Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Elamarna]

It is less plausible to you. Not to others.

Sorry, but you are wrong. There have been many experiments made in this discipline, and it is very clear that people will normally not mishear or misunderstand. It happens, yes, but it is far less likely.
We should also consider that Mizen was a professional of the game - he would have heard panicking people, drunk people, foreign peiople and people with speech impediments talking to him, and it would have been an important thing for him to get things right. It was part of his professional role.

In order to entertain an idea of equal chances of Mizen mishearing/misunderstading as him getting it right, we must accept that people mishear/misunderstand half of that they hear.

Do they, Steve? Honestly?

People do mishear, often in my experience

Fifty per cent of the occasions? Because thatīs what you need to get on an equal footing.




I am not however claiming just mishearing, but of course that can come into play; rather I am talking about comprehension,understanding.

Fifty per cent of the times? No.


People in all walks of life make protocol mistakes everyday. That includes those with previously clean records.

You are making one right now, so I am not saying it never happens. People CAN and WILL mistake things - but they are far less likely NOT to. Itīs a given thing.

All of the above does not demonstrated that Mizen did not make a mistake on this occasion.

Line after line of "50%" and "equal footing" has no bearing on an individual making a single mistake.


If you admit a mistake could happen to anyone at anytime, and of course you must, to do otherwise would be indefensible, then there is no reason to believe it may not have happen at this particular instance with Mizen.


Which protocol mistake did I make Please?

Please enlighten me, I have checked and I honestly cannot see it?

Fisherman, what really poor examples to quote:

Not at all - I wanted to reach the extremes to exemplify the folly of your argument.

Bears cannot fly, they do not have the required anatomical appendages to do so, or even to be able to glide.

Put them in a plane, and they will.

Didnīt see that one coming, did you?

Physics will demonstrate that such a claim is impossible.

Not at all, Steve.

And experience will show that this event has never been recorded, except where they are transported by plane as cargo.

Ah - you did see it coming!

Yes indeed, and of course this exchange demonstrate why one needs to read all of a source before responding. A failure to do so makes the initial comments redundant.

Mount Everest can demonstrably be shown to have once been on the sea floor, sea fossils are found in its rocks, and this once ocean floor area can by the study of geology /tectonics be shown to have been forced up to its present height by the immense forces produced by the movement of the Indian subcontinental land mass north in to the Asian land mass.

I think that is just a hoax. Were you there when it happened? No. And Dutch settlers are very hardworking people.

Your Statement was "and you wonīt be able to decisively prove me wrong2


Well of course I can and have, science does that, not my personal arguments or opinion.

To dispute the Everest example seriously one needs alternative facts:

Ones which at the very least answer the fossil issue, and which counter the current scientific research, which show that India is still moving North and that the Himalayas are still rising, despite ongoing erosion.


Of course one can ignore the science, in which case the argument is made on person belief and opinions, which are at the end of the day just that personal and unprovable.




.

You see, I CAN drive some sort of bargain nevertheless. A bad one - like yours. But you donīt seem to mind?

I understand very well what you are doing, however my view cannot be proven by the facts/data to be unreasonable, it is viable; unlike the examples you gave which are provable by science, not opinion, to be wrong.


The Hitler example is different as Pierre made very clear.

What I am saying is that we should not deny that things weigh in favour of Mizen having been lied to. Statistics tell us that this was probably so.

No that is a view you take, you make a conscious decision to believe Mizen and to disbelieve the other two.

This is similar to my comment above about ignoring science and relying on belief., Of course you are not ignoring because what we have is unclear and unreliable as a whole.
However you start from a position of Lechmere is not to be trusted, and therefore Mizen is more likely to be truthful; which is something which you cannot prove conclusively to be so. .

Science will prove both examples are easily demonstrated to be untrue. And yes it is no big deal, its just reality.

So is the fact that we normally hear and understand what we are told. But this you deny?

Normally does not come into it, we are talking about a single occurrence.
People will make mistakes, this time it is my contention Mizen did.



steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: All of the above does not demonstrated that Mizen did not make a mistake on this occasion.

No, it does not.

Line after line of "50%" and "equal footing" has no bearing on an individual making a single mistake.

Yes, it has all the bearing in the world. It provides the statistical backdrop against which the errand must be weighed. We do not know if Mizen made a mistake, and therefore we must rely on statistics. Statistics tell us that people are very unlikely to make these kinds of mistakes, and therefore our better guess is that Mizen did not make a mistake. He could have, but the greater probability is that he did not, since we normally donīt do it.
All of the reasoning in the case relies on these weighings. For example, the idea that the killer went home directly after the Mitre Square strike relies on a perceived statistic truth - that killers run for home instead of loitering around the murder spot - and therefore many people want it to be a statistical truth that the apron was in place in Goulston Street at 2.20. Of course, the evidence must also be weighed in, and that turns the tables.
So in this case, we should work from the presumption that Mizen got it right, but that there must be some learoom for him having gotten it wrong.


If you admit a mistake could happen to anyone at anytime, and of course you must, to do otherwise would be indefensible, then there is no reason to believe it may not have happen at this particular instance with Mizen.

Nor do I exclude it, Steve. Any person on earth can mishear at any given time and any person on earth can misunderstand at any given time. That is why I speak of the 50 per cent idea - we do not mishear 50 per cent of the things we hear and we do not misunderstand 50 per cent of the things we hear. If we did, we would live in utter chaos, and it would be a fifty-fifty chance that people got us wrong in every instance:
"Do not execute him!" - good luck!
"I am not gay" - Thatīs my kind of guy!
"Letīs invade Sweden" - Switzerland, look out!

I would propose that we get these things right in more than ninety per cent of the cases, and I would therefore accordingly - regardless of it being a singular event - propose that we are looking at a 90 per cent plus chance that Mizen did not misunderstand or mishear.


Your Statement was "and you wonīt be able to decisively prove me wrong2

Well of course I can and have, science does that, not my personal arguments or opinion.

To dispute the Everest example seriously one needs alternative facts:

Ones which at the very least answer the fossil issue, and which counter the current scientific research, which show that India is still moving North and that the Himalayas are still rising, despite ongoing erosion.


Of course one can ignore the science, in which case the argument is made on person belief and opinions, which are at the end of the day just that personal and unprovable.

If you find the examples too steep, can you at least see what I am saying? Or? Do you understand that I am claiming that people can claim that A may apply, when it is very obvious that B does?
Is it more important to discuss Everest than the principle?


I understand very well what you are doing, however my view cannot be proven by the facts/data to be unreasonable, it is viable; unlike the examples you gave which are provable by science, not opinion, to be wrong.

It is viable, but LESS viable.

The Hitler example is different as Pierre made very clear.

Everybody should say it at some stage: **** Hitler!

No that is a view you take, you make a conscious decision to believe Mizen and to disbelieve the other two.

I am going with the statistics, Steve - you are going with the odd exceptions. It wonīt do.

This is similar to my comment above about ignoring science and relying on belief.,

Statistics. S-T-A-T-I-S-T-I-C-S!
I do believe that Mizen got it right, but I donīt do it as part of some mumbo-jumbo religion or on account of being blinkered. I lean against a solid wall of statistics.
When I drop a stone, I expect it to fall towards the ground. On account of statistics. Empirical studies tell me that this will happen. If there is a sudden drop of the gravity level, I will be wrong. But I would still have made the better guess.


Of course you are not ignoring because what we have is unclear and unreliable as a whole.

Yes, but statistics are not unclear - they are extremely clear. How many points have I brought up during our discussion? How many of them have you misunderstood? Statistics. Statistics, Steve. They are sooooooo against your reasoning. Your reasoning is the kind of reasoning any defence lawyer needs to apply - try every angle, insert some little doubt, show us that there is a loophole and your client may walk.
I believe that this is exactly how a legal system should work - if there is doubt, donīt convict. But that does not mean that we should look away from the weighed material, that will sometimes be 99 per cent in favour of a conviction, whereas the hundreth per cent sets people free nevertheless. Morally correct, statistically moronic.

However you start from a position of Lechmere is not to be trusted, and therefore Mizen is more likely to be truthful; which is something which you cannot prove conclusively to be so.

I start from the position "Should we trust Lechmere?". And then I look at the evidence. And no, we should not trust him, since there are a number of things speaking against him.
What YOU do is to try and put words in my mouth and to establish a totally onesided take on things on my behalf. Thatīs just sad, and it does not help your argument at all.


Normally does not come into it, we are talking about a single occurrence.

No, "we" are not. You are, on account of it being the only way to try and save Lechmere. Once we bring up the logical backdrop of statistics, he ends up in a very bleak light. So that is what WE discuss.

People will make mistakes, this time it is my contention Mizen did.

BASED ON WHAT??? What kind of evidence is there that speaks for the PC making a mistake? What kind of statistics would bolster the suggestion?
Are we talking about a hunch on your behalf, a hunch in total conflict with statistics, Steve? Is that it?

[Robert St Devil]

If Mizen had only heard from Cross and Paul that a woman had gone off on a swoon somewhere on Buck,s Row, Steve, he,d probably assume that it was on PC Neil,s beat, and Neil would get to it during his rounds. He wouldn,t need to leave his own beat for a drunken woman.

[Columbo]

Yes, but not only is it a total exception, it didnīt go down as they made their escape, did it?

That's true, but it's not proven Lechmere was escaping from something. Besides the fact Lechmere did not have to approach anyone to make his escape.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

If Mizen had only heard from Cross and Paul that a woman had gone off on a swoon somewhere on Buck,s Row, Steve, he,d probably assume that it was on PC Neil,s beat, and Neil would get to it during his rounds. He wouldn,t need to leave his own beat for a drunken woman.

Not if he was not requested to do so by a fellow PC, no. Then again, if the carmen reported that there was a woman lying on the broad of her back in Bucks Row, although the natural assumption would be that she was sleeping it off, and if the carmen claimed that they were the finders of the woman, Iīd say that Mizen would have taken their names - just in case it was something else than drunkenness.

[Fisherman]

That's true, but it's not proven Lechmere was escaping from something. Besides the fact Lechmere did not have to approach anyone to make his escape.

Columbo

I was commenting on Leopold and Loeb, Columbo. You brought them up, and I think that although one of them spoke to the police, it is not the same thing to do that when the police have already hauled you in for questioning, as it is to do so while you are still in the process of leaving the murder spot - always assuming that we theorize that Lechmere was the killer.

Once Lechmere hooked up with Paul - supposedly to look more innocent and to be able to find out who Paul was and what he had seen at the murder spot - then he pretty much accepted the risk of speaking to a PC.
And if I am correct - and why would I NOT be? - he used the time in Paulīs company to milk Paul and to concoct a lie to allow himself to pass that PC.

[Elamarna]

All of the above does not demonstrated that Mizen did not make a mistake on this occasion.

No, it does not.

Good, common ground.

Line after line of "50%" and "equal footing" has no bearing on an individual making a single mistake.

Yes, it has all the bearing in the world. It provides the statistical backdrop against which the errand must be weighed. We do not know if Mizen made a mistake, and therefore we must rely on statistics. Statistics tell us that people are very unlikely to make these kinds of mistakes, and therefore our better guess is that Mizen did not make a mistake. He could have, but the greater probability is that he did not, since we normally donīt do it.
All of the reasoning in the case relies on these weighings. For example, the idea that the killer went home directly after the Mitre Square strike relies on a perceived statistic truth - that killers run for home instead of loitering around the murder spot - and therefore many people want it to be a statistical truth that the apron was in place in Goulston Street at 2.20. Of course, the evidence must also be weighed in, and that turns the tables.
So in this case, we should work from the presumption that Mizen got it right, but that there must be some learoom for him having gotten it wrong.

Your point about Mitre square is very apt, it shows that statistics are not conclusive nor are they meant to be. and of course you acknowledge that there must be some chance that Mizen was wrong.

By the way exactly which statistics and tests are you talking about? you have failed, unless I have missed it, to make that clear.

If you admit a mistake could happen to anyone at anytime, and of course you must, to do otherwise would be indefensible, then there is no reason to believe it may not have happen at this particular instance with Mizen.

Nor do I exclude it, Steve. Any person on earth can mishear at any given time and any person on earth can misunderstand at any given time. That is why I speak of the 50 per cent idea - we do not mishear 50 per cent of the things we hear and we do not misunderstand 50 per cent of the things we hear. If we did, we would live in utter chaos, and it would be a fifty-fifty chance that people got us wrong in every instance:
"Do not execute him!" - good luck!
"I am not gay" - Thatīs my kind of guy!
"Letīs invade Sweden" - Switzerland, look out!

I would propose that we get these things right in more than ninety per cent of the cases, and I would therefore accordingly - regardless of it being a singular event - propose that we are looking at a 90 per cent plus chance that Mizen did not misunderstand or mishear.

That still leaves a 10% chance he is wrong, All that one needs is 1 %

Of course if he is not wrong, that may mean that he lied plain and simply.
As of the three sets of evidence i find his the least convincing, partially based on his apparent lack of interest in responding..

Your Statement was "and you wonīt be able to decisively prove me wrong2

Well of course I can and have, science does that, not my personal arguments or opinion.

To dispute the Everest example seriously one needs alternative facts:

Ones which at the very least answer the fossil issue, and which counter the current scientific research, which show that India is still moving North and that the Himalayas are still rising, despite ongoing erosion.


Of course one can ignore the science, in which case the argument is made on person belief and opinions, which are at the end of the day just that personal and unprovable.

If you find the examples too steep, can you at least see what I am saying? Or? Do you understand that I am claiming that people can claim that A may apply, when it is very obvious that B does?
Is it more important to discuss Everest than the principle?

If you are using an unrealistic example it does not show any principle, when compared to what was being discussed.

one could have used examples like the hitler one and maybe somethin unprovavble eithr way by science like Big Foot or UFO's

I understand very well what you are doing, however my view cannot be proven by the facts/data to be unreasonable, it is viable; unlike the examples you gave which are provable by science, not opinion, to be wrong.

It is viable, but LESS viable.

IT IS VIABLE, so why all the fuss?

The Hitler example is different as Pierre made very clear.

Everybody should say it at some stage: **** Hitler!

While I personally agree, I would qualify that and say most reasonable people, unfortunately there are those who view him differently.

No that is a view you take, you make a conscious decision to believe Mizen and to disbelieve the other two.

I am going with the statistics, Steve - you are going with the odd exceptions. It wonīt do.



This is similar to my comment above about ignoring science and relying on belief.,

[B]Statistics. S-T-A-T-I-S-T-I-C-S!
[B]I do believe that Mizen got it right, but I donīt do it as part of some mumbo-jumbo religion or on account of being blinkered. I lean against a solid wall of statistics.

Which statistics,? what examples are you using? which formulas?

When I drop a stone, I expect it to fall towards the ground. On account of statistics. Empirical studies tell me that this will happen. If there is a sudden drop of the gravity level, I will be wrong. But I would still have made the better guess.

No That is not about statistics, it is purely about physics.

Even if as you suggest gravity fell, unless there was none at all, in which case it would not drop anyway, it would just leave your hand, a stone would still fall to the ground if dropped, it does not rely on statistics at all.

Of course you are not ignoring because what we have is unclear and unreliable as a whole.

[B]Yes, but statistics are not unclear - they are extremely clear. How many points have I brought up during our discussion? How many of them have you misunderstood? Statistics. Statistics, Steve. They are sooooooo against your reasoning. Your reasoning is the kind of reasoning any defence lawyer needs to apply - try every angle, insert some little doubt, show us that there is a loophole and your client may walk.

Again which statistics? Which tests? Who conducted the tests in this case? and what are the results?

If you are going to post

"Statistics. S-T-A-T-I-S-T-I-C-S! "

you need to provide details of what you mean.

However you start from a position of Lechmere is not to be trusted, and therefore Mizen is more likely to be truthful; which is something which you cannot prove conclusively to be so.

I start from the position "Should we trust Lechmere?". And then I look at the evidence. And no, we should not trust him, since there are a number of things speaking against him.
What YOU do is to try and put words in my mouth and to establish a totally onesided take on things on my behalf. Thatīs just sad, and it does not help your argument at all.

I do not intend to put words in your mouth, you have made it clear that you do not trust Lechmere, indeed last week you posted:


" In the documentary, I can be heard saying "Whatever I find will go to confirm his guilt, it will not go to clear him". "




You are convinced he is guilty, I have no issue with that, but despite that you have not been able to convince everyone.
I wonder statistical what percentage of this forum believe you have solved the case.

Normally does not come into it, we are talking about a single occurrence.

No, "we" are not. You are, on account of it being the only way to try and save Lechmere. Once we bring up the logical backdrop of statistics, he ends up in a very bleak light. So that is what WE discuss.

Why should i want to Save Lechmere?

if he is guilty I have not problem, its just you have failed to convince.

this time it is my contention Mizen did.

BASED ON WHAT??? What kind of evidence is there that speaks for the PC making a mistake? What kind of statistics would bolster the suggestion?
Are we talking about a hunch on your behalf, a hunch in total conflict with statistics, Steve? Is that it?

No its not a hunch, its my interpretation of the inquest evidence.

I see problems with Mizen behaviour and looking at the testimony I find his not 100% convincing.


Again what stats are you talking about?



I notice that despite asking what you meant by the following you did not reply


"You are making one right now, so I am not saying it never happens. People CAN and WILL mistake things - but they are far less likely NOT to. Itīs a given thing."




Steve

[Pierre]

Not if he was not requested to do so by a fellow PC, no. Then again, if the carmen reported that there was a woman lying on the broad of her back in Bucks Row, although the natural assumption would be that she was sleeping it off, and if the carmen claimed that they were the finders of the woman, Iīd say that Mizen would have taken their names - just in case it was something else than drunkenness.

Hi Fisherman. Could you please do me a favour?

Could you stop using the word IF and never use it again?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Good, common ground.

Your point about Mitre square is very apt, it shows that statistics are not conclusive nor are they meant to be. and of course you acknowledge that there must be some chance that Mizen was wrong.

I do and I always did. And I always said that this chance is a lot smaller than him getting it right.

By the way exactly which statistics and tests are you talking about? you have failed, unless I have missed it, to make that clear.

I donīt have them at hand. A very good friend of mine is a linguistic researcher of some fame, and I have spoken to her about the topic many times. I think we both know very well, you and I, that people normally understand what they are told, and that they normally hear correctly what they are told.
Or do you disagree?


That still leaves a 10% chance he is wrong, All that one needs is 1 %

Yes, absolutely. But if ninetynine out of a hundred people get it right, then statistics tell us that we should make the very clear assumption that Mizen was also correct.

Of course if he is not wrong, that may mean that he lied plain and simply.
As of the three sets of evidence i find his the least convincing, partially based on his apparent lack of interest in responding..

Again, statistics will be against the suggestion. Policemen will lie - but not on an everyday and normal basis.


IT IS VIABLE, so why all the fuss?

It is much LESS viable - that is what the "fuss" is about.


Which statistics,? what examples are you using? which formulas?

See the above.

No That is not about statistics, it is purely about physics.

Which can be transformed into statistics.


Again which statistics? Which tests? Who conducted the tests in this case? and what are the results?

Again, see the above.

If you are going to post

"Statistics. S-T-A-T-I-S-T-I-C-S! "

you need to provide details of what you mean.

Actually, that only applies if you donīt agree.

I do not intend to put words in your mouth, you have made it clear that you do not trust Lechmere, indeed last week you posted:

" In the documentary, I can be heard saying "Whatever I find will go to confirm his guilt, it will not go to clear him". "

Yes, and as I said, I started out giving him the benefit of a doubt, but when researching him, a very clear picture emerges.

You are convinced he is guilty, I have no issue with that, but despite that you have not been able to convince everyone.

Which is fine, as long as the facts are not tampered with.

I wonder statistical what percentage of this forum believe you have solved the case.

I donīt. I find it immaterial.


Why should i want to Save Lechmere?

You tell me, Steve. Is he a relative of yours, or did you just take a fancy to him?


No its not a hunch, its my interpretation of the inquest evidence.

Then tell me how you interpret it the way you do.

I see problems with Mizen behaviour and looking at the testimony I find his not 100% convincing.

Like?

Again what stats are you talking about?

Any statistic survey that tells us that mishearing is in minority to not mishearing under normal circumstances. They ARE around, you know.

I notice that despite asking what you meant by the following you did not reply

"You are making one right now, so I am not saying it never happens. People CAN and WILL mistake things - but they are far less likely NOT to. Itīs a given thing."


I meant exactly what I said. I think you are making a mistake by not accepting that the overall chance that you hear correctly is larger than the opposite.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;399050]

Hi Steve and Fisherman,

1. Inference to one person or one event is not possible from statistics constructed from samples or populations.

2. 1 percent is a considerably smaller chance than 10 percent and it also varies with type of variable.

3. You can not use figures without hypothesis tests and significance if you want a meaningful result.

4. Inference to "us" from an idea about "50 percent" (on any variable) is not possible without controls.

5. What you are discussing now is not statistics.

Regards, Pierre

[Rainbow]

If you admit a mistake could happen to anyone at anytime, and of course you must, to do otherwise would be indefensible, then there is no reason to believe it may not have happen at this particular instance with Mizen.

Then there will be no evidence that can convince you, till you go back in time and see Jack while he was murdering those women, but still , you may the ask yourself , was it all real what I have seen already, am I not dreaming ?!

there is of course a possibility that you are dreaming..

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman. Could you please do me a favour?

Could you stop using the word IF and never use it again?

Pierre

If. If. If, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, ifv, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if. If only...

[Elamarna]

If Mizen had only heard from Cross and Paul that a woman had gone off on a swoon somewhere on Buck,s Row, Steve, he,d probably assume that it was on PC Neil,s beat, and Neil would get to it during his rounds. He wouldn,t need to leave his own beat for a drunken woman.

Robert,

i have no problem with that as an explanation


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;399055]

Hi Steve and Fisherman,

1. Inference to one person or one event is not possible from statistics constructed from samples or populations.

2. 1 percent is a considerably smaller chance than 10 percent and it also varies with type of variable.

3. You can not use figures without hypothesis tests and significance if you want a meaningful result.

4. Inference to "us" from an idea about "50 percent" (on any variable) is not possible without controls.

5. What you are discussing now is not statistics.

Regards, Pierre

I know Pierre


that is my issue

s

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;39902

Pierre, it is only an alternative suggestion.

I know, but since i take your thinking seriously I want to know how you think.

The "mistake" is more of a misunderstanding, it goes that when told there was a woman lying in the street and Bucks row and he was needed, he interpreted that he was being requested by another person, a police officer, and the situation was not serious.

So what you do is to discard the sworn testimony of Mizen and you also invent an ad hoc explanation, i.e. an explanation for which there is no source, i.e. no source for a misunderstanding.

Due to his assumption the case was already being taken care of he continued on his duties on his way to Bucks Row. He did not proceed as if it was an emergency of any kind.
Upon his arrival at the site the conversation with Neil, allowed him to realize that that no officer had called for him.

He then covered up his failure to proceed as a matter of urgency.

And now it is you, Steve, who accuses a sworn policeman of a cover up.

That is very strange, considering your own critique of others doing it.

It gives a plausible version of events.

Bias, Steve.

Certainly not an historic fact, this is purely hypothesis/idea.

The significance is that it would explain why he said he was told another Officer was already there, and why he carried on slowly, and allow for the statements of Lechmere and Paul, in itself it is small.

How about not calling into question the sworn testimony of a policeman? Have you seen the very tendentious interview with Paul after the murder? That is the whole basis for the rumour that Mizen did not do his duty, Steve.

I did make an analysis of it here not long ago. You can read it if you find it.

However to the differing theories of yourself and Fisherman I would contend that it is highly significant if it could be established.

However looking at the available data, I see no way of doing such. The data in the sources is not consistent, and therefore some or all of it may be viewed as unreliable.

But the data available for establishing the provenance of the idea that Mizen did not do his job good enough is there! Read the article and my analysis.

We not only a disagreement about who was requesting help:

Mizen that a police officer had requested his assistance. (and the Evening News quote does raise the question of exactly what Mizen beleived he had been told).

Mmm.

Lechmere that he was simply needed.

What are the sources for this statement from Lechmere exactly?

(This is an important question!)

We also have a disagreement about the state of the woman,

Mizen that a woman was simply lying,

Lechmere that she was lying, either dead or drunk, and later that he had no idea there were serious injuries.

Are all sources accounted for?

Paul's inquest testimony is far less informative;, although his newspaper article is more revealing:

"I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

There you have it. His tendency.

The common ground between Lechmere and Paul is that Mizen appeared not to take much notice of what he was told and carried on with what he was doing.

Pauls is not a witness in the paper, he is not sworn. Mizen is sworn, the source is more reliable.

The testimonies cannot all be correct, so we either have either:

1. Your view, which I agree is viable, if we accept your theory.

I do not even accept it myself, although today I understood something very important about the communication that I had not taken into consideration before. A judicial matter from 1888! But now I am off topic. Letīs carry on.

2. Fishermans theory, which also is viable if Mizen is telling the truth.

No, since there are no pieces of evidence from other murders, no motive, no explanations for start, stop and so on and so forth (see my list).

3. My suggestion, which allows for an initial misunderstanding which is compounded at a later date by false testimony.

Based on Paul. It is like the idea of a sailor when Lawende was silenced. The sailor idea was already in the papers.

There does appear to be a latitude in the testimony which could show a misunderstand:

At least in one report Mizen does not say he is requested by a police officer, just that he is needed,

No originals of course makes this impossible to decide. You will agree.

Similarly while Lechmere says he believes she may have been dead,he also says she could be drunk.

He later says he was not aware of injuries, just how clear was he?

And the earliest sources rule.

What appears to be undeniable is that Mizen, carried on with what he was doing, and did not show any urgency in responding.

Not clear. Paulīs tendency. And Mizen thought he knew there was a policeman at the murder site.

I do not see any way in which one could construct an hypothesis which does not have someone not being economic with the truth.

Cross was the liar. He saw a policeman. The clothes were pulled down since the murderer got a witness. They must be pulled down only when a witness is standing beside the victim and the killer to hide the wounds. Only when the killer is already seen.

Cross as a killer would have ran away and then he could have had no time pulling the clothes down.

He would not have been pulling the clothes down and then escape, since he could have escaped immediately instead.

Cross could therefore not have been first pulling the clothes down and efterwards move to the middle of the street, waiting. He was not seen by Paul to be the killer sitting beside the victim. No need to hide anything.

Thanks, Steve.

Regards, Pierre