scottsdad Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 4 hours ago, EvilScotsman said: People in general seem to be completely incapable of accepting that they might be wrong about something or to have made a mistake. I avoid this conundrum by never being wrong or making mistakes. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 39 minutes ago, scottsdad said: I avoid this conundrum by never being wrong or making mistakes. You must be my wife's brother... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 7 hours ago, Todd_is_God said: You can apply this to anything. I don’t know why people, with little to no evidence or insight to justify it, continue to not only form such immovable beliefs on any subject, but shout very loudly about it at anyone who doesn’t share said belief. It would be a shite forum if they didn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said: It would be a shite forum if they didn't. No it f**king wouldn't you smelly c**t. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 42 minutes ago, welshbairn said: No it f**king wouldn't you smelly c**t. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 10 hours ago, Todd_is_God said: You can apply this to anything. I don’t know why people, with little to no evidence or insight to justify it, continue to not only form such immovable beliefs on any subject, but shout very loudly about it at anyone who doesn’t share said belief. I think you've summed up Steve Clarke's approach to the Scotland team selection 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 On 05/09/2024 at 09:03, VincentGuerin said: I remember having a chat with the missus while this was on telly at the time of the first trial and the missus said from the beginning that she felt it all seemed off and that a lot of the "burn the f**king witch" people seemed to be backing themselves into a corner about it. It's hard to walk that back. Especially people who went big on it on social media. I think we're seeing this now to an extent. It's a highly emotive case, but I think these things are best looked at coldly. With what we know now, is there a reasonable doubt that she's guilty? I'd say yes. I remember saying at the time, if she was indeed guilty, she MUST have a serious mental illness, because there is no other reasonable motive for this. For instance people will do absolutely horrific things ( including murdering children - see drug cartels) either for financial gain, or out of fear for themselves or their families wellbeing. There isn't any suggestion of that here. Has she undergone psychiatric assessments? I think that would be a good place to start 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 (edited) On 05/09/2024 at 11:25, Todd_is_God said: You can apply this to anything. I don’t know why people, with little to no evidence or insight to justify it, continue to not only form such immovable beliefs on any subject, but shout very loudly about it at anyone who doesn’t share said belief. Yep, you see it all the time. I won’t say where I see it most.. Group-think over logical-think. The group-thinkers are nearly always more zealous. Edited September 9 by CarrbridgeSaintee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 On 05/09/2024 at 16:31, Jacksgranda said: You must be my wife's brother... I assume your wife is nothing like her brother. Apart for the moustache obviously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velo army Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 It was an alarming feature at the start of this thread with people calling her a monster. I just assumed she'd butchered them in cold blood. After seeing more about it I was more horrified that she'd been tried and convicted on probability on a Jessica Fletcher prosecution. It's a really sad case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 4 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said: I remember saying at the time, if she was indeed guilty, she MUST have a serious mental illness, because there is no other reasonable motive for this. For instance people will do absolutely horrific things ( including murdering children - see drug cartels) either for financial gain, or out of fear for themselves or their families wellbeing. There isn't any suggestion of that here. Has she undergone psychiatric assessments? I think that would be a good place to start I wouldn't have thought so, why would she. "Why did you kill all the babies Lucy? Felt like it. Oh, I see, we'll crack on then." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JS_FFC Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Is there a Centrist dad answer of "She probably did it but it's very dangerous to be chucking people in jail based entirely on circumstantial evidence"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHF-23 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 17 hours ago, JS_FFC said: Is there a Centrist dad answer of "She probably did it but it's very dangerous to be chucking people in jail based entirely on circumstantial evidence"? That's probably where I (not much of a centrist or a dad) would have come down on it before the recent developments. I'd say the case now is more "we can't really know if she did it, she may well have done, but the circumstantial evidence which convicted her appears to be materially questionable." There are always going to be cases where circumstantial evidence is all that is on offer. Take the Arthur's seat murder - other than her dying declaration, everything I recall from that case (I don't tend to follow true crime stuff but a family member was one of the officers involved) was circumstantial, and while unlikely her dying declaration could be mistaken. But I don't think anyone has a problem with that guy being in jail despite no person seeing him push her or forensics to that effect. The issue here is that when all you have is circumstantial evidence they have to be strong enough to hold up a narrative structure that shows an overwhelming probability. When many of those individual elements suddenly appear to be made of sand it can all fall over pretty quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.