Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[drstrange169]

What is so curious about Mizen, is his very lack of curiosity.

If he was told a fellow policeman needed his help, without clarification the matter is obviously potentially urgent.

Was he colleague and/or member of the public's life in danger?

What exactly was the problem?

To ignore a possible serious incident and continue "knocking up" without clarifying the exact situation is a serious breach of conduct, surely?

Mizen's lack of follow up questions are consistent with a claim of " they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row..."She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on."

Sad fact that it is, a someone lying in an East End street is a sight he would surely have seen on almost a daily basis and worth the punt of finishing his "knocking up" before attending. Who was there to complain to the contary?

[John Wheat]

The idiographic perspective must rule in this particular case.

The killer was extremely rare. Therefore you should not be surprised if the murders are surrounded by historical events like strange witness statements and strange and contradictory data. The killer created the basis for that situation. Therefore you should not assume the normal and common.

To understand the rare and the incomprihensible we must instead use an idiographic historical approach.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Fisherman only assumes the normal and common when it suits his pet theory.

Cheers John

[Pierre]

That shot went waaayyyyy over my head, Steve. What are you trying to say? I am not speaking of the Lechmere case specifically, I am saying that if we know that X normally applies, and if we do not know anything at all about a random case, then is not our best guess that X applies in that case too?

I honestly fail to see how that proposition could be faulted. Itīs along the lines "If we do not know whether a person if right- or lefthanded, then our best guess must be that the person is righthanded, since that is the normal thing, whereas lefthandedness is less common".

The idiographic perspective must rule in this particular case.

The killer was extremely rare. Therefore you should not be surprised if the murders are surrounded by historical events like strange witness statements and strange and contradictory data. The killer created the basis for that situation. Therefore you should not assume the normal and common.

To understand the rare and the incomprihensible we must instead use an idiographic historical approach.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Ah Fisherman

I am talking about the specific case, so obviously we will be confusing to each other in that case.


Yes as a general point there it can be used to construct an hypothesis, which is what you have done, however in any random case that hypothesis may be wrong.

So unless we have a zero or 100% chance of something, such as a stone not falling to the floor, in any random case if we are using stats we may be wrong.



Its about how much significance one puts on the statistical chance.


Maybe that is where we differ.


Steve

off to the beach now, won't be reply for a few hours.

Well then, there we are - that is all and exactly what I am saying: generally speaking, a hypothesis can - and indeed should - be constructed to allow for people to see what is more or less probable.
And if it applies that people normally are able to hear and understand what they are told, then the probable thing is that Mizen heard and understood what he was told by Lechmere, all other things unconsidered.

It is no certain thing, but for it to adjust to the normal outcome, this is what we should posit.

You are going to have to go to the beach on your own. Itīs zero degrees celsius over here, and the only sea baths I take under those circumstances is when I accidentally trip and fall when wader fishing for seatrout.

[Elamarna]

That shot went waaayyyyy over my head, Steve. What are you trying to say? I am not speaking of the Lechmere case specifically, I am saying that if we know that X normally applies, and if we do not know anything at all about a random case, then is not our best guess that X applies in that case too?

I honestly fail to see how that proposition could be faulted. Itīs along the lines "If we do not know whether a person if right- or lefthanded, then our best guess must be that the person is righthanded, since that is the normal thing, whereas lefthandedness is less common".

Ah Fisherman

I am talking about the specific case, so obviously we will be confusing to each other in that case.


Yes as a general point there it can be used to construct an hypothesis, which is what you have done, however in any random case that hypothesis may be wrong.

So unless we have a zero or 100% chance of something, such as a stone not falling to the floor, in any random case if we are using stats we may be wrong.



Its about how much significance one puts on the statistical chance.


Maybe that is where we differ.


Steve

off to the beach now, won't be reply for a few hours.

[Fisherman]

It means To always to accept a veiw, because of the type of person giving that view, which is the position proposed is wrong.


steve

That shot went waaayyyyy over my head, Steve. What are you trying to say? I am not speaking of the Lechmere case specifically, I am saying that if we know that X normally applies, and if we do not know anything at all about a random case, then is not our best guess that X applies in that case too?

I honestly fail to see how that proposition could be faulted. Itīs along the lines "If we do not know whether a person if right- or lefthanded, then our best guess must be that the person is righthanded, since that is the normal thing, whereas lefthandedness is less common".

[Elamarna]

Fine. Then I can only conclude that you are of the meaning that if X normally applies, there is no reason to think that our best guess is that it applies in any randomly chosen case.

Or?

It means To always to accept a veiw, because of the type of person giving that view, which is a part of the position proposed is wrong.


The debate started that people do not mishear, it then progressed to Mizen was police man of good record, it was unlikely he would make mistakes,
and he was more reliable than lechmere because he was a policeman of good record and Lechmere lied about his name.

So while the debate has not been wholly about the type of person, it has played a significant part in it.


And no not better guesses, but interpretations drawing on the sources are always to be prefer of a guess.

steve

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

you must know, or at least suspect that I do not agree with the final line of the quoted text, in this particular case.

If I did, there would have been no debate would there?


We read the evidence of all, and we draw a conclusion on which, if any, we believe to be truthful/untruthful or which contain issues which may raise other questions.

If we follow the above suggestion in your post, it follows that in a case of different views from Police and witnesses, unless we have decisive proof the police are being untruthful, we must always accept that the Police are both truthful and accurate in their testimony.

Different people will asses data/sources in different ways, we all have out bias, both you and I.


To go any further would be to rehash what we have already discussed.


Of course i will be happy to read what your friend has to say, it may change things, it may not.




Steve

Fine. Then I can only conclude that you are of the meaning that if X normally applies, there is no reason to think that our best guess is that it applies in any randomly chosen case. There are better guesses available.

Or?

[Elamarna]

If we only look at this:

In a case where there is no decisive proof, we are left to look at probabilities.
When we look at probabilitites, statistical realities enter the picture.
No person can be convicted on statistical realities only, since each case is unique and may well deviate from the statistics.
So all we can do is to say that since X normally applies, our best guess is that it applies here too.

... is there anything in there that you disagree with?

Fisherman

you must know, or at least suspect that I do not agree with the final line of the quoted text, in this particular case.

If I did, there would have been no debate would there?


We read the evidence of all, and we draw a conclusion on which, if any, we believe to be truthful/untruthful or which contain issues which may raise other questions.

If we follow the above suggestion in your post, it follows that in a case of different views from Police and witnesses, unless we have decisive proof the police are being untruthful, we must always accept that the Police are both truthful and accurate in their testimony.

Different people will asses data/sources in different ways, we all have out bias, both you and I.


To go any further would be to rehash what we have already discussed.


Of course i will be happy to read what your friend has to say, it may change things, it may not.




Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes and no, and I am not trying to awkward, or argumentative

You said you were tiring of my long posts which had little to say, I disagree.(obviously not that you are tiring of them)


Much of what you say in that post is of course true, and where there is no definitive proof it is all about the analysis and interpretation of what we do have.

We do not agree on the interpretation of the sources in this particular instance, we may well do in others, I do not see that changing unless you at some later date provide something new.

I will happily carry on, but are we achieving anything?

That was what I meant by agree to disagree.

Steve

If we only look at this:

In a case where there is no decisive proof, we are left to look at probabilities.
When we look at probabilitites, statistical realities enter the picture.
No person can be convicted on statistical realities only, since each case is unique and may well deviate from the statistics.
So all we can do is to say that since X normally applies, our best guess is that it applies here too.

... is there anything in there that you disagree with?

[Elamarna]

Does that mean that you disagree with my last post?

Yes and no, and I am not trying to awkward, or argumentative

You said you were tiring of my long posts which had little to say, I disagree.(obviously not that you are tiring of them)


Much of what you say in that post is of course true, and where there is no definitive proof it is all about the analysis and interpretation of what we do have.

We do not agree on the interpretation of the sources in this particular instance, we may well do in others, I do not see that changing unless you at some later date provide something new.

I will happily carry on, but are we achieving anything?

That was what I meant by agree to disagree.




Steve

[Fisherman]

No problem, we agree to disagree.


Steve

Does that mean that you disagree with my last post?

[Elamarna]

Steve, I am tiring of your very long posts with very little to say.

In a case where there is no decisive proof, we are left to look at probabilities.

When we look at probabilitites, statistical realities enter the picture.

No person can be convicted on statistical realities only, since each case is unique and may well deviate from the statistics.

So all we can do is to say that since X normally applies, our best guess is that it applies here too.

This is what I am saying - and what you seem unable to take in.

That is all there is to say.

No problem, we agree to disagree.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Steve, I am tiring of your very long posts with very little to say.

In a case where there is no decisive proof, we are left to look at probabilities.

When we look at probabilitites, statistical realities enter the picture.

No person can be convicted on statistical realities only, since each case is unique and may well deviate from the statistics.

So all we can do is to say that since X normally applies, our best guess is that it applies here too.

This is what I am saying - and what you seem unable to take in.

That is all there is to say.

[Elamarna]

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.

What I said in the previous post annoyed you, I do not see why, i simply do not agree with your viewpoint.

Similarly here we have :


"You really need to get a grip on a number of matters"



That comes across as the mind set of a person who believes they are correct and superior.

In the previous posts you have not been attacking any of the actual facts, which are correct, there are not many after all 3 inquest testimonies and a newspaper article. rather it is the interpretation you object to.

The truth is we are probably both wrong, why get so annoyed?


Steve