Batman:
It doesn't get thrown out but linking observations from amateurs to create a scenario that Lechmere killed her is going beyond the evidence.
The two are not in any way interconnected. As long as the evidence presented is there, it makes no difference if it is presented by proffesionals or amateurs. It does not go away. If it had been a doctor who said the blood appeared fresh, the we would have to accept that the blood probably appeared fresh. When a PC says it, the same applies - we have to accept that he was probably correct. It is not in any shape or form "going beyond the evidence", it is presenting the evidence in the exact form we had it handed down to us, and sourcing it appropriately.
You may not LIKE the evidence, Batman, but that is another issue altogether.
All that can be said is that the victim died close to the time she was found. We get this from the expert analysis of the doctors accounts and pathology examination.
No, one hell of a lot more can - and should - be said. If you want to go with the recorded evidence, you should for example keep in mind that coroner Baxter said that Nichols was very freshly killed - or even still alive! - as Paul looked at her. Baxter is often uniformed and he is a bad judge of what people say at times, but this IS in the evidence nevertheless.
Blood movement/amounts/flow rate/ground topography/atmospheric conditions/her health/ etc., all the factors need measurements to be able to talk about the blood significantly. Adjusting these factors even minimally can alter the outcome.
The moment I say that all blood evidence is totally predictable you have a point. Up til then, you have no such thing. I have over and over and over and over again pointed out that we cannot convict on the blood evidence, since these things may deviate.
What we DO have, however - and that wonīt go away either - is the fact that if things developed normally, then things point to Lechmere as Nicholsī killer. Shoehorning and squeezing may allow for inventing another killer, a man nobody saw, who silently creeped in and out of the murder spot with nobody noticing, a man that judged that heīd better cover up the abdominal wounds for some reason - but the fact of the matter is that he is only a brain ghost at present.
All one can say is the minimal. She died close to the time her body was discovered. The data simply isn't there to say he did it. Could he have done it?
Why ask? We all know he could.
Fluid dynamics won't answer that question here I'm afraid.
Actually, it can be very helpful in narrowing things down, and lots of people have been convicted on account of fluid dynamics, killers included.
I like the question put to you why he didn't run away given you said he had a full minute to put away his knife when he saw the other witness coming.
Then Iīd like to ask you the question if you can tell the difference between a psychopath and a non-psychopath? Have you heard of the startle reflex, for instance? It is the reflex that makes YOU flee - but not psychopaths.
Did you know that your muscles will autonomically get tense if you perceive imminent dagner? That is because your body gets ready to leg it.
Were you aware that typically, this does not happen with psychopaths?
Did you know that when a panic breaks in a group of people, the person that moves calmly and ratinally within that group is usually a psychopath? They donīt panic, the way the rest of us do. Instead of resorting to headless running, they instead ask themselves "what is the rational thing to do here? How do I solve this situation to my benefit?"
Are you familiar with these things?
There are absolutely tremendeous differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Nobody seems to realize this out here, though. Here, posters think "what would I have done?", and then they think they have the answer to what anybody would have done. Itīs very wrong, to be sparse with the criticism.
That's 60 seconds if walking away. A nice head start if you ask me.
If there was 60 seconds, yes. It may have been so, but it may also have been more or less. In THIS issue, doubt must be there. It is much less certain than the blood evidence in that respect. But no matter what applies, we have Andy Griffiths saying in the documentray that the one thing he would NOT have done would be to run. I agree - you donīt have to. All you have to do is to accept that you may be wrong, as hinted at by people with a lot more experience and professional insight into these things than you have. Supposedly?
The best,
Fisherman
It doesn't get thrown out but linking observations from amateurs to create a scenario that Lechmere killed her is going beyond the evidence.
The two are not in any way interconnected. As long as the evidence presented is there, it makes no difference if it is presented by proffesionals or amateurs. It does not go away. If it had been a doctor who said the blood appeared fresh, the we would have to accept that the blood probably appeared fresh. When a PC says it, the same applies - we have to accept that he was probably correct. It is not in any shape or form "going beyond the evidence", it is presenting the evidence in the exact form we had it handed down to us, and sourcing it appropriately.
You may not LIKE the evidence, Batman, but that is another issue altogether.
All that can be said is that the victim died close to the time she was found. We get this from the expert analysis of the doctors accounts and pathology examination.
No, one hell of a lot more can - and should - be said. If you want to go with the recorded evidence, you should for example keep in mind that coroner Baxter said that Nichols was very freshly killed - or even still alive! - as Paul looked at her. Baxter is often uniformed and he is a bad judge of what people say at times, but this IS in the evidence nevertheless.
Blood movement/amounts/flow rate/ground topography/atmospheric conditions/her health/ etc., all the factors need measurements to be able to talk about the blood significantly. Adjusting these factors even minimally can alter the outcome.
The moment I say that all blood evidence is totally predictable you have a point. Up til then, you have no such thing. I have over and over and over and over again pointed out that we cannot convict on the blood evidence, since these things may deviate.
What we DO have, however - and that wonīt go away either - is the fact that if things developed normally, then things point to Lechmere as Nicholsī killer. Shoehorning and squeezing may allow for inventing another killer, a man nobody saw, who silently creeped in and out of the murder spot with nobody noticing, a man that judged that heīd better cover up the abdominal wounds for some reason - but the fact of the matter is that he is only a brain ghost at present.
All one can say is the minimal. She died close to the time her body was discovered. The data simply isn't there to say he did it. Could he have done it?
Why ask? We all know he could.
Fluid dynamics won't answer that question here I'm afraid.
Actually, it can be very helpful in narrowing things down, and lots of people have been convicted on account of fluid dynamics, killers included.
I like the question put to you why he didn't run away given you said he had a full minute to put away his knife when he saw the other witness coming.
Then Iīd like to ask you the question if you can tell the difference between a psychopath and a non-psychopath? Have you heard of the startle reflex, for instance? It is the reflex that makes YOU flee - but not psychopaths.
Did you know that your muscles will autonomically get tense if you perceive imminent dagner? That is because your body gets ready to leg it.
Were you aware that typically, this does not happen with psychopaths?
Did you know that when a panic breaks in a group of people, the person that moves calmly and ratinally within that group is usually a psychopath? They donīt panic, the way the rest of us do. Instead of resorting to headless running, they instead ask themselves "what is the rational thing to do here? How do I solve this situation to my benefit?"
Are you familiar with these things?
There are absolutely tremendeous differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Nobody seems to realize this out here, though. Here, posters think "what would I have done?", and then they think they have the answer to what anybody would have done. Itīs very wrong, to be sparse with the criticism.
That's 60 seconds if walking away. A nice head start if you ask me.
If there was 60 seconds, yes. It may have been so, but it may also have been more or less. In THIS issue, doubt must be there. It is much less certain than the blood evidence in that respect. But no matter what applies, we have Andy Griffiths saying in the documentray that the one thing he would NOT have done would be to run. I agree - you donīt have to. All you have to do is to accept that you may be wrong, as hinted at by people with a lot more experience and professional insight into these things than you have. Supposedly?
The best,
Fisherman
Comment