SCEPCOP Forum

Please allow me interject something here. First, Unsolved Mysteries is a GREAT show. I used to watch it religiously. ( I was also a great fan of the "In Search Of" series with Spock.) What I have come to realize over the years, however, is that they would not have had a show if they gave info on mysteries, then followed that by critical analysis. It was purely for entertainment and NOT for research. Sure, they may have interviewed all sorts of people supporting the Dorothy Allison story, but they may NOT have interviewed others who would have given a different story. I'm not saying they did this as I have no proof on that particular episode, but logic tells me that if they had interviewed those who dispute the story, they wouldn't have had a program and they were, remember, in the business to make a profit.
Take, for example, the Bermuda Triangle. They showed an episode on the mysteries of this area. Charles Berlitz wrote a NYT Bestseller and sold millions. Since then, however, this whole mystery is being exposed as nothing (at least from us "skeptics" point of view). (We can start another thread if need be so I don't want to go into detail on the Triangle here.)
The point I'm trying to make is that even though there was a TV show, a book, and interviews, that does not mean you have heard the entire story or that many of the things you have heard haven't been embelished.

If you watch CNN cover a story, you will get a list of the facts as they want you to see. They will interview people who have a distinct liberal stance in their discussions and for the most part, dismiss the conservative point of view. Conversely, Fox News does exactly the same thing except opposite. Who is right? Depends on your point of view and which side you tend to agree with.
I wasn't at the trial and I, unfortunately, can't spend hours and hours studying the transcripts. All I am suggesting is that just because a TV show interviews people who give their side of the story about how accurate Dorothy was in her predictions, doesn't mean there wasn't other people who did not see it the same way. People in general, i believe, enjoy having some time in the spotlight. Hey, if a TV series came to my house and wanted to do a segment on the two UFO's I have seen, I'd be all over it and probably even embellish the story a bit. I could tell them it was the triangle shaped UFO, with spotlights coming down, flying low and slow, etc. All that would make for a great story. However, if at the end of my story I also told them that what I believe I saw was a classified Air Force spy plane, do you think that would make the final cut? Of course not, that wouldn't be a story. So, all I'm saying is that I can appreciate someone having an opinion that favors the talents of Dorothy Allison. Much evidence on the surface seems to support her abilities. On the flip side of the coin, much evidence in psychic abilities can also be disputed.
If I get called "naive" for having evidence from the top scientific committe in the country, then perhaps evidence from TV shows should also be taken with a grain of salt. What kind of evidence is acceptable? I can tell you from an academic standpoint, it wouldn't be the TV show, but it is fun thinking about possibilities.

Wag

i am NOT going to comment on this case as other than what i have read here i, i have no knowledge of it - but placing significance on things ,even such as physical evidence is , er tricky ,to say the best and measurable ?? - depends on the context .

for example : ( going to use some fire service analogies here ) say for instance you where called to a building that was "well alight " ( eg going well ) - there is no one trapped - and no danger to other buildings or people - and the building is isolated from others but in a residential area , so you look at the building and start looking for reasons - collecting "clues " to what had happened .

so lets take our hypothetical building - a standard 2 up 2 down brick built dwelling - with no gas ( only electric ) - unoccupied at the time of your arrival .

so initial appraisal : you have taken 3 minutes to arrive - witnesses say that the building "exploded " in to flame - significance ?? - well buildings only usually do this with the aid of an accelerant ( as far as i know there have been no cases of "spontaneous combustion " of normal houses ) so clue number one ??

the fire has spread to all floors and the roof - you know that the call and time to arrive was a total of say 5 minutes - based on your knowledge of the mechanics of "normal " fire spread you also know that this fire has developed WAY too quickly -even allowing for say 5-10 minutes for the fire to be noticed - clue number two - significance ??

during the operation to tackle the fire - one of you men reports the find of two empty petrol cans lying in the garden - significance ??

amongst the crowd of onlookers you spot a well known local arsonist ,watching proceedings - significance ??

the owner of the building turns up and seems a little too calm for someone whose house is burning down - significance ??

his children are with him and are looking frightened - significance ??

the owner is in deep financial trouble and about to go bankrupt -significance ??

the mans wife left him a few weeks ago - following a major row - significance ??

OK i wont take this any further for now - have a think about each of these things and draw a conclusion - i appreciate you may not have any knowledge of firefighting and investigation so i have made this one fairly easy for you - but what i would like you to do is rate ,from one to ten each of these and give your reasons for your marks

this is actually based on a true scenario - so i know the answer

any one want to take a stab at it ??

ok fair enough - lets see if any one else has a go ....

I would think that every clue was equally significant, regardless of how it looks initially. Investigators should never jump to conclusions without weighing all the evidence equally. Just my untrained thought, anyway.