Part 1: An Analysis of the Evidence
Created | Updated Jun 21, 2003
This report is part of the h2g2 Prez Campaign and should only be taken seriously within the context of the campaign. |
The Celery begins his report with an analysis of the story written by Fragilis.
<DISCLAIMER>
I wish to note that Fragilis is a reporter for the Post. She writes an excellent column called 'View from the Queue' which describes the process related to edited entries. She is a great reporter for the Post, and I would never wish to impugn her journalistic integrity in that role.
Fragilis is also a Demon Drawer for Prez campaigner, and it was in this role that she wrote her report. It is important to note that any critique that I give here about Fragilis refers to her role as campaigner in a Virtual Prez race, which is being conducted in fun, and should not reflect on her or any other members of the Demon Drawer campaign, except within the context of this Virtual Prez race.
</DISCLAIMER>
The Report
The detailed seven-page report was an entertaining work of fiction by a campaigner looking to frame a staff member of a leading candidate. While her framing of Redbeard was voluminous, it was clearly full of holes. There are a number of reasons to doubt her story, but let's take a look at the specific 'evidence' she describes in the report.
Motive1
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
However, the polls DO provide motive for a DD&J campaigner to pick someone to accuse of 'poisoning' Demon Drawer. Why has E Vibenstein, who was in the bar, never been a serious suspect? Because there's no political gain in accusing him. Apparently the decision was made to go after someone in the campaign that was leading in the polls.
Timeline and Opportunity2
Redbeard first published a timeline of the events, and Fragilis has added nothing new with hers. Essentially, her 'evidence' here involves the fact that Redbeard likes Guiness (not a crime as far as I know) and is polite!
Several times in the report, in fact, Fragilis seems to attribute sinister motives to polite or helpful behaviour. I have stated many times that I support good manners. I'm happy to see that a campaign staffer of mine has them. It's too bad that good manners are apparently so rare in certain quarters, that the use of them is seen as suspect.
Fingerprints3
This is a fun part of the report, complete with flashy graphics of fingerprint whorls and glasses of Guiness. Now, there's never been any dispute that Redbeard was in the Forum & Firkin when the 'event' happened. And certainly, patrons' fingerprints do end up on a variety of glasses. Now Fragilis' report tries to find some 'important' evidence here, anyway. But when it comes to forensic science, it looks more like the Keystone Cops, or maybe a television situation comedy about a bumbling chief of detectives (Think Don Knotts or Leslie Nielsen), that might go something like this:
- Detective: So let me get this straight. We need fingerprints on this suspect because he might have touched a glass when he was at the bar?
Chief: That's right. If we can prove he touched a glass while he was drinking, well then we'll have something.
Detective: You mean, we'll know that he didn't use a straw? Well, where should I get his prints?
Chief: Why don't you go over and dust the outside of his house.
Detective: Uh, the outside of his house, chief?
Chief: You bet. He might have touched it.
Detective: True. But couldn't others have touched the outside of his house, chief?
Chief: Sure. But we don't care about them.
Detective: Right.
So a fingerprint obtained from the outside of Redbeard's ship was used to prove that someone who touched the outside of his ship also touched a glass in the Forum & Firkin. Startling evidence, that!
The 'Poison'4
In the report, Fragilis compares the apparent 'poison' (left) and a substance she got from the outside of Redbeards' ship, which he claimed was old cappuccino that he had dumped out. At this point she gets really creative.
- She gives no evidence that the substance on the left is actually poison, claiming that it has defied analysis. She says that she tried to find someone qualified to analyse it, but gives no names that she contacted.
- She tries to distract the reader with fanciful hypotheses for the origin of this 'poison' including: aliens, magic acorns, inter-dimensional rifts, and genetic engineering.
- She then takes a huge leap to take the much different substance on Redbeard's ship, which looks like, well, cappuccino, and assume that it's the same as the 'poison' which she can't prove is poison.
At this point, our television comedy detectives seem to be back at it:
- Detective: Well, chief, we got this substance here off the ship. Should we take it to the lab?
Chief: Heck no! They're all at lunch. Let's kidnap someone's cat and make the animal eat it. If it gets sick, then we'll know something.
Detective: Yeah, we'll know it makes cats sick!
This might be funny if it hadn't actually happened. What the 'reporter' did at this point is enough to... well small children might want to skip on to the next header.
For the rest of you, in order to avoid traumatizing you, I'd like to point out at this time, that the cat in question is recovering nicely, and will be OK (although even a little more wary of strangers).
I've seen Redbeard with his cats. He's very careful with their diet (only veterinarian-approved dry cat food, with occasional canned food of the same brand), and no 'people' food or treats). Those who have cats know that if you change their diet, they're likely to get sick. Additionally, certain foods can be harmful to cats. Many adult cats are lactose intolerant, so veterinarians recommend yogurt rather than milk. And caffeine can be toxic to animals, causing a variety of symptoms which can include seizures5. Falstaff and his brother are very shy and can be violently uncomfortable about being handled by strangers. Also, it should be noted that neither cat had, until this point, left the ship since they arrived.
So what did Fragilis do?
She broke into Redbeard's ship, and fed strange food to his cat Falstaff. She traumatised Falstaff by taking him off the ship and then stuck him in a closet. She then fed him more strange food coated with a spoiled and congealed milk and caffeine mixture (the cappuccino). She finds it 'significant' that Falstaff got sick. Of course, he got sick! He was abused!
The Security Camera6
Now this is a delightful bit of imaginative technical wizardry on the part of Fragilis. It's really quite good!
Notice how she attempts to draw you in with the moving Guiness glasses, and the glimpse of Redbeard's face. Masterful! But all the razzle-dazzle is meant to distract you from one jarring fact.
This is NOT the Forum & Firkin!
Take a look at this description of the pub, as detailed in the Post and confirmed by Menza.
A six-foot chandelier hangs from the ceiling over the bar, which is solid oak and seems to stretch forever along the back of the hall... The bar is so old that it has just sort of always been there.... One wall is plastered with old and faded advertising posters, complete with a 'Wanted' poster or two... Another wall appears to be made entirely of empty wooden barrels... Stop by the servery (located in the adjacent wall along the current section of the bar)...7
Even in grainy black and white, there's no way that what's shown in the image can be an old solid oak bar. Cheap plywood, or tacky formica perhaps, but not oak. And where did the brick wall come from? The servery should be right behind the bar. This cannot have taken place in the Forum & Firkin.
Nice camera work. But clearly a piece of fiction.
The Special Report?
It was fun to read, and quite clever. But it was not evidence. The 'facts' were contradictory, vague, speculative, and sometimes just plain wrong. The conclusions were based on partisan goals.
In short... Redbeard is Innocent!
