Milne and Montagna Case Reviewed

[CM86]

What a load of rot. The only premise I am pushing is simple maths. Earlier comments about perception have no relationship to the specific issue being discussed here and if you bothered to read the thread that would be fairly clear. I don't give a fat rats clacker if you want to try and put words in my mouth because I will simply ignore them the same way as I have done until now. Your last question is obviously a ridiculous one and doesn't even bear a moments thought. WTF does it even have to do with what I've said?

Tactics of a failing argument:
No 1 = Throw insults.
No 2 = Attempt to suggest that your opponent's argument is something that you find easier to contracdict but which does not actually reflect the original proposition.

Didn't put words in your mouth, I asked you two questions.

1. In your opinion, is everyone guilty until they are proven innocent in the court of law?

2. In your opinion, everyone who has a claim made against them, should be taken to court to decide if they are guilty or not?

 

[PieNSauce]

Didn't put words in your mouth, I asked you two questions.

1. In your opinion, is everyone guilty until they are proven innocent in the court of law?

2. In your opinion, everyone who has a claim made against them, should be taken to court to decide if they are guilty or not?

Those idiotic questions bear no relevance to the points made and are obviously, once again intended to divert from the only issue in question which is one of purely mathematical probability. Nobody who has followed the conversation would be under any illusion that I have said anything to suggest any such thing but clearly that is lost on you.

 

[CM86]

Tactics of a failing argument:
No 1 = Throw insults.
No 2 = Attempt to suggest that your opponent's argument is something that you find easier to contracdict but which does not actually reflect the original proposition.

Those idiotic questions bear no relevance to the points made and are obviously, once again intended to divert from the only issue in question which is one of purely mathematical probability. Nobody who has followed the conversation would be under any illusion that I have said anything to suggest any such thing but clearly that is lost on you.

Those questions looked easy to answer to me.. not sure why you couldn't just answer them. Especially if you are so sure with your argument, answering a few questions wouldn't change anything right?

Ok, here is another easy question.

Are you saying someone who isn't charged is more guilty than someone who is found not guilty in court?

 

[CM86]

Re: Milne and Montagna

It's simple logic to anyone with half a brain that where the evidence has been tested in a court of law and found not sufficient to support a guilty verdict it is entirely more likely that this person is innocent than someone who has been accused but never charged. A decision by the police as to the likelihood of gaining a conviction is not the same thing at all./QUOTE]

Pretty simple really, if evidence has been tested in a court of law and the accused found not guilty then most people would say there is a high probability that they are less likely to be guilty than a person who has been accused of a crime but not charged because of a lack of evidence and particularly against the background of police corruption. It's a simple balance of probabilites question. Not that hard really.

This was your first view. Has it changed?

 

[PieNSauce]

Those questions looked easy to answer to me.. not sure why you couldn't just answer them. Especially if you are so sure with your argument, answering a few questions wouldn't change anything right?

Ok, here is another easy question.

Are you saying someone who isn't charged is more guilty than someone who is found not guilty in court?

Red herrings red herrings. Since I see nothing in your post that bears any relevance to the discussion at hand I will ignore your ridiculous questions and break it down to a form that even the intellectually impaired could understand. If a premise has been tested and failed the test of legitimacy it is infinitely more likely to be illegitimate than a premise that has never been tested. Simple enough for you?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Red herrings red herrings. Since I see nothing in your post that bears any relevance to the discussion at hand I will ignore your ridiculous questions and break it down to a form that even the intellectually impaired could understand. If a premise has been tested and failed the test of legitimacy it is infinitely more likely to be illegitimate than a premise that has never been tested. Simple enough for you?

Oh thats good.
That means the vast majority of the population are more likely to be guilty of murder than those that the police thought were guilty, but failed to gain a conviction due to some small element of doubt.

Simple is the word for it all right.

 

[PieNSauce]

Rofl. If that's what you call logic then it certainly explains the inanity of most of your posts. How one would draw such a conclusion is beyond me but there you go. Clearly not everyone in endowed with the powers of reason or intelligence.

What you seem to be asking people to accept is the premise that where in any 2 random cases where serious allegations have been made and in one case the evidence has been tested in court and found to be unproven there is more likelihood for the allegations to be true than in a scenario where the evidence has not been tested in court. Good luck with that.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Rofl. If that's what you call logic then it certainly explains the inanity of most of your posts. How one would draw such a conclusion is beyond me but there you go. Clearly not everyone in endowed with the powers of reason or intelligence.

What you seem to be asking people to accept is the premise that where in any 2 random cases where serious allegations have been made and in one case the evidence has been tested in court and found to be unproven there is more likelihood for the allegations to be true than in a scenario where the evidence has not been tested in court. Good luck with that.

OK , I accuse you of smuggling drugs.

By your logic you are now more likely to be a drug smuggler than these guys.

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.a...2&contentid=2012030520120305020314812993200b8

Does anyone else on big footy or the known universe agree with you?

 

[PieNSauce]

OK , I accuse you of smuggling drugs.

By your logic you are now more likely to be a drug smuggler than these guys.

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.a...2&contentid=2012030520120305020314812993200b8

Does anyone else on big footy or the known universe agree with you?

Ha ha. And around we go again. You can quote as many cases or hypotheticals as you like to support an argument that ignores the premise put. All it shows is that you clearly haven't understood it or that you simply want to dishonestly twist the argument around to be about something other than what it was about.

Like I said, for every one case you want to quote which might suggest that the courts sometimes get things wrong, I can quote you countless thousands that will prove that on balance the courts get it right. The only thing you can logically draw from that is that on the balance of probability, a person found not guilty of a crime is... Surprise, surprise.. Not guilty. The same cannot be said about a case where serious allegations have been made but where the police have decided not to proceed with charges due to an opinion about the likelihood of those charges producing a conviction. In one case the law determines that the acquitted accused is not guilty whilst in the other, no such determination is made.

 

[grizzlym]

I'm closing this thread. Leave the push and shove here.