Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Value of a lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post

    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.

    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [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

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    [QUOTE=Pierre;426442]
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post



    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [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

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post

    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.


    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Pierre View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post

    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.


    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Pierre View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    [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

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    [QUOTE=Pierre;426369]
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [QUOTE=Elamarna;426317]I think we are debating semantics here Pierre.

    He said he came upon the body and no one was around. To me that equates to he found and that to discovered.
    He had no way of knowing if others had seen it before, but as he was not aware of it, he had not been alerted and the area was at that point empty of others and it was on his beat, he mayhave ( I know!) assumed he was the first.
    Not semantics, interpretation. Very different concepts here, Steve. First or not first. "May have" is useless, as you obviously know.

    My point was to emphasise that Neil had not spoken to anyone else, certainly not the two carmen Or indeed just one of them.
    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?

    I think this is getting less and less reliable.

    I hope not based on estimation of minutes as well.
    Last edited by Pierre; 08-19-2017, 01:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [QUOTE=Elamarna;426337]

    What I am trying to say Robert, is that Baxter obviously knew Mizen must be the constable in the Lloyds article;
    however there is no reason to suppose he knew anything about the wanted by another officer part of the story is there?

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
    two men were on the coroner's mind at the september 3rd inquest.
    with the witness tomkins, i think baxter was trying to determine if cross and paul were with pc neil when he arrived, evidenced by his question regarding the newspaper report. he seems to be trying to determine who was where, and when bc he has the Lloyd's article in mind.
    baxter calls pc mizen bc he knows mizen is the constable from the lloyd's report. which means, somebody must have known something about mizen's story before the start of the 2nd day of the inquest.

    Baxter asks Tomkins if there were 2 or 3 men there before him. These could not be Paul or Lechmere as Tomkins also says there were 3 or 4 policemen present.
    The ambulance arrived after this, Mizen who had gone to get it must have arrived then.
    If that is so, for the two men to be Paul or Lechmere, all involved must be telling untruths.

    What I am trying to say Robert, is that Baxter obviously knew Mizen must be the constable in the Lloyds article; however there is no reason to suppose he knew anything about the wanted by another officer part of the story is there?


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert St Devil
    replied
    two men were on the coroner's mind at the september 3rd inquest.
    with the witness tomkins, i think baxter was trying to determine if cross and paul were with pc neil when he arrived, evidenced by his question regarding the newspaper report. he seems to be trying to determine who was where, and when bc he has the Lloyd's article in mind.
    baxter calls pc mizen bc he knows mizen is the constable from the lloyd's report. which means, somebody must have known something about mizen's story before the start of the 2nd day of the inquest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    QUOTE=Elamarna;426275




    Now, there is a big problem with your expression "claiming he discovered" here: There is no evidence that Neil "claimed" anything. He is actually just describing his own experience.

    This has to do with the word "discover". If the use of the word was not different in 1888, you can consult the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of the word "discover", and as you can see it has different meanings:

    1 Find unexpectedly or during a search.

    2 Become aware of (a fact or situation)

    3 Be the first to find or observe (a place, substance, or scientific phenomenon)

    4 Show interest in (an activity or subject) for the first time.

    (Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discover)

    There is no evidence that I know of that Neil used the definition in 3.

    But there is evidence that he used the definition in 1.

    So Neil did not need to "claim" his finding of the woman.

    And there was no "claim" to be "the first finder" or "the first discoverer".

    It was just a statement as in 1: Find unexpectedly or during a search.

    Cheers, Pierre
    I think we are debating semantics here Pierre.

    He said he came upon the body and no one was around. To me that equates to he found and that to discovered.
    He had no way of knowing if others had seen it before, but as he was not aware of it, he had not been alerted and the area was at that point empty of others and it was on his beat, he mayhave ( I know!) assumed he was the first.

    Dusty raised it with me earlier and I accept my wording my not be correct or the best I could have used.

    My point was to emphasise that Neil had not spoken to anyone else, certainly not the two carmen Or indeed just one of them.


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    "discover"

    QUOTE=Elamarna;426275

    Harry and Robert

    Good questions.

    There are no sources which say this story was known before Monday 3rd, when Mizen gave his evidence. Has Pierre rightly pointed out absence of evidence is not evidence.

    However if he had told his story before Neil gave his testimony on the 1st one would not expect Neil to be claiming he discovered the body.
    Dear Steve,

    I want to thank you for being scientific in this discussion. It is much easier to discuss with you than with many others, who sometimes get emotional or are not able to handle the discussion at all.

    Now, there is a big problem with your expression "claiming he discovered" here: There is no evidence that Neil "claimed" anything. He is actually just describing his own experience.

    This has to do with the word "discover". If the use of the word was not different in 1888, you can consult the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of the word "discover", and as you can see it has different meanings:

    1 Find unexpectedly or during a search.

    2 Become aware of (a fact or situation)

    3 Be the first to find or observe (a place, substance, or scientific phenomenon)

    4 Show interest in (an activity or subject) for the first time.

    (Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discover)

    There is no evidence that I know of that Neil used the definition in 3.

    But there is evidence that he used the definition in 1.

    So Neil did not need to "claim" his finding of the woman.

    And there was no "claim" to be "the first finder" or "the first discoverer".

    It was just a statement as in 1: Find unexpectedly or during a search.

    Cheers, Pierre

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Dusty I would suggest the following hypothesis for the use of the words "called to "

    On Saturday there was a rumour eminating from the press that two men had called a police officer to the body. No details were given, it was a scoop for Lloyds Weekly, until the Sunday.
    It was assumed that being the first officer on the scene Neil was the constable referred to in the Rumor. His response was specifically aim to refute that rumour. Mizen had said nothing by this stage.

    Christer has suggested that this report is from the Sunday evening, however that appears to refer to the comments by Inspector Helson earlier in the article, not the comments of Neil, which could therefore be anytime after the inquest testimony 1st.
    I say this because if the rumour was in circulation before the inquest, I would expect Baxter to have asked him about it, it was obviously important.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X