Is it possible that Lizzie invented the note story?

[NancyDrew]

Very interesting. I love learning this stuff..but I will admit, a lot of it just seems common sense.

Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it is probable. A billion things are possible in this case...but how many are probable? We have only the facts and our brains to arrive at logical conclusions.

I'm hungry for MORE information. I feel like a broken record, because I've said this before, but I want SO BADLY to access those files at the Donovan law firm office...the ones that Robinson made when he first visited Lizzie in jail would be the most delicious for me...his impressions of her, what she said, details he might have decided to leave out of her defense at the trial. I know that the firm has said there is no "smoking gun" in those files, but they aren't obsessed with the case the way I am...who knows what this tight little group here might do with a new piece of information.

I'm only 30 miles from that firm...and I keep saying I'm going to drive up there with a plan. I'm a veteran outside sales person, having spent years and years "on the road" walking into businesses and trying to get past the gatekeeper. I'm pretty good at it, and I want to see what would happen. Does anyone else live near RI or MA that would like to try this with me? mbhenty: you live in Fall River, right? Want to spend an hour seeing how far we can get?

[Yooper]

You're right, it really is all common sense! Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference is a mathematically formalized version of Occam's razor, which implies that the least complex solution has the greatest probability of being the correct one. Most people are aware of that without either Occam's or Solomonoff's help. A big consideration when evaluating possibilities is the necessity for compound possibilities. If there are three possibilities, evaluated as 1/(chance-in-hell) and all three are necessary for a solution, then the possibility becomes 1/(chance-in-hell)^3, an exponentially decreasing fraction. This is something else we are all aware of without any mathematical reference. Something we are missing is the third dimension of nuance and body language. We can't observe someone squirming while searching for an answer, facial expressions, or someone else completely at ease on the witness stand.

[PossumPie]

You're right, it really is all common sense! Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference is a mathematically formalized version of Occam's razor, which implies that the least complex solution has the greatest probability of being the correct one. Most people are aware of that without either Occam's or Solomonoff's help. A big consideration when evaluating possibilities is the necessity for compound possibilities. If there are three possibilities, evaluated as 1/(chance-in-hell) and all three are necessary for a solution, then the possibility becomes 1/(chance-in-hell)^3, an exponentially decreasing fraction. This is something else we are all aware of without any mathematical reference. Something we are missing is the third dimension of nuance and body language. We can't observe someone squirming while searching for an answer, facial expressions, or someone else completely at ease on the witness stand.

Even the 'human nuances' are subjective. I have seen guilty people calm - remember "I did not have sexual relations with that woman- Miss Lewinsky" ? Calm cool Clinton. And innocent people squirm under the possibility of not being believed. That aspect should NOT be considered in deciding guilt. Nancy Drew's obsession I fear would be the only real break in the case...to see very candid conversations with the accused attorneys may not hold a 'smoking gun' but we may be able to read between the lines....all a mute point as they have made it very clear they will never release the files.

I DO DISAGREE completely that people have an intuitive understanding of logic. Constantly people visit homeopaths, believe in alien encounters, crop circles made by aliens, Astrology...the stars predict our futures.??? Yea, we understand occam's razor....or any other form of logic...

[Allen]

Saying that to believe in these things requires very little skills for understanding logic also calls religion into question, in my opinion. The invisible man in the sky. I'm a skeptic and an atheist. But when I say I do not believe in God because of the physical lack of proof and basis in logical fact I am most often attacked for my non belief. I guess it just depends on which invisible men in the sky you believe in whether or not you are called a logical person or not.

[Yooper]

Allen, from a completely logical perspective, absence of proof is not proof of absence where the likelihood of proof is non-existent or nearly so. This is not an attack on your belief, just an observation.

[Yooper]

PossumPie, did you see how Clinton's forehead wrinkled when he denied wrongdoing? That is often considered a manifestation of someone lying.

Occam's razor is just a philosophical proof of the common sense tenet that the simplest answer is usually correct. That really isn't the entire definition of Occam's razor, it actually states that simplicity is favored over complexity, until complexity better expresses the answer.

[Allen]

Allen, from a completely logical perspective, absence of proof is not proof of absence where the likelihood of proof is non-existent or nearly so. This is not an attack on your belief, just an observation.

What you just stated, from a logical perspective, would support Franz's argument that it could be so because it's never been proven otherwise.

[Yooper]

Allen, from a completely logical perspective, absence of proof is not proof of absence where the likelihood of proof is non-existent or nearly so. This is not an attack on your belief, just an observation.

What you just stated, from a logical perspective, would support Franz's argument that it could be so because it's never been proven otherwise.

It would also support the opposite view when it comes to the note. It applies when there is little or no possibility for empirical proof. In the instance of the note story, it is completely reasonable to expect proof of a note, by author, messenger, or the note itself.

[Allen]

Allen, from a completely logical perspective, absence of proof is not proof of absence where the likelihood of proof is non-existent or nearly so. This is not an attack on your belief, just an observation.

What you just stated, from a logical perspective, would support Franz's argument that it could be so because it's never been proven otherwise.

It would also support the opposite view when it comes to the note. It applies when there is little or no possibility for empirical proof. In the instance of the note story, it is completely reasonable to expect proof of a note, by author, messenger, or the note itself.

For the note yes. The facts that no one came forward even in the face of a substantial reward, and no note was ever found, and nobody was seen bringing a note, would be enough reason in my eyes to believe that no note existed. I agree. We cannot go back and interview witnesses. We have no possibility for finding new evidence because too much time has passed and the witnesses are all dead. There is no empirical proof. We have to use deductive reasoning with the facts that are available. Known facts are all we have and they are important. But my point was to state the absence of proof is not proof of absence for a belief in God for which there is no concrete proof, but state that Franz needs proof that Uncle John killed Andrew and Abby because conjecture is not enough is a contradiction in terms. Franz cannot gather any new evidence to try and prove his theory. Everybody is dead. Do we have all the facts there were to be had? Probably not. Do I think Franz's theory is correct? No, I do not. Reasonable deductions using known facts lead me to the conclusion it's not possible. But can we say we have all the facts? No. Can we go back and gather evidence? No. By that logic of absence of proof does not mean proof of absence we should take Franz's theory very seriously. I should believe in aliens because we may never have proof that they do not exist, but it's possible they do, and there have been 'sightings'. The need for proof, in my eyes, is universal no matter what the subject is. Taking something on faith just because it's possible is not logical. With religion all logic goes out the window.

[Yooper]

How does belief in aliens correlate to testimony in the Borden case? The existence of God has nothing to do with the need for anyone to provide proof for a theory. How does the expectation for proof of the note story differ from the expectation of proof for any other contention dependent upon testimony? The phrase applies to anything for which there isn't, never was, and probably never will be, evidence for or against the existence of something. It allows for something other than a true or false evaluation, that of neither true nor false, or value unknowable. We have testimony available to support our contentions in the Borden case. It is limited, obviously, but it is certainly not speculation. It is, was, and always will be proof.

The error lies in not recognizing an option other than true or false for arguments completely devoid of evidence. It states that neither side is correct or incorrect if the end value is logically unknowable.

[Allen]

The existance of God has nothing to do with the Borden case. Although that very phrase is the most often used for those who are in favor of the existence of God, trust me. Nor do aliens have anything to do with it. I'm simply trying to understand your logic in using that phrase. You stated that the absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. It means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't. The concept is that just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it's not true. Which is exactly what Franz stated when explaining his theory, and everyone, including myself, stated that you need facts to support it for a theory to be considered valid. That phrase does not present a third theory of something being unknowable. It represents exactly the argument that Franz made, that just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't true, and you also contested it as well. So I was trying to understand your logic in using it.

[Yooper]

If you don't believe me, look it up.
There is no third possibility other than true or false when we can reasonably expect hard proof as in the Borden case, you've got that much correct. There is a third possibility where the existence of God is concerned, there is no proof either way, and proof is unreasonable. There is absolutely no correlation between the two instances. In the former, proof is entirely reasonable. In the latter, proof is entirely unreasonable. The phrase applies only where proof is unreasonable.

[Allen]

If you don't believe me, look it up.
There is no third possibility other than true or false when we can reasonably expect hard proof as in the Borden case, you've got that much correct. There is a third possibility where the existence of God is concerned, there is no proof either way, and proof is unreasonable. There is absolutely no correlation between the two instances. In the former, proof is entirely reasonable. In the latter, proof is entirely unreasonable.

I've heard that phrase before many times, read it many times before in different literature, heard from the people who try to convert me to religions, and did not need to look anything up. I already knew what it meant. It's attributed to many people but the meaning is always the same. Your phrase does not mean a third possibility. It means just as I said. That just because something cannot be proven it does not mean it isn't true. Or that just because there is no proof for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone can look it up and see for themselves and I'd invite them to if they are as confused by it as I was. I was confused by your logic in using it because I already knew what it meant. There is a correlation. That phrase is not exclusive to the existence of God when used on a forum about Lizzie Borden. It is invitation to people to come up with theories just like Franz. We will also never have all of the evidence in the Borden case as well. I have always known that. For example we do not know what is locked in the files kept by Lizzie's law firm. Bridget's inquest testimony is lost forever. To think we know all the facts there are to be known is a fallacy. There are unknowns in this case as well and it's impossible to get the information because all the witnesses are dead. There is no correlation between the existence of God and using known facts to make reasonable assumptions in a murder case on that point I agree.

[Yooper]

You were the one who brought up the existence of God on the Lizzie Borden forum. Since proof for or against the existence of God is unreasonable, the existence is unknowable. There is no correct or incorrect belief, because neither side can reasonably be proven. The phrase applies to an argument for either side of the question, and the point is moot. I don't understand why that would be a successful argument for converting someone to believe in God unless it is being misused.
We will never know everything about anything, the Borden case included. We have evidence, so proof is entirely reasonable when theories are proposed.
What I said was "absence of proof is not proof of absence where the likelihood of proof is non-existent or nearly so". How is the likelihood of proof non-existent in the Borden case? I could make all sorts of silly claims about possibilities for which there is no evidence and it wouldn't make them correct. We are necessarily limited in our discussion about the Borden murders to theories which we can prove with the testimony.

Look at it this way, where the expectation of proof is reasonable, then absence of proof is proof of absence. Where the expectation of proof is unreasonable, absence of proof is not proof of absence.




.

[Allen]

I'm not understanding why this keeps coming back to the existence of God when that is not my point at all. What I was saying has nothing to do with the existence of GOD as my main argument. I could care less who does or does not believe in God. Yes, I bought it up. It was used as an illustration of a larger point that was in answer to another member who made the comment about people not being capable of intuitive logic because they believe in aliens. There is just as much logic for the existence of God as there is for aliens. When I said the phrase was not exclusive to the existence of God when used on a forum about Lizzie Borden I mean that people who read it, and know what it means, could take it out of context and point to it when making up crazy theories about the case. Then say "Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't true." And "Just because there is no evidence to support my claim does not mean it's not possible." It happens all the time anyhow. Not everybody believes in sticking to known facts, or to even take the time to learn the known facts. They watch television specials, read books by authors with an agenda, listen to psychics and ghost hunters, and read websites with false information. How is the likelihood of proof non existent in the Borden case? People don't necessarily limit themselves to the facts at all. Just turn on a television sometime. There is also no proof for or against Lizzie being molested and that is broadcast on national television shows about the case. There is no proof for or against Lizzie being a lesbian and that is all over the internet, books, and television. Arnold Brown had no proof that William S. Borden is Andrew's son. He wrote a book about it and there are people who definitely believe that even though there is no proof. So there are theories where there is little to no evidence to support them, and there never will be, but that doesn't change the fact that people believe them to be true fact. "Just because it can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't true." So there is a correlation here. Just because there are facts doesn't mean people use them. And one of their main arguments is "Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it isn't true." And no we will never know everything about this case. Which was also one of my points. Anyone can make up a theory based on what we supposedly will never be able to know about this case and say "Just because it can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't true." Because we will never have all of the evidence. I am still not sure of your logic. But I guess I will just have to agree to disagree.

[Yooper]

My edit crossed your post, I tried to phrase it more clearly. I agree that the proliferation of BS with respect to the Borden case is rampant. I also see what you mean about it being taken out of context, but most logic texts will contain something about it (at least they did 40-odd years ago), and I expect the information is freely available on the internet. If it is used properly in context then there is nothing to worry about. People are going to believe what they want, often despite reason. There is no way to control that and I'm not sure it is right to do so even if we could. If we had all of the evidence, we still couldn't prove that Martians didn't kill the Bordens. Having all the evidence is no guarantee that the foolishness will end.

Now, how are we going to deal with the contention: "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."?

[Aamartin]

I think it boils down to the fact that Allen believes in what she can see, touch, feel, taste, et al.

Someone like that would make a great jurist!

On a side note-- did ANYONE come forward with any note information? Even false claims to win the reward?

[Franz]

The fact is that Lizzie did not think of Abby immediately after the murders on her own. She required prompting from others. The reply was that Lizzie could have thought Abby had gone out. The truth is that Lizzie sent Bridget and Mrs. Churchill upstairs to find Abby, so Lizzie clearly did not think that Abby was out. This is an attempt to refute the fact that Lizzie did not acknowledge Abby independently, with conjecture about what Lizzie "might" have done.

A statement to the effect that the police were not the first thing thought of after a murder during Victorian times certainly implies that people hesitated to call the police. Do you suggest, having made the first statement, that the second does not follow? Since the police must be thought of before they are called, I suggest that the second indeed follows the first and is implicit in the first statement.

A continued reliance upon the statements about a person's belief in guilt or innocence as a premise for an argument prompted the response from me that the forum won't become divided according to belief in guilt or innocence and begin throwing stones at one another.

Franz, what is your chronological age? The reliance on absolutes such as always and never, as in expressing what you will always or never do with respect to the Borden case, the juvenile fixation with legalistically nitpicking semantics, and the apparent inability to reason deductively, all remind me of someone about 12 years of age pretending to be an adult.

Yooper, I have been thinking about how to reply to your tread, but now I decide to renounce this idea, not because I have nothing to say (on the contrary, I have plenty of words necessary), but because, for relying to a tread full of pejorative words and expressed in that manner, I would be forced to use the words of the same color and in a similar manner as well, but I just don’t like to do such a thing in a forum, which is a public place. I come here for the Borden case, for Lizzie, I come here to learn, to enjoy myself, and to try to do, if possible, some modest contribution to the discussion.

For me the personal conflict (a word too heavy to qualify such a little thing) between us finishes here, Yooper. I will be always happy to exchange ideas about the Borden case with you.

I give my apologies to other members for having wasted your time for a personal reason.

[Yooper]

Time will tell.

[Franz]

The habit of "If Lizzie was innocent and..." is incorrect because it only colors what should be another premise as the conclusion.

Yooper, if I say: "If Lizzie was guilty and...", am I correct or incorrect?

[Yooper]

Guilt or innocence should be the conclusion of the argument, not one of the premises for the argument. Since guilt or innocence is unknown, assuming one or the other as a premise reduces the argument to conjecture.

My point is not the belief of guilt or innocence being right or wrong, it is knowing the difference between deduction and conjecture.

[Franz]

Yooper, I certainly know the extreme importance of the deductive reasoning in our analyse of the case. At the first, when I began to study Borden case, I was very convinced for Lizzie’s guilt, and I don’t think the reasoning method I used was very different from yours (I am certainly not as brilliant as you in reasoning theory and practice). But, while you fortunately accept this conclusion (Lizzie’s guilt) as valid, I, with the passing of the time and after thinking and rethinking about the affair, I became less and less convinced for her guilt, and became more and more convinced for her innocence. If the deductive reasoning’s conclusion doesn’t convince me at all, why must I stick on it passively? In my brain, there are not only the normal reasoning ability of a normal man, but also my intuition, my sensibility, my own understanding of the world and human being. If necessary, for example, in the Borden case, I could permit me to give more importance to my intuition and sensibility than to the deductive reasoning, why not? I am free to think.

(1.Yooper, we are born different and remain different. I said I appreciate our difference. I hope that if you don’t appreciate it equally, you could at least tolerate it. There is a famous phrase: “I can disagree with you, but I can defend with my life your freedom of speech”. There isn’t a additional condition that “but your speech must derive from deductive reasoning”, right?

2. We all know that the Borden case is unsolved and the conclusion of Lizzie’s guilt – even as a conclusion of deductive reasoning – has not been proved. A conclusion still unproved, if it is not a conjecture (a theory), what is it, indeed?

[PossumPie]

Fact: Logic states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

No blood was found on Lizzie's body nor on her clothes. And if I understand well, it is generally thought that the span of time between Andrew's death and Lizzie's calling to Bridget was very very small. Please tell, what is your simplest explanation about these facts?

The simplest explanation is usually correct. No blood was found on Lizzies clothes (well except for one small drop generally considered menstrual) Simplest explanation: Lizzie didn't swing the ax OR Lizzie wasn't wearing that dress. Lizzie could have had someone else kill them. Lizzie could have cleaned up quickly. Life is not a Horror movie. Real life crime scenes of Sharp force Trauma don't have red walls. There is spray for sure, but the pictures clearly show even Mr. Borden up against the wall had little spray of any size larger than 2mm diameter. (Sorry slasher film lovers) She would have had some small drops though, which were not found so she either did not do it herself, was wearing another dress (or nothing at all) or was covered by something (a sheet/apron, etc)

[Yooper]

The answers to the question of blood seen on Lizzie were not "no", they were "I didn't notice".

[Allen]

The answers to the question of blood seen on Lizzie were not "no", they were "I didn't notice".

I had thought that same thing Yooper.

[Franz]

The answers to the question of blood seen on Lizzie were not "no", they were "I didn't notice".

I had thought that same thing Yooper.

Thank you for the clarification. But tell me please, "I didn't notice" implies more the absence or the presence of the blood?

[Franz]

Fact: Logic states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

No blood was found on Lizzie's body nor on her clothes. And if I understand well, it is generally thought that the span of time between Andrew's death and Lizzie's calling to Bridget was very very small. Please tell, what is your simplest explanation about these facts?

The simplest explanation is usually correct. No blood was found on Lizzies clothes (well except for one small drop generally considered menstrual) Simplest explanation: Lizzie didn't swing the ax OR Lizzie wasn't wearing that dress. Lizzie could have had someone else kill them. Lizzie could have cleaned up quickly. Life is not a Horror movie. Real life crime scenes of Sharp force Trauma don't have red walls. There is spray for sure, but the pictures clearly show even Mr. Borden up against the wall had little spray of any size larger than 2mm diameter. (Sorry slasher film lovers) She would have had some small drops though, which were not found so she either did not do it herself, was wearing another dress (or nothing at all) or was covered by something (a sheet/apron, etc)

Your simplest answer may be that within the theory that Lizzie was guilty.

Everyone can have his / her own conclusion. But I wonder, when we discuss here the Borden case, when we consider some specific points, why should we be influenced always by our conclusion in our mind? I asked you what is the simplest answer tout court. I didn't ask you what is the simplest answer if Lizzie was guilty. Do you imply that the absence of the blood demonstrates more Lizzie's guilt than her innocence? and then, within her guilt theory, the simplest answer is "Lizzie didn't swing the ax OR Lizzie wasn't wearing that dress"?

[Yooper]

The phrase "I didn't notice" speaks to powers of observation, not the fact. It literally means, in this instance, "there may or may not have been blood present, but if there was, I didn't see it". Why does that need clarification?

[Franz]

The phrase "I didn't notice" speaks to powers of observation, not the fact. It literally means, in this instance, "there may or may not have been blood present, but if there was, I didn't see it".

How many people testified that "I didn't notice"? All the persons (those questioned afterwards) who saw Lizzie that morning, right? All these people, using their powers of observation, said umanimously that they didn't notice, right? What should be the most probable speculation if we use our "common sense"?

[Allen]

I think it boils down to the fact that Allen believes in what she can see, touch, feel, taste, et al.

Someone like that would make a great jurist!

On a side note-- did ANYONE come forward with any note information? Even false claims to win the reward?

This is correct Aamartin. I like proof and facts. For me the only speculation comes from reasoning deduced using the known facts. I don't like conjectures. If I can't prove it then for me it has no basis and is just as likely to be a fairy tale. If I have a question about the case I research the available information until I am satisfied I know all the information regarding that subject. I've even called a local coroner with questions about how they establish time of death. I'm sure the man thought I was insane. But he kindly answered my questions to the best of his knowledge after I explained my reasons for wanting to know. I think after he was assured I was a true crime 'kook' and not a serial killer he seemed somewhat amused also. I think in his shoes I would have been as well.

[Franz]

For me the only speculation comes from reasoning deduced using the known facts. I don't like conjectures. If I can't prove it then for me it has no basis and is just as likely to be a fairy tale.

1. Allen, could you be kind to tell if there is any difference between "speculation" and "conjecture", and how do you use them? This is a question for learning, not a part of discussion.

2. As far as I know, that Lizzie was guilty is not proved as well.

[Yooper]

The phrase "I didn't notice" speaks to powers of observation, not the fact. It literally means, in this instance, "there may or may not have been blood present, but if there was, I didn't see it".

How many people testified that "I didn't notice"? All the persons (those questioned afterwards) who saw Lizzie that morning, right? All these people, using their powers of observation, said umanimously that they didn't notice, right? What should be the most probable speculation if we use our "common sense"?

If we use our common sense, it would indicate that it was inconclusive whether or not blood was present on Lizzie. It means that none of those questioned noticed any blood. Why would they be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time?

[Franz]

The phrase "I didn't notice" speaks to powers of observation, not the fact. It literally means, in this instance, "there may or may not have been blood present, but if there was, I didn't see it".

How many people testified that "I didn't notice"? All the persons (those questioned afterwards) who saw Lizzie that morning, right? All these people, using their powers of observation, said umanimously that they didn't notice, right? What should be the most probable speculation if we use our "common sense"?

If we use our common sense, it would indicate that it was inconclusive whether or not blood was present on Lizzie. It means that none of those questioned noticed any blood. Why would they be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time?

I wonder what you used is a common sens or a specific sense.

[Yooper]

I have no doubt.

[Allen]

For me the only speculation comes from reasoning deduced using the known facts. I don't like conjectures. If I can't prove it then for me it has no basis and is just as likely to be a fairy tale.

1. Allen, could you be kind to tell if there is any difference between "speculation" and "conjecture", and how do you use them? This is a question for learning, not a part of discussion.

2. As far as I know, that Lizzie was guilty is not proved as well.

Maybe the word I was searching for was not 'speculate' using known facts. Reasonable conclusions drawn from considering only the known facts is more accurate. If there are no facts or any proof to support something then it has no basis for me. Something that is based on assumptions or opinions that lack any form of proof or that has no reasonable cohesion with the known facts is for me just fantasy.

[Franz]

If we use our common sense, it would indicate that it was inconclusive whether or not blood was present on Lizzie. It means that none of those questioned noticed any blood. Why would they be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time?

If those people were so near to Lizzie (the distance should be calculated with centimeter) that morning and didn't notice nothing on Lizzie's body and clothes, why should the neighbours of the Borden's family have noticed if there was someone to go out of the Borden house? If those questioned persons wouldn't be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time, why would the neighbours be looking for anyone coming out from the Borden house after Andrew's murder time? According to your common sens, it would indicate that it was inconclusive whether there was or not some stranger coming out from Borden house, right? Since this point is inconclusive, I wonder why some people are so determined to not admit the possibility of the intruder theory?

[Franz]

Why would they be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time?

Since all those people would not be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time, could I use the common sens (if I understand well its meaning) and speculate that all those people presented that morning at the Borden house instinctively gave themselves an answer that lizzie was not the killer?

[Allen]

Who instinctively thinks that someone they know is a murderer whether it's true or not?

[Yooper]

If we use our common sense, it would indicate that it was inconclusive whether or not blood was present on Lizzie. It means that none of those questioned noticed any blood. Why would they be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time?

If those people were so near to Lizzie (the distance should be calculated with centimeter) that morning and didn't notice nothing on Lizzie's body and clothes, why should the neighbours of the Borden's family have noticed if there was someone to go out of the Borden house? If those questioned persons wouldn't be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time, why would the neighbours be looking for anyone coming out from the Borden house after Andrew's murder time? According to your common sens, it would indicate that it was inconclusive whether there was or not some stranger coming out from Borden house, right? Since this point is inconclusive, I wonder why some people are so determined to not admit the possibility of the intruder theory?

There may have been no one to notice leaving the Borden house after Andrew's murder.

[Yooper]

Why would they be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time?

Since all those people would not be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time, could I use the common sens (if I understand well its meaning) and speculate that all those people presented that morning at the Borden house instinctively gave themselves an answer that lizzie was not the killer?

Franz, If I were you, I wouldn't try to use common sense.

[Franz]

Who instinctively thinks that someone they know is a murderer whether it's true or not?

Allen, I don't understand well your meaning. Do you mean that, no matter wether it's true or not (without considering true or not), the people usually don't instinctively think someone they know is a murderer, right?

[Franz]

If we use our common sense, it would indicate that it was inconclusive whether or not blood was present on Lizzie. It means that none of those questioned noticed any blood. Why would they be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time?

If those people were so near to Lizzie (the distance should be calculated with centimeter) that morning and didn't notice nothing on Lizzie's body and clothes, why should the neighbours of the Borden's family have noticed if there was someone to go out of the Borden house? If those questioned persons wouldn't be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time, why would the neighbours be looking for anyone coming out from the Borden house after Andrew's murder time? According to your common sens, it would indicate that it was inconclusive whether there was or not some stranger coming out from Borden house, right? Since this point is inconclusive, I wonder why some people are so determined to not admit the possibility of the intruder theory?

There may have been no one to notice leaving the Borden house after Andrew's murder.

There may have been someone leaving not noticed.

[Franz]

Why would they be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time?

Since all those people would not be looking for blood on Lizzie at that time, could I use the common sens (if I understand well its meaning) and speculate that all those people presented that morning at the Borden house instinctively gave themselves an answer that lizzie was not the killer?

Franz, If I were you, I wouldn't try to use common sense.

Ahaha, Yooper, You are so strong! Fortunately you are not me.

Well, I will try to use something else.

[Yooper]

I don't quite understand the correlation between seeing someone leave the premises with blood on Lizzie's dress. No one noticed a pink elephant on the front lawn or a submarine in the parlor, either. What is the point? The fact of blood or not on Lizzie's dress is inconclusive, like it or not. A lack of blood on the dress does not indicate that Lizzie didn't commit the murders, she could have covered herself with something like Andrew's Prince Albert coat.

[Aamartin]

Franz.... A word of advice from my own years of experience studying this case.

Don't allow your desire that Lizzie be innocent drive your theories and reactions to evidence, or lack thereof.

Read the trial documents. Cover to cover. Make notes. Try to be objective.

[Franz]

I don't quite understand the correlation between seeing someone leave the premises with blood on Lizzie's dress. No one noticed a pink elephant on the front lawn or a submarine in the parlor, either. What is the point? The fact of blood or not on Lizzie's dress is inconclusive, like it or not. A lack of blood on the dress does not indicate that Lizzie didn't commit the murders, she could have covered herself with something like Andrew's Prince Albert coat.

1. Yooper, there is no correlation between the two. We were talking about the powers of observation. As you said: The phrase "I didn't notice"… literally means, in this instance, "there may or may not have been blood present, but if there was, I didn't see it". I think the same could apply to the intruder theory: the neighbours’ not noticing nobody could mean, in that instance, “there may or may not have been someone coming out of the house, but if there have been, I didn’t see him (her).”

2. I totally agree with you, Yooper. My logic tells me as well that “a lack of blood on the dress does not indicate that Lizzie didn't commit the murders”. But as I told you, I don’t stick myself only on the logic.

3. "She could have covered herself with something." Certainly! But there is no proof. On the other hand, the absence of the blood (or no blood is noticed) is proved by many people. So, "no blood is noticed" (no matter how you explain it) is a fact, but what you said (she could have covered herself) is only a conjecture. You said, in another tread, that "the proper way to frame the argument is to begin with the facts as the premise and reach the conclusion". So in this case we must begin with the fact that "no blood is noticed", we shouldn't begin with your conjecture "she could have covered herself".

[Franz]

Franz.... A word of advice from my own years of experience studying this case.

Don't allow your desire that Lizzie be innocent drive your theories and reactions to evidence, or lack thereof.

Read the trial documents. Cover to cover. Make notes. Try to be objective.

Many thanks. I will try my best.

[Yooper]

I don't quite understand the correlation between seeing someone leave the premises with blood on Lizzie's dress. No one noticed a pink elephant on the front lawn or a submarine in the parlor, either. What is the point? The fact of blood or not on Lizzie's dress is inconclusive, like it or not. A lack of blood on the dress does not indicate that Lizzie didn't commit the murders, she could have covered herself with something like Andrew's Prince Albert coat.

1. Yooper, there is no correlation between the two. We were talking about the powers of observation. As you said: The phrase "I didn't notice"… literally means, in this instance, "there may or may not have been blood present, but if there was, I didn't see it". I think the same could apply to the intruder theory: the neighbours’ not noticing nobody could mean, in that instance, “there may or may not have been someone coming out of the house, but if there have been, I didn’t see him (her).”

2. I totally agree with you, Yooper. My logic tells me as well that “a lack of blood on the dress does not indicate that Lizzie didn't commit the murders”. But as I told you, I don’t stick myself only on the logic.

3. "She could have covered herself with something." Certainly! But there is no proof. On the other hand, the absence of the blood (or no blood is noticed) is proved by many people. So, "no blood is noticed" (no matter how you explain it) is a fact, but what you said (she could have covered herself) is only a conjecture. You said, in another tread, that "the proper way to frame the argument is to begin with the facts as the premise and reach the conclusion". So in this case we must begin with the fact that "no blood is noticed", we shouldn't begin with your conjecture "she could have covered herself".

That's correct, as far as the powers of observation are concerned one is the same as the other.

[Franz]

Franz wrote:

1. Yooper, there is no correlation between the two. We were talking about the powers of observation. As you said: The phrase "I didn't notice"… literally means, in this instance, "there may or may not have been blood present, but if there was, I didn't see it". I think the same could apply to the intruder theory: the neighbours’ not noticing nobody could mean, in that instance, “there may or may not have been someone coming out of the house, but if there have been, I didn’t see him (her).”

2. I totally agree with you, Yooper. My logic tells me as well that “a lack of blood on the dress does not indicate that Lizzie didn't commit the murders”. But as I told you, I don’t stick myself only on the logic.

3. "She could have covered herself with something." Certainly! But there is no proof. On the other hand, the absence of the blood (or no blood is noticed) is proved by many people. So, "no blood is noticed" (no matter how you explain it) is a fact, but what you said (she could have covered herself) is only a conjecture. You said, in another tread, that "the proper way to frame the argument is to begin with the facts as the premise and reach the conclusion". So in this case we must begin with the fact that "no blood is noticed", we shouldn't begin with your conjecture "she could have covered herself".[/quote]

Yooper wrote:

That's correct, as far as the powers of observation are concerned one is the same as the other.[/quote]

Franz wrote:

Right! So, if I can agree that the blood could have been there but not been noticed, someone should agree, as well, that the intruder could have been there but not been noticed.

However, there is an important difference between them: the blood's being there is a continuous state; the intruder's leaving the house is an instantaneous action. So, according to the famous "common sense", I would say: it should be more probable that the intruder had been there but not been noticed, than that the blood had been there but not been noticed.

[Smudgeman]

Franz Wrote:
Right! So, if I can agree that the blood could have been there but not been noticed, someone should agree, as well, that the intruder could have been there but not been noticed.

However, there is an important difference between them: the blood's being there is a continuous state; the intruder's leaving the house is an instantaneous action. So, according to the famous "common sense", I would say: it should be more probable that the intruder had been there but not been noticed, than that the blood had been there but not been noticed.
User avatar
Franz Posts: 246Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:44 amLocation: Rome, Italy

This makes no sense at all Franz. Your posts are getting to the point of annoying and self serving. Can you hear yourself talking nonsense?