Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Trevor Marriott]

She also tells me that I am of course correct - the reason that people getting things right are of little interest to the research is because they represent "normalfallet" - the normal outcome. So getting it right is the normal outcome, just as I say.

Of course you are correct, when have you ever admitted to being wrong with regards to Lechmere !!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Steve!

I have had word from my linguist friend (who is titled Professor Psycholinguistics and Director of the Humanities Lab of the University of Lund).

She tells me that the research always focuses on what in Swedish is called "negativ evidens" - it would translate into negative evidence or something such, at it means that what is quantified and examined is where it goes wrong, not where people get things right.

She also tells me that I am of course correct - the reason that people getting things right are of little interest to the research is because they represent "normalfallet" - the normal outcome. So getting it right is the normal outcome, just as I say.

I expected some sort of serious reply, links to studies, what we get is you saying your friend says you are right.


That just will not do

Of course it is generalized as I suspected, of course just because it is the norm to not make mistakes it does not follow that Mizen did not on that occasion.

Your argument is that there is nothing to show which way we should go with the data so the norm should be applied; that is not what I see.

I tried to find some sort of research to bolster what I am saying and I found an experiment (or a number of them, but I am quoting just the one here). The thesis it comes from is called "PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN", and it is written by Naomi Norsworthy, Ph.D.

What was named an a-t test was performed on a number of children, most of them with normal gifts of perception, but a number of them "feeble-minded". The test works like this: Instructions are given to look in a text for words that have both an a and a t in them, to mark these words, and then the text is handed over to the kids.

Several points here, the first is that it is a thesis from 1906, it was not published until after her death and was therefore not altered by an peer review.

Why not pick something more recent, which has been peer reviewed?
And which is more relevant, more on this later.

Also disturbing is that the report refers to "febble-minded" not exactly scientific language, but of course it is over 110 years old and different standards applied.


Unfortunately from a scientific point of view it somewhat devalues the research as there appears to me no definition of "Febble minded"

It should also be noted that this is a research project which is looking at the different levels of comprehension between "normal children and " mentally deficient" children.

It is not an attempt to look at comprehension in general.


However lets look at the research reported:

Hereīs a quotation of how many comprehended the instrucions and carried them out correctly:

"Out of 68 feeble-minded children, 28, or 41 per cent, misunderstood the directions and either marked the words containing either a or t, or marked the letters a and t. Among 159 normal children under twelve years of age only 13, or roughly 8 per cent, misunderstood."

The author tells us that there will have been feeble-minded children who may not have understood the instructions fully, and so that group is harder to fairly quantify, but I think the overall outcome is very clear: Children under 12 will be able to hear and understand verbal instructions (because they were verbal) of this kind in 92 per cent of the cases, and even feeble-minded children will do so in a majority (59-41) of the cases.

The first point is that this is a report about children under the age of 12, such persons have a considerably different level of comprehension to adults.


In this respect alone the research is irrelevant and misleading, Fisherman please note I am not saying you are attempting to mislead in any way.

You have just chosen to use the wrong research.

A second issue, the test is fairly straight forward, and not a complex task, it involves no multitasking as adults often do.

And certainly is not a comparable test to the tasks Mizen or anyone in his position was engaged in:

Knocking up, listen to comments from others, and one assume keeping an eye open for any crime happening while he is doing the first two tasks.


Of course you again say that as 92% get the test right, it proves your point that the norm should be applied.

I will not delve any further into this, since I think I have proven my point by now.

To the contrary, you have not on the issue of norms in this instance.

It appears that you cannot countenance the possibility that Lechmere and Paul are telling the truth, and therefore you resort to applying the "norm" as you see it, in order to discount what they say.


Following my analysis of the data, his behaviour, coupled with the testimony and comments from Lechmere and Paul it suggests at the very least a complete lack of interest on the part of Mizen.

That for me is enough to allow the creation of an hypothesis that he was not really listen to what was being said, he was busy doing something else (knocking up), he did not fully comprehend what was being conveyed to him, the rest follows on.

And yes maybe its the other way round and Mizen is honest and Paul and Lechmere lied. and your hypothesis is correct

Maybe we are both wrong and Pierre is right.

I do not discount any, nor say one is paramount to others.

As I posted yesterday we can go on debating this as long as you wish, however it is probably best to agree to disagree, unless we wish to keep on Ad infinitum.




steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I expected some sort of serious reply, links to studies, what we get is you saying your friend says you are right.

Yes, my linguistic professor says I am right. It does not get more serious that that.

That just will not do

Not for you, perhaps, but it does for me.


Several points here, the first is that it is a thesis from 1906, it was not published until after her death and was therefore not altered by an peer review.

Why not pick something more recent, which has been peer reviewed?
And which is more relevant, more on this later.

It is totally relevant, it involves hearing and understanding, and these matters have not changed over the years.

Also disturbing is that the report refers to "febble-minded" not exactly scientific language, but of course it is over 110 years old and different standards applied.

"Different standards"? Try again. The chidren were asked a question verbally, involving a task that would reveal if they understood or not. 92 per cent did. Adios to this debate.


It should also be noted that this is a research project which is looking at the different levels of comprehension between "normal children and " mentally deficient" children.

Yes.

It is not an attempt to look at comprehension in general.

It looks at the comprehension powers of twelve year old children, and even they comprehend messages and are able to carry them out. And it even tells us that feebleminded children were normally able to do so too.


The first point is that this is a report about children under the age of 12, such persons have a considerably different level of comprehension to adults.

Yes, adults comprehend more complex matters.

In this respect alone the research is irrelevant and misleading, Fisherman please note I am not saying you are attempting to mislead in any way.

Good, because neither I nor the material does. It describes the respondents, it describes the task, and it describes the result. No misleading there.

You have just chosen to use the wrong research.

It would not have mattered what research I used, you should be honest about that, Steve.

A second issue, the test is fairly straight forward, and not a complex task, it involves no multitasking as adults often do.

There is no research involving how much a PC in the middle of the night understands of what a carman tells him in one, two or three simple sentences. Multitasking? Ha!

Of course you again say that as 92% get the test right, it proves your point that the norm should be applied.

92 per cent wonīt apply in all tests - but my professor says that I am of course correct, since the normal outcome was always going to be how people will understand and hear correctly what they are told.


It appears that you cannot countenance the possibility that Lechmere and Paul are telling the truth, and therefore you resort to applying the "norm" as you see it, in order to discount what they say.

How SURPRISING that you should say that! I am flabbergasted - I never saw that coming!


Maybe we are both wrong and Pierre is right.

I donīt know about you, but I DO know about the material surrounding comprehension and hearing.

I do not discount any, nor say one is paramount to others.

No, I know - you are a paragon of fairness. I prefer to be one of logic.

As I posted yesterday we can go on debating this as long as you wish, however it is probably best to agree to disagree, unless we wish to keep on Ad infinitum.

Itīs your choice, for the moment being. Donīt respond if you donīt feel like it.

[Fisherman]

Of course you are correct, when have you ever admitted to being wrong with regards to Lechmere !!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Whenever I have needed to.

[Patrick S]

Dusty!

Letīs try to look a bit deeper at this!

You say that Mizen displayed a lack of curiosity. Ask yourself this question: "Where do I know this from?"

There were three people who could describe the PC:s actions and his level of curiosity: Lechmere, Paul and Mizen.

The somewhat unflattering picture that is presented of Mizen is the result of two menīs efforts: Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere.

To begin with, letīs look at what Paul says, and letīs do so by looking at not only the inquest material but also the Lloyds Weekly interview. We begin with the latter, and here is the relevant part:

"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. 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."

Here, we can clearly see how Paul paints a very bleak picture of Mizen and his actions. But what happens when we look at the inquest testimony? Well, here it is, from the Times:

By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.


As you can see, there is no accusation points at all against Mizen. All we are told is that the couple walked on until they met Mizen, and they subsequently informed him what they had seen.

I would suggest that there is simply very little INFORMATION here, let alone "accusation points...against Mizen". The reporter states that the two men found a policeman and told him what they'd seen. In my opinion, it's more than a stretch to say that this verbiage in some way reinforces any theory.

"They" informed him. Not "I" informed him. So here, we have it hinted at that BOTH carmen spoke to Mizen. But we know perfectly well that Mizen said that Lechmere was the one who did the talking. And we know that when a group of people inform a PC of something, it suffices that one person in the group does the informing - any member of that group can afterwards still say "we informed the PC".

So can we get closer to what really happened? Yes, perhaps we can. There is a paper that always reports ad verbatim, and that is the Morning Advertiser. And here is how they recorded it all, Robert Paul speaking:

"I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's-row I saw a man standing in the roadway. When I got close up to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman;" and together we went across the road. There was a woman lying across the gateway, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her hands and face; they were cold. I sent the other man for a policeman."


I sent the other man for a policeman. This works extremely well with the suggestion that Lechmere persuaded Paul into letting himself do the talking with any PC they met. Perhaps Lechmere said to Paul "When we meet a PC, I will do the talking", or perhaps Paul said "I donīt want to talk to the police, youīd better do it".

How does this work "extremely well" in suggesting that Lechmere persuaded Paul into letting him do the talking? It states explicitly that Paul SENT Lechmere for a policeman. I don't see a relationship between Paul saying that HE sent Lechmere for a policeman and Lechmere having persuaded Paul into allowing him (Lechmere) to do the talking. Further, if Lechmere HAD somehow forced Paul to allow him to do all the talking wasn't the Lloyd's article then a revelation for Lechmere, had he killed Nichols?

Consider: He kills Nichols. He calls a man (Paul) to see what he's just done, in order to escape detection. Then convinces Paul to let him do all the talking when they find a PC. Paul not only doesn't find this odd enough to MENTION in Lloyd's, but he also gives an account where HE (Paul) is the prime actor and Lechmere is "a man" who does nothing but ask Paul to "come see this woman". Again, I would think this would be great news for Lechmere, had he killed Nichols! He takes a series of - some might say - unreasonable risks and here is Paul claiming that he'd done and said the things that Lechmere had tricked him into allowing him to do and say. Why rush the hearing the following day to clear this up?

And then, when they saw Mizen, Paul said "Thereīs a PC - you go and talk to him!". Ergo, he "sent the other man for a policeman".
And then thereīs the Echo, where Paul is described as "the other man, who walked down Hanbury Street".

I've been over these reports time and again, as well. I can't seem to reach these same conclusion. The only conclusion I'm able to reach is that the reporting was lazy, inaccurate, confusing.

We can easily conclude that the Lloyds Weekly interview was spiced up, and it really does not matter very much if it was the doing of Paul or of the reporter (although I vote for Paul myself); it remains that the interview is in total conflict with the evidence given at the inquest.

It is in conflict. But, I'd suggest that the conflict FAVORED Lechmere had he killed Nichols. Since Paul's statement is alleged to have been the impetus for Lechmere appearing at the inquest, I struggle to see how Paul - Lechmere's patsy - overstating his role and understating Lechmere's caused Lechmere to be "flushed out".

So if Paul did not speak to Mizen, and was out of earshot, why is it then that he says in the interview that Mizen was told that the woman was dead and that the PC acted with no gusto at all - and that the woman was so cold that she must have been long dead?

Hereīs my suggestion: Because Lechmere - who DID speak to Mizen - afterwards told Paul that he had said to Mizen that the woman in Bucks Row could very well be dead, and you know what - that lazy son of a bitch PC didnīt seem to care; he proceeded to knock people up as if nothing had happened!

Why would Lechmere come forward to testify if he HAD told Paul these things, if he'd orchestrated things so masterfully, and THEN seen Paul essentially IGNORE him in his Lloyd's statement, making himself (Paul) the start of the show? PAUL is claiming to have said the things that Lechmere said and heard the thing that Lechmere told him Mizen had said, things that - according to your theory - Mizen DID NOT say! That would seem quite an advantageous turn of events for someone who'd orchestrated an elaborate charade in order to get away with murder. Again, no reason to rush off to the inquest the following day!

And by the side of Nicholsī body, I believe Lechmere said to Paul that the limbs were so cold that the woman must have been lying dead on the pavement for a very long time.
Afterwards, Paul parroted this information to the Lloyds Weekly reporter, since he thought that this was what had gone down.

That is how a perfect ruse is construed. And then, at the inquest, Lechmere only had to repeat the information: The PC had been told about how urgent the errand could be, and he had only grunted "Alright" and morosely trodded on, with no apparent urge to help at all.

The two carmen thus work in tandem, all of it orchestrated by Lechmere. And against it stands Mizen, one man against two men. And Mizen says that he was only told that there was a woman lying in the street, that she was furthermore already in the care of a fellow PC, and that not a word was said about any murder or suicide.

To me, it is very understandable - if this was what Mizen was told - if he wondered why his fellow PC wanted him there, with what was probably just another drunkard. Then he thought to himself "Well, Iīd better go and check it out, anyways", waited until his latest knocking-up errand appeared in the window, and then he set off for Bucks Row.

Exactly what could be expected by an experienced and diligent PC. And once again, there was no breach of protocol at all on his behalf.

It is all very simple, and itīs been said before: If a diligent PC is told "Hey, I found a woman lying in the street down there, and I think she may be dead!", his actions will be to say "Alright, Sir, come with me!" and to hurry to the spot, where the informants name and address is taken, and where he is detained. If a diligent PC is told "Excuse me officer, one of your colleagues is trying to help a woman lying in the street down there, and he asked me to run for help", then he will probably go "Okay, thanks mate!", and set off for his colleague - which seems to me to be exactly what happened.

Only one of these versions of the event is in accordance with police regulations and sound behaviour. And sadly, that version points clearly to Lechmere having lied to Mizen.

Unfortunately, Lechmere's behavior only works with the benefit of a crystal ball. I believe that no one hoping to get away with murder would act in the way he acted. On the other hand, I believe that Mizen acted as you'd expect a man to act who had been professionally and publically shamed in Lloyds' (by Paul), one who knew - with the benefit of hindsight - that he HAD, in fact, reacted inappropriately in light of the fact that Nichols WAS dead (he continued calling up, didn't ask the men their names, didn't report this contact to anyone at the Met, allowing Neil to testify that he'd found the body).

I know that I posted a thread dealing with this issue. I'm very interested in it so I'll add a few comments here, as well. Above bold. Thanks.

[Fisherman]

I know that I posted a thread dealing with this issue. I'm very interested in it so I'll add a few comments here, as well. Above bold. Thanks.

You will find my reaction to this on your own "Robert Pauls" thread, but I suggest that a further discussion is moved to my thread "Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?", since it focuses on these exact matters.

[drstrange169]

>>You say that Mizen displayed a lack of curiosity. Ask yourself this question: "Where do I know this from?"<<

From Robert Paul, Charles Allen Cross and P.C. Jonas Mizen.
Was anyone else there ?

Re: the whole, Paul walked off and Xmere told him stuff.

Xmere told the inquest they did not speak to each other as they walked, yet Paul was able to recount in the Lloyds interview, not only what was said by Mizen (or more to point, what Mizen didn't say), but was able to recount that kept "knocking up".

Since, according to Paul, the police questioned him all night, any discrepancies between Xmere and Paul stories would have been highlighted and they would have had to clarify the differences at the inquest.

Is Mizen reported anywhere in the inquest asking follow up questions about why a PC needed him?

The question is rhetorical, it isn't.


>>That is how a perfect ruse is construed. And then, at the inquest, Lechmere only had to repeat the information: The PC had been told about how urgent the errand could be, and he had only grunted "Alright" and morosely trodded on, with no apparent urge to help at all.<<

Your problem is that nothing in Mizen's testimony contradicts that scenario.



>>Exactly what could be expected by an experienced and diligent PC. And once again, there was no breach of protocol at all on his behalf.<<


Failing to respond immediately to a call for assistance from a fellow PC IS a breach of as I read it in Monty and Adam's Police Code book.


>>It is all very simple, and itīs been said before: If a diligent PC is told "Hey, I found a woman lying in the street down there, and I think she may be dead!", his actions will be to say "Alright, Sir, come with me!" and to hurry to the spot, where the informants name and address is taken, and where he is detained. If a diligent PC is told "Excuse me officer, one of your colleagues is trying to help a woman lying in the street down there, and he asked me to run for help", then he will probably go "Okay, thanks mate!", and set off for his colleague - which seems to me to be exactly what happened.<<


All very imaginative, but that is not what was actually said according to all parties testimonies. Yet again, you are altering quotes to suit your story, that will simply not do for those serious about studying the case.

[Elamarna]

I will respond, I was thinking of you rather than me

I expected some sort of serious reply, links to studies, what we get is you saying your friend says you are right.

Yes, my linguistic professor says I am right. It does not get more serious that that.

The opinion of one expert is never enough in science you should know that

That just will not do

Not for you, perhaps, but it does for me.

That is obvious.

Several points here, the first is that it is a thesis from 1906, it was not published until after her death and was therefore not altered by an peer review.

Why not pick something more recent, which has been peer reviewed?
And which is more relevant, more on this later.

It is totally relevant, it involves hearing and understanding, and these matters have not changed over the years.

You nicely ignore the issue that the scientific paper you are providing as support was published some years after the author had died and on which I have questioned the amount of peer review conducted.


Relevant! About as relevant as conducting a pharmaceutical test on children and suggesting the results can be applied to adults or vice versa.

Adults and children comprehend differently as you agree later in your post

Also disturbing is that the report refers to "febble-minded" not exactly scientific language, but of course it is over 110 years old and different standards applied.

"Different standards"? Try again. The chidren were asked a question verbally, involving a task that would reveal if they understood or not. 92 per cent did. Adios to this debate.

Please read what is actually posted, I was talking about the language used. If you did bothered to read what was posted maybe you would not end up misrepresenting what is said.

Actually they appear to have been given instructions, to perform a very simple task, it is not comparable to adult comprehension.

It should also be noted that this is a research project which is looking at the different levels of comprehension between "normal children and " mentally deficient" children.

Yes.

It is not an attempt to look at comprehension in general.

It looks at the comprehension powers of twelve year old children, and even they comprehend messages and are able to carry them out. And it even tells us that feebleminded children were normally able to do so too.

We are discussing the abilities of adults, not children.

What it show is that over 40% of the so called feeble minded(terrible term) failed to achieve the task.

Given that the task was relatively simple, the figure of 92% of normal kids achieving the task seems a little low itself.

The first point is that this is a report about children under the age of 12, such persons have a considerably different level of comprehension to adults.

Yes, adults comprehend more complex matters.

In this respect alone the research is irrelevant and misleading, Fisherman please note I am not saying you are attempting to mislead in any way.

Good, because neither I nor the material does. It describes the respondents, it describes the task, and it describes the result. No misleading there.

The research is specifically about children, the differences between two groups. It is not about adult understanding /comprehension; to that extent it is misleading.
I am not however saying the research is misleading in it own terms, that is understanding in "MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN"

You have just chosen to use the wrong research.


It would not have mattered what research I used, you should be honest about that, Steve.

Indeed it would, I was expecting some in depth relevant research about human behaviour and comprehension.

What was provided was a specific piece of research about comprehension abilities in what we would today probably call educational challenged children.
The task is designed to compare those with problems against those without and therefore the task is simple enough to allow this.


It is not about comprehension in children in general ,

It provides no information on how adults comprehend.

It is simply the wrong research paper to use.

A second issue, the test is fairly straight forward, and not a complex task, it involves no multitasking as adults often do.

There is no research involving how much a PC in the middle of the night understands of what a carman tells him in one, two or three simple sentences. Multitasking? Ha!

At that point I was discussing the difference between the simple tasks in the test the children did and more complex adult tasks
.

Why do you scoff at the use of multitasking?

Is the process of conducting several distinctly different task at the same time, not multitasking?



I do indeed go on to compare to Mizen.

Of course it is not just about what Mizen is told, is is also important what he was actually doing, where was his area of concentration.
How much attention did he actually give to the Carmen? Of course we cannot know.


So no actual research as been carried out on how well or not an adult comprehends and responds in complex situations!



Point Made I believe!

Of course you again say that as 92% get the test right, it proves your point that the norm should be applied.

92 per cent wonīt apply in all tests - but my professor says that I am of course correct, since the normal outcome was always going to be how people will understand and hear correctly what they are told.

Who is talking about other tests, we are discussing this one.

You have been told that you are right by an expert, where have I heard that before?

Other posters do exactly the same thing; do you believe them, just because they say an expert as said so?

It appears that you cannot countenance the possibility that Lechmere and Paul are telling the truth, and therefore you resort to applying the "norm" as you see it, in order to discount what they say.

How SURPRISING that you should say that! I am flabbergasted - I never saw that coming!

In which case you should be well practised and the rebuttal should be perfect.

Shame it is not.

Maybe we are both wrong and Pierre is right.

I donīt know about you, but I DO know about the material surrounding comprehension and hearing.

It appears you do not in the real world

I do not discount any, nor say one is paramount to others.

No, I know - you are a paragon of fairness. I prefer to be one of logic.

Actually you are not

As I posted yesterday we can go on debating this as long as you wish, however it is probably best to agree to disagree, unless we wish to keep on Ad infinitum.

Itīs your choice, for the moment being. Donīt respond if you donīt feel like it.

Oh no, I can carry on as long as you like.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I will respond, I was thinking of you rather than me

How funny - I have it the other way around.


The opinion of one expert is never enough in science you should know that

If you think I am going to contact twohundred of them and present fourhundred papers, you are mistaken. Either my friend - a professor with a worldwide rumour, and VERY well versed in all things linquistics - knows what she talks about or she does not. I am going to chance that she does.
You, on the other hand, think there is a chance that people normally misunderstand what they are told, or that they do so in half the cases.
Letīs leave it at that. Itīs pretty revealing.

I can carry on as long as you like.

Thanks for the offer. Then I īd like you not to, since you are making a farce of things.

[John Wheat]

Elamarna: I will respond, I was thinking of you rather than me

How funny - I have it the other way around.


The opinion of one expert is never enough in science you should know that

If you think I am going to contact twohundred of them and present fourhundred papers, you are mistaken. Either my friend - a professor with a worldwide rumour, and VERY well versed in all things linquistics - knows what she talks about or she does not. I am going to chance that she does.
You, on the other hand, think there is a chance that people normally misunderstand what they are told, or that they do so in half the cases.
Letīs leave it at that. Itīs pretty revealing.

I can carry on as long as you like.

Thanks for the offer. Then I īd like you not to, since you are making a farce of things.

The Lechmere Theory is a farce.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: I will respond, I was thinking of you rather than me

How funny - I have it the other way around.


The opinion of one expert is never enough in science you should know that

If you think I am going to contact twohundred of them and present fourhundred papers, you are mistaken. Either my friend - a professor with a worldwide rumour, and VERY well versed in all things linquistics - knows what she talks about or she does not. I am going to chance that she does.
You, on the other hand, think there is a chance that people normally misunderstand what they are told, or that they do so in half the cases.
Letīs leave it at that. Itīs pretty revealing.

I can carry on as long as you like.

Thanks for the offer. Then I īd like you not to, since you are making a farce of things.

Hi Fisherman


I assume you meant reputation, not rumour.

I am more than happy to say that i do not question her expertise.

We just have a different take on how view the statements of a single expert.


Sure I will leave it for now, as you have requested such.

To disagree with someone, to try an debate and challenge is not to make a farce of anything.



Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;399404

Steve is right, Fisherman. The article you are referring to can not be deduced from to find out what Mizen heard or did no hear.

It is the wrong population (and not peer reviewed). This means that you need other material.

And you do not need to read hundreds of scientific articles if you find one good one or a review of many such articles.

But the worst problem is that you try to deduce from a group of children to one single police constable.

The deduction problem is always very important and you can never use such data to confirm any historical singular, particular event.

You may not understand that, since you are no historian and since you are not educated within the field of statistics, but that does not change anything.

What you need is better material.

You must really understand that you have so very little data, and that is your most serious problem.

I also think you understand this, and this is why you try to attach substancial significance to your few pieces of data by OVERINTERPRETING them.

If you had data for some or all of the other murders, you would have much more significance, since it is very hard to find such data if there is no connection to the murders.

It is NOT good data to show us a map and hypothesize that Lechmere was at the murder sites. That is no connection, just an hypothesis based on a map.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Hi Fisherman


I assume you meant reputation, not rumour.

You obviously donīt know Marianne...
Nah, seriously, of course I meant reputation.

I am more than happy to say that i do not question her expertise.

Thatīs wise.

We just have a different take on how view the statements of a single expert.

I donīt think we differ all that much. It probably lies more in the topic than in the methodology.

Sure I will leave it for now, as you have requested such.

To disagree with someone, to try an debate and challenge is not to make a farce of anything.

With respect, that depends on the arguments. When we stoop to a level where it is suggested that perhaps people do not understand or hear more than half or less of what they are told under normal circumstances, we are not conducting a realistic debate.
If we suggest that normal conditions may differ from any randomly or specifically chosen scenario, itīs another thing and nothing to quarrel about.