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: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (281)	1/12/2000 10:03:00 AM
From: MNI	Respond to of 1397

For example, CJ has Jim and Suzanne planning a meeting. Jim says no such meeting was ever planned. ... and you therefore assume that CJ proposal includes a premeditated killing, while I didn't notice that in her scenario. Next you write a lot of opinions why that murder is 'unlikely' to be premeditated, raising scenarios, giving assumptions of probability as reasons etc. That is maybe promoting your image of your friend, but it hasn't got to do with the proposed scenario, or with solving the murder. DISCLAIMER: I am not talking for CJ here, she can do that much better than I can, but it is the example that you rose - which you think to support your kind of action on this thread and I think doesn't. So, should we establish it as a given that everything Jim says is a lie? No, also not the contrary. Note ALL that we can do is going out from what we have, and constructing quite dubious scenarios on it. One new fact could send us back to the drawing board... I was not talking NEW facts, but facts that still have to be fit in in any building stage scenario... (but if new facts arose that ould probably also be true). Note it will not be needed (or possible) to make a scenario that EXPLAINS ALL known or accepted facts, but only one that is not in contradiction to any known fact, while being corroborated by some of the known facts. We can not really know exactly when a scenario would be good enough for the courtroom - but being far from that point, we still know when one is too bad, namely when it contradicts a fact - a fact, and not merely your opinions. Your 'most likelihood' scenario, the one that survives Occam's razor with your personal preferences on probabilities, depends on your opinions on what is more probable or less, and therefore will not help (or damage) your friend unless it has the unique quality of being the only one that is not in contradiction to facts, as things very well do happen on paths that are not the expected ones. To put the long story short: If anybody can explain a portion of the known facts with a certain scenario, and you want to object you should base yourself on facts, not on probabilities, nor opinions. Regards MNI.