Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CJ who wrote (149)	1/4/2000 4:48:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

have attempted to totally divert the agreed approach to a philosophical discussion/argument No, I did both... and will continue to do both. I answered James' questions as best I could and in my last post I answered your questions as best I could... and will continue to do so. This post, however, will be about philosophical issues as perhaps I am not making my message clear enough. in case anyone else also noticed it, IMO, your paradox is flawed. How? Just so we're on the same page, I'll repeat what I wrote: Let's start with a paradox. What is the difference between an innocent person with no alibi and someone who has committed the "perfect crime"? Nothing! The point is the only way for an innocent person to "prove" they didn't do it is to have some evidence they were somewhere else when the crime occurred. Barring that, you can always concoct some scenario to explain why they may have been the murderer. This paradox is essentially no different than saying if you can't disprove something it must be true. For example, did you know Martians landed in my back yard last night for a few minutes? Prove me wrong! In other words, making someone like Jim disprove he did something is absurd. At least if there were some alleged evidence he would at least have something to dispute. It is my contention that concocting scenarios is only relevant and worthwhile when there is some evidence around which to base a theory. Can you imagine how many lives would be ruined if the police listed all the people "close" to a deceased and asked the general public to speculate about how each one might have done it?! Isn't that what they've done to Jim? Isn't that what we are perpetuating now? Before you get too upset with me (g), yes, as I've said, everyone has a perfect right to conclude the police must not be telling us the whole story about Jim (a false assumption, IMO, but a reasonable one), and, yes, the mere thought he might have done it is irresistible as a plot line so I can't blame anyone for speculating. All I want to do by the above is keep things in perspective... that's all. :) - Jeff