Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Elamarna]

That is not how life or the real world works. it is not a statistics classroom.,

Okay. So if statistics say that one out of ten people is a bedwetter, that is simly not true since some person chosen at random may not be?
That, my friend, is how you work. And it is wetting your own bed.

No but if such were true, it is only true of the population as a whole , not any individual. One would need to test a large section to see if such a statement held up,
You may test 100 and not find a bed wetter, that is how statistics work on a very simple level.

The insinuation that I am somehow in a flap about you replies is somewhat contrary to what is posted; I do not appear to be the one getting upset.

Please, Policeman lie the same as everyone else, often not caring about the consequences:

The Guildford four.
The Birmingham six.
The case against Colin Stagg,

To suggest that somehow they lie less than others is not supported by the actual facts.

There, you did it again - examples of exceptions to the rule shapes your norm.

Pardon?
They are exceptions yes, they do not shape anything, especially my thinking
I give examples of cases where Previously "good" officers made mistakes, in some cases simply lied.

While with one hand you say yes of course it could happen; with the other you are saying, its so rare, it could not have happened in this case.

In Your Opinion Fisherman, not in mine.

.... which you have showed how you shape.

Which means what exactly?
You seem to be suggesting that if one does not follow a particular opinion, one is somehow flawed.

Why not just accept that there is room for more than one possible scenario. Work on proving yours rather than worry about someone else's.

Are you deaf or illiterate? Have I not told you a thousand times that I DO accept other possible scenarios? Did you forget it? Did you not read it? Have I said that Mizern MUST have been right?
Read again, and with a little luck, you may stop misinforming.

If you do accept such then why put so much effort and emotion into arguing that your scenario must be Paramount.


No need for insults, they prove nothing and show much about the writer,

Please note I do not make such comments about you, to disagree is not to insult, neither is to say someone misunderstands.


I have given a possible scenario.

On this same thread I have said , it is just an idea to discuss, I am not stating it is so, or that it is better than any other idea.

I have paid respect to your theory and to Pierre's on the issue of Mizen and Lechmere

I have not misquoted an established fact, as far as I am aware, it is the interpretation we disagree on, and you say I am misinforming.

Misinforming would be altering the actual evidence, that has not been done.

So you cannot make a statistical experiment on it? You cannot establish that a stone dropped a hundred times will fall to the ground in 100 per cent of the cases? That cannot be done?

Actually no.

Its not an experiment, it is an established fact, a physical and statistical certainty.

The outcome is known, it will never change, that is not a valid scientific experiment.


There is no possibility in the present conditions on earth that the outcome will ever be anything other than 100%.

Of course it is possible to conduct procedures which have the effect of removing gravity for short periods, the results then will be different of course. (flying parabolic loops in an aircraft being the classic example).


But of course that has nothing at all to do with the issue under discussion.

So you can't give a reason why I should want to save Lechmere, that’s great because I don't.

I can only tell you that it seems obvious to me. Why you do it, I have no idea.

How wrong you are, I do not accept your viewpoint, so naturally I must want to save Lechmere,

Lets be clear he fits much of what I see as being a possible fit for the killer.

He is local,
He is unknown and basically invisible.

The problem is you have not convinced that he even killed Nichols, it is very possible, I have told you this before.

The summary I gave a week or so back gave all the arguments as I see them and I did not at any point try and save him.

His apparent response to Paul and Lechmere, it suggests complete indifference and lack of interest.

Have you considered the sources? No?

Yes I have.

Because I reach a different conclusion to yourself it does not mean:

1. I have not considered the sources.

2. I am wrong

or indeed

3. You are wrong.

It simply means we disagree on how we see and interpret those sources.

Given that at least one of the 3 is telling not the complete truth, I find his testimony less convincing than that of Paul and Lechmere.

Have you considered the sources? No? Did you weigh in Mizens service record? No? Did you weigh in Lechmere´s calling himself Cross? No?

Yes, see above.

However on these specific issues let me elaborate:

Being a police officer with a good record as no bearing on the possibility of making a mistake, neither does it not preclude the possibility of ever lying.

The name issue is important to you, not to me or others, both sides have made arguments, repeatedly, they have not reached a consensus.


It seems to me there are two options: either live with it the other view or better still, make a stronger argument, and convince others and me.

I have come round to accepting much of the Blood argument, as you know. So it is possible!

so as Ii suspected nothing concrete, and of course my main issue is not about mishearing, it about fully comprehending was is said, understanding what you are told.

Yes, that may well be your issue.


But I was talking directly before your comment about protocol mistakes, so it read to me like you were suggesting I had made one.

However you have made it clear that was not the case.

So no problem, its a misunderstanding, the whole premise behind my suggestion.

There you go - you have just proven that misunderstandings are more common than understndings.

What a strange thing to say, no such claim is being made.

The only obvious point is that there was a misunderstanding.

Or not.

There´s even the faint possibility that you are wrong. Who would have thought it? But since it bolsters your take on how all and sundry are just as likely to br wrong as right, it should delight you.

No there is a very strong possibility I am not correct; I have not problem with that.

You will find I have said that already on this thread.

Or , if you prefer to misunderstand yourself, it may anger you. And then you will have gotten it wrong twice - MORE evidence for how correct you are!

Then again, why would you want to BE correct? You want to be wrong, so that yout thesis works...?

Such irrational attacks really are not worthy of you.

Despite what you say, it appears you do have an issue that your view is Paramount.




Steve

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

posts crossed, would be interested in what they say of course.

Steve

Aha - just saw this after having kicked your butt. Since you were quite annoying in your former post, I saw no reason to change mine in retrospect. You really need to get a grip on a number of matters, Steve. Hopefully, whatever emanates from my friend may help.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

And you don't have any details to hand, despite quoting them at me frequently.

I have seen the material many times, but I do not keep it in files. I am sure the exact same applies to you - much of what you know, you cannot produce the sources for in a second. I´ve already told you that I have contacted the linguist I know. That is where the matter must rest until further notice.


That is not how life or the real world works. it is not a statistics classroom.,

Okay. So if statistics say that one out of ten people is a bedwetter, that is simly not true since some person chosen at random may not be?
That, my friend, is how you work. And it is wetting your own bed.


Please, Policeman lie the same as everyone else, often not caring about the consequences:

The Guildford four.
The Birmingham six.
The case against Colin Stagg,

To suggest that somehow they lie less than others is not supported by the actual facts.

There, you did it again - examples of exceptions to the rule shapes your norm.


In Your Opinion Fisherman, not in mine.

.... which you have showed how you shape.

Why not just accept that there is room for more than one possible scenario. Work on proving yours rather than worry about someone else's.

Are you deaf or illiterate? Have I not told you a thousand times that I DO accept other possible scenarios? Did you forget it? Did you not read it? Have I said that Mizern MUST have been right?
Read again, and with a little luck, you may stop misinforming.


No it is not transformed into statistics, it is a 100% certainty that if there is gravity, a stone will drop towards the ground surface.

So you cannot make a statistical experiment on it? You cannot establish that a stone dropped a hundred times will fall to the ground in 100 per cent of the cases? That cannot be done?


shame, I think its very relevant because that is a real statistic.

Coming from this forum, it remains immaterial.


So you can't give a reason why I should want to save Lechmere, that’s great because I don't.

I can only tell you that it seems obvious to me. Why you do it, I have no idea.


His apparent response to Paul and Lechmere, it suggests complete indifference and lack of interest.

Have you considered the sources? No?

Given that at least one of the 3 is telling not the complete truth, I find his testimony less convincing than that of Paul and Lechmere.

Have you considered the sources? No? Did you weigh in Mizens service record? No? Did you weigh in Lechmere´s calling himself Cross? No?

so as Ii suspected nothing concrete, and of course my main issue is not about mishearing, it about fully comprehending was is said, understanding what you are told.

Yes, that may well be your issue.


But I was talking directly before your comment about protocol mistakes, so it read to me like you were suggesting I had made one.

However you have made it clear that was not the case.

So no problem, its a misunderstanding, the whole premise behind my suggestion.

There you go - you have just proven that misunderstandings are more common than understndings.

Or not.

There´s even the faint possibility that you are wrong. Who would have thought it? But since it bolsters your take on how all and sundry are just as likely to br wrong as right, it should delight you.

Or , if you prefer to misunderstand yourself, it may anger you. And then you will have gotten it wrong twice - MORE evidence for how correct you are!

Then again, why would you want to BE correct? You want to be wrong, so that yout thesis works...?

[Pcdunn]

Hello, Steve,

Searched for some communication studies that included statistics, and located this site: http://d1025403.site.myhosting.com/f....org/Facts.htm

It lists several studies, the populations that were involved, and the activities (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) that were tested in the study. I think understanding meaning is listed under "listening competence". Hope it helps.

Other articles I found stated only about 7% of communication consists of verbal words, the rest comes from facial expressions and/or body language, and the tone of voice.

The latter makes me think that if Lechmere was very calm when he reported there was a woman who needed Mizen's attention in Buck's Row, Mizen may well have decided there was no need to hurry, and may well have decided Lechmere had told there was someone there already-- even if Lechmere's words had not included this information. Hmmm... A misunderstanding?

[Elamarna]

Steve!

I have contacted the linguist I mentioned by e-mail. Hopefully, she will get back to me soon.

I trust she will be able to supply the information you want in order to believe that misunderstandings are rarer than understandings.

Fisherman

posts crossed, would be interested in what they say of course.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Surely there must be more important issues to discuss on this forum for an intelligent person like you, Steve.

Probably, but you know me.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

I either discard Mizen or Lechmere and to a lesser extent Paul as I see it.

I understand you have a different take on that and I assume time will tell the truth.

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.

I can understand you thinking that, however I will argue it is different in that it is a personal coverup, the effects are directly limited to Mizen, it is different from other issues we have discussed previously.

From what I can see no Law was broken by his possible slow response, possibly protocol but no more.

He then indeed would commit perjury, it however has no effect on the inquest, it effects no one but himself (that is the big difference for me).

It is unlikely to be exposed and stops possible disciplinary action

Bias, Steve. ,

If you say so Pierre, but I am only saying possible, no more than that.

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.

I have no problem with challenging the statements of police, I would have thought you understood by now, I hold them in no special position, they are as capable of lying and misleading as the next person.

Yes I have read it, I would be surprised if I had not commented as well, However it also depends on how one views Lechmere and his sworn statement, did Paul force him to testify by going to the press or not?.
Given that Paul did not testify until after Lechmere it is not as clear as often made out.

Lechmere denied at the inquest he had seem a police officer in Bucks row,

You believe the sources say something different; however not having the benefit of what you have, I can only work on what I have.

For me the combined testimony of Lechmere and that of Paul, agreed very limited, and his press statement along with what I consider to be Mizens apparent lack of interest give me reason to doubt him.

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.

I have, I disagree with your conclusion..

What are the sources for this statement from Lechmere exactly?

(This is an important question!)

It is not a statemnt by Lechmere, it is a summary by me, however it is based on the testimony at the inquest where he twice denied other Police involvement.

I gave this in the post you are replying to:

"Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries."


So he denies Neil, I am sure you have no problem with that


And in response to a question from the Jury:

"A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."



That I am sure you will not agree with.

Are all sources accounted for?

If I have missed something please point it out?
I have not yet mentioned Paul.

There you have it. His tendency.

If you mean Paul's put down on Mizen's response, I see no problem with it, you obviously see a different thing to me, sometimes its easy to read too much into something or equally not read enough.


'

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

I agree, and as you see I use lechmere who was also sworn, as was Mizen for my main source, Paul is used as support.

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. Let´s carry on.


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).

Funny, this is just what I have bee talking about, a misunderstanding.

When I posted that both theories were viable I was talking only about this particular issue: Lechmere, Mizen, and the inquest. not the whole theories!

See it is easy is it not?

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

No it is based on all the sources relating to this issue, not just Paul, much of my view is based on my interpretation of Mizen's response or lack of as I see it.
This to me backs much of what Lechmere and Paul say.

I could well be wrong and am happy to say that.

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

Agreed

And the earliest sources rule.

Both comments are in the same testimony, so does that still apply?

If yes, then he did not know if she was drunk or dead, but suspected dead. That strongly hints he is unsure

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

That is dependent on your view of Paul which seems to be based on a criticism of how he viewed Mizen's response, I do not see that as a clear tendency.

Mizen said he believed there was a policeman on site, it is not the same.

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.

Until you provide a source proving that, it is mere speculation that he saw a killer dressed as a Policeman as you well know.
,

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

I agree that is the most probable course of action in the circumstances.

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

Agree

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.

Agree again that it is improbable



Steve

[John Wheat]

If. If. If, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, 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...

Hilarious.

[Pierre]

Is it worth it I ask,

Yes at least one more time




So not an statistician?

And you don't have any details to hand, despite quoting them at me frequently.

I note that later in the post you give some generic information, none of which backs the claims that the statistics are against my view.


That is not how life or the real world works. it is not a statistics classroom.,

Please, Policeman lie the same as everyone else, often not caring about the consequences:

The Guildford four.
The Birmingham six.
The case against Colin Stagg,

To suggest that somehow they lie less than others is not supported by the actual facts.

In Your Opinion Fisherman, not in mine.

Why not just accept that there is room for more than one possible scenario. Work on proving yours rather than worry about someone else's.


I will just comment on this once,if statistics are so important to your argument, why can you not supply basic details?

No it is not transformed into statistics, it is a 100% certainty that if there is gravity, a stone will drop towards the ground surface.

No without details it means nothing, it is just a word.

Yes, I do not doubt that, as I have said many times I admire the sheer amount of time and effort put into your research. .

I do not think we are talking about tampering facts, its which ones you believe in this particular case, who's testimony.


shame, I think its very relevant because that is a real statistic.


So you can't give a reason why I should want to save Lechmere, that’s great because I don't.

I will ignore the second comment and assume it is not how it reads, language again.


His apparent response to Paul and Lechmere, it suggests complete indifference and lack of interest.

Given that at least one of the 3 is telling not the complete truth, I find his testimony less convincing than that of Paul and Lechmere.


so as Ii suspected nothing concrete, and of course my main issue is not about mishearing, it about fully comprehending was is said, understanding what you are told.

Its very different, but I admit you have fairly successfully managed to avoid that.


But I was talking directly before your comment about protocol mistakes, so it read to me like you were suggesting I had made one.

However you have made it clear that was not the case.

So no problem, its a misunderstanding, the whole premise behind my suggestion.

steve

Surely there must be more important issues to discuss on this forum for an intelligent person like you, Steve.

[Elamarna]

Is it worth it I ask,

Yes at least one more time

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 don´t 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?

So not an statistician?

And you don't have any details to hand, despite quoting them at me frequently.

I note that later in the post you give some generic information, none of which backs the claims that the statistics are against my view.

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.

That is not how life or the real world works. it is not a statistics classroom.,

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.

Please, Policeman lie the same as everyone else, often not caring about the consequences:

The Guildford four.
The Birmingham six.
The case against Colin Stagg,

To suggest that somehow they lie less than others is not supported by the actual facts.

IT IS VIABLE, so why all the fuss?

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

In Your Opinion Fisherman, not in mine.

Why not just accept that there is room for more than one possible scenario. Work on proving yours rather than worry about someone else's.

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

See the above.

I will just comment on this once,if statistics are so important to your argument, why can you not supply basic details?

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

Which can be transformed into statistics.

No it is not transformed into statistics, it is a 100% certainty that if there is gravity, a stone will drop towards the ground surface.

"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 don´t agree.

No without details it means nothing, it is just a word.

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.

Yes, I do not doubt that, as I have said many times I admire the sheer amount of time and effort put into your research. .

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 do not think we are talking about tampering facts, its which ones you believe in this particular case, who's testimony.

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

I don´t. I find it immaterial.

shame, I think its very relevant because that is a real statistic.

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?

So you can't give a reason why I should want to save Lechmere, that’s great because I don't.

I will ignore the second comment and assume it is not how it reads, language again.

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?

His apparent response to Paul and Lechmere, it suggests complete indifference and lack of interest.

Given that at least one of the 3 is telling not the complete truth, I find his testimony less convincing than that of Paul and Lechmere.

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.

so as Ii suspected nothing concrete, and of course my main issue is not about mishearing, it about fully comprehending was is said, understanding what you are told.

Its very different, but I admit you have fairly successfully managed to avoid that.

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. It´s 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.

But I was talking directly before your comment about protocol mistakes, so it read to me like you were suggesting I had made one.

However you have made it clear that was not the case.

So no problem, its a misunderstanding, the whole premise behind my suggestion.



steve

[Fisherman]

Steve!

I have contacted the linguist I mentioned by e-mail. Hopefully, she will get back to me soon.

I trust she will be able to supply the information you want in order to believe that misunderstandings are rarer than understandings.

[Fisherman]

I think you should build a Lechmere Museum and put that in a prominent position on a wall as a work of art.

I would - IF I could.

[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...

I think you should build a Lechmere Museum and put that in a prominent position on a wall as a work of art.

[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. Let´s 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. Paul´s 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

[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