John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed. Whether Chapman ate, or didn't eat after 1. 50 am is conjecture. We have no idea either way.

Exactly my dear Whatsit.

[Lewis C]

No. Just showing that you’re statement the no one else had ever heard of the company wasn’t true.

It's a large company. I've heard of it. Not that it really matters whether the company that a person works for is famous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When Ms Diddles (who's probably one of the most polite and well behaved out of the lot of us) is advising you to back off a bit, it's worth paying attention.

Couldn’t have put it better AP.

[Lewis C]

Agreed. Whether Chapman ate, or didn't eat after 1. 50 am is conjecture. We have no idea either way.

Exactly. You beat me to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm pretty sure you responded in this way a few pages back, and I answered then as I'll answer now.

The articles, and those are only three of many, are concerned with witness recollection first and foremost. They are concerned with how the human mind works. How we store, process and recollect information. Whether or not it is a suspect or simply recalling an event, is irrelevant.

I'll remind you:

Why is a witness’s account so often unreliable? Partly because the brain does not have a knack for retaining many specifics and is highly susceptible to suggestion. “Memory is weak in eyewitness situations because it’s overloaded,” said Barbara Tversky, a psychology professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York. “An event happens so fast, and when the police question you, you probably weren’t concentrating on the details they’re asking about.”

Hundreds of studies have cataloged a long list of circumstances that can affect how memories are recorded and replayed, including the emotion at the time of the event, the social pressures that taint its reconstruction, even flourishes unknowingly added after the fact.

Contrary to common intuition, however, courtroom statements of confidence are very poor predictors of accuracy (26–29). The cause of this confidence–accuracy disparity is well captured by Daniel Kahneman’s cognitive “illusion of validity” (30). Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. Declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.

Without awareness, we regularly encode information in a prejudiced manner and later forget, reconstruct, update, and distort the things we believe to be true.

Psychological scientist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider.

Feel free to take note of a pertinent point in the last paragraph: more precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics.

Feel free to post the study that says “no witnesses can be relied upon. Simply dismiss them all…especially the inconvenient ones.” I’m sure it’s a fascinating read.

[Lewis C]

Yes.

It was a clue that the graffito was written by the murderer of Catherine Eddowes.

That is why, I would argue very strongly, the murderer cut the apron in two.

He knew it would authenticate the piece he dropped as coming from the murder scene and that the apron piece dropped would 'sign' his message.

I would say that where it was deposited makes it more likely that the killer wrote it, but far from guarantees it. But what it definitely tells us is the direction that the killer went in after the murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not only is it conjecture, PI, but the speculative attempt to explain how and why Annie sourced food after two morning when she'd just eaten, is a weak speculative attempt also.

How can anyone ‘think’ like this?

Between the time that she left the lodging house to the time that she was found dead in Hanbury Street is a complete blank. We have zero information - I’m assuming that you don’t dispute that fact?

This means that not only do we have no knowledge where she did or didn’t go, we have absolutely no knowledge of what she did or didn’t do - I’m assuming that you don’t dispute that fact?

So if I, or someone else suggests that she might have eaten something during that period you have no evidence to disprove it - and note, in case you slip into pointless nitpicking mode, that I used the word might.

Because we don’t know where she went and we don’t know what she did any suggestion that she might have eaten can only be conjecture. Simple enough?

Equally though, to suggest that she probably didn’t have anything to eat is also conjecture but it’s more than that. The use of words like probably in this case is inappropriate and more than a little dishonest because it implies that there is evidence that tips the balance in favour of her not eating. There is no such evidence of course and a meagre meal of a few potatoes is hardly going cause her to fast for the next few hours.

What you and PI are repeatedly guilty of, when faced with the blank of where Chapman went or what she did, you feel it valid to conjecture that she couldn’t or wouldn’t have eaten again whilst criticising others for merely conjecturing that she might have.

You appear to believe that you operate under different rules.

Whether this will sink in is another story.

[Lewis C]

I agree, but why would he alone of the witnesses be considered to need protection unless he was believed to have seen the murderer?

Sorry, but all I can say is I don't know.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why did the PC pick up the infamous rag? It was before he could have known what happened in Mitre Square. And would it have been so readily noticed?

Pc Long said that one corner of the piece of apron was wet with blood.

He also testified that when he found it, at 2.55 a.m., he already knew of the two murders having been committed that morning.

[Fleetwood Mac]

All of your examples are about the inaccuracy of eyewitness descriptions of suspects. Neither Cadosch nor Richardson gave an eyewitness description of a suspect. You can't just handwave away their testimony - you need to establish credible reasons that they were several hours off on their time estimates or that they would have deliberately lied.

I'm pretty sure you responded in this way a few pages back, and I answered then as I'll answer now.

The articles, and those are only three of many, are concerned with witness recollection first and foremost. They are concerned with how the human mind works. How we store, process and recollect information. Whether or not it is a suspect or simply recalling an event, is irrelevant.

I'll remind you:

Why is a witness’s account so often unreliable? Partly because the brain does not have a knack for retaining many specifics and is highly susceptible to suggestion. “Memory is weak in eyewitness situations because it’s overloaded,” said Barbara Tversky, a psychology professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York. “An event happens so fast, and when the police question you, you probably weren’t concentrating on the details they’re asking about.”

Hundreds of studies have cataloged a long list of circumstances that can affect how memories are recorded and replayed, including the emotion at the time of the event, the social pressures that taint its reconstruction, even flourishes unknowingly added after the fact.

Contrary to common intuition, however, courtroom statements of confidence are very poor predictors of accuracy (26–29). The cause of this confidence–accuracy disparity is well captured by Daniel Kahneman’s cognitive “illusion of validity” (30). Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. Declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.

Without awareness, we regularly encode information in a prejudiced manner and later forget, reconstruct, update, and distort the things we believe to be true.

Psychological scientist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider.

Feel free to take note of a pertinent point in the last paragraph: more precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn't know what he meant by 'not you're language', and all that drivel about colonialism, he thinks I'm an American.

It was transformers over here in the 1980's Hamilton, Ontario, was practically owned by Westinghouse. Huge, huge, world-wide company back then.
Trimmed down a lot now.

Don't question the genius Wick. He clearly gets upset.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My daughter has JUST got back from Uni for a week... like an hour ago.
If I pile into either her or the Mrs for professional opinions right now, I'm likely to get my head kicked in.
Once I have delivered a selection of Mr Dominoe's fine Italian Pies in front of them, I will gauge the temperature and maybe bring up the matter of severed intestinal deposits over dinner...
Or maybe wait till tomorrow.

A very sensible approach PI.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It isn't a numbers game though, we're dealing with the psychotic killer who to some degree is unpredictable.
We only need to accept what is reasonably possible, because much of what these type of killers do is unique.

It depends on your objective.

In the event your objective is to say: "it's possible and so it's equally valid, no matter how plausible", then of course you're correct.

But, we're trying to come up with the likely here, at least I think we should be.

As said to Jeff, employing statistics in order to make a point is an entirely valid argument providing I'm presenting accurate statistics and the premise follows.

Your argument that goes: "it's possible in the sense anything is possible, and so I have an equally valid argument", doesn't wash.

What you need to do is demonstrate how and why my statistics and the premise that follows, is false.

We're trying to discern is the likely and the unlikely here. Nothing can be proven at this remove.

And then, you adopt vague rhetoric: "much of what these type of killers do is unique". What exactly do you mean in relation to a murderer who runs round killing people in the same way other murderers run 'round killing people?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

To begin by telling me that Anderson DID believe the Grafitto to be a clue

He DID, according to his recollection almost twenty years later.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The case is solved!

No. Just showing that you’re statement the no one else had ever heard of the company wasn’t true.