Investigative Method: Logic verses Instinct

Logic is. Logic is immutable, for Logic is a criterion of process— conclusions must be supported by the reasons you give; actions must be in response to the motive. Logic therefore is inescapable, for no one can avoid cause and effect. Every action a person takes has some motive. As such, every person’s actions can be backworked.

     Logic is the product and process of deduction. In investigation, Logic distills all the evidence. Every fact is potentially a clue.

     Let me give a humorous and homespun Jewish example of Logic in action. It is the story of the scholar and the mysterious train passenger.

After months of negotiation with the authorities, a scholar from
Odessa was granted permission to visit Moscow. He boarded the train
and found an empty seat.

At the next stop a young man got on and sat next to him. The scholar
looked at the young man and thought: This fellow doesn’t look like a
peasant, and if he isn’t a peasant he probably comes from this
district. If he comes from this district, then he
must be Jewish because this is, after all, a
Jewish district.

On the other hand, if he is a Jew, where could he be going? I’m the
only Jew in our district who has permission to travel to Moscow.

Ahh? But just outside Moscow there is a little village called Samvet,
and Jews don’t need special permission to go there. But why would he
be going to Samvet?

He’s probably going to visit one of the Jewish families there, but
how many Jewish families are there in Samvet!? Only two - the
Bernsteins and the Steinbergs. The Bernsteins are a terrible family,
and a nice looking fellow like him must be visiting the
Steinbergs. But why is he going? The Steinbergs have only
daughters, so maybe he’s their son-in-law.

But if he is, then which daughter did he marry? They say that Sarah
married a nice lawyer from Budapest, and Esther married a businessman
from Zhitomer, so it must be Sarah’s husband. Which means that his
name is Alexander Cohen, if I’m not mistaken.
But if he comes from Budapest, with all the anti-Semitism they have
there, he must have changed his name.
What’s the Hungarian equivalent of Cohen? Kovacs. But if they allowed
him to change his name, he must have some special status. What could
it be? A doctorate from the University.

At this point the scholar turns to the young man and says, “How do
you do, Dr. Kovacs?”

“Very well, thank you, sir,” answered the startled passenger. But
how is it that you know my name?”

“Oh,” replied the scholar, “it was obvious.”

     This is the purest example of logic in action. All of the processing is distilling to a point— to discover who this man on the train is. Every point brought up bears on that question. As Holmes said: “The devil is in the details.” But it must be the relevant details. The engine number isn’t relevant, nor the amount of coal. The parameter has been set— who is this man on the train, on a train headed in a certain direction?

     The same process applies to all clues discovered in a crime. 

     As important of the processing of data is, it is nothing of course without the data. Logic is dependent on knowledge. If someone in Montana says they are going to keep heading north until they hit Texas, you know there is a problem. You know there is a problem because of knowledge. You know where Texas is.

     Without knowledge one is left with Instinct, and Instinct is worthless without experience. Instinct is not the product of deduction. It is the product of synthesis. Several facts or clues have come together to give the investigator an instinctive response— that nagging feeling that there is more, that there must be more to the equation than is so far known. But there is not enough evidence or clues to work toward a solid hypothesis yet. Intuition is merely Instinct set in motion.  As Jonas Salk said: “Intuition tells the thinking man where to look next.”

     But if someone doesn’t have experience and knowledge, their instinct is based on stereotypes. Stereotype is a terrible world of preconceived ideas, fears, even superstitions. If intuition leaps from this, the product is Induction, not deduction. Induction is a vicious cycle that creates stereotype, and in turn stereotype creates  false impressions, and from this half knowledge is created more stereotype.

     Logic is not extrapolation. Logic distills all clues and evidence to a point. Extrapolation leaps— “One Jew is rich therefore all Jews are rich.” One can word things according to the parameters of logic using key words that indicate a conclusion is coming based on some reason just represented— “because,” “if so,” “thus,” “therefore,” “if then”— but as in the above example the conclusion still doesn’t support the reason. For it to be considered logical, the conclusion must be supported by the reason given.

   Everything in this section has one goal— determine who the East Area Rapist AKA The Original Night Stalker is. All clues and evidence will distill to that point.