Gordon Smith: psychic demonstration or Cold Reading?

[Nasib]

[QUOTE=[B]tolman[/B];59605]

There's a world of difference between asking the only known person who might know anything, and 'holding an enquiry'.

What could an enquiry possibly do apart from ask the last known person to see him what happened?

Question the other six soldiers? They started off as party of eight. It was well into the "early hours of the morning" that the two decided to break from the main party and head for camp together, so presumably they were all together for quite some time.

About the only likely outcome of an enquiry would be a conclusion that it was probably an accidental death, which someone with suspicions would then consider to be a cover-up.

'Investigation of sorts'?
That seems like a rather sinister way of describing what apparently couldn't amount to much more than a brief questioning, whoever was undertaking it.

If the only thing you can discover is a short and quite plausible explanation from someone who doesn't show any apparent signs of being dishonest, what more could you do?
Keep asking them over and over in a way that implies you think they're lying, even in a situation where all you know is that someone is missing?

There was a "disagreement" between the two on the way home. (In some places this has been reported as "a scuffle" although this could well be an exaggeration in the reporting process). We can only base our conjectures on the information that has been filtered through to us. We have not been made aware of events during the evening when all the party were together. We can't dismiss the possibility that this "disagreement" could well have been a continuation of something that may have arisen earlier on in the evening, witnessed by others in the group?

One would assume that in those circumstances everyone else in the group would have been questioned (by their army superiors, and separately by the police) and required to give their individual account of the events of the evening before the two left the group together

[tolman]

Question the other six soldiers?

Which would take little time, and unless any of them indicate that the two people that left together were actively arguing, what could you learn from them that shed any light on the actual disappearance, apart from a vague idea how drunk the missing guy might have been.

There was a "disagreement" between the two on the way home. (In some places this has been reported as "a scuffle" although this could well be an exaggeration in the reporting process).We can only base our conjectures on the information that has been filtered through to us. We have not been made aware of events during the evening when all the party were together. We can't dismiss the possibility that this "disagreement" could well have been a continuation of something that may have arisen earlier on in the evening, witnessed by others in the group?

But if you're trying to being responsible rather than sensationalist, you can't just imagine possible lurid explanations without accepting that they're astonishingly unlikely to be true.
Even if there had been drunken disagreements in the pub or on the way home, how many tens of thousands of times a week does that happen, and how often is there a death as a result?

Also, if you're trying to be responsible, you should present the evidence for a 'scuffle' having occurred before putting it forward as even a possible piece of evidence in favour of something nasty having happened.

One would assume that in those circumstances everyone else in the group would have been questioned (by their army superiors, and separately by the police) and required to give their individual account of the events of the evening before the two left the group together

Which would take a couple of minutes, and wouldn't amount to an 'enquiry' in the general meaning of the word, unless anyone had indicated anything suspicious going on.
You have to be careful of judging people's actions with the benefit of hindsight.
In the context of asking about events at the point where a person is only known to be missing, someone might well not think it was important to question people individually. Likewise, the police may be perfectly happy with a summary of what people knew from someone in the group who spoke decent French.

Later, when the guy still hasn't returned, unless they thought there was something that didn't ring true, they may see no reason to formally ask people the same questions again, even if they might well informally talk about events.
Indeed, people would be fairly unlikely not to talk about events, and if nothing odd popped up in the course of normal chatter, that might well satisfy people that nothing had happened rather better than further formal interviews would.

Bearing in mind the high probability of accident over foul play, you have to understand that questioning people excessively can effectively be saying that you suspect their mate of involvement in their disappearance, which is something best not done without justification.

[Nasib]

tolman wrote:

You have to be careful of judging people's actions with the benefit of hindsight.

Yes, I am aware of that.

Originally Posted by Nasib
One would assume that in those circumstances everyone else in the group would have been questioned (by their army superiors, and separately by the police) and required to give their individual account of the events of the evening before the two left the group together

tolman replied:

Which would take a couple of minutes, and wouldn't amount to an 'enquiry' in the general meaning of the word, unless anyone had indicated anything suspicious going on.

Agreed. But in the event that someone had indicated anything suspicious, then there's the possibility that it may have been taken further - with a desire to keep such information hidden from the general public.

Back to the puzzling situation of the local guy who reported seeing a body 10 days after Blake had disappeared, and who he believed was the missing person. Puzzling, because the police "didn't seem to believe him"? Even if the police (for whatever reasons) had doubted that this was a genuine sighting, surely they would have at least expressed a cursory interest and outwardly taken some sort of action to follow up on the lead?
On the information we have, it seems to have been dismissed, but we are not told why.

Two and a half years later that same guy found the femur bone which DNA proved belonged to Blake.

[tolman]

Agreed. But in the event that someone had indicated anything suspicious, then there's the possibility that it may have been taken further - with a desire to keep such information hidden from the general public.

So you find it suspicious that there apparently wasn't a Great Enquiry, yet you comfort yourself with the possibility that maybe there *was* one which was then covered up because it found something out?

Not only that, but you wonder if maybe superior officers were suspicious and that rather than just making it clear that they didn't want to be suspicious, and as far as they were concerned, Nothing Had Ever Happened, they instead had a secret enquiry to find out things they really didn't want to know, which they then had to cover up?

If basically any course of reported events is going to be seen as consistent with the speculations of a psychic (because there could always be all kinds of important things being kept secret) then unless you just want to cherry-pick supporting facts, why bother wasting any time with the evidence anyone gave, if it can be dismissed if it doesn't support the psychic's deliberately vague statements?

Back to the puzzling situation of the local guy who reported seeing a body 10 days after Blake had disappeared, and who he believed was the missing person. Puzzling, because the police "didn't seem to believe him"? Even if the police (for whatever reasons) had doubted that this was a genuine sighting, surely they would have at least expressed a cursory interest and outwardly taken some sort of action to follow up on the lead?
On the information we have, it seems to have been dismissed, but we are not told why.

Even if there had been some grand cover-up, what would have been the point in deliberately not finding the body? If you're trying to propose some kind of drunken scuffle and then a fall/push into a river, it seems fairly unlikely that a body that had been banging around in a river for a couple of weeks would have carried any kind of incriminating evidence.

Even if there had been a cover-up, it seems like it would have made more sense to recover the body and make sure it wasn't incriminating than to risk allowing someone else to find it and maybe discover that it was incriminating.

Also, even if there had been a cover-up, wouldn't the obvious way to behave in a cover up be to make it look like you are doing your best? "Oh yes sir, I'll pass this on to the chief immediately, and I'm sure we'll get over there as soon as we can. Thank you so much for your help!"

Getting back to probabilities, of all the times that police fail to follow up on a possible lead, what fraction of those times do you honestly think that that failure is because they are convinced the lead is right, but they just don't want to get a result?

Two and a half years later that same guy found the femur bone which DNA proved belonged to Blake.

All that shows is that he was motivated enough to keep looking, and eventually his efforts paid off.

[Nasib]

lol, tolman - you make me sound like some sort of conspiracy theorist! There is nothing "sinister" or "suspicious" to attach to what is simply critical speculation!

No, it's just a habit of mine - reading between and behind the lines of anything that is printed up for the general consumer. I'm aware first-hand of how certain 'facts' can be presented, held back or twisted to suit certain organisations or individuals involved.

Sally Perrin herself made reference to such.

extract:

"The Express in typical newspaper fashion managed to sensationalize and dramatize just about everything I said and indeed added other things that were totally untrue. Before the article was printed, Danny the reporter, emailed some of the copy to me in which there were many mistakes, I emailed back the corrected version and then the paper went ahead and printed the original work complete with mistakes. Danny even phoned me to say it was going in on Saturday and he was sorry but it was what the paper wanted.
>
>
I have learned one lesson through all this though, and that is, do not believe everything you read in the papers - unless it is written by Richard Saville from the Telegraph, he printed a brilliant piece which was exactly what I had told him, no fantasies!"

I would like to have read the Telegraph article that she refers to.

[tolman]

lol, tolman - you make me sound like some sort of conspiracy theorist! There is nothing "sinister" or "suspicious" to attach to what is simply critical speculation!

No, it's just a habit of mine - reading between and behind the lines of anything that is printed up for the general consumer. I'm aware first-hand of how certain 'facts' can be presented, held back or twisted to suit certain organisations or individuals involved.

If someone is going to mull over possible events and explanations, it would seem at least sensible to try and consider work out how likely any particular explanation of an event is.
For example, people dying accidentally on their way back from bars in the small hours doesn't seem extraordinarily rare - if memory serves me right, that's happened at least a couple of times in the few years, even just thinking about Brits on skiing holidays in the Alps.
Before collecting evidence, we're starting off with accidental death being a much more likely explanation than foul play.

I'm still trying to understand how anything that happened actually points towards anything sinister happening, rather than a tragic accident.

I don't see much significance in the police apparently not following up a particular report of a body, since failing to follow up reports happens for any number of reasons, amongst which sinister conspiracies are a long way down the like of likely explanations.
If you're looking at shifting the probability from the initial setting more towards foul play, that event seems to be of no obvious value.

Likewise, not having some great enquiry doesn't seem to be at all suggestive of foul play either, since the likeliest reason for not having a big enquiry is that after initially talking to people, it's seems unlikely that anything more that could be learned about what happened, or lessons learned for the future that aren't already well-known.
How often is there much enquiry into either missing persons or apparent accidental deaths, except where there are particular grounds for suspicion?

If you're going to speculate about why this or that was or wasn't done, you shouldn't neglect the likeliest explanations, even if they're fairly mundane.

[Nasib]

Overall point taken and understood.

But ...

If you're going to speculate about why this or that was or wasn't done, you shouldn't neglect the likeliest explanations, even if they're fairly mundane.

Are you steering me towards Occam's Razorsharp Avenue now?

The most likeliest is invariably the most obvious. Acknowledging the glaringly obvious yet seeking out possibilities not so readily available is not neglect! To my mind it would constitute neglect to stick at the most likely without seeking further.

Anyway, where's the challenge in the 'easy way out' ?

[Nasib]

btw: I'll just add here that I once lived quite near to the particular region of France under discussion. The French police have a rather different approach to what we are used to in the UK. (e.g. they are not particularly averse to 'losing a parking ticket' on the production of, say, a crate of oranges) 8)
... and that's not speculation.

[rainbows.]

We do not have all the facts and it is highly unlikely we ever will.
Whatever Gordon Smiths involvement -it did not contribute to the outcome of this case.At best [if true] he predicted Blake was deceased and would be found three years later.There is no need to accept Gordon Smith did anything extraordinary based on the evidence presented to us .
Simple.

[Nasib]

Whatever Gordon Smiths involvement -it did not contribute to the outcome of this case.

Except you forgot to add "IN MY OPINION" Rainbows!

[rainbows.]

Based on what we know about this case, it's a good opinion.

[rainbows.]

[tolman]

The most likeliest is invariably the most obvious. Acknowledging the glaringly obvious yet seeking out possibilities not so readily available is not neglect! To my mind it would constitute neglect to stick at the most likely without seeking further.

It's hardly seeking out some hidden possibility, since the possibility was always quite obviously there, just rather unlikely.
It doesn't seem that there's actually any evidence which makes it significantly more likely to have happened than a first guess would suggest, except maybe to someone who is determined to read the evidence that way.

As an aside, I'd disagree that the most obvious is always the most likely. Sometimes the most likely explanation for something isn't the most obvious explanation to many people, maybe even to most people.

Anyway, where's the challenge in the 'easy way out' ?

Indeed.
Where's would be the challenge for Gordon Smith in just trying to comfort a grieving parent, when instead he could drop hints as to other people's involvements in crimes despite a complete lack of evidence, while not having to take any responsibility for what he's saying.

[Nasib]

Well, I've managed to find The Telegraph report (dated 15th March 2007)
and here is an extract:

Mrs Perrin plans to return to Chamonix this weekend to search for further remains and she is anxious to find out more about the circumstances of her son's death.

She acknowledged her son had probably had a few drinks and that his death was an accident.

But she hoped other cadets on the trip and the Army would help provide further details.

''I don't want a witch hunt," she said. "I just want to know what happened.

''There are unanswered questions. Where did they go that night? How much did they drink?

''Did someone spike Blake's drink? I strongly suspect something untoward happened."

She said an Army report into Mr Hartley's disappearance recommended there should be full briefings before cadets go on expeditions, and that someone in such groups should "remain sober".

[rainbows.]

She thinks something untoward may of happened because Gordon Smith said so ?