A Welcome Message: A Post about a Certain Kind of Mapping in Legal Contexts
1 view
Skip to first unread message
PeterT
Jan 17, 2008, 5:41:07 PM1/17/08
to Legal Mapping, pe...@tillers.net
Dear Friends,
I will inaugurate my participation in this new GOOGLE group by touting
my new post at http://tillerstillers.blogspot.com/2008/01/distributed-dynamic-investigation.html
I plan to speak about these and related questions during visits this
coming year to the University of New South Wales, T.C. Beirne School
of Law, Queensland University, and Edinburgh University.
It is heartening to see the amount of interest out there in the wide
world about mapping strategies that have a direct bearing on my
particular interest, the organization of mental work for purposes of
fact investigation, inference, persuasion, and factual proof in legal
settings.
I believe that if we can unlock a substantial number of the many
mysteries of forensic investigation, inference, and proof, we will
have learned an enormous amount about human cognition. This is not so
much because such activities in forensic settings teach students of
human knowledge what is what. It is because the complexity of forensic
investigation, proof, etc. calls on scholars to draw on and synthesize
knowledge from a wide variety of disciplines.
Sincerely,
Peter Tillers
I will inaugurate my participation in this new GOOGLE group by touting
my new post at http://tillerstillers.blogspot.com/2008/01/distributed-dynamic-investigation.html
I plan to speak about these and related questions during visits this
coming year to the University of New South Wales, T.C. Beirne School
of Law, Queensland University, and Edinburgh University.
It is heartening to see the amount of interest out there in the wide
world about mapping strategies that have a direct bearing on my
particular interest, the organization of mental work for purposes of
fact investigation, inference, persuasion, and factual proof in legal
settings.
I believe that if we can unlock a substantial number of the many
mysteries of forensic investigation, inference, and proof, we will
have learned an enormous amount about human cognition. This is not so
much because such activities in forensic settings teach students of
human knowledge what is what. It is because the complexity of forensic
investigation, proof, etc. calls on scholars to draw on and synthesize
knowledge from a wide variety of disciplines.
Sincerely,
Peter Tillers
Dave Maxfield
Jan 18, 2008, 9:18:41 AM1/18/08
to Legal Mapping
Peter -- nice to you in this group. I enjoyed and referred to your
evidence page often in my practice, and was always interested in
MarshalPlan which I remember looking at for the first time many years
ago. From the standpoint of a trial lawyer, I can tell you that
systematized thinking / logic is not much utilized by trial lawyers.
Maybe that is because (at least in my law school education) it was
never really taught. Logic skills are measured somewhat directly on
the LSAT (law school admissions test) and indirectly in law school
exams, but that is about the extent of it. As such, I have found a
program like Rationale gives me a significant competitive advantage.
Excited to be part of this group. I'll be e-mailing you soon for a
new MarshalPlan password. Take care, Dave
On Jan 17, 5:41 pm, PeterT <peter.till...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> I will inaugurate my participation in this new GOOGLE group by touting
> my new post athttp://tillerstillers.blogspot.com/2008/01/distributed-dynamic-invest...
evidence page often in my practice, and was always interested in
MarshalPlan which I remember looking at for the first time many years
ago. From the standpoint of a trial lawyer, I can tell you that
systematized thinking / logic is not much utilized by trial lawyers.
Maybe that is because (at least in my law school education) it was
never really taught. Logic skills are measured somewhat directly on
the LSAT (law school admissions test) and indirectly in law school
exams, but that is about the extent of it. As such, I have found a
program like Rationale gives me a significant competitive advantage.
Excited to be part of this group. I'll be e-mailing you soon for a
new MarshalPlan password. Take care, Dave
On Jan 17, 5:41 pm, PeterT <peter.till...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> I will inaugurate my participation in this new GOOGLE group by touting
Peter Mericka
Jan 23, 2008, 6:31:31 PM1/23/08
to legalm...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Dave, glad to be on board.
Regards,
Peter Mericka B.A., LLB
Property Lawyer - Conveyancer - Legal Practitioner
Lawyers Real Estate & Conveyancing
Lawyers Real Estate Pty Ltd (ACN 111 611 539)
Suite 6, 3-5 Hewish Road, Croydon 3136
Telephone: +61 (03) 9726 2702
Fax: +61 (03) 9725 3316
Email: Pe...@LawyersConveyancing.com.au
Web: www.LawyersConveyancing.com.au
Peter T
Jan 23, 2008, 8:43:56 PM1/23/08
to Legal Mapping
Dave,
Many thanks! It is gratifying to hear that my tinkering is of some
interest to people in law practice. I sometimes -- often -- think that
legal theorizining desperately needs an analogue to empirical
verification or testing of scientific theories. Perhaps the
experiences of folks such as you can serve as some sort of real-world
test of the validity of a theory about a matter such as evidence
marshaling (or, more broadly, of a "heuristic" theory).
I am now tinkering with MarshalPlan to produce a friendlier interface.
During the next few months I will also try to add some additional
explanatory text here and there. Finally, sooner or later (probably
later) I will add one, two, or more stacks to capture some basic forms
of evidence marshaling that neither the original version of
MarshalPlan nor MarshalPlan 2.0 has. For example, it strikes me that
one basic form of evidence marshaling is describing the (temporal)
history, or chronology, of _sources_ of evidence. (This is different
from deleloping time lines of _events_ at issue.) Of course, I'm
getting far ahead of the game; developing a version of MarshalPlan
that can be used in real world dynamic legal contexts where there are
oodles of evidence would be a daunting task, one far beyond my ken.
For example, even though the programming software I use allows it, I
don't know how to hook up MarshalPlan to a database.
Peter
P.S. Henry Prakken noticed back in 2001 (in St. Louis) that CaseMap
(even back then) incorporated one version of evidence marshaling
(tying evidence to questions and, correlatively, tying questions to
sources of questions) that Dave Schum put into a precursor of
MarshalPlan. Perhaps CaseMap borrowed from Dave. If it did so, it did
not acknowledge doing so. (There were no copyright, patent, or
proprietary issues that CaseMap had to worry about; our work was in
the public domain.)
> > Peter Tillers- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many thanks! It is gratifying to hear that my tinkering is of some
interest to people in law practice. I sometimes -- often -- think that
legal theorizining desperately needs an analogue to empirical
verification or testing of scientific theories. Perhaps the
experiences of folks such as you can serve as some sort of real-world
test of the validity of a theory about a matter such as evidence
marshaling (or, more broadly, of a "heuristic" theory).
I am now tinkering with MarshalPlan to produce a friendlier interface.
During the next few months I will also try to add some additional
explanatory text here and there. Finally, sooner or later (probably
later) I will add one, two, or more stacks to capture some basic forms
of evidence marshaling that neither the original version of
MarshalPlan nor MarshalPlan 2.0 has. For example, it strikes me that
one basic form of evidence marshaling is describing the (temporal)
history, or chronology, of _sources_ of evidence. (This is different
from deleloping time lines of _events_ at issue.) Of course, I'm
getting far ahead of the game; developing a version of MarshalPlan
that can be used in real world dynamic legal contexts where there are
oodles of evidence would be a daunting task, one far beyond my ken.
For example, even though the programming software I use allows it, I
don't know how to hook up MarshalPlan to a database.
Peter
P.S. Henry Prakken noticed back in 2001 (in St. Louis) that CaseMap
(even back then) incorporated one version of evidence marshaling
(tying evidence to questions and, correlatively, tying questions to
sources of questions) that Dave Schum put into a precursor of
MarshalPlan. Perhaps CaseMap borrowed from Dave. If it did so, it did
not acknowledge doing so. (There were no copyright, patent, or
proprietary issues that CaseMap had to worry about; our work was in
the public domain.)
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages