Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
View Post
1. That we cannot rely on Phillips estimate due to specific, solid, 100% expert-backed scientific knowledge. That this should be accepted without question and without any ‘yes but’s’ or ‘but maybe’s.’ And we should not attempt to give false legitimacy to the spurious and scientifically unsound suggestion that we can compare the TOD’s of two different people when science warn us against doing this.
2. That it’s inaccurate and dishonest to make an assumption that clocks and watches were accurate and synchronised. Every single time mentioned in this case should be considered with a reasonable margin for error (I’d say a minimum of 5 minutes but in many cases more is quite reasonable) The failure to do this is more potentially damaging than not doing it. It cannot prove anything but it can highlight things that should not be dismissed. This should be about as fundamental as it gets when looking at the case. So I’ll repeat….any attempt to deny this is nothing more than dishonesty. It’s a black and white issue.
3. That we should avoid making any claims to be able to ‘deduce’ what someone would have thought or done. Especially when their lives and experiences are about as far removed from our own as possible. For example - that something might appear ‘too risky’ to us doesn’t mean that it would be the same to a deranged serial killer. Or to assume that because certain behaviour might not seem likely to us then it wouldn’t have seemed normal to a penniless, homeless, malnourished, ill-treated, possibly alcohol-addicted Victorian prostitute.
4. That we should be wary of relying on ‘stupidity’ to prove a point. By that I mean the ‘stupidity’ of someone involved in the case.
5. That we should be wary of selective quoting. From finding differences in newspaper reporting and making assumptions on their validity.
6. That we should be less wary of saying “we don’t know.” An example is the unknown period of time before Chapman was killed. We have no clue what she did or didn’t do or where she did or didn’t go. We should be making no claims about this complete absence of knowledge. There are hundreds of things that she might or might not have done and we have zero reason for claiming any of them.
7. We should avoid the deliberate attempt to dismiss a witness by looking for the smallest discrepancy in newspapers that are littered with discrepancies.
Point 3 and point 7 are clearly regularly linked on here. The thinking is often “the killer wouldn’t have done x therefore y and z must be wrong.” The 7 points above are too ingrained with some for meaningful discussion. It’s a question of whether those doing these things actually realise that they are doing them.
Comment