smacks a little of 'thoughtcrime' to me.

Regards

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Herlock

[Fisherman]

Thank you for your earlier reply to my post, Christer.

It is starting to trouble me slightly, as the case seems now to contain an awful lot of... possibilities.

You seem to be in the position of saying that either:

Lechmere killed Nichols, and therefore his 'innocent' actions for the remainder of the night are evidence of a clever psychopath who fooled one civilian and one police officer, and who not only luckily had no blood on his person throughout those encounters, but also must have been absolutely SURE he didn't have blood on his person, not one tiny drop on his face for Paul or the copper to notice, and who then either cleaned off any blood or changed his clothes either at his place of employment or at a bolt-hole that we have no evidence existed -

or

Lechmere didn't kill Nichols, and wasn't therefore a psychopath, therefore his actions for the remainder of the night are as innocent as they appeared to be, and he had no blood on him.

So it will boil down to timing. And if Paul did indeed find the body already cold, as he was reported as stating, then the case would seem to be holed beneath the water line.

When it comes to body heat, your choice is one of Robert Paul or Rees Ralph LLewellyn:
" Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour. "

Add to this that both Neil and Mizen saw blood running from the body, and I think we may need to pull the case back out of the water and throw Paul overboard instead.

[Robert St Devil]

you forgot the bloody knife, henry flower

[Henry Flower]

[Henry Flower]

Thank you for your earlier reply to my post, Christer.

It is starting to trouble me slightly, as the case seems now to contain an awful lot of... possibilities.

You seem to be in the position of saying that either:

Lechmere killed Nichols, and therefore his 'innocent' actions for the remainder of the night are evidence of a clever psychopath who fooled one civilian and one police officer, and who not only luckily had no blood on his person throughout those encounters, but also must have been absolutely SURE he didn't have blood on his person, not one tiny drop on his face for Paul or the copper to notice, and who then either cleaned off any blood or changed his clothes either at his place of employment or at a bolt-hole that we have no evidence existed -

or

Lechmere didn't kill Nichols, and wasn't therefore a psychopath, therefore his actions for the remainder of the night are as innocent as they appeared to be, and he had no blood on him.

So it will boil down to timing. And if Paul did indeed find the body already cold, as he was reported as stating, then the case would seem to be holed beneath the water line.

[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...

[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

[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

[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