"THE STING OPERATION THAT WENT SOUTH" A Professional Investigation into the Sinking of the Bayesian.
Bayesian, the $42Million yacht sunk in the Mediterranean with seven fatalaties in its wake. This was not expected, this was not normal, this was not anticipated, this was not planned - by anyone, for sure. How can we know? A cover-up, devoid of even the most basic ethical standard?
- Bayes' theorem (alternatively Bayes' law or Bayes' rule, after Thomas Bayes) gives a mathematical rule for inverting conditional probabilities, allowing one to find the probability of a cause given its effect.[1] For example, if the risk of developing health problems is known to increase with age, Bayes' theorem allows the risk to someone of a known age to be assessed more accurately by conditioning it relative to their age, rather than assuming that the person is typical of the population as a whole. Based on Bayes' law, both the prevalence of a disease in a given population and the error rate of an infectious disease test must be taken into account to evaluate the meaning of a positive test result and avoid the base-rate fallacy. One of Bayes' theorem's many applications is Bayesian inference, an approach to statistical inference, where it is used to invert the probability of observations given a model configuration (i.e., the likelihood function) to obtain the probability of the model configuration given the observations (i.e., the posterior probability).
- Hole in One, or Symphony of Destiny; the Bayes theorem can be utilized solving a murder mystery! Yes, true.
- What is Bayes Theorem?
- The Bayes Theorem describes the probability of an event based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event [1].
- The Bayes theorem
- Our target here is to find the probability of event B1 happening, given that event-A has already happened, i.e., P(B1|A).
- Derivation of Bayes Theorem
- By definition of conditional probability,
- P(B1|A) = P(B1 ∩ A)/ P(A) where P(A)≠0
- Now, with similar logic
- P(A|B1) = P(A ∩ B1)/ P(B1) where P(B1) ≠0
- P(A ∩ B1)= P(B1 ∩ A)= P(A|B1) * P(B1)
- Let B1, B2, B3,….Bn be n mutually exclusive events such that
- B1 ∪ B2 ∪ B3... ∪ Bn = Ω (Sample Space) (Exhaustive events)
- In simple terms, it means that B1, B2, B3,…Bn cannot happen simultaneously (mutually exclusive) and an event B can happen only because of B1, B2, etc…Bn, i.e., there is no other way of B happening outside these n events.
- Example: Let us throw a dice and record three events
- A1 = {1,2,3}
- A2 = {4,5}
- A3 = {6}
- Here A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = {1,2,3,4,5,6} = Ω (Exhaustive events)
- Also, A1 ∩ A2 = Φ, A2 ∩ A3 = Φ, A3 ∩ A1 = Φ (Mutually exclusive)
- Continuing with the derivation,
- P(A) (Probability of any event A)
- = P(A ∩ Ω)
- = P( A ∩ (B1 ∪ B2 ∪ B3… ∪ Bn))
- = P( (A ∩ B1) ∪ (A ∩ B2).. ∪( A ∩ Bn))
- = ∑ P(A ∩ Bi) where i ranges from 1 to n
- ( This is because event A has a unique intersection with every event Bi as there is no intersection among the events themselves)
- = ∑ P(A|Bi) * P(Bi) where i ranges from 1 to n
- Hence, P(B1|A) = (P(A|B1) * P(B1)) / (∑ P(A|Bi) * P(Bi)) i ranges [1,n]
- Who committed the murder?
- A murder has happened; let it be called event MURDER. Police know that two persons, P1 and P2, might have committed the murder, and no one else can do it. Police want to find the culprit. Here, the condition of mutually exclusive events (either P1 or P2, not both) and exhaustive events (No one other than P1 or P2 can commit the murder) meet here.
- P( Pi): The probability that the person was in the murder spot at the time of the crime.
- P( Pi |MURDER): The probability that Pi has committed the murder given that the murder has already happened. This is called posterior probability because we find the cause after the event (MURDER here) has occurred.
- P( MURDER|Pi): The probability that Pi has done the crime. This is called prior probability because it gives the probability of the event (MURDER here) on the condition that Pi has happened, i.e., we are modeling the event with prior knowledge that Pi has happened.
- Note: Posterior probability allows us to find the probability of different causes that might have been the reason for the occurrence of an event. In contrast, the prior probability helps us model the event assuming some conditions are true.
- Why do we need both P(Pi) and P(MURDER|Pi) to compute P(Pi| MURDER)?
- Suppose P1 has a higher chance of committing the murder with a 0.9 probability, whereas P2 has a smaller chance of committing the murder with a 0.7 probability. Before you rest your case, what about the probability of finding P1 and P2 at the murder spot? One person can likely be a criminal, but who would you arrest now if they were not present at the murder spot?
- Let us say the probability of P1 being present at the murder spot is 0.1 whereas the probability of P2 being present at the murder spot is 0.8. So now we need to take care of both, but how? Here comes THE BAYES THEOREM
- P(MURDER|P1) = 0.9, P(MURDER|P2) = 0.7
- P(P1) = 0.1, P(P2) = 0.8
- Then using the Bayes theorem,
- P (P1| MURDER)
- = [P(MURDER|P1)* P(P1)]/[P(MURDER|P1) * P(P1) + P(MURDER|P2) * P(P2)]
- = 0.9*0.1 / (0.9*0.1 + 0.7*0.8) = 0.14
- P (P2| MURDER)
- = [P(MURDER|P2)* P(P2)]/[P(MURDER|P1) * P(P1) + P(MURDER|P2) * P(P2)]
- = 0.7*0.8 / (0.9*0.1 + 0.7*0.8) = 0.86
- Hence P2 has a higher chance of committing the murder!
- Where to use the Bayes theorem?
- In reality, we often encounter a situation where something has happened, and we want to find its cause. This is where the theorem can be of great help.
- Too clever by half - even for an experienced private detective / private investigator!
.jpg "Private Detective Claes Ekman")
Mike Lynch, founder of Autonomy and Darktrace, with daughter Hannah - both deceased as the Bayesian sank. Dr Lynch was fully acquitted in a large $5.4bn legal court process with / against HewlettPackard. "Everybody loves a winner," i.e., except the loser. Are we facing a purblind or myopic refusal to accept the most ancient law of vae victis; a usual provocation based on a sub-stratum of truth? Was Dr Lynch encircled by an envious and sceptical coalition jealous of his success - for of course a final court judgment stating "no convincing, coherent or cogent evidence" does not mean "no evidence". It is clear that elements of doubt exist. The principle of stare decisis is a weak constraint; albeit, clemency surpasses right. Language is the hill we stand upon. Language is the water we swim in.
"Caeca invidia est" (Envy is blind).
As we use the term, judgment should not be confused with "thinking". It is a much narrower concept: judgment is a form of measurement in which the instrument is a human mind. Like other measurements, a judgment assigns a score to an object. The score need not be a number. Judgments are not computations, and the do not follow exact rules. A teacher uses judgment to grade an essay, but not to score a multiple-choice test.
Furthermore, many judgments are not predictive but evaluative: the sentence set by a judge or the rank of a painting in a prize competition cannot be easily compared to an objective true value. In short, we can be sure that there is error if judgments vary for no good reason. This is detrimental even when judgments are not verifiable and error cannot be measured. Rules - in general - have an important feature: they reduce the role of judgment. Algorithms, for example, work as rules, not standards. Perhaps a historical intuition and a neutral assessment are more reliable than a court's reason.
Also for an erudite legal scholar and experienced private detective / private investigator, Lady Justice (Latin: Iustitia) can appear opaque and fluid. Without eschewing any "intention to change the truth", do we have the findings of a cooked-up intelligence or legal dossier? The scene is darkly morbid, as winking mendacity can be, but the results are deadly. "Laws are best explained, interpreted and applied by those whose interests and abilities lie in perverting, confounding and eluding them," as Jonathan Swift formulated it.
Thinking evolved as an extension of the ability to act effectively; it evolved to make us better at doing what is necessary to achieve our goals. Thought allows us to select from among a set of possible actions by predicting the effects of each action and by imagining how the world would be if we had taken different actions in the past.
This is one reason why we think that action came before thought. Even the earliest organisms were capable of action. Single-celled organisms that arose early in the evolutionary cycle ate and moved and reproduced. They did things; they acted on the world and changed it. Evolution selected those organisms whose actions best supported their survival. And the organisms whose actions were most effective were the ones best tuned to the changing conditions of a complex world. Thus, when men say that this or that criminal- or physical action has its origin in the mind, which latter has dominion over the body, they are using words without meaning, or are confessing in specious phraseology that they are ignorant of the cause of the said action... Remember that actions - as when a mouse takes the cheese in a trap, a frog snaps an insect, or even when an immature, short-tempered human culprit commits manslaughter - come first; before thoughts and emotions and feelings. Albeit, if one looks closely into many actions, which are apparently due to sudden impulse, one generally finds that the sudden impulse was merely the last of a long series of events which led up to the action. Alone, it would not have been powerful enough to effect anything. But, coming after the way has been paved for it, it was irresistible.
The best tools for identifying the appropriate action in a given circumstance are mental faculties that can process information. Visual systems must be able to do a fair amount of sophisticated processing to distinguish a rat from a leaf. Other mental processes are also critical for selecting the appropriate action. Memory can help indicate which actions have been most effective under similar conditions in the past, and reasoning can help predict what will happen under new conditions.
Some - or many, even most – business and legal institutions are trapped in financial constructs that makes it hard to pursue missions intelligently, albeit, it is not flesh and blood that make us fathers. Being [critical] of everyone enable us – as a Private Detective / Private Investigator Group – to be impartial, utilizing oratio obliqua; explicit and implicit, verbal and non-verbal.
You need to own – or create – great content to differentiate yourself in the market, and it is like anything else; perseverance seems to pay off. The market gives no quarter - you need technological and/or linguistic advantages - and be reminded that while the amateur may feel like your friend, there is joy in developing expertise and craftmanship. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. Peel that onion of reality!
Science shows us regularly that our intuitions are mistaken. Science is constantly learning something new, and more often than not such learning means jettisoning wrong ideas. That is why science often clashes with common sense – our intuition, for example, wants Earth to be flat and still, and time to be the same everywhere. None of this is true.
This is one reason why we think that action came before thought. Even the earliest organisms were capable of action. Single-celled organisms that arose early in the evolutionary cycle ate and moved and reproduced. They did things; they acted on the world and changed it. Evolution selected those organisms whose actions best supported their survival. And the organisms whose actions were most effective were the ones best tuned to the changing conditions of a complex world. Thus, when men say that this or that criminal- or physical action has its origin in the mind, which latter has dominion over the body, they are using words without meaning, or are confessing in specious phraseology that they are ignorant of the cause of the said action... Remember that actions - as when a mouse takes the cheese in a trap, a frog snaps an insect, or even when an immature, short-tempered human culprit commits manslaughter - come first; before thoughts and emotions and feelings. Albeit, if one looks closely into many actions, which are apparently due to sudden impulse, one generally finds that the sudden impulse was merely the last of a long series of events which led up to the action. Alone, it would not have been powerful enough to effect anything. But, coming after the way has been paved for it, it was irresistible.
The best tools for identifying the appropriate action in a given circumstance are mental faculties that can process information. Visual systems must be able to do a fair amount of sophisticated processing to distinguish a rat from a leaf. Other mental processes are also critical for selecting the appropriate action. Memory can help indicate which actions have been most effective under similar conditions in the past, and reasoning can help predict what will happen under new conditions.
Some - or many, even most – business and legal institutions are trapped in financial constructs that makes it hard to pursue missions intelligently, albeit, it is not flesh and blood that make us fathers. Being [critical] of everyone enable us – as a Private Detective / Private Investigator Group – to be impartial, utilizing oratio obliqua; explicit and implicit, verbal and non-verbal.
You need to own – or create – great content to differentiate yourself in the market, and it is like anything else; perseverance seems to pay off. The market gives no quarter - you need technological and/or linguistic advantages - and be reminded that while the amateur may feel like your friend, there is joy in developing expertise and craftmanship. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. Peel that onion of reality!
Science shows us regularly that our intuitions are mistaken. Science is constantly learning something new, and more often than not such learning means jettisoning wrong ideas. That is why science often clashes with common sense – our intuition, for example, wants Earth to be flat and still, and time to be the same everywhere. None of this is true.
Private Detective Claes Ekman - www.bureau-ekman.com - has been retained to thoroughly investigate the Bayesian yacht disaster outside Porticello, Sicily. At present the team is being built around a number of outstanding individuals, including the brothers Toftenow from Sweden. Olle and Nils Toftenow are known for their premium content documentaries, a great many of them based on true crimes.
The Italian criminal police and the country's dismal justice system have so terribly handled earlier murder cases involving British and American citizens - see Amanda Knox & Meredith Kercher, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erla7Ley4Tw - so we doubt we will presently observe an improvement this time. Some police officers and prosecutors and judges may be squirming and loitering in their uniforms and suits right now, chippy and capricious about their legal credentials, tweaking one another's beaks.
Faced with this ruckus, Italy's government should have drawn a clear distinction between harmful acts and obnoxious or foolish words. The legal actions themselves conjure up a self-abnegating passivity, more ovine than human, more bleater than leader. A "thorn in the flesh, but not a dagger in the heart". The business of jurisprudence / justice is not frivolous. It is serious. Whatever it is, it is.
Any perpetrator with a desire to surrender himself wholly to an avenging / odious taskmaster and a creed beyond reason might have committed a dreadful deed - not necessarily on purpose because things went south and overboard - and conscire it. Death issues / causes: All are a central part of the human condition. Since we are large predators, no cause of death is more basic or more ancient than murder.
"All wish to hide their sins," says Seneca, "but a good conscienta loves the light."
Having evaded any pasty-faced, emollient law enforcement pulchritude in a callous foul play game won't mean evidence and proof provided by a private detective / private investigator stalwart as Bureau Ekman will be considered as "fruit of the poisonous tree". Au contraire, it will or might make an "enormous imposition" eventually and in due course.
Can Europe's most seasoned private detective / private investigator find the culprits - and simultaneously document the case in a movie alongside and in parallel with writing a forthcoming book - things will markedly brighten up for griefing families of the victims. The situation can best mordantly and turgidly be described as recondite, all parties being nonplussed (Latin non plus means "no more").
Besides having worked with international security / criminal investigations since 1978 - initially at foreign embassies in Sweden, including those of Russia, Serbia, Germany, England, USA, Iran, et seq - Claes E. has the optimal experience to handle the Bayesian case as he:
A) finished his major business law thesis in San Francisco (where Mike Lynch - being extradited from England - was under house arrest after being sued by HewlettPackard located in San Francisco / the Bay area).
B) sold his company to Manpower / Blue Arrow in the 80's - thence reporting to the main board of directors of that entity, the world's largest recruitment group, situated in London (where both Autonomy and DarkTrace were founded, run and located legally).
C) is an experienced yacht master with many years as helmsman throughout the Med (the Med often being described as a sea when it is in fact an African continental lake caught close to two colliding landmasses / teutonic plates resulting in, among other things, the Alps and the Himalayas) where the Bayesian sank.
Claes E. can burn bridges and still swim across the ocean. He is the epitome of self-reliance and his independence is so profound that burning bridges does not faze him. His boldness is not about recklessness; it is about clarity. His greatest ally is truth. His breakthrough moments often come via thought experiments in which he let his imagination drift.
What [truths] can be certain except death and taxes, unless we intend to bend the perception of what we encounter... We will have to dive into dialectical reason / reasoning - an almost evolutionary-guided truth seeking adventure - in order to advance. However, we must never forget there are no goals in evolution; no morality, no purpose - just a ruthless Mother Nature / Dei Natura.
Human proclivity for evil force us looking into the core or kernel of truth, not only into proof; not even facts that fit a posited theory. Finding a course in-between involves much semantic and legal contortion. Rule-bound approaches to criminal investigations are often presented as the final stage in the evolution of law. Such final presentations are usually made with the speaker's tongue planted firmly in their cheek. We often consider such presentations basically unenlightening ... what is interesting is what is not there.
Isaac Newton stated, hypotheses non fingo – (I do not invent hypotheses), however, there are so many clues existent in this case already so we feel a whole, imaginary thought edifice is dawning. Private Detective / Private Investigator Bureau Ekman contra mundum? Perhaps; at times. Interesting? Dangerous? No doubt. Dogs start barking when you advance.
Private Detective Claes Ekman has criss crossed the Mediterranean in his own Nautor 371 - "Swan of the South" - a great many times. As a skilled and certified scuba diver, many sunk wrecks have been investigated en route. Claes' Nautor Swan has been through far worse weather conditions than the one that sank the Bayesian.
The premier Swedish documentary movie creators, Olle (centre) and Nils (right) Toftenow.
The famous German & European "True Crime" documentary film producer Britta Marks will assist our team extensively. Britta has produced movies for, among others, ZDF, ZDF info, WDR, MDR, RTL, RTL2, VOX, PRO 7, SAT 1, Kabel 1, n-tv, Bild, SF, Oxygen, Servus TV, as well as co-operating with e g Mossad and BND. Her motto is: "T R U E S T O R I E S W E L L T O L D."
.jpg "True Crime Documentary - Bayesian")
This is the St Petersburg - a $3.6million yacht - sank by our client's antagonists enroute through Swedish waters during the autumn of 2024. Sinking the favourite toys of tycoons - often more beloved than wives, cars, estates, companies - is a classic. Bizarre and absurd - perhaps. The mondial business tug of war demands its toll. Da, pravda! Bureau Ekman had assisted with legal affairs for the yacht transition.
The Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences
Can / Will Bureau Ekman solve the Bayesian Case on a method of evidence-backed hypotheses? The scientific method encourages reasonable caution. We produce a hypothesis, gather evidence, test that hypothesis against the available evidence and then refine the hypothesis or gather more evidence. The prominent thinker Carl Friedrich Gauss described the method as: "Science as the planned groping in darkness."
As a young academic and business law scholar I made my mark as the author / composer of legal court documents, on behalf of both myself and external clients. I became a kind of machine for grinding theories and texts out of small pieces of facts; and as Mark Twain formulated it: "Facts are stubborn." I followed the trail of crumbs. Truth and conscience forces impelled me beyond my own control - though not in the Jedi sense. Soon followed a dawning realization that legal affairs are ugly.
The legal courts inherent flaw, its lack of autonomy - beholden to all, master of none - was always addressed. We might call it unbiased, neutral, disinterested. However, those desriptions seem too clever by half. Alas, the reality is frequently more pedestrian. I was not Bambi's little brother, and neither were individual, opposing lawyers, nor the court's presiding judges. It was not always pretty.
“The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.” It’s said by a character called Dick the Butcher in Act IV, Scene II of William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part II, which was (we think) written between 1596 and 1599. Shakespeare also wrote later: "Save a place in Hell, since there are some lawyers passing away soon." Bear in mind, in legal battles, preparedness, a good thought and a sharp pen is worth a lot more than a sword. Plato, the sovereign of all times and the author of around 35 philosophical dialogues, combines analytical skills with great powers of reasoning to produce a well-structured solution that deals emphatically with counter-arguments. The Academy of his produced many influential Sophists - always keen to describe and reject clever but empty reasoning.
In Plato's allegory of the cave, the shadows are the prisoners' reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world. The shadows represent the fragment of reality that we can normally perceive through our senses, while the objects under the sun represent the true forms of objects that we can only perceive through reason. It explores the theme of belief versus knowledge.
The two words “reasoning” and “inference” are often treated as synonyms. We might state that reasoning is only one way of performing inferences, and not such a reliable way at that. We might pose a question: Is this process – attending to reasons – the only way to pursue the goal of extracting new information from information that we already possess?
Of course not! After all, even animals form expectations about the future. Their life depends on these expectations being on the whole correct. Since the future cannot be perceived, it is through inference that animals must form expectations. It is quite implausible, however, that, in so doing, animals attend to reasons.
Reason has recently entered the world of politics on a great scale - perhaps not for the first time since Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and the latter's namesake J. Stuart Mill. As long as the idea of a political spectrum has existed, there have been complaints that a single axis is inadequate to reflect the complexity of multifaceted civic matters. While pursuing answers to the questions of science, from the origins of life to the origins of everything, which might appear to be among the most arrogant of human endeavours, the chase itself is humbling. Measured by all dimensions, each human life is infinitesimal; our individual accomplishments are visible only in the aggregate of many generations of effort. Evidence does not care about approval. This applies to all evidence. The value of information does not reside in the number of thumbs-up it gets but in what we do with it. We thence set about rigorously pursuing evidence rather than likes. As scientists we might wish we had managed to collect more evidence, but the data we have is substantial and from it we can infer many things. A scientist must go where the evidence leads, the old adage runs. There is humility in following the evidence, and it frees you from preconceptions that can cloud observations and insight. Much the same can be said for adulthood, a good definition of which might be "the point at which you have gathered enough experience that your models have a high success rate in forecasting reality". In truth, most events in life stem from a confluence of multiple causes. Should we let go of prejudices? Wield William of Occam's razor and seek the simplest explanation. Be willing to abandon models that fail, which some inevitably do when they collide with the imperfect grasp of facts and the laws of nature. The idea that presentation is successful when language is aligned with truth implies that truth can be known; truth needs no argument but only accurate presentation; the reader is competent to recognize truth; the symmetry between writer and reader allows the presentation to follow the model of conversation; a natural language is sufficient to express truth; and the writer knows the truth before he puts it into language. Investigative activities are defined conceptually and lead to skills. This is true of all intellectual activities. There are skills of mathematical discovery, skills of painting, skills of learning a language, and so on. But in no case is the activity constituted by the skills. Great painters are often less skillful than mediocre painters; it is their concept of painting, not their skills, that define their activity. Similarly, a foreigner may be less skillful than a native speaker at manipulating tenses or using subjunctives, but nonetheless be an incomparably better writer. Intellectual activities generate skills, but skills do not generate intellectual activities. The relationship is not symmetric. One famous French private detective - private investigator described his method as follows: "J'ai sur-tout à caeur la clarté... Mon style ne sera point fleuri, mes expressions seront simples comme la vérité." (Above all, I have clarity at heart. My style will not be at all florid; my expressions will be simple as the truth.) Giovanni Agnelli, once a famous CEO of FIAT as well as a great womanizer and playboy, was once asked how he came to be in a position to conquer so many women's hearts, bodies and minds. He replied: "Most men talk about women, I talk with women." As private detectives - private investigators we follow the same route, talking and interacting with criminals - felons and refuse to adopt the mannered style of the courtroom, even implying that there is something artificial and dishonest in that style. We adopt as our model scene conversation, voice, spontaneity. As a result, it is easy to excerpt from our conversations with criminals - felons discrete, intelligible, disinterested units of discourse. By contrast, imagine a speech by an Athenian orator whose main goal, unlike Socrates' who developed the scene conversation model, is to win his legal case. My original starting point in most private detective - private investigator cases is Plato's discussion in book 10 of the Republic - mimesis ranking third after truth - in conjunction with Dante's assertion that in the Commedia he presented true reality. It is possible to present the most everyday phenomena of reality in a serious and significant context. Being concerned with realism in general, the question is often to what degree and in what manner realistic subjects and happenings are treated; seriously, problematically or tragically. The category of "realistic detective works of serious style and character" has seldom been treated or even conceived as such. Am I fit to analyze our private detective - private investigator models theoretically and to describe them systematically? To do that would have necessitated an ardous and, from the reader's point of view, a tiresome search for definitions at the very beginning of my undertaking of the case. (Not even the term "realistic" is unambiguous.) Our train of reasoning can easily be rendered in the form of a syllogism: I describe myself; I am in a situation which constantly changes - due to its revolving appearance, guided by new information. Shall we leave logical continuity in the lurch and first introduce conclusions in the form of surprising assertions? Now at last comes the minor premise, not directly but as the conclusion of a subordinate syllogism. The vitality of the will to investigation and expression is so strong that our private detective - private investigator style breaks through the limits of a purely theoretical disquisition. We might skip intermediate steps of reasoning, but replace what is lacking by a kind of contact which arises spontaneously between steps not connected by strict logic. Occasionally we might repeat clues, leads and ideas which we consider important over and over in ever-new formulations, each time working out a fresh viewpoint - so these clues, leads and ideas radiate in all direction. All these are characteristics which we are much more used to finding in conversation - though only in the conversation of exceptionally thoughtful and articulate people - than in a printed work of theoretical content. We are inclined to think that this sort of effect requires vocal inflection, gesture, the warming up to one another which comes with an enjoyable conversation. Voltaire wrote in his Candide: "We two - you and I - are having a conversation. That is the whole purpose of my writing. So - as life is short, nasty and brutal - I happen to be deceased. Memento mori - and tempus fugit. However, it does not change my writing objective." Clever man, and a man of mighty vision and courage. Our presentation of the investigation of the Bayesian case, however changeable and diverse it is, never goes astray, and at times we might contradict ourselves, albeit we never contradict the truth. This mirrors a very realistic conception of man based on experience and in particular on self-experience: the conception that man is a fluctuating creature subject to the changes which take place in his surroundings, his destiny, and his inner impulses. To fully understand a complicated phenomenon or thing, one must see it in its entirety - see its whole life cycle. "Humans are by nature evil, however, not without responsibility for their actions," wrote Aristotle. Children are easier studied than adults: first they want to be loved, then they want to be respected for abilities and compence, thence - and finally - they want to be feared, i.e., having power and control. To investigate and discern a pattern in the Bayesian criminal case will take both time and effort, albeit there is more to it than meets the eye. Bureau Ekman and its committed, professional team will - in two or double senses - go to the bottom of this affair. We are in an intense chase / battle for understanding. What has happened, or rather, what has happened that has not happened before? Our motive in this private detective - private investigator case is pure truth, our purpose is presentation. We can choose and emphasize as we please. It must naturally be possible to find what we claim in the case. My interpretations are no doubt guided by a specific purpose. Yet this purpose assumed form only as I went along, playing as it were with my actions, and for very long stretches of my way I have been guided only by the actions themselves. Furthermore, the great majority of the actions and investigations were chosen at random - what we might call serendipity - on the basis of accidental and personal preference rather than in view of a definite purpose. Investigations of this kind do not deal with laws but with trends and tendencies which cross and complement one another in the most varied ways. I was and is by no means interested merely in presenting what would serve my purpose in the narrowest sense; on the contrary, it was my endeavour to accomodate multiplex data and to make my investigations correspondingly elastic. I had to dispense with almost all the more recent, external investigations, and in some cases with reliable critical material. Hence it is possible and even probable that I overlooked things which I ought to have considered and that I occasionally assert something which modern criminological research has disproved or modified. I trust that these probable errors include none which affect the core of my investigation. I hope that the ongoing investigation may contribute to bringing together all those whose love for truth, justice and our occidental logic has serenely persevered. This might be the final usefulness of our venture. Sincerely,
The legal courts inherent flaw, its lack of autonomy - beholden to all, master of none - was always addressed. We might call it unbiased, neutral, disinterested. However, those desriptions seem too clever by half. Alas, the reality is frequently more pedestrian. I was not Bambi's little brother, and neither were individual, opposing lawyers, nor the court's presiding judges. It was not always pretty.
“The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.” It’s said by a character called Dick the Butcher in Act IV, Scene II of William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part II, which was (we think) written between 1596 and 1599. Shakespeare also wrote later: "Save a place in Hell, since there are some lawyers passing away soon." Bear in mind, in legal battles, preparedness, a good thought and a sharp pen is worth a lot more than a sword. Plato, the sovereign of all times and the author of around 35 philosophical dialogues, combines analytical skills with great powers of reasoning to produce a well-structured solution that deals emphatically with counter-arguments. The Academy of his produced many influential Sophists - always keen to describe and reject clever but empty reasoning.
In Plato's allegory of the cave, the shadows are the prisoners' reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world. The shadows represent the fragment of reality that we can normally perceive through our senses, while the objects under the sun represent the true forms of objects that we can only perceive through reason. It explores the theme of belief versus knowledge.
The two words “reasoning” and “inference” are often treated as synonyms. We might state that reasoning is only one way of performing inferences, and not such a reliable way at that. We might pose a question: Is this process – attending to reasons – the only way to pursue the goal of extracting new information from information that we already possess?
Of course not! After all, even animals form expectations about the future. Their life depends on these expectations being on the whole correct. Since the future cannot be perceived, it is through inference that animals must form expectations. It is quite implausible, however, that, in so doing, animals attend to reasons.
Reason has recently entered the world of politics on a great scale - perhaps not for the first time since Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and the latter's namesake J. Stuart Mill. As long as the idea of a political spectrum has existed, there have been complaints that a single axis is inadequate to reflect the complexity of multifaceted civic matters. While pursuing answers to the questions of science, from the origins of life to the origins of everything, which might appear to be among the most arrogant of human endeavours, the chase itself is humbling. Measured by all dimensions, each human life is infinitesimal; our individual accomplishments are visible only in the aggregate of many generations of effort. Evidence does not care about approval. This applies to all evidence. The value of information does not reside in the number of thumbs-up it gets but in what we do with it. We thence set about rigorously pursuing evidence rather than likes. As scientists we might wish we had managed to collect more evidence, but the data we have is substantial and from it we can infer many things. A scientist must go where the evidence leads, the old adage runs. There is humility in following the evidence, and it frees you from preconceptions that can cloud observations and insight. Much the same can be said for adulthood, a good definition of which might be "the point at which you have gathered enough experience that your models have a high success rate in forecasting reality". In truth, most events in life stem from a confluence of multiple causes. Should we let go of prejudices? Wield William of Occam's razor and seek the simplest explanation. Be willing to abandon models that fail, which some inevitably do when they collide with the imperfect grasp of facts and the laws of nature. The idea that presentation is successful when language is aligned with truth implies that truth can be known; truth needs no argument but only accurate presentation; the reader is competent to recognize truth; the symmetry between writer and reader allows the presentation to follow the model of conversation; a natural language is sufficient to express truth; and the writer knows the truth before he puts it into language. Investigative activities are defined conceptually and lead to skills. This is true of all intellectual activities. There are skills of mathematical discovery, skills of painting, skills of learning a language, and so on. But in no case is the activity constituted by the skills. Great painters are often less skillful than mediocre painters; it is their concept of painting, not their skills, that define their activity. Similarly, a foreigner may be less skillful than a native speaker at manipulating tenses or using subjunctives, but nonetheless be an incomparably better writer. Intellectual activities generate skills, but skills do not generate intellectual activities. The relationship is not symmetric. One famous French private detective - private investigator described his method as follows: "J'ai sur-tout à caeur la clarté... Mon style ne sera point fleuri, mes expressions seront simples comme la vérité." (Above all, I have clarity at heart. My style will not be at all florid; my expressions will be simple as the truth.) Giovanni Agnelli, once a famous CEO of FIAT as well as a great womanizer and playboy, was once asked how he came to be in a position to conquer so many women's hearts, bodies and minds. He replied: "Most men talk about women, I talk with women." As private detectives - private investigators we follow the same route, talking and interacting with criminals - felons and refuse to adopt the mannered style of the courtroom, even implying that there is something artificial and dishonest in that style. We adopt as our model scene conversation, voice, spontaneity. As a result, it is easy to excerpt from our conversations with criminals - felons discrete, intelligible, disinterested units of discourse. By contrast, imagine a speech by an Athenian orator whose main goal, unlike Socrates' who developed the scene conversation model, is to win his legal case. My original starting point in most private detective - private investigator cases is Plato's discussion in book 10 of the Republic - mimesis ranking third after truth - in conjunction with Dante's assertion that in the Commedia he presented true reality. It is possible to present the most everyday phenomena of reality in a serious and significant context. Being concerned with realism in general, the question is often to what degree and in what manner realistic subjects and happenings are treated; seriously, problematically or tragically. The category of "realistic detective works of serious style and character" has seldom been treated or even conceived as such. Am I fit to analyze our private detective - private investigator models theoretically and to describe them systematically? To do that would have necessitated an ardous and, from the reader's point of view, a tiresome search for definitions at the very beginning of my undertaking of the case. (Not even the term "realistic" is unambiguous.) Our train of reasoning can easily be rendered in the form of a syllogism: I describe myself; I am in a situation which constantly changes - due to its revolving appearance, guided by new information. Shall we leave logical continuity in the lurch and first introduce conclusions in the form of surprising assertions? Now at last comes the minor premise, not directly but as the conclusion of a subordinate syllogism. The vitality of the will to investigation and expression is so strong that our private detective - private investigator style breaks through the limits of a purely theoretical disquisition. We might skip intermediate steps of reasoning, but replace what is lacking by a kind of contact which arises spontaneously between steps not connected by strict logic. Occasionally we might repeat clues, leads and ideas which we consider important over and over in ever-new formulations, each time working out a fresh viewpoint - so these clues, leads and ideas radiate in all direction. All these are characteristics which we are much more used to finding in conversation - though only in the conversation of exceptionally thoughtful and articulate people - than in a printed work of theoretical content. We are inclined to think that this sort of effect requires vocal inflection, gesture, the warming up to one another which comes with an enjoyable conversation. Voltaire wrote in his Candide: "We two - you and I - are having a conversation. That is the whole purpose of my writing. So - as life is short, nasty and brutal - I happen to be deceased. Memento mori - and tempus fugit. However, it does not change my writing objective." Clever man, and a man of mighty vision and courage. Our presentation of the investigation of the Bayesian case, however changeable and diverse it is, never goes astray, and at times we might contradict ourselves, albeit we never contradict the truth. This mirrors a very realistic conception of man based on experience and in particular on self-experience: the conception that man is a fluctuating creature subject to the changes which take place in his surroundings, his destiny, and his inner impulses. To fully understand a complicated phenomenon or thing, one must see it in its entirety - see its whole life cycle. "Humans are by nature evil, however, not without responsibility for their actions," wrote Aristotle. Children are easier studied than adults: first they want to be loved, then they want to be respected for abilities and compence, thence - and finally - they want to be feared, i.e., having power and control. To investigate and discern a pattern in the Bayesian criminal case will take both time and effort, albeit there is more to it than meets the eye. Bureau Ekman and its committed, professional team will - in two or double senses - go to the bottom of this affair. We are in an intense chase / battle for understanding. What has happened, or rather, what has happened that has not happened before? Our motive in this private detective - private investigator case is pure truth, our purpose is presentation. We can choose and emphasize as we please. It must naturally be possible to find what we claim in the case. My interpretations are no doubt guided by a specific purpose. Yet this purpose assumed form only as I went along, playing as it were with my actions, and for very long stretches of my way I have been guided only by the actions themselves. Furthermore, the great majority of the actions and investigations were chosen at random - what we might call serendipity - on the basis of accidental and personal preference rather than in view of a definite purpose. Investigations of this kind do not deal with laws but with trends and tendencies which cross and complement one another in the most varied ways. I was and is by no means interested merely in presenting what would serve my purpose in the narrowest sense; on the contrary, it was my endeavour to accomodate multiplex data and to make my investigations correspondingly elastic. I had to dispense with almost all the more recent, external investigations, and in some cases with reliable critical material. Hence it is possible and even probable that I overlooked things which I ought to have considered and that I occasionally assert something which modern criminological research has disproved or modified. I trust that these probable errors include none which affect the core of my investigation. I hope that the ongoing investigation may contribute to bringing together all those whose love for truth, justice and our occidental logic has serenely persevered. This might be the final usefulness of our venture. Sincerely,
Claes Reinhold Ekman
PS! Relevant and valuable tips regarding the Bayesian case will be magnanimously remunerated: $10.000:00 ++
DIS- and RE-CLAIMER: We extend our deep and sincere condolences to people affected by this accident; or disaster as would be more proper to call it. Lives were lost - daughters, sons, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers - unnecessarily.
How much compassion and empathy is infinite? Small words in a terrible tragedy. Aristotle distinguished the vita activa from the vita contemplativa - the latter life is now here for families. Pushkin wrote: Nashe vse - "Our everything". Wittgenstein formulated his thoughts on grief as, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
The Proteans sought purification through evil. It was their belief, as it was Carpocrates', that no one shall emerge from the prison until the last obolus is paid: "I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite" (Luke 12:59). "I am come that they - the evil - might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).
To my way of thinking, that conclusion is unacceptable. "As the end approaches," wrote Cartophilus, "there are no longer any images from memory - there are only words." Words, words, words taken out of place and mutilated, words from other men - those were the alms left dear ones by the hours and the centuries.
Solomon saith: "There is no new thing upon the earth. So that as Plato had an imagination, that all knowledge was but remembrance; so Solomon giveth his sentence, that all novelty is but oblivion." -Francis Bacon: Essays, LVIII
Who can offer clients and victims the inside scoop on anything from a regulator's opinion of a possible accidental reason / cause to the probibity of a retained private detective / private investigator bureau? Mondial geobusiness now permeates nearly everything we do at Bureau Ekman. Our services have a "natural adjacency" to the practice of law. We believe firmly in Sapere aude; ugly things happen out there, in the ruthless ballgame of life.
In the media and academe, intellectuals might quote Marcus Tullius Cicero: ipse dixitism - "He said it himself, an assertion without proof, or a dogmatic expression of opinion".Our detective house view is that something went terribly wrong at Porticello, Sicily; however, there was an odious, malicious, and nefarious intent behind the complacency and nigh-preparedness. Murder, manslaughter, recklessness, foul play? Let us investigate causes and / or fate why situations bank.
The possible perpetrators / culpable felons do not know what we know. Our private detective / private investigator team glean from that minuscule fact a sense of power. We are no "peeping Toms", albeit, as Albert Einstein formulated it: "Curiosity has its own reason for existing." It all started with a bang, and ended with a whimper, or vice versa - with $5.8bn - 5.800.000.000 reasons for what happened.
As a private detective / private investigator organization, Bureau Ekman do not operate in Fantasy Land. All this is not about an idée fixe, nor about our private detective / private investigator modus operandi, but rather, our modus vivendi; and how we apply the same.We aim to tame the truth through guided evolution. What has happened can happen again. Not so Jolly Roger!!!
**********
Causes and Fate: The Roman philosophers were concerned with things that bring something about, called causes; and then with the things brought about by the causes that bring them about. Marcus Tullius Cicero did indeed give examples of these, as of other topics, derived from the civil law; but their application is wider. There are two kinds of causes (according to Cicero): one, that which by its own power brings about with certainty what is subject to it, as fire burns; the other that which does not have a nature that brings something about, but without which something cannot be brought about, as if someone wanted to call bronze the cause of a statue, because the statue cannot be brought about without it. Of this kind of causes without which something is not brought about, some are inactive, do nothing, and are in a way inert, like place, time, material, iron implements and the other things of the same kind; others however provide a certain beginning for bringing about the effect, and contribute certain things that in themselves assist, even if they do not necessitate, as "meeting had provided the cause of love, love of disgrace". It is from this kind of causes, linked together from eternity, that fate is bound together by the Stoics.
And just as Cicero have distinguished the kinds of those causes without which a thing cannot be brought about, there are also the kinds of those that bring things about so they can be distinguished. For there are some causes which bring about a result simply, with nothing assisting them, and others that require assistance, as wisdom on its own makes wise men wise by itself, but as to whether it makes men happy on its own by itself there is a question. Therefore, when there enters into an argument a cause that brings something about necessarily, it will be possible to infer without hesitation what is brought about by that cause; but when the cause is such that there is in it no necessity of bringing about the result, the necessary inference does not follow. And indeed that kind of causes which has a necessary power of bringing about the result does not usually introduce error; but this kind, without which a result is not brought about, often causes confusion. For it is not the case, if sons cannot exist without parents, that for that reason there is in the parents a necessary cause of begetting. The Greek and Roman philosophers argued at length about cause. Chrysippus argues to his conclusion as follows: "If there is a movement without a cause, it is not the case that every proposition (what the dialecticians call an axioma) will be either true or false. For what does not have any causes that bring it about will be neither true nor false." But every proposition is true or false; so there is no movement without a cause. But if this is so, all the things that come about do so through antecedent causes [...] Further, even if it were granted that nothing can happen except by an antecedent cause, what would be achieved if that cause was not said to be attached to an eternal sequence of causes? A cause, however, is what brings about that of which it is said to be the cause, as a wound is the cause of death, undigested food of illness, fire of heat. So "cause" should not be understood in such a way that what precedes each thing is the cause for that thing, but what precedes each thing and bring it about. But they say it makes a great difference whether something is of such a sort that something cannot be brought about without it, or whether it is of such a sort that something must be brought about along with it. So none of those things is a cause, because none of them brings about by its own power that of which it is said to be a cause; nor is that, without which something does not come about, a cause, but rather that which, when it comes to apply, necessarily brings about that of which it is the cause. For it is possible for the Greek philosopher Epicurus to grant that every proposition is either true or false, without fearing that it will be necessary for all things to come about by fate. For it is not through causes that have always existed, deriving from natural necessity, that such a proposition as "Carneades is going down into the Academy" is true, nor yet is it without causes, but there is a difference between causes that precede by chance and those that contain within themselves a natural effectiviness. Thus "Epicurus will die when he has lived 72 years, in the archonship of Pytharatus" was always true, and yet there were no fated causes why it should so happen; but because it did so happen it was certainly going to happen just as it did happen. Nor do those who say that the things that are going to be are unchangeable, and that a future truth cannot be turned into a falsehood, establish the necessity of fate; rather, they are explaining the meaning of words. It is those who introduce an eternal series of causes who rob the mind of free will and bind it in the necessity of fate. - Cicero; De Fato. All things come about by causes that precede them, antecedent causes (causis antecedentibus), but these are not perfect primary [or secondary] causes; rather auxiliary and proximate ones. And [even] if these themselves are not in our power, it does not follow that impulse too is not in our power. This would follow, if we said that all things come about through perfect and primary causes, so that, since those causes are not in our power, impulse too would not be in our power. Antecedent causes are not necessarily perfect or primary, nor necessary antecedent causes or necessitating ones, and assentings come about through causes laid down beforehand; assentings that could not occur unless aroused by sense-impression. This sense-impression is proximate and not primary cause, and assenting is a necessary condition. Assenting is and will always be in our power. The proximate and contiguous cause of assenting is located in the sense-impression. Compare:
I was provoked and insulted.
I felt provoked and insulted.
We can only conjecture a [logical] cause. A complete treatise on causes might be compiled by academics at WIIIC in due course.
III) One might further distinguish between respectively:
-causea perfectae et principales, and
-causea adiuvantes et proximae,
and this distinction is subsequently illustrated by that between the push that starts (causes) a cylinder rolling and the shape that [causes] it to roll when pushed and to continue doing so. ********** The truth is often not pure and simple, albeit, rarely pure and never simple. Truth is available to all who are willing to work to achieve it, but truth is certainly not commonly possessed by all and is no one's birthright. Man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of young children, whereas no child has an instinctive tendence to bake, brew and write. Those who say that the real, documented, written investigations is over speak lies. God, who cannot change the past, although He can change the images of the past, changed the image of death into one of innocence, and the evil shade of man. This has occurred once, and will occur again, said Euphorbus. It is not one pyre you are lighting, it is a labyrinth of fire. Are we creating and formulating a two-horned syllogism, where every act is reflected in heaven, or echoing those who claim that time does not tolerate repetitions. This tragedy - and its description that is a haunting nightmare - include and is capable of virtually inexhaustible repetitions, versions, perversions. It is not my purpose to repeat the story of Dr Lynch's life. Of the days and nights that composed it, I am interested in only one; about the rest, I will recount nothing but that which is essential to an understanding of that single night in Porticello. Once fully understood, that night in August 2024 encompasses this entire story - or rather, one incident, one action that night does, for actions are the symbol of our selves. Any life, however, long and complicated it may be, actually consists of a single moment. In that moment, in that time outside time, in that welter of disjointed and horrible sensations, did one or more perpetrators think even once about the death-s that inspired the sacrifice. Did anyone involved realize that one destiny is no better than the next and that every man must accept the destiny he bears inside himself. Does one or more individuals falsely realize (beyond words and even beyond understanding) that this tragedy has nothing to do with him or them. Things went astray - the admonitions for truth are too affected and metaphorical to be transcribed. "Wouldst thou see what no other human eyes have seen?" Boldness, boldness, and boldness are the three key ingredients in any complicated private detective / private investigator caper - and wise prophets make sure of the events first. We have been overly mathematical, theoretical, and philosophical, however, these exercises show our level of ambition, a demonstration, a gesture - in a situation worse than despair. We inevitably make progress towards that more perfect justice. Not because of somebody's narrative who is right, or who is a victim or not. It comes out of the slow melding of the truth to the actual practical life that we end up living. So hence, let's be focused practically and proceed empirically. The die is cast. HANG ON!!!
And just as Cicero have distinguished the kinds of those causes without which a thing cannot be brought about, there are also the kinds of those that bring things about so they can be distinguished. For there are some causes which bring about a result simply, with nothing assisting them, and others that require assistance, as wisdom on its own makes wise men wise by itself, but as to whether it makes men happy on its own by itself there is a question. Therefore, when there enters into an argument a cause that brings something about necessarily, it will be possible to infer without hesitation what is brought about by that cause; but when the cause is such that there is in it no necessity of bringing about the result, the necessary inference does not follow. And indeed that kind of causes which has a necessary power of bringing about the result does not usually introduce error; but this kind, without which a result is not brought about, often causes confusion. For it is not the case, if sons cannot exist without parents, that for that reason there is in the parents a necessary cause of begetting. The Greek and Roman philosophers argued at length about cause. Chrysippus argues to his conclusion as follows: "If there is a movement without a cause, it is not the case that every proposition (what the dialecticians call an axioma) will be either true or false. For what does not have any causes that bring it about will be neither true nor false." But every proposition is true or false; so there is no movement without a cause. But if this is so, all the things that come about do so through antecedent causes [...] Further, even if it were granted that nothing can happen except by an antecedent cause, what would be achieved if that cause was not said to be attached to an eternal sequence of causes? A cause, however, is what brings about that of which it is said to be the cause, as a wound is the cause of death, undigested food of illness, fire of heat. So "cause" should not be understood in such a way that what precedes each thing is the cause for that thing, but what precedes each thing and bring it about. But they say it makes a great difference whether something is of such a sort that something cannot be brought about without it, or whether it is of such a sort that something must be brought about along with it. So none of those things is a cause, because none of them brings about by its own power that of which it is said to be a cause; nor is that, without which something does not come about, a cause, but rather that which, when it comes to apply, necessarily brings about that of which it is the cause. For it is possible for the Greek philosopher Epicurus to grant that every proposition is either true or false, without fearing that it will be necessary for all things to come about by fate. For it is not through causes that have always existed, deriving from natural necessity, that such a proposition as "Carneades is going down into the Academy" is true, nor yet is it without causes, but there is a difference between causes that precede by chance and those that contain within themselves a natural effectiviness. Thus "Epicurus will die when he has lived 72 years, in the archonship of Pytharatus" was always true, and yet there were no fated causes why it should so happen; but because it did so happen it was certainly going to happen just as it did happen. Nor do those who say that the things that are going to be are unchangeable, and that a future truth cannot be turned into a falsehood, establish the necessity of fate; rather, they are explaining the meaning of words. It is those who introduce an eternal series of causes who rob the mind of free will and bind it in the necessity of fate. - Cicero; De Fato. All things come about by causes that precede them, antecedent causes (causis antecedentibus), but these are not perfect primary [or secondary] causes; rather auxiliary and proximate ones. And [even] if these themselves are not in our power, it does not follow that impulse too is not in our power. This would follow, if we said that all things come about through perfect and primary causes, so that, since those causes are not in our power, impulse too would not be in our power. Antecedent causes are not necessarily perfect or primary, nor necessary antecedent causes or necessitating ones, and assentings come about through causes laid down beforehand; assentings that could not occur unless aroused by sense-impression. This sense-impression is proximate and not primary cause, and assenting is a necessary condition. Assenting is and will always be in our power. The proximate and contiguous cause of assenting is located in the sense-impression. Compare:
I was provoked and insulted.
I felt provoked and insulted.
We can only conjecture a [logical] cause. A complete treatise on causes might be compiled by academics at WIIIC in due course.
III) One might further distinguish between respectively:
-causea perfectae et principales, and
-causea adiuvantes et proximae,
and this distinction is subsequently illustrated by that between the push that starts (causes) a cylinder rolling and the shape that [causes] it to roll when pushed and to continue doing so. ********** The truth is often not pure and simple, albeit, rarely pure and never simple. Truth is available to all who are willing to work to achieve it, but truth is certainly not commonly possessed by all and is no one's birthright. Man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of young children, whereas no child has an instinctive tendence to bake, brew and write. Those who say that the real, documented, written investigations is over speak lies. God, who cannot change the past, although He can change the images of the past, changed the image of death into one of innocence, and the evil shade of man. This has occurred once, and will occur again, said Euphorbus. It is not one pyre you are lighting, it is a labyrinth of fire. Are we creating and formulating a two-horned syllogism, where every act is reflected in heaven, or echoing those who claim that time does not tolerate repetitions. This tragedy - and its description that is a haunting nightmare - include and is capable of virtually inexhaustible repetitions, versions, perversions. It is not my purpose to repeat the story of Dr Lynch's life. Of the days and nights that composed it, I am interested in only one; about the rest, I will recount nothing but that which is essential to an understanding of that single night in Porticello. Once fully understood, that night in August 2024 encompasses this entire story - or rather, one incident, one action that night does, for actions are the symbol of our selves. Any life, however, long and complicated it may be, actually consists of a single moment. In that moment, in that time outside time, in that welter of disjointed and horrible sensations, did one or more perpetrators think even once about the death-s that inspired the sacrifice. Did anyone involved realize that one destiny is no better than the next and that every man must accept the destiny he bears inside himself. Does one or more individuals falsely realize (beyond words and even beyond understanding) that this tragedy has nothing to do with him or them. Things went astray - the admonitions for truth are too affected and metaphorical to be transcribed. "Wouldst thou see what no other human eyes have seen?" Boldness, boldness, and boldness are the three key ingredients in any complicated private detective / private investigator caper - and wise prophets make sure of the events first. We have been overly mathematical, theoretical, and philosophical, however, these exercises show our level of ambition, a demonstration, a gesture - in a situation worse than despair. We inevitably make progress towards that more perfect justice. Not because of somebody's narrative who is right, or who is a victim or not. It comes out of the slow melding of the truth to the actual practical life that we end up living. So hence, let's be focused practically and proceed empirically. The die is cast. HANG ON!!!
CRE
To be continued on wordpress.com.../. "THE STING OPERATION THAT WENT SOUTH - BAYESIAN."