The Nature of Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

One misconception is that Cross must be considered a suspect simply because he was at the crime scene.In my opinion,that is not so.While his own admission puts him at the crime scene,no evidence of an incriminating nature,connects him to the crime.They are separate issues.They each require their own particular proofs.

Hello Harry

Exactly. Robert Paul is so important here because his appearance allows those who believe CL to be guilty to imply that Paul somehow disturbed him in the act. This is absolutely not the case as we know that CL could have easily walked, or even run, away to freedom yet he chose to stay and await Paul's arrival. If Paul hadn't arrived, and CL the finder of the body had just found Mizen alone, he would not be a suspect now.

Regards
Herlock

[harry]

One misconception is that Cross must be considered a suspect simply because he was at the crime scene.In my opinion,that is not so.While his own admission puts him at the crime scene,no evidence of an incriminating nature,connects him to the crime.They are separate issues.They each require their own particular proofs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He suggests strangulation first then neck. He proposes far less extensive wounds to the abdomen than is now proposed and the model used to show the wounds does NOT include any long vertical wounds which is a little odd in itself.
No where does he suggest the abdomen first.

Steve

Hi Steve

As you know ive studiously avoided the medical debate due to my own ignorance of all things biological. Correct me if I'm wrong but Llewelyn believed at first that the wounds to the abdomen came before the throat? Later he changed his mind?
Payne Jones suggests strangulation first.
From a layman's point of view (and without evidence to the contrary we would have to call CL a layman on medical matters) it's surely makes little sense that the killer would go abdomen first. He would want to first silence then stop the breathing. The throat is the obvious target. Even after strangulation, because the killer not being a medic, he wouldn't be 100% sure that she wasn't still alive and couldn't wake up screaming. The throat would be obvious.

Have I got this wrong Steve? I know it's complex and I'm over-simplifying things but I just wanted to know if I'd got the gyst of things?

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;422449]

The Nature of Evidence. (Part 4)

It's only when one can both prove a theory and then fail to disprove it, that one truly has a solid hypothesis.

One could prove an hypothesis and fail to disprove it, and still not have a solid hypothesis.

For example if there is an hypothesis postulating a relation or correlation, and it could be spurious.

Pierre

My dear friend you are with such an example correct. However surely you agree one should try both approaches in this case?
Which was the point I was making.

Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;422448]

The Nature of Evidence. (Part 1)



Hi Steve,

That is not evidence but sources. Historical facts are established on sources and used as evidence.

So we always have source(s) - establishing historical facts - use of these established facts as evidence in history writing.

The sources here described (official records) must not always be "factual" but they often have that external function.

I was trying to put things in language most would understand. For many posters here evidence and sources are seen as the same.
However I accept you point

That is the interpretation of sources. "Known historical facts" are more or less well established. "Available facts" also. They are the result of interpretation.

And all these established facts must be the result of source criticism.

And that is the issue is it not. That the intpretation is based what fits rather than the sources.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;422382]The Nature of Evidence. (Part 4)

It's only when one can both prove a theory and then fail to disprove it, that one truly has a solid hypothesis.

One could prove an hypothesis and fail to disprove it, and still not have a solid hypothesis.

For example if there is an hypothesis postulating a relation or correlation, and it could be spurious.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;422378]The Nature of Evidence. (Part 1)

It is clear that the case against Lechmere is based on, or rather uses several types of "evidence" and argument.

1. Hard Factual: this includes all the official records we have relating to the Life of Charles Lechmere. Here we have birth, death and marriage records, census records and apparently all the official documents bearing his name.

Hi Steve,

That is not evidence but sources. Historical facts are established on sources and used as evidence.

So we always have source(s) - establishing historical facts - use of these established facts as evidence in history writing.

The sources here described (official records) must not always be "factual" but they often have that external function.

2. The second type of evidence used is what I shall refer to as extrapolation.
This is the taking of known historical facts such Lechmere and Paul meeting with Mizen and then constructing a scenario that has little basis in the available facts, but lots in assumptions and possibilities that fit in with Lechmere as the killer. Of course the nature of this is that it is very difficult to disprove suggestions given the dearth of evidence in general.

That is the interpretation of sources. "Known historical facts" are more or less well established. "Available facts" also. They are the result of interpretation.

And all these established facts must be the result of source criticism.

Cheers, Pierre

[John G]

He suggests strangulation first then neck. He proposes far less extensive wounds to the abdomen than is now proposed and the model used to show the wounds does NOT include any long vertical wounds which is a little odd in itself.
No where does he suggest the abdomen first.

Steve

Thanks Steve. It's just what I thought.

[Elamarna]

Excellent analysis, Steve. And I, too, would be interested in seeing your work on the "Mizen Scam".

By the way, did Payne James, in the documentary, express the view that Nichols died as a consequence of the neck injuries? Did he say whether he thought the abdominal injuries came before the neck cut?

He suggests strangulation first then neck. He proposes far less extensive wounds to the abdomen than is now proposed and the model used to show the wounds does NOT include any long vertical wounds which is a little odd in itself.
No where does he suggest the abdomen first.

Steve

[John G]

Excellent analysis, Steve. And I, too, would be interested in seeing your work on the "Mizen Scam".

By the way, did Payne James, in the documentary, express the view that Nichols died as a consequence of the neck injuries? Did he say whether he thought the abdominal injuries came before the neck cut?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Middlesex member myself. So apart from last year been 20 years of tears.
Yesterday was typical. No ability to adapt. Actually Saturday was worse in my view..

Yes that sounds good to meet up.
Spent much of today typing up comments on press reports.
If nothing else my project will put all in one place for others to use.

Next job is Mitre square. Less to work with but I have a feeling the key is there. Had it for ages.

Steve

Getting all the strands together would be good. I'm looking forward to hearing your conclusion too.

My memories of Middlesex are Wayne Daniel, Mike Brearley, Clive Radley, Edmonds and Emburey etc. I noticed that Vincent Van Der Bijl was at the test. Looks slimmer now than he was then!
I get a bit annoyed when I hear players saying 'well that's how I play' after they play a shot like Bairstow did. I'd say, well if your that one dimensional maybe test cricket's not for you?

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

Yes, i am Michael Banks (I'm getting to prefer Herlock though) and I am trying to take a less full on approach. I think that part of my 'problem' is that it's taken me awhile to adopt to this form of debate. By that I mean non face to face. It can be a little frustrating and I'm not the most patient guy in the world. We all have to adapt though.

It would be good to get together Steve. I come to London every year usually with a mate or two but this year I'm on my own. I don't mind that though as there's always something to do. There's quite a few London Walks I haven't done. I've booked to go on the Ripper walk that begins at Aldgate East (never done that one before) so maybe we could have an hour or so in The Ten Bells before that? Anyway, we can arrange nearer the time.
I'm also a lifelong cricket fan though I don't follow the county scene as I did when I was younger. I'm still getting over Englands capitulation in the second test! Mind you, we should be used to disappointment by now.

Regards
Herlock

Middlesex member myself. So apart from last year been 20 years of tears.
Yesterday was typical. No ability to adapt. Actually Saturday was worse in my view..

Yes that sounds good to meet up.
Spent much of today typing up comments on press reports.
If nothing else my project will put all in one place for others to use.

Next job is Mitre square. Less to work with but I have a feeling the key is there. Had it for ages.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I have no issue with disagreement so long as it does not get personal.
I have tried to avoid the personal in my posts, and have gone out of my way to make it clear that on the forum I do not saying anyone has intentionally mislead. Which I repeat.
The documentary is a different animal as Christer has said what was said was beyond his control.



Well if you want we could meet for an hour or so to discuss issues. I tool early retirement so basically I research and watch cricket. So am very flexible.





It comes from a political background, going full on rarely gets the desired results.
Btw I assume you are Michael Banks over on JTR forums.

Steve

Hi Steve

Yes, i am Michael Banks (I'm getting to prefer Herlock though) and I am trying to take a less full on approach. I think that part of my 'problem' is that it's taken me awhile to adopt to this form of debate. By that I mean non face to face. It can be a little frustrating and I'm not the most patient guy in the world. We all have to adapt though.

It would be good to get together Steve. I come to London every year usually with a mate or two but this year I'm on my own. I don't mind that though as there's always something to do. There's quite a few London Walks I haven't done. I've booked to go on the Ripper walk that begins at Aldgate East (never done that one before) so maybe we could have an hour or so in The Ten Bells before that? Anyway, we can arrange nearer the time.
I'm also a lifelong cricket fan though I don't follow the county scene as I did when I was younger. I'm still getting over Englands capitulation in the second test! Mind you, we should be used to disappointment by now.

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve and Patrick.

Steve an excellent overview of the 'case' against CL (although I expect that at least one person will disagree).

Well I have no issue with disagreement so long as it does not get personal.
I have tried to avoid the personal in my posts, and have gone out of my way to make it clear that on the forum I do not saying anyone has intentionally mislead. Which I repeat.
The documentary is a different animal as Christer has said what was said was beyond his control.

I'll be really interested to hear your conclusions. I wish that I was going to the conference too. I'll be in London on a break from the 19th until the 30th of September. I might loiter around The Ten Bells and see if I can see someone typing on the Casebook on his phone!

Well if you want we could meet for an hour or so to discuss issues. I tool early retirement so basically I research and watch cricket. So am very flexible.

It will be interesting to see how this thread pans out. I was thinking the other day of separating the events of August 31st onto different threads. For eg. 'From Doveton Street to Bucks Row.' Then 'the arrival of Robert Paul.' I think that on the ' Lechmere was a psychopath' it got very spread out. You have, shall we say, less of the Rottweiler in your approach than I tend to have (I'm definately attempting to be less strident though. Calm and measured is the new me )

Regards
Herlock

It comes from a political background, going full on rarely gets the desired results.
Btw I assume you are Michael Banks over on JTR forums.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Steve and Patrick.

Steve an excellent overview of the 'case' against CL (although I expect that at least one person will disagree).

I'll be really interested to hear your conclusions. I wish that I was going to the conference too. I'll be in London on a break from the 19th until the 30th of September. I might loiter around The Ten Bells and see if I can see someone typing on the Casebook on his phone!

It will be interesting to see how this thread pans out. I was thinking the other day of separating the events of August 31st onto different threads. For eg. 'From Doveton Street to Bucks Row.' Then 'the arrival of Robert Paul.' I think that on the ' Lechmere was a psychopath' it got very spread out. You have, shall we say, less of the Rottweiler in your approach than I tend to have (I'm definately attempting to be less strident though. Calm and measured is the new me )

Regards
Herlock