Value of a lie

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426369]

What I am trying to say Robert, is that Baxter obviously knew Mizen must be the constable in the Lloyds article;



OK, Steve. You have a methodological problem now. There is no data for Baxter knowing that and there is no data for Baxter not knowing that.

So "no reason to suppose" can not be deduced from nothing.

I.e. you can not deduce that there was a reason or that there was not a reason from nothing.

Cheers, Pierre

I disagree.

The Lloyds article said where the constable was on duty, from this information the identity of the constable in question was known if the article was in any way accurate about meeting a constable. This was a known established fact for the POLICE.
Mizen is called on 3rd, the day after the article, it seems reasonable that he was called at this point, as opposed to the 17th like Thain, to answer questions relating to that article as it was known it could only refer to him. Such also suggests that Lechmere did not just show up unexpectedly on the 3rd.

Such by the way has nothing to do with my work, I was just offering a suggestion to Robert.


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426371]I think we are debating semantics here Pierre.

Not semantics, interpretation. Very different concepts here, Steve. First or not first. "May have" is useless, as you obviously know.

Of course it is semantics Pierre I used Discover originally.

You questioned that and gave four possible meanings.

Neil's testimony certainly meets points 1 & 2.

He came upon a body, unattended. In a at that moment otherwise empty street. He said there was no one else about at the inquest. One can argue that 3 also applies.

However rather than go into a long debate over words I happily accepted I could have used other words.

You may disagree. That's fine by me, not the first time my friend.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Dear Steve, what does this mean: "certainly not" "Or indeed just one of them"?

First certain then "or" ?

Certain of "not two" but then an alternative one? Why?

My dear Pierre,

Although the original post I made was not responding to you, but points raised by Harry and Robert I believe, I am at the same time attempting to respond to your hypothesis on the Scam, for which there is little supporting data at present, without discussing my Hypothesis.
Overall that's extremely difficult as neither of us are at this point prepared to give supporting data.

My point which you seem to be having difficulty in understanding, or maybe which I am not explaining clearly, (Could be either or a mixture of both) was that Neil was very clear there was no one else around when he first saw the body of Nichols and thus he could not have sent anyone to find another constable, a point I assume you accept.
This was the point I was making to Harry and Robert.

I think this is getting less and less reliable.

It's nothing to do with my Hypothesis on the Scam, I am trying to steer away from that as far as possible.

I hope not based on estimation of minutes as well.

Your complete aversion to timing does at times leave me bemused Pierre.

Yes of course the use of short periods of time based on calculations are not foolproof and I will go further short period timings show very little. One cannot use them to prove anything conclusively. The longer the period the more such becomes a possibility.

However when used to see if testimony stands up to what is physically possible timings can be useful; but certainly not definitive.
A good example being Paul's statement that it took no more than 4 minutes from first seeing the body to meeting Mizen.

Timings suggest, I emphasis suggest, that this is likely to be a reasonably accurate estimate, with of course a margin of error.

Timings while indeed mentioned in my Hypothesis are not central to it, indeed I will go as far as to say they are peripherally and have no bearing on the conclusion.

I only use timings to see what is physically possible, not what is probable.




Steve

[Elamarna]

Dear Steve, what does this mean: "certainly not" "Or indeed just one of them"?

First certain then "or" ?

Certain of "not two" but then an alternative one? Why?

My dear Pierre,
I am attempting to respond to your hypothesis on the Scam, for which there is little supporting data at present, without discussing my Hypothesis.
Overall that's extremely difficult as neither of us are at this point prepared to give supporting data.

My point which you seem to be having difficulty in understanding, or maybe which I am not explaining clearly. (Could be either or a mixture of both). Was that Neil was very clear there was no one else around when he first saw the body of Nichols and thus he could not have sent anyone to find another constable, a point I assume you accept.
This was the point I was making to Harry and Robert.

I think this is getting less and less reliable.

It's nothing to do with my Hypothesis on the Scam, I am trying to steer away from that as far as possible.

I hope not based on estimation of minutes as well.

Your complete aversion to timing does at times leave me bemused.

Yes of course short periods of time based on calculations are not foolproof and I will go further short periods show very little.
One cannot use them to prove anything conclusively. The longer the period the more such becomes a possibility.

However when used to see if testimony stands up to what is physically possible timings can be useful, but certainly not definitive.
A good example being Paul's statement that it took no more than 4 minutes from first seeing the body to meeting Mizen.

Timings suggest, I emphasis suggest, that this is likely to be a reasonably accurate estimate, with of course a small margin of error.

Timings while indeed mentioned in my Hypothesis are not central to it, indeed I will go as far as to say they are peripheral and have no bearing on the conclusion.

I only use timings to see what is physically possible, not what is probable.




Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426417]

I only use timings to see what is physically possible, not what is probable.

Hi Steve,

Possible, I see. But I thought you wanted to do something more than that, since ripperology is really full of what is, or was, "possible" already.

What is your position here, Steve?

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426442]

Hi Steve,

Possible, I see. But I thought you wanted to do something more than that, since ripperology is really full of what is, or was, "possible" already.

What is your position here, Steve?

Cheers, Pierre

I think you misunderstand Pierre

It is a method of exclusion not inclusion.

If it is not physically possible to do something in a given time, for instance walking (not running) from the murder site to Mizen in less than say 2 minutes we can exclude that possability.
And of course it also suggests that running was not needed to get to work on time that day.

It's a useful method in my opinion for weeding out some of the claims made.

Steve



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426460][QUOTE=Pierre;426442]

I think you misunderstand Pierre

It is a method of exclusion not inclusion.

If it is not physically possible to do something in a given time, for instance walking (not running) from the murder site to Mizen in less than say 2 minutes we can exclude that possability.
And of course it also suggests that running was not needed to get to work on time that day.

It's a useful method in my opinion for weeding out some of the claims made.

Steve

OK, Steve. So what you are really doing is trying to understand what was impossible, as you say "not physically possible to do something".

And you are trying to reach that type of result with the same material and measure as Fisherman: minutes.

And you want to disprove the Mizen scam.

Are you sure that you can do it and get high reliability? Or is the impossible going to be just an hypothesis with rather low reliability? What do you think right now?

And if it is not reliable, what do you think Fisherman is going to say?

Pierre

[Elamarna]

OK, Steve. So what you are really doing is trying to understand what was impossible, as you say "not physically possible to do something".

And you are trying to reach that type of result with the same material and measure as Fisherman: minutes.

And you want to disprove the Mizen scam.

Are you sure that you can do it and get high reliability? Or is the impossible going to be just an hypothesis with rather low reliability? What do you think right now?

I do not want to disprove the scam. Just to reasse what the sources say.

The timing tool/method is not used in the hypothesis, it is not required.

I could use it, but the results in this case are marginal and while they may suggest/hint at something, they are far from conclusive. I may include them as purely a point to ponder on, an appendix to the hypothesis.
I have not made my mind up yet.

And if it is not reliable, what do you think Fisherman is going to say?

Given timings are not included it is irrelevant Pierre.


Steve